1944-07-26

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the 'house that I have received the resignation of Lionel Bertrand, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Terrebonne. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



WAR EXCHANGE CONSERVATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of bill No. 162. to amend the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of bill No. 163. to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Succession Duty Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 166, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, once more I register my protest against this kind of legislation. After the interprovincial conference in 1935 Mr. Dunning, who. was then minister of finance, came out with this same suggestion, which was also contained in the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission. I always felt that I was wrong when I supported Mr. Dunning, and! I could not accept the Sirois report, which was the apotheosis of soft brains. For these reasons I register my protest against legislation of this kind.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The trouble in regard to succession duties has been that when a person dies the executors make their filing, which goes down to the divisional office of the succession duties branch, and then after months and months and months- and months, as one hon. member beside me suggests-the department send out a notice that they are not satisfied with the return that has been made and they jump the assessment up by perhaps many thousands of dollars; not only that, but they charge interest on the amount from the time of death until the duty is paid. That is not right, because the executors do not know that the department will change the assessment or have different ideas about the amount of the estate. I feel that no interest should be charged on the unpaid balance until after a notice has been sent to the executors. The same thing applies to income tax on estates. I notice it in connection with the deferred tax for 1942. I got my notice the other day that my deferred tax for 1942 was so much, and due at time of death and. interest at eight per cent to be charged from date of death. I think that is very unjust.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I think the hon. member has got two things mixed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No,
I am just saying that as regards succession duty and deferred income tax for 1942, the same rule applies. They go back to the time of death. I say that interest should be charged only from the time the notice has been sent out from the succession duty office.
100-338J


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister should give some explanation as to why in the case of succession duties and income tax, interest is charged from a date anterior to the making of the assessment, rather than from the time of ascertaining what the liability is. This is an obnoxious feature of both laws -the charging of interest on an unascertained amount prior to assessment. I object to it. On principle it is bad. Under no statute I know of other than these two statutes, under no process of law that I know of, does interest begin to run, except by contract as in the case of a promissory note, or of special contract in the case of a special contract, until the liability at least is ascertained. That is a sound principle. This is a violation of that principle; it must be done simply for the purpose of screwing a little more money out of the taxpayers, and I object to it.


Mr. BENCE:: I should-like to repeat the
protest I made when this matter was being discussed on the resolution, against the practice which is followed at the present time with respect to the use of the Dominion Succession Duty Act to force the filing of income tax returns. Have the officials of the department in charge of this particular act the right, once it is determined that an estate is not taxable, to refuse to issue the certificate until the personal representative has filed whatever income tax returns the income tax division feels justified in calling upon him to supply?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
no legal justification for that.


Alfred Henry Bence: I suggested before that if the matter of the income tax form and the administration of that department has to be tightened up it should be done under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act. I object most strenuously to this indirect method of forcing people to do something which they were not forced to do before this act was brought into effect. The question of dominion succession duties has nothing to do with income tax. I suggest that the administration is merely taking this indirect method of doing something which, if it is done, should be done in a direct way. Is the department within its legal rights in refusing to issue the certificate merely because the income tax division wants to have certain income tax forms filed by the personal representative?


Mr. GIBSON:: Of course the succession duty department is within its rights, as it only issues the certificate when the estate has been cleared up. The outstanding accounts of the estate are not definitely known until the income tax liability has been settled, and con-
Succession Duty Act

sequently the estate is not closed up until all outstanding accounts are provided for, and until the outstanding income tax liability is determined the estate cannot be finally settled. So that the succession duty branch has no other course than to make sure that all debts owing by the estate are accounted for before the estate is wound up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just-let me say-buncombe. There is no legal sanction for that in the statute, but they use their position, as being the same branch covering the two agencies, to force something which otherwise they could not force. Where is the legal sanction for the position the minister takes? There is none. I want an answer: is there any legal sanction for the position the minister is now taking? Point out the section of the statute which gives him the right. It is not there.


The CHAIRMAN:: If I may be allowed, we are dealing with bill No. 166, and I called section 1, which deals with "definitions".


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought that was carried. There must be some place where succession duties can be discussed under this measure.


Mr. ABBOTT:: It should have been done on the second reading of this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But on second reading you cannot cross-examine ministers. If the rule is going to be applied strictly, let us have it, but I think there should be enough leeway to air a grievance, and you cannot do it on second reading because, as I have said, you cannot crossexamine the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe the point has been stated here; the minister has answered; and I do not think we can allow this section to be used as one upon which the minister or myself can be cross-examined on all matters relating to succession duties. If that were the case, the moment you opened the act on one minor point you would have to traverse the whole subject-that at least is my belief- and I think that is going pretty far.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
parliamentary assistant takes that attitude I do not think I can force his hand. But there is no legal sanction in our laws to-day for the attitude and the practice followed by the succession duty branch.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is no other section on which I can ask this question. I should like to know what rate of interest the succession duty branch charges on unpaid balance of duties.


Colin William George Gibson: Five per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then it is different from the 1942 deferred income tax rate, which is eight per cent.


Colin William George Gibson: No, the income tax rate is five per cent, and it was reduced to four per cent this year. This is a penalty section as well for income tax payments which are in arrears after the assessment has been made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On the 1942 notice it stated that it was eight per cent from time of death.


Colin William George Gibson: That is after an assessment has been made, if payment is not made within a month an extra three per cent applies, bringing it to eight per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I mentioned before. It says eight per cent from date of death.


Mr. McNIVEN:: I am glad that the definition of "child" contained in subsection (b) has been widened, and I understand that the definition now corresponds to definitions of "child" "which appear in the succession duty acts of the several provinces. Because of that variation between the definitions in provincial succession duty acts and the Dominion Succession Duty Act, duty has been collected on estates where the beneficiaries were children within the meaning of the present definition. I mean that where a deceased had been in the position of loco parentis to a child but had not taken out papers, on his death that child is treated as a stranger and succession duty rates have been very much higher. I have in mind one case where the succession duty absorbed a very large portion of the cash which was in the estate and left the child, then eight years old, dependent upon certain property of doubtful value. What I should like to know is whether, in the interpretation of this clause, there is a possibility of its being regarded as retroactive so as to cover estates which have already been administered or returns filed since the inception of the act; or alternatively, is there any provision in the administration of the department for consideration of cases which have already been dealt with and for the granting of relief? I take it that that could well be done in view of the fact that parliament is now recognizing that the definition of "child" as contained in the original act was much too narrow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That question was considered, but it was decided that the proposed amendment would not be made retroactive. As things stand at the moment, therefore, it will apply only to estates which devolve from now on. It is pointed out that estates have

Succession Duty Act
been dealt with and the assets distributed on the basis of the law as it stood at that time, and for that among other reasons it was decided that this statute would not be given retroactive effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would not be of very wide application anyway.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not very wide, no, although I think it would have some considerable application. Representations were made that this extension should be given, that there were cases, as the hon. member for Regina City has pointed out, where the deceased stood in loco parentis but had never formally adopted the child he had been supporting for years, and it was felt that the benefit of the lower rates of exemptions under the succession duty act should be extended to that child.


Mr. TUCKER:: In any case where levies are made and have not been paid will they now be cancelled? I have in mind a very bad case, such as the hon. member for Regina City has mentioned, where land of dbubtful value was left to a beneficiary and actually a levy was made on that bequest under circumstances now covered by this act, which means that that beneficiary will ultimately have to pay for the land more than it is really worth. He has not yet paid, but the levy has stood1 against that land for the last five or six years. Will that levy be cancelled?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to get the facts correctly. I understand that the estate devolved subsequent to the enactment of the act and that duties were assessed in accordance with the law as it now stands but have not yet been paid. My hon. friend wants to know whether those duties will be remitted if this amendment is carried. My answer would be that since the law is not being given retroactive effect, they could not be remitted. It would be putting that particular taxpayer [DOT] in a better position than one who paid his duty when it became due. I am giving that as my opinion now, rather as a legal opinion, and-1 do not know what the administrative action of the department will be. I doubt, however, whether .it would have legal authority to remit the amount of that tax which had accrued prior to the coming into force of the act.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Generally speaking I am opposed to retroactive legislation, but I think the department might well consider that possibility having regard to this particular definition, in view of the fact that it is apparently the desire of the department to bring their definition of "child" into conformity with the definition of child as contained in the various provincial succession duty acts. For example,
we have in some provinces "child" treated the same as "natural child," where the rates of succession duty are very low, and under the dominion act treated as a stranger and the rates of duty are seven or eight times as great as they would be if the individual were assessed as a natural child.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant whether he has checked up with regard to the facts I brought to the attention of the committee on the nineteenth? I pointed out that I had come across cases where dominion succession duty was levied against an interest bequeathed to a certain person by will and subsequently under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act of British Columbia other parties interested had been able to change that succession. The person to whom the bequest had been made, had his bequest cut down a great deal. There is no provision in the dominion act to cover such a case. The duty is levied just as though there had been no change under the provincial law. That is a very unfair situation and I think some provision should be put in the succession duty act to cover it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe this question was raised the other day when we were in the resolution stage. The practice which is followed by the dominion succession duty authorities, and it seems probably the only practice which could be logically followed, is that they are governed by the provisions of the will or by the provisions of the statute in case of intestacy in the jurisdiction in which the estate devolves. The succession devolves as of the date of death and therefore the dominion considers that the liability to succession duty attaches on the assets of the estate as they existed at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Devolution under the law governs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Devolution under the law is what governs. If in certain jurisdictions there is statutory provision for varying the provisions of a will in order to provide maintenance for certain people it is felt that that is a matter of local convenience and the dominion succession duty law cannot properly take cognizance-


Howard Charles Green: Can or cannot?


Douglas Charles Abbott: -cannot take into account local arrangements.


Howard Charles Green: That is very unfair, because actually the devolution in the province is covered by the Testator's Family Maintenance Act in that case. In British Columbia we nave had an act of that type for perhaps fifteen years; the succession can be changed by
537S
Succession Duty Act

the Testator's Family Maintenance Act, provided that application is made, I believe, within six months after death.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where
there is a will.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. It gives power to vary the will. It enables the wife or the child to apply to have the will varied and is used in quite a few cases. I do not see what earthly right the dominion government has to refuse to recognize that provincial law. The provinces have the right to pass such laws and the dominion should' recognize them. There is just as much reason why the dominion should recognize the Testator's Family Maintenance Acts as that it should recognize the intestacy laws of a province. They are absolutely on the same footing, and I cannot understand why the dominion refuses to recognize these maintenance acts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course, I find it a little difficult to answer my hon. friend because in my own jurisdiction there is not a statute of that kind, but I understand it is really varying the devolution of the estate as provided by will or as provided by law. It is tantamount to a compromise between the beneficiaries which is confirmed by the court-


Howard Charles Green: No; it is not a compromise at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I appreciate that. But the various parties appear before the court and the court decides that the will did not provide for an equitable distribution, or that the law has not provided for it, and it can vary that distribution. It can also, I take it, in the terms of the order vary the apportionment of the death duties. Surely it would be competent for the court to do that. I am almost thinking aloud1, but it could make it a condition to the varying of the provision of the will that beneficiary A should receive fifty per cent of what wras provided in the will and that the person to whom the remaining fifty per cent of the legacy W'as transferred should pay a proportionately greater amount of any death duties that were levied, and if party A had been assessed for a greater amount he should be reimbursed that amount by party B to whom the transfer was made. It is indicated to me by the officials that they feel it is not practicable or desirable that any other basis should be taken for the assessment of dominion succession duties than the assets as they devolve on the date of death; and if there is a local statute which provides for varying that, then the local jurisdiction should make provision for the necessary adjustments of death duty liabilities or whatever other charges may attach to the estate.


Howard Charles Green: That is all right, but here is what happens. I know of one case in which the person actually paid the dominion succession duty on the bequest; in other words, the dominion government got the money, and then under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act the terms of the will were varied and the person who had already paid the succession duty has his bequest reduced. In some cases the reduction may be very large; it may even be wiped out by the order under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act of that province. Therefore you have the position of the dominion getting the money and the person not getting the bequest. That is obviously unfair. The provincial succession duty act provides for those orders that are made under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act, and there is no reason why the Dominion Succession Duty Act should not contain a similar provision. The provinces have the sole right to say how property will go. They can change the devolution as they see fit, and they have done it in some provinces. I think Ontario also has a Testator's Family Maintenance Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That change in the law is made by the courts, of course.


Howard Charles Green: The change in the law is made by the provincial statutes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The provincial statutes
authorize the courts to change the provision of the will, the devolution as provided by the will or as provided by the laws of intestacy.


Howard Charles Green: It is a method of distributing the estate just the same as the intestacy laws of the provinces which govern the manner in which an estate shall be distributed where there is no will. The Dominion Succession Duties Act should make provision for those orders made under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This involves a question of conflict of law. I think the parliamentary assistant has correctly stated the fundamental basis of the assessment. At the same time I am impressed by what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said, that it might work great injustice. I would suggest that the succession duty department work out some kind of arrangement with the authorities of British Columbia so as to avoid what would appear to be a manifest injustice. In my province we do not have any such laws as that. We do have a statute, which was passed by the legislature, relating to the devolution of intestate estates. I am not so sure that they were right, but they thought so and it is still the law. In the case of the death of an intestate leaving no issue but leaving a

Succession Duty Act
wife, she now gets a much larger share than she did under the old Devolution of Estates Act; and that might alter the incidence, because in that case I suggest the wife is in a preferred class, and the balance goes to, shall I say, the second or the third class, the collateral relatives. It alters the rate of taxation for succession duty purposes in the province.
I think this should be the subject of a conference with the provinces. In the meantime the law is as it is and it is not proposed to change it now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is probably a good suggestion. My own view would be that the judges in those provinces which have legislation of the kind referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South should bear in mind that the succession duty law-the dominion at any rate-provides that duties shall be assessed on the basis of the estate . as it devolves under the will or by the ordinary law, and that in making any orders such as have been indicated here the courts should impose an appropriate condition as to the adjustment of succession duty liability as between the various benefited parties.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The statutes may not give them that right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am in the dark on this.
May I ask the hon. member for Vancouver South what the provincial statute provides with respect to provincial succession duties in a case of that kind?


Howard Charles Green: If I remember correctly, the provincial succession duty act recognizes an order made under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act and levies accordingly. The suggestion made by the parliamentary assistant would not work in all cases, because it might happen that the rate of succession duty would be changed. For example, if by order the money goes to a wife whereas it was bequeathed to a sister, the rate is changed.
It would not be fair to ask the judges- to take that into account. The Testator's Family Maintenance Act is a beneficial one. It protects the wife and children, and also the husband but no other relatives. These acts prevent a father from unfairly disinheriting his children or his wife and they have been very beneficial. I think the only way the difficulty can be remedied is to have a provision put in the Dominion Succession Duty Act. I know the government does not want to get money to which it is not entitled, yet that is what is happening under the present law.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: I have listened to my hon. friend. I am afraid I have been giving a lot of latitude here this morning. I protested before that we should keep within the section. This question whether a man is capable or incapable of making a will is a matter of property and civil rights which falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The dominion has no jurisdiction to say whether or not he is capable of making a will. Therefore it would be completely improper for the dominion government to be represented at any trial to determine whether a man was capable of making a will or not. I do not want to get into a long legal discussion here on testamentary capacity or anything else, but I do wish the committee would keep within the provisions of section 1, which extends and amplifies the definition of "child" as contained in the succession duty act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Gifts with reservation of benefit,
Richard Burpee Hanson: Subsection 1 of this section repeals the existing para-
53S0
Succession Duty Act

graph (d) of subsection 1 of section 3 of the act. It is in the nature of a benefit because there is an exemption from taxation through the limitation of three years. That applies where a gift is made and there is a bona fide possession and enjoyment and no reassumption by the donee. I think that is a proper provision. I am interested in the second subsection which adds a new subsection 4. This covers the case we were discussing on the resolution stage. It is quite clear now that it is the intention of the government to take authority to tax succession twice in a given set of circumstances.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are doing it now; this is really to confirm it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I doubt if they have the authority to do it. This is to make sure?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I doubt if they have authority to do that now. This is to make sure that where a person has a general power of disposition and does not exercise that power he shall be deemed to take succession in the first instance, and on his death the second succession occurs. That is exactly the situation in at least some of the provinces. Is that rule general in all the provinces, or only in some?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told it is the rule in practically all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You do not know of any exception?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is just one of those cases where the thumbscrews are being turned a little in order to get more money for the crown. I should like to know if I understand the thing thoroughly. Of course, those who will have the liability in the first place will have to protect themselves with a proper instrument of disposition, that is, under their will. If a person in that situation makes a proper disposition and provides for alternative disposition in the event of the failure of the person to whom the power is given to appoint or dispose of the property, this situation will not arise.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. If the power is general, then this section will operate, and section 31 as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there is a general power to appoint and he does appoint, will there still be double taxation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has that always been the law?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I call my hon. friend's attention to section 31 of the act as it now stands, which reads:
Where a general power to_ appoint any property either by instrument inter vivos, or by will, or both, is given to any person, the duty levied in respect of the succession thereto shall be payable in the same manner and at the same time as if the property itself had been given, devised or bequeathed, to the person to whom such power is given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That means he pays on the devolution in the first instance?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is getting it just as though it was his own property.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not unless he takes a beneficial interest.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He can do that under the general power.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But if he does not get any benefit from it there are two sets of taxation. If he derives pecuniary benefits then I do not think there can be great Objection to his being taxed, but if he merely takes it in a fiduciary capacity and derives no personal benefit, there should not be double taxation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The will should be drawn to prevent that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree that they will have to protect themselves by will.


Mr. HAZEN:: I am not clear about this; I was not able to hear all that was said. I should like to state a specific case and find out just what the answer will be. I mentioned this the last time we were discussing this matter. If a man by his will leaves his property to his wife for life with power of appointment and in the event that she fails to exercise that power, to a son or some children or somebody else, and the wife exercises that power, does she have to pay succession duty on the full estate and will the children or the persons to whom she leaves the property have to pay duty on the full estate on her death?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am assuming that the
power of appointment referred to is a limited power, that is, that the testator in his will gave the wife a life interest and provided that she might by her will appoint one or more of the children?


Douglas King Hazen: No. The testator by his will leaves it to his wife for life, and gives her a general power so that she may leave the property to whom she sees fit.

Succession Duty Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: Even to strangers?


Douglas King Hazen: To whom she sees fit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There would certainly be
two duties in that case. She would be assessed on her life interest and then on her death it would be treated as forming part of her estate.


Douglas King Hazen: I think that matter should
be given further consideration because it is not fair. It amounts to double taxation. A man may have made that kind of will some time ago. He leaves his estate to his wife for life with a general power of appointment, and to his children if the wife fails to exercise that appointment. He lives for many years after his will is made, and dies, we will say, when he is seventy or seventy-two years of age. His wife is about the same age and survives him only for a year or two, having exercised her power of appointment. The result is that there would be two taxes on the whole estate within two or three years. The wife would have a life interest in the estate for two, three or four years and yet she would be taxed on the full estate. Then after that time her children, or whoever received the property, would be taxed again on the full estate. I think if the parliamentary assistant considers that matter he will come to the conclusion that it is not fair. I suggest that the section should not be passed in this form, that further consideration be given to the point. I protest against the section going through in its present form. Surely there should be some way of working this thing out so that it would be more equitable. The wife has had a life interest for only two or three years and she is taxed on the full value of the estate. Then there is a tax on the full value of the estate upon her death. That is not quite right. There should be some change made in this section to provide for a case of that kind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is not really a change in the law. It is a qualifying provision in the definition section. Section 31 is quite clear with respect to the effect, from a succession duty point of view, of providing for a general power of appointment. Under section 31 that would appear to be clear. The case my hon.. friend has cited may appear, on the surface, to be a hard case. But the answer really is that a will should not be drawn in that way. It is all very well to say that the widow is given a life interest. But in fact she is given complete and1 free distribution of the corpus of the estate, because there is no restriction on her right of disposition. The testator has indicated, it is true, to whom he would like the property to go if she does not see fit to exercise her power of disposition.
But she is perfectly free to leave it to a complete stranger. I should not think my hon. friend would suggest that under those circumstances there should not be a tax imposed, if she did exercise that power of appointment. What he is suggesting is that if she fails to exercise it there should not be a tax. The point is as to whether the testator has absolute freedom in exercising the power of appointment. That is the test. It seems to me it is a reasonable test; and if the legal profession or testators are aware of the law they will be governed accordingly in drawing wills.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not suggest that the widow should escape taxation. But I submit she should be taxed only on the life interest.
I think that is the stand that the parliamentary assistant took, and that is what he had in mind the other day when this matter was discussed. This is what was said on that occasion:
Mr. Hazen: That is what I want to understand clearly. Does she pay on her life interest or does she have to pay on the full value of the estate?
Mr. Abbott: She pays on her life interest in the estate, and in Quebec-I do not know about the dominion-it is based on her life expectancy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Douglas King Hazen: That is what it should be. It should be a life interest, based on the life expectancy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what would happen.
A testator may provide this: "I leave my wife a life interest in the residue of my estate, and on her death to go to my children in such proportion as she may determine"-or even just "to my children". In that case the . widow would be taxed only on her life interest, based on her life expectancy; and the duty would1 be assessed on the children who received the ownership of the residue on the death of their mother, in accordance with the rules applicable generally. That is exactly what would happen if a testator did not give to his wife a general power of appointment. In effect, it is almost surplusage to say it is giving her life interest, and it is giving her complete freedom to dispose of the property.


Douglas King Hazen: Well, as a matter of fact, is it? I do not think it is the same as giving her the estate outright, by any means. She cannot do as she likes with it. In a sense she is a trustee; she cannot go and spend the money. She only has the use of the income to that extent for her life.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is to prevent her using the proceeds herself? She has general
53S2
Succession Duty Act

power of appointment, and she can do what she sees fit. Who cam attack her, or who can attack her estate?


Douglas King Hazen: There is something in that, but-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a form of giving her free disposition.


Douglas King Hazen: But why should there be a difference between a man who leaves a will saying, "I leave my estate to my wife, and then to my children", and the man who uses this other form, saying, "I leave my estate to my wife for life with power of appointment, and then, failing that, to my children." In the one case if the will says, "to my wife and then to my children" she pays only on the life interest. Then the children have to pay on the corpus of the estate. But in the other case she has to pay on the whole estate, and then the children have to pay on the whole estate. Then she may die only two or three years after the husband. I think that to some extent we are playing with words. If the first proposition is fair, that she should be taxed only on her life expectancy, then this is clearly wrong. I do not think they should go through this procedure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The real effect of the section is to prohibit, for succession duty purposes, a general power of appointment without restriction. The succession duty act says in effect: If you wish to make that kind of power, so far as taxation is concerned it is as though you had not appointed at all. That is the effect of the law at the present time. This amendment is simply to clarify what might be considered as a conflict between two sections. The law now provides that if a man makes a general power of appointment to a beneficiary, that is considered as constituting a disposition of the property, wdien the power is exercised.


Douglas King Hazen: There should be a qualifying section to protect widows in cases such as I have mentioned. As it stands, I can only say it is not fair or right. The parliamentary assistant says that a will should be drawn in a different way, to get around the difficulty. Well, many people have had their wills drawn for years. They do not know about this provision. When they die their widows will have to pay the full value of the estate, and a year or two later perhaps the children have to pay the full value.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that that is the law in all the provinces of Canada.


Douglas King Hazen: That does not make it one bit better. It has been held by the courts

that it is perfectly within the competence of any testator to protect himself against any injustices which it may be considered would flow from the provision respecting a general power of appointment, when permitted for purposes of succession duty.


Alfred Henry Bence: I wish to say a word cn this matter. I note that this paragraph-I believe it is paragraph (d)

has been amended to provide that-
Property taken under a gift whenever made of which actual and bona fide possession and enjoyment has not been assumed by the donee or by a trustee for the donee at least three years before the death of 'the deceased.
I have no quarrel with that position. But what I would like to know is this: Is there any exemption with respect to what might be called normal expenditures, or gifts normal in relation to the status of income of the man making the gifts? I have in mind, for example, the matter of a small disbursement, possibly the giving of $100 or $50. Suppose I give my child $10 to-day, and I die within another year; would that have to be revealed in my succession duty return and succession duty paid on it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a provision in the act which governs the case to which my hon. friend has referred. I will direct his attention to section 7, which says:
7. (1) From the dutiable value of any property included in a succession the following exemptions shall be deducted and no duty Bihall be leviable in respect thereof.
And paragraph (f) states:
In respect of a gift made by the deceased where the same is proved 'to have been absolute and to have taken effect in the lifetime of the deceased, to have been part of his ordinary and normal expenditure, and to have been -reasonable having regard to the amount of his income and the circumstances under which the gift was made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the third reading of the bill.
Alfred Henry Bence: Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to the point I raised when this bill was in committee and1 I was ruled out of order. I pointed out at the resolution stage that the dominion succession duty office has to issue a certificate before the assets of an estate can be released to the person who represents it. Take the simple example of a life insurance policy. If a testator leaves to his widow a life insurance policy of say three thousand dollars, obviously it is not taxable for succession duty, but before the

Succession Duty Act
53S3
necessary certificate is issued by the dominion succession duty office to permit the life insurance company to pay the money to the widow or the personal representative of the estate or to some beneficiary who is named direct, the department has to give to the personal representative of the estate a release, which he turns over to the insurance company and then obtains the money. Practically in every instance where the testator has not filed income tax returns during say the last three or four years prior to his death, the department says to the personal representative of the estate: You cannot have that money and that release until you satisfy us that the testator during those years had no taxable income. It may be that every proper method should be used to ensure that testators have complied with all the provisions of the income tax law, but the thing to which I object is that the government is using an indirect method of obtaining the filing of income tax returns. If income tax returns are not being filed as provided for under the law, the dominion government should bring in amendments to the income tax act. I submit that it is absolutely illegal to hold up the granting of the certificate, once it is determined that the estate is not taxable for succession duty, until the personal representative has complied with the provisions of the income tax act. If there is any provision in the Dominion Succession Duty Act or in any other act of this parliament which allows the succession duty office to follow this procedure I should be glad to be informed about it. In my view the administration should not do indirectly something that they can do directly.
I know that the parliamentary assistant said a short while ago when the bill was in committee : The estate has not been wound up yet and until all the debts have been satisfied, including income tax, the department could not issue the certificate. Before the Dominion Succession Duty Act was made the law of this country there was no similar means available to the administration for collecting income tax and there is no reason why now, just because this machinery has been set up, it should be used for the purpose of obtaining something that is owing to another department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is my hon. friend speaking particularly of an estate where it is clear that no tax is payable, or including estates where the tax is payable?


Alfred Henry Bence: No, I was using that as an illustration to show how the succession duty act machinery was being used.


Douglas Charles Abbott: His argument would have more force if he was speaking particularly of an estate where no tax was payable.


Alfred Henry Bence: I was taking as an illustration the small estates such as I run into in the province from which I come. In that pro'vince there are many thousands of people who have never had enough income in the last ten years to warrant the filing of income tax returns. The income tax branch knows that there are thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan who have not filed income tax returns because they have not sufficient income to be liable to the tax. I am not saying that the returns should not be filed. The fact remains that the widows know nothing about their late husband's affairs. They may have a little bit of insurance coming to them, and that is held up until the widow digs around and tries to obtain a lot of information with respect to her husband's farming operations in the last few years. Payment of the insurance is held up for some considerable time, and in some cases the widow needs that money badly. I suggest that the succession duty branch has not jurisdiction to hold up the granting of the release merely because the income tax branch insists on the filing of certain returns.
The parliamentary assistant a short time ago referred to cleaning up an estate. If his argument holds good, the whole estate should be held up until all the creditors have been taken care of.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Until the amounts owing to the creditors are known.


Alfred Henry Bence: That is immediately known, because a list of the debts is usually filed at the time the succession duty papers are filed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: An additional debt may be the income tax liability.


Alfred Henry Bence: That would only reduce the amount of the estate. It certainly would not otherwise affect the succession duty payable. I submit that if it is obvious that the estate is below the amount that is taxable for succession duty, no matter how much may be owing for income tax, the certificate should be granted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member's argument would have more force with respect to an estate not liable to succession duties than with regard to estates where duties are payable.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not want to prolong the discussion. I merely want to register my protest against using this machinery to do something indirectly which, if the administration believes it should be done, can be done
Succession Duty Act

directly by an amendment to the income tax act. I do not believe that this machinery should be used in the manner I have indicated.


Mr. D. F. McCUAIG (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I think the department should be congratulated on their efforts to collect the income tax. The hon. member has referred to a case where the estate consisted of 83,000, but you could easily bring into the discussion a ease where the estate was 850,000. If that man had never paid any income tax and the succession duty branch issued the release, the proceeds of the estate would be distributed without seeing that any income tax was paid, and there would be many oases where they would find later on that the testator should have paid income tax. In the meantime the money has been distributed and there would be no one to collect the income tax from. If there is nothing in the statutes at the present time to deal with cases of that kind. I feel that the department are justified in using this method, but I do suggest that if there is nothing in the statutes already to take care of that situation an amendment should be made to the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of bill No. 165, to amend the Judges Act (annuitits).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, and reported.
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: May I ask the minister if this is all the legislation that will be brought down this session having to do with judges?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No other legislation is contemplated at this session dealing with the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act and to provide for the extension of the operation of the said act to certain persons in the public service not 
presently included therein and to make such further provisions respecting contributions, allowances and benefits as may be deemed necessary for the said purpose and for the better operation or administration of the said act.
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES:: (Winnipeg North Centre): My reason for speaking on this measure at the resolution stage arises out of my concern that the bill should cover certain classes of employees in the public service. I have not yet, of course, seen the bill, and I do not know how far it goes. In many instances we find it desirable to agree to a resolution without much discussion and to delay comment until the bill comes down, but in this instance I feel it is desirable .to make a few comments now, in the hope that if the people I am concerned about are not included in the bill the government will have the opportunity to include them before the bill is introduced. In other words, it is quite satisfactory to me if when the bill comes down these people are covered and the government is in a position to take the credit unto itself. I am not worried about that, but I am concerned about certain classes of employees in the public service.
The first group about which I wish to speak is those who are employed at the printing bureau, especially those of the printing and mechanical trades. Up to the present time they have not been included in the terms of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Nevertheless amongst the employees at the printing bureau are a considerable number who have been there a very long time. I have figures as to the length of service of the employees of the printing bureau as at December 1, 1942; and I find that at that time there were in the printing and mechanical departments of the bureau 384 employee^. Of these, 60 had a service of five years or under, 128 had service between five and twenty years, 131 had service between twenty and thirty years, and 65 had service between thirty and fifty years. Yet despite those long records of service these employees, because they are paid on a weekly rate rather than at an annual rate, have been excluded from the benefits of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
On August 21 of last year these employees presented a brief to the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), the minister charged with the administration of the department in which they are employed, wherein they set out their case and asked for an interview with the Secretary of State. There are some portions of their brief which I feel should be drawn to the attention of the administration. They

Civil Service Superannuation
indicated that these employees fall into two groups as far as these representations are concerned:
(a)	Employees of the printing trades. These employees hold positions on the regular establishment of the department as authorized by the civil service commission and who have been appointed thereto under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and ivhose rates of pay are determined under section 16 of chapter 152, R.S.C. 1927 (Public Printing and Stationery Act), and afterwards confirmed by order in council;
(b)	Employees of the mechanical trades. These employees occupy positions which are exempt from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The positions are authorized by treasury board following a recommendation of the civil service commission. Appointments thereto are made by the minister, and the continuation of positions and employment are authorized by the treasury board from year to year.
The employees at that point went on in their brief to set out their reasonable desire to provide themselves with a measure of security against the hazards of death and premature displacement, in a manner similar to that provided to other employees in the public service. They dealt with some of the technical difficulties which they had been told stood in the way, and urged as strongly as they could that consideration be given to their case. They concluded their brief with a request for an interview with the Secretary of State. Their brief was signed on behalf of the employees by G. Y. Armstrong, president, and J. T. Clancey, secretary; the name of the organization is the Department of Public Printing and Stationery Welfare Association.
A short time after that, on September 8, 1943, a committee of that association was granted an interview with the Secretary of State to discuss this brief to which I have referred. Following that interview the matter was referred to the treasury board by the Secretary of State for its consideration. Later on the association was asked to have representatives appear before Mr. W. C. Ronson for an interview, and on November 2, 1943, and as a result of this meeting with Mr. Ronson, a memorandum was submitted to Mr. Edmond Cloutier, the King's Printer. I should like to give the text of this memorandum. It is dated November 15, 1943, and is addressed to the King's Printer:
Dear Sir:
re Superannuation
In connection with the above subject concerning the employees in the printing and mechanical trades of the government printing bureau, and as a result or the suggestion by Mr. W. C. Ronson, assistant deputy minister of finance, at our joint conference on Tuesday, November 2, 1943, we are submitting the following for your consideration.
1.	That a separate scheme of superannuation be established for this class of employee to include employees of both the printing and mechanical trades who are in positions of continuing indeterminate duration and on the basic staff.
2.	That all conditions with respect to wages, overtime and hours of work to remain as at present.
3.	That for the purposes of contributions an annual salary be established on the basis of the weekly basic rate multiplied by 52.
The employees feel this to be one of the important hurdles to be got over, and their proposal is a quite simple one, namely, that their weekly rate be treated as an annual rate by the simple process of multiplying it by 52.
4.	That employees of three years' service who, though not on the basic staff, are considered to be in positions of a continuing indeterminate duration, be considered eligible for superannuation.
5.	That the age for retirement be set at 60 for males and 55 for females with the privilege of extensions to the age of 65 years according to the provisions of section 10 of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
6.	That contributions, benefits and other terms of retirement to be similar to those of the present Civil Service Superannuation Act (chapter 24, R.S.C., 1927).
Trusting this will receive your favourable consideration,
Respectfully yours,
G. V. Armstrong, President. J. T. Clancey, Secretary.
The printing and mechanical employees of the bureau do not know yet just how matters stand. I have a particular interest in their case because I happen to be a member of the trade union of which a great many of the employees in the printing bureau are also members. Their hope is that as a result of their interview with the Secretary of State, as a result of their interview with Mr. Ronson, and as a result of the further representations they have made in this matter, the bill which is to be introduced on the basis of this resolution will meet their views.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that no technicality should stand in the way of men and women, with the length of service that these employees have, being treated similarly to other employees in the public service. We in this House of Commons ought to be interested in these people. They play a very important part in the life of parliament. Sometimes, as a popular indoor sport, we blame the printer for things that appear which a member thinks are not exactly as he said them. But speaking as a printer, I say, "We can take it." As a matter of fact, considering the pressure under which the bureau has to work, considering the short space of time in which we expect Hansard and other printed material
53S6
Civil Service Superannuation

to appear, I feel that the employees over there do a very good job. I say that despite the fact that once in a while I have been the victim of a typographical error. That is really nothing to worry about, and I want to pay this tribute to the work of my printing colleagues.
While paying that tribute I might take a moment to pay another tribute and that is to our friends the Hansard reporters. It is sometimes another popular indoor sport to blame them for getting down incorrectly some of the things hon. members say. But there too I feel, especially in the light of the cross-fire we have sometimes in this house, that they do an awfully good job in getting it down as well as they do, and I hope that if on occasion we make corrections in what they take down they will know that really we appreciate the high quality of their work.
Now I think I will leave the case of the printers at that. I hope it will be covered in the bill when it comes down. If these employees are not included in the bill as it is now drafted, I hope the government will delay it a day or two to make sure that, a piece of injustice that has been perpetrated on these employees will be corrected at this time.
Just one other sentence about the case of the printing employees. I will quote section 6 of their brief of August 21, 1943:
6. We are quite willing to accept the terms of the act, including the obligation to contribute six per centum of our -wages to the fund.
There- are certain other groups that should be included in this bill as well. Perhaps they are already there. If so, that is fine; but if they are not there, one has to speak now in order to have one's representations considered. This time I appeal on behalf of a large number of railway mail clerks. I understand that several hundreds-I believe as a matter of fact they run to four thousand across t'he country-of the railway mail clerks are still under the retirement act of 1896, and their desire is to* be transferred to the superannuation act of 1924. I am told that these employees some years ago were given the opportunity to transfer to this other act but. rejected it, and it is has been said to them that, having rejected it, it is their own fault and they should not now complain. But they point out that after they rejected the offer to transfer to the superannuation act of 1924 certain things were done in connection with the funds under the retirement act of 1896, and the most striking thing that was done, I am told, was the reduction of the interest rate from five per cent to four per cent, which was effected about 1932 or 1933. That

change has had the effect of reducing the value of the pensions that these employees can draw under that fund, and they tell me that they have not had an opportunity to transfer to the other fund since that very striking change was made in 1932 or 1933. These employees have made strong but very reasonable representations, and I imagine from the wording of one communication I received some time ago that all the Manitoba members of this house received the document I have. They have also made their appeal to the government. On their behalf I -wrote on two occasions to the Minister of Finance and on the second occasion I received a fairly hopeful letter dated April 26 of this year:
Dear Mr. Knowles:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of April 21 with further reference to .the question of superannuation for the Winnipeg railway mail clerks association.
You will remember that the Prime Minister announced in the house a day or two ago that the Civil Service Superannuation Act would form part of the legislation still to be brought before the House of Commons. When this act is being reviewed, your representations will be given careful consideration.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Ilsley.
I earnestly hope that my representations were given consideration. I hope that the bill in the form in which it has been drafted includes the granting of this request. If so,, that is fine and my speech at this moment is unnecessary; but if it is not in the bill, my reason for speaking now is to urge the government to give further consideration to this request with a view to meeting it when the bill based upon this resolution is brought down.
Not only- are there the classes of public servants to which I have already referred, but in a good many departments of government we have people who have been working for many years and yet technically are so identified that they do not come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. For example, I hold in my hand a brief written on behalf of employees of the Deer Lodge hospital, which comes under the administration of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. . Mackenzie). There are some other matters in this brief that I shall bring to his attention when his estimates are before the house, but at this moment I refer only to this fact. This brief refers to other employees as well, but in particular to the so-called temporary permanents. Employees of that class, no matter how many years they may be working for the government, are denied entry into the Civil Service Superannuation Act. It seems to me it

Civil Service Superannuation
53S7
is possible under the terms of the resolution we are discussing for the government to put provisions in the bill to take care of some of these people.
Another group of people who feel that they are dealt with unfairly, under present conditions, if I understand them correctly, are the employees who transfer from one classification to another. They find that although both positions are classified as permanent in the Civil Service Act, they are required to resign from their first position and are subsequently reappointed as temporary employees in the new positions. When that happens, the employee who formerly was permanent and had certain benefits, such as pension rights, finds that he loses all the benefits of permanency that he previously enjoyed, even though he may have had many years of continuous satisfactory service. In other words, an employee frequently must choose between remaining in a position of a lower grade at a lower salary with pension rights or taking the better position which he is capable of filling, but in doing so losing all of his rights of permanency, including his pension benefits. I hope that there are provisions in the bill which will meet that situation. As I have said several times already, if they are not there I plead with the government to redraft the bill before it is introduced in the house.
When the estimates of the Department of Public Works were before the committee the other day I had occasion to make representations on behalf of women doing char work in public buildings. I now wish to say a word on behalf of the men doing char work in this building. Many of them have been here for many- years, but for some technical reason they are not treated as permanent employees; at least they are not included in the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Some of those men have been here five, eight, nine years, some longer. Some of them, who have been here longer than nine years had the interesting experience of being dismissed in 1935 after the election and then being rehired after a fuss was made over their dismissal. But they are still temporary employees. Amongst other benefits that are denied them, they do not come within the terms of any superannuation or pension fund provided by the government. There are other employees of the government in this building who are in the same box, the messenger staff and others employed in the service of the House of Commons.
We are hearing much these days that sounds very good to our ears about the rights of persons over property; about the new concept of social security. We listened' to am interesting and fighting speech by the Prime Minister yesterday about the new order which he desires to help fashion. I suggest that one place to start fashioning the new order with its concept of social security is right on our own doorstep. I suggest that we should not have a number of groups of people working for the government itself who are discriminated against, as is the case with some of those people I have mentioned1. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that when this bill comes down it will look as though this speech of mine did not need to be made. But I express in the meantime a wish that if any of the groups I have referred to are not covered in the terms of the bill, or indeed if there are other government employees whose situations are similar, the government will redraft the bill and really put into effect some of the ideas that it is now proclaiming about the new order, about social security, about the responsibility of employers to their employees, and about the rights of people to enjoy freedom from want and freedom from fear.


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the previous speaker (Mr. Knowles). I hope that when the bill is introduced it will contain some provision to take care of large groups of civil servants who were favourably reported on two years ago by a special committee. I refer to those who have been paying into retirement funds over a long period of years. In certain instances some individuals have been picked out and consideration has been given to them.
The previous speaker has fully covered -the situation. We could go on and elaborate on other groups, but I wish to mention particularly that group who for a long period of years, because of misunderstanding, failed to elect to be included under superannuation benefits. Some yeans ago they sought to have a last opportunity to elect. I do feel that that class should be given another opportunity to elect. I hope that the bill will include those groups so that the matter can be fairly and finally settled and we shall n'ot have a recurrence of this discussion from time to time.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I should like to say a word so there will be no misunderstanding about this measure. I can assure hon. members that the representations to which they have seen fit to give publicity in this house to-day have long been before the government for consideration. There would hardly be any occasion for bringing in a bill at all if it were not to deal with the representations that had been made.
53S8
Civil Service Superannuation

The general purposes of this bill are, first of all, to allow any person who previously at any time was given the right to come under the superannuation act during a certain period to have another period of one year from October 1 to exercise his option. That will apply to some thirty-five hundred persons who are still members of the retirement fund, which really was not a pension scheme but a compulsory savings scheme, whereby the members thereof got back with interest the amount of the deductions from their pay during their period of service. There are, as I say, still about thirty-five hundred persons who for some reason or other did not choose to come under the superannuation act at the time it was passed1, though they were given the opportunity for first of all a period of two years, and then one additional year, to exercise the option to do so. A further period of one year from October 1, 1944 is to be allowed them to exercise the option now. The bill will also provide for the cases of contributors who had service prior to the time they became contributors and would have had the option of taking credit for such period of service. Each had a period of three months during which upon becoming a contributor he could elect to bring in the period of service he had before that time. Of course, he would have to make the proper contribution. He is to be given a further period of one year from October 1, 1944, to elect as to whether or not he wants to have the benefit of the period prior to the time he became a contributor.
The third major provision is to take care of those who could not become contributors to the superannuation fund because they were not permanent employees with a stated annual salary, those who are generally called prevailing rates employees. There is a fourth group of sections which provide for certain increases in the benefits. First of all, there is the right to the return of the aggregate contributions without interest on retirement at any time. Formerly one had to be ten years in the service to be entitled to a return of the contributions made if he left the service.
When a pension becomes payable to dependents under the terms of the act and runs out before the aggregate of the total contributions have been paid as a pension, the pension will be continued until it has equalled the contributions made by the former public servant. If there are no dependents of a public servant a minimum return will be made to his estate of an amount equal to the contribution he has made to the fund.
Provision is being made for the dropping of what was called the forfeiture clause for

dismissal for misconduct or, what was regarded as misconduct, for political partisanship. Other punitive action may have to be taken in regard to the misconduct of a public servant, but it will be in some other form than the confiscation of his contributions to the pension fund.
A large number of recommendations were made by the special committee which sat in 1939. Immediately following the report of that special committee an order in council was passed implementing certain of the recommendations. Chapter 27 of the statutes of 1940 gave statutory effect to the order in council. The present bill consists of a consolidation of the provisions of that order in council, which was not very clearly drawn in the first instance. The other part of the bill will implement the main recommendations of the committee of 1939. I feel confident that when the bill-which is a lengthy one, and may appear rather complicated because it deals with many amendments to the existing act necessary for concordance-is before hon. members they will find that careful and sympathetic consideration has been given to the representations made, not only by the group referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but by the various organizations of civil servants who on more than one occasion conferred with the special committee of the cabinet in respect to their grievances.


Mr. NEILL:: The statement of explanation given by the minister will be satisfactory to all in the civil service. As far as I can recall it he has covered the ground in every respect. He made mention that the benefits of the fund will apply to those now under the prevailing rates jurisdiction. That has been a sore point for many years. I presume there will be some restriction in that regard because I can hardly think it will be made applicable to those people who are really temporary in the fullest sense of the word.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The provisions of the bill will be subject to discussion when it is before the house. Power is given to the treasury board to establish by regulation classes of those who were formerly not qualified to be included under the Superannuation Act in order that they may be included.


Alan Webster Neill: I am gratified to know that
other changes are being made, particularly the one abandoning the requirement of ten years service before the contributions would be returned in case a civil servant left the service. I believe the only exception to this rule was the woman who got married. Perhaps I could direct a question to the minister at the moment, although it may be out of order. I

Supply-Trade and Commerce
understood him to say that all civil servants who had the option of coming under the fund in 1924 and did not do so, can elect to do so now. Any civil servant who elected to come in had to make the back contributions. He was charged a certain rate of interest at that time, I believe four per cent. Later on the rate was increased to, I think, five per cent.
I should like to know if a man who elects to come in now will be charged the original rate of interest set in 1924 or will he have to pay for the whole period at the higher rate which was set later on? I suggest that it would be proper to limit the payment of the higher rate to the later years and that he should be -permitted to pay for the period prior to 1924 at the rate which was then fixed. It is quite proper that he should pay the higher rate for the last few years.


Thomas Vien: That question could be
asked in committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I wanted to have it all
together on the record.


Thomas Vien: The minister can take
that as a notice.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Alan Webster Neill: May I now ask the question
which I was prohibited from asking one and a half minutes ago?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I am sorry but I
have not given special consideration to the question asked by the hon. member. All I can say is that the bill was drawn in a general way in an attempt to meet all reasonable representations that had been made in that regard. I hope that when it is before the committee it will provide a satisfactory answer to the hon. member's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was quite interested in the remarks made by the minister while Mr. Speaker was still in the chair. They covered many of the points I raised. However, he did not say anything about the employees of the House of Commons, the char staff and the messenger staff. While I am mentioning employees of the House of Commons, I might also mention the stenographers who work for the members. Many of these have been here for quite some time, yet despite their years of faithful service they have none of the benefits of permanency, such as superannuation. Would the minister make any further comment in respect of these matters?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid the hon. member will have to be content to wait until the bill comes down. There has been no
attempt here to make every Canadian citizen a member of the superannuation fund. There has been an attempt to meet all the reasonable representations made by the personnel of the civil service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the crack made by the minister does not come with very good grace after the speeches made yesterday by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice, in which they were trying to establish themselves as protagonists of social security and the responsibility of employers to the people who work for them.


Mr. GILLIS:: When the bill comes in, will it be confined to the superannuation act, and to the inclusion of those who for pension purposes have been endeavouring to come within its scope? The question I have in mind is one which has been discussed since 1941. One section of the Civil Service Act defines specifically the word "dependent", and excludes some, including stepmothers. I have in mind the stepmother of a deceased contributor entitled to pension, who has been corresponding with the department since 1941 in an endeavour to secure what I think is legally a part of the estate of the deceased. But because she is the stepmother she does not come within the terms of the section. Is there any intention on the part of the government- to change that section in the act to include stepmothers or other dependents? There has been considerable correspondence on the point.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: When will the bill
be distributed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Immediately after first reading. It is now in galley form, and the final printing requires only the date of first reading to make it available for distribution.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 171, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
S57. National research council, salaries and other expenses of the national research council, $920,529.
Howard Charles Green: I understand the minister has received a brief from the British Columbia industrial and' scientific research council in
Supply-Trade and Commerce

which they ask for a grant to aid in their work. In their brief they point out that in the course of an address to the Canadian chemical conference on June 7, 1944, the president of the national research council made this statement:	__
We must have in Canada sufficient laboratory facilities to deal with every demand, and that is not now the case. [DOT] The present council is not in favour of a policy of centralization of all such facilities. It is felt that laboratories to serve particular regional needs should be located in the regions concerned.
Apparently provision has been made for the establishment of what is known as the prairie regional committee of the national research council. A sum to help that organization is included in this year's estimates. This brief requests that similar assistance be given to the British Columbia industrial and scientific research council. On this council are representatives of the dominion government. There is one representative from the federal Department of Mines and Resources, one from the Department of Fisheries and one from the national research council. What is the attitude of the government toward this request for assistance in connection with the work of the British Columbia industrial and scientific research council?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Chairman, I have not before me the letter or the memorandum attached to the letter received from the Hon. Mr. Carson, the Minister of Trade and Industry of British Columbia. However, I dealt with the matter this morning by saying all I could say at the moment, namely that I had called a meeting of the privy council committee on industrial and scientific research. That meeting will be held next Tuesday, and the matter will be considered.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that the policy of the national research council is against centralization and rather in favour of building up research facilities in different parts of Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think that I would say the policy of the national research council is opposed to centralization. I can say however that it is in favour of broadening the present arrangement. The next item in the estimates is proof of that suggestion, because in that item we ask for funds to establish a branch of research work in one of the three western provinces. I believe it would be correct to say it is important that the national research council keep in close touch with any research work in Canada, wherever it may be done, so as to avoid duplication.


Alfred Henry Bence: The minister has referred to the next item, the purpose of which, I suggest, is not obvious. May I at this point, however, make some brief observations in connection with item 357, and what I shall now say might be taken as covering both items. It is dear to most hon. members that the vote now before the committee is one of the most important. I believe all can agree that the work done by scientific research in the last number of years has been of inestimable value to Canada.
When we think of the millions of dollars that have been saved by our scientists in the . improvement of our crops, for example, through the eradication of many diseases which used to afflict them, it will be agreed that this amount of money and even a great deal more could very well be spent to improve the general welfare of the people of Canada. I suggest, following the lead given by the minister a few minutes ago, that in view of the peculiar conditions existing in western Canada and the great amount of work which has to be done in the prairie provinces in connection with the crops, the recommendations which have been made to the administration should be immediately accepted and an extensive laboratory set up in the prairie provinces. I suggest that the best location would be in the city of Saskatoon, from which I come. It is in the very centre of the prairie provinces, it is a university city, and one from which a great many of our leading scientists have come.


Mr. GRAYDON:: And a good member of parliament.


Alfred Henry Bence: When the government was seeking to replace General McNaughton as head of the research council it was to the city of Saskatoon and the Saskatoon university they went to pick an able administrator and eminent scientist in the person of Mr. C. J. Mackenzie. That indicates the calibre of the men that we have in that part of the country, and men who are well versed in the types of problems with which we are confronted in the prairie provinces. I suggest, therefore, that the government consider setting up an extensive type of laboratory in that part of the country to deal with the problems which face the people of the prairie provinces, who in the last few years have become more and more conscious of the fact that if we are ever to develop a diversified economy it can be done only through the utilization of the various kinds of crops that are produced in the prairie provinces along lines which probably we have not heretofore

Supply-Trade and Commerce
followed. I therefore strongly recommend the establishment of such a laboratory in Saskatoon.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister will say something in reply to the comments which I made, I believe yesterday, when this item was before the committee. I pointed out at that time that I felt that not sufficient funds had been provided to make it possible for the scientists of the national research council to do all the research and other work which they should be doing, and of which they are eminently capable. I want to take a moment to pay as high a tribute as one possibly can to what some of our scientists have done at that institution, particularly during the course of the war. The minister knows, as do other hon. members, that a number of inventions which have aided materially in the conduct of the war, and particularly in the saving of life, have grown out of research at this institution.
Another matter which has been brought to my attention about the research council is that there has been considerable uncertainty as to the status of the men there with respect to military call-ups. I can appreciate the difficulty in this connection. I think all of us must appreciate the embarrassing position in which the men find themselves, for even when higher-placed officials make it known to them that they are doing an important job and should stay with it, there is the pressure ' of their own feelings in the matter and their desire to be with their colleagues and college classmates in the front line, which results in many of these men leaving their posts with the council to go on what is known as active service. I suggest that some more definite effort should be made to convince these men that they are on active service in the work they are doing at the research council and should be encouraged to carry on with it.
During the debate on the budget resolutions something was said about the importance of encouraging research work throughout Canada by private corporations. I believe the government should be doing all it can on its own initiative to encourage research work. This is a matter upon which I should like to hear from the minister. I hope he will have some announcement to make as to plans for enlarging the w'ork of the council and for providing better salaries so that we may attract into this work many of the brilliant young men who are coming out of our universities.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks of the difficulties, of which he apparently has some knowledge, with respect to enlistments from the staff of the national research council. He speaks about some persuasion being used to show them that their duty lies in civilian activities. May I observe that this condition can hardly be laid at the doorstep of the minister who is now attempting to get his estimates through; rather it is a product of the man-power plan which this country has been following, as I believe mistakenly, through these years.
Will the minister state whether there is a permanent head of the national research council, or whether the position is now temporary?


James Angus MacKinnon: Dealing first with the remarks of the leader of the opposition, the president of the national research council is General McNaughton. As we all know he is not acting at the present time; the acting president is Dean Mackenzie.
I have given some consideration to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; and I would state, briefly, that the national research council has always recognized the need for maintaining a proper balance between fundamental research, or pure research as it is sometimes called, and applied research.
On many occasions attention has been called to the importance of maintaining this balance by members of the national research council, when questions of policy and programmes were under consideration. It has been emphasized that practical, or applied research, is based upon and dependent upon the fundamental knowledge acquired through pure research, and that a national research programme must provide for both fundamental and applied1 research in proper balance.
In the past some fundamental research has been carried on by the national research council in its own laboratories; but a still larger volume of such work has been sponsored and stimulated by the council through grants in aid of research, awarded to members of staffs of Canadian universities, qualified to conduct scientific research and1 having laboratory facilities at their disposal. Such grants are not restricted to fundamental research projects, but most of the work carried on under them has been of that type. Such grants not only stimulate the acquiring of fundamental knowl-
Supply-Trade and Commerce

edge, but assist in the post-graduate training of young scientists in research methods, and also assist in the development of post-graduate instructions in scientific research.
During the abnormal conditions imposed by war, with need for the solution of practical problems confronting the armed services and other war establishments, it has been necessary for the national research council to direct most of its activities to applied research, but it is the definite policy of the council, as soon as
circumstances permit, to restore a reasonable balance in its research programme as between fundamental and applied research.
Some remarks were made yesterday and, I believe, this morning regarding the necessity of increased expenditures on research. In this connection I wish to put on record a brief table showing the estimated expenditures on research in four countries, and comprising the latest figures we have been able to secure, even in an approximate way:
Annual	Expenditure
Country	Date	expenditure	Expenditure	as per cent ofin millions	per capita	annual incomeRussia	
1934	300	to 500	$1.82	to $3	-8% to	1%United States	
1935	300	2.40	-5% to	-6%Great Britain	
1934	30	.70	-15%Canada	
1938	2-4 to 3-3	.22 to .29	-06% to -08%


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Canadian figures cover all research in Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is all research.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Private
and national?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Our expenditure is pretty low.


James Angus MacKinnon: Very low-that is why I am putting this table on the record.


Gordon Graydon: May I follow up the question I propounded a few minutes ago with respect to the presidency of the national research council? One hears on many sides the question whether or not the government is going to return General McNaughton to "active service" with the national research council. I think the public and the house ought to be made aware as early as possible of the government's policy in that respect. Most people in Canada will want to see a great, warrior such as General McNaughton occupy the very important post for which in the past he has shown himself to be eminently qualified and in which he made a great reputation for himself. Can the minister make a statement in that regard?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not in a position to make an announcement on that matter at the present time. I do not believe it has been discussed, certainly not by me, and I am sure the leader of the opposition does not want the suggestion to go

abroad that General McNaughton is anxious to be back at the national research council and that the government is not willing to have him back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the point at all.


Alfred Henry Bence: This morning, among other things, I pointed out what I believed to be the advantages in the establishment of a western research laboratory in Saskatoon. Would the minister care to make a comment in that connection?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be glad to do so when my estimates are resumed. In the meantime I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of bill No. 161, to provide for family allowances.
Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to stress the importance of the family allowance bill to members of this house or to the people of Canada. This bill has been put forward by the government as part of the comprehensive scheme of social legislation forecast in the speech from the throne. The bill has already been supported not only by members of the government and by members of this house who support the government, but it has

Family Allowances
also been generously supported 'by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in the house (Mr. Coldwell) and also by the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). Their reservations on points of detail can be dealt with better in committee, but perhaps'I may have a word or two later to say about some of them in the course of my remarks.
Only the Progressive Conservative party has so far opposed this measure in this house or throughout the country, and I venture to say that like the Conservative press, some of which has been critical of the measure in some respects or in totality, the opposition of the Progressive Conservative party as voiced yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is based not only on failure to understand the measure but as well on the failure to realize its importance as the greatest single means to meet a fundamental need of our people in these changed and changing times. The speeches of the leader of the opposition and of the hon. member for Parkdale are important, but important only for the reason that they show to all the people of Canada how fundamental is the difference in outlook towards the social and the humanitarian questions with which the people of Canada are concerned as between those hon. gentlemen and the Liberal party and this government.


Gordon Graydon: You have no monopoly on that.


Brooke Claxton: We have no monopoly on anything. When the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Parkdale voice views such as they voiced yesterday, I am entitled to say that they mark a fundamental cleavage between themselves and this party, and that cleavage will be recognized more and more by the people of Canada as the days go by.
But I believe that the house and the people of Canada are far less interested in the views of members of the opposition, as voiced yesterday, than they are in the merits of this proposal, and they want to consider this measure on its merits. They want to see what it is, they want to see what it will do, and they want to see how it will work; and I shall try in my remarks this afternoon to deal in some measure with these three questions.
It is generally recognized, not only in this country but in other countries as well, that Canada has led the world in the economic and financial conduct of its war effort and in the equitable distribution of the costs of the war. With family allowances as proposed in this bill, Canada again leads the world. Canada
leads the world in making adequate provision for her greatest single asset, the three and a half million children of our country.
The proposal itself is that a parent maintaining a child resident in Canada, within the definition of the act, shall each month receive, whether in Nova Scotia or British Columbia, or in any other part of Canada, $5 for each child less than six years of age; $6 for each child between the ages of 6 and 9; $7 for children of 10 to 12; and $8 for children from 13 to 15; less $1 for the fifth child, $2 for the sixth and seventh, and $3 for each additional child. At this moment I wish to correct an impression which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay left, that in the consideration of the number of children for the purpose of reduction according to the act we would consider children oyer the age of sixteen. If the hon. member will look at the definition of "child" in section 2 (a) of the bill he will find that a child is defined as a person less than sixteen years of age, so that adequately clears up any misunderstanding he may have on that point.
I	ask hon. members, all of whom have as great an experience of the way in which our people in Canada live as any other group in this country, to think of how great a difference this will make in the lives of the individual citizens and children of this country.
This measure should be supported by everyone as a great social and humanitarian measure. The well-being of the individual is the supreme end of society, and the place to start is with the children. Many of us in this house have at one time or another talked about the great future that Canada will have. The place to start in making that future great is with the children of this country, with their nutrition, their health, their welfare and their education. Under this bill there will be paid each month to each parent a sum of money earmarked to meet the urgent needs of the children of our country.
This bill should also be supported as a great democratic .measure because it endeavours to create a greater equality of opportunity for all the children of Canada. It is a great Canadian measure because it treats all Canadians from end to end of the country absolutely alike. The leader of the opposition, in his speech as appears at page 5343 of the daily edition of Hansard, said among his objections to the measure, and I quote:
It denies the basic principles of social justice.
What reason did he give?' He said he objected to this measure because it treats all people alike. Well, I say that is one of the most extraordinary statements ever to be made in a democratic house by a democratic
Family Allowances

leader. He opposes this measure because it treats all people alike. I glory in its treating all people alike. The leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Parkdale and the Conservative press, before they even saw the measure, referred by innuendo or expressly to the fact that one part of Canada might be favoured by this measure more than another part. I deny that expressly. This measure treats all the citizens of Canada alike.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Only one voice in the wilderness.


Brooke Claxton: There are a lot of others, and there will be a lot more.


Gordon Graydon: You disregard entirely the question of need.


Brooke Claxton: Not at all.


Gordon Graydon: That is why you take that position.


Brooke Claxton: The need of all Canadians is the same.
Mr. GRAYDON.: You do not do that in other things.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) quoted a passage from an editorial presumably by B. K. Sandwell, the editor of Saturday Night. The editorial appeared on July 8. I shall not. take up the time of the house to quote it again, but I do say that it should command the attention of every Canadian who calls himself a Canadian. It is under the head "All are Canadians", and so they are.
The census returns of 1941 are not yet analysed on the basis of numbers of children and the size of families in the different provinces of Canada; but I should like to give another answer to the hon. members opposite and those throughout the country who raise this question-I do not. From such examination as I have been able to make, it is clear that the difference between what any group of people in Canada will receive from what any other group in Canada will receive under this measure is very much less than they seem to suppose. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec, because they have slightly larger families, may receive more per family.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why the "slightly"?


Brooke Claxton: Family Allowances
favour of family allowances or other similar measures, he replied that it was just a simple question: "Should it come now or a little later."
In Canada the discussion of this matter began a good many years back in 1929 when the predecessor of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette), who spoke so well last night, Mr. J. E. Letellier de St. Just, introduced a resolution providing for family allowances. This was referred to the select standing committee on international and industrial relations. Last night the hon. member for Edmonton East referred to the Marsh report, the James report, and the report of the subcommittee of the James committee dealing with problems affecting women.
This subject is not new. It has been canvassed thoroughly here and in other parts of the world. When we step forward, as we are doing now, with a broader and more comprehensive and more generous measure than has been introduced in any part of the world as yet, we are showing the way to the rest of the world once again.
Hon. members may be interested in some figures relative to the number of children that may be involved. With the consent of the house I should like to put on Hansard a calculation of the cost of the family allowance resolution prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
First this gives the estimated number of children in Canada on June 1, 1941. That figure is according to the census and particulars are given for children of different ages up to and including fifteen year's; the total is 3,409,911. That number has been extended by the procedure the bureau has to July 1, 1945, and for that date a total is shown of 3,535,934. While an increase is shown I may say to the house that the experience of other countries has been that the payment of family allowances does not result in a spectacular increase in the births in the country. It has some effect because conditions are straightened out in various ways, but there is no very spectacular result. The officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics inform me that it is not anticipated there will be a substantial change from the figure I give here, which is their estimate.


Thomas Vien: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member have permission to put this document on Hansard7


Gordon Graydon: If the hon. member would give the details as to what are contained in

these statements, I would have no objection. However, I would like to know what he is putting on Hansard.


Brooke Claxton: The figures I just gave are self-explanatory. I was going to describe the next table. I have a copy in my hand for the leader of the opposition, if he wishes to see it. The second table shows the estimated distribution of families by number of children under sixteen years of age, at 1941. This is based on a two per cent sample taken by the bureau of statistics, and it is substantially accurate in the 'higher figures. There is likely to be some error, however, in the lower figures. M'ay I point out that if hon. members will total the number of families throughout Canada having five or more children they will find that that total is 163,050. That is out of a total of 3,409,911, according to the census. In other words nearly ninety per cent of the families in Canada have less than five children, and only eleven and a half per cent of the families have more than five children.
The final table on the sheet shows the estimated cost for the month of July, 1945. It shows that for children from birth to the age of 15 years inclusive the total cost would be $21,700,000 per month, with deductions for the fifth and later children of $600,000 per month. This gives a net cost of $21,100,000. That, of course, is without adjustments for income tax. The total gross annual cost is estimated at $253,200,000. The Prime Minister yesterday gave the house an estimate of the effect of the income tax adjustment, placing the figure between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 per year. So that the net cost to the Canadian people is something like $200,000,000 per year.
I should explain to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion)-


Thomas Vien: Before the hon. member
leaves the point he has been making, it is my understanding that there is no objection to his placing these tables on Hansard.


Brooke Claxton: The tables follow:



CALCULATION OF COST OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE RESOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
Prepared by Dominion Bureau of Statistics
(1) Estimated children in Canada,
1941 and 1945-
June 1,1941 July 1,1945
0- 5	
1,256,379	1,424,9136- 9	
837,287	839,72210-12	
661,653	618,36913-15	
654,592	652,9303,409,911	3,535,934
Total 0-15

Family Allowances
(2) Estimated distribution of families by number of children under 16 years of age, 1941-
(2 per cent sample)
Total with children under 16	 1,411,650
1	child	"	"	
561,2502	children	"	"	
369,0003	children	"	"	
200,1504	children	"	"	
118,2005	children	"	"	
69,4006	children	"	"	
41,0007	children	"	"	
26,6508	children	"	"	
14,7009	children	"	"	
7,35010	children	"	"	
2^45011	children	"	"	
1,00012	plus children under 16 ....	'500
(3) Estimated cost for month of July, 1945-
Children 0-15	 $21,700,000
Deduction for 5th and later children	 600,000
$21,100,000*
* Without adjustment for income tax.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay referred yesterday to a statement appearing at page 1227 of Hansard for March 15, 1943, showing the distribution of children in families in Canada. I should explain that that statement shows the distribution of dependent children up to the age of twenty-four years, so that it is not relevant to the statements I have just filed.
With the consent of the house I should like to put on Hansard another statement showing the distribution of costs and benefits between rural and unban children and families across Canada. I do this because the measure now before the house will benefit children of rural families just as much as and in some respects more than it will children of urban families
because of their larger families. This statement gives the population, the number of children under sixteen years, the reduction for five or more children, the cost before income tax adjustment, the average allowance per child, the number of families, and the average allowance per family, in respect of urban and rural families across Canada. The table shows that the average allowance per child according to this estimate-and it is only an estimate, based on a two per cent sample-will be $5.96 per month in rural communities, while for urban children it will be $6.12. The average allowance per child for the whole of Canada will be $6.04. When we come to the average allowance per family we see that while the rural child is to be credited with only $5.96, the rural family receives $16.01 on the average, whereas the urban child is to receive $6.12 and the urban family $13.33. So that as I said before, in respect of the different provinces in Canada, what any family may lose through the per capita amount received per child it will make up in the amount received per family. And the increasing and decreasing scale of the allowance provided by section 3 of the bill has been designed expressly to do just that, namely to equalize the position, on the assumption and in the knowledge-and this is within the knowledge of everyone-[DOT] that it costs more to maintain a child as it grows up than it does to maintain an infant. On the other hand it costs less to maintain a child in a large family than to maintain it in a small family. The proposal is just as scientific and just as reasonable as any such proposal dealing with the great mass of children in the population could be.
The table follows:
General Statement of Family Allowance Costs Per Month for Rural and Urban
Data of 1941
At $5 for 0-5 years; $6 for 6-9 years; $7 for 10-12 years; $8 for 13-15 years Prepared by Dominion Bureau of Statistics
Population	
Number of children under 16 years	
Reduction for 5 or more children (2% sample)
Cost before income tax adjustment	
Average allowance per child	
Number of families (2% sample)	
Average allowance per family	
Rural	Urban	CanadaNo.	5,239,000	6,251,000	11,490,000No.	1,772,000	1,638,000	3,410,000$	389,000	196,000	585,000$	10,565,000	10,024,000	20,589,000$	5.96	6.12	6.04No.	660,000	752,000	1,412,000$	16.01	13.33	14.58
The accuracy of the 2 per cent sample figures is as follows:
For a group with 1,000,000 children the maximum likely error is under 2 per cent. For a group with 100,000 children the maximum likely error is under 5 per cent. For a group with 10,000 children the maximum likely error is under 10 per cent 100-339
[Stage Direction]
Family Allowances
[Stage Direction]
I had1 hoped at this time to be able to outline t-o the house my own/-and only my own-views as to how this would actually work out in administration. I see however that the time at my disposal has almost expired, and as hon. members have already been courteous and generous to me I believe I shall leave anything further I have to say until the bill is in committee. May I state briefly however that from government officials I have met I learn that it is their aim: first, to make the administration as simple as it can be made; second, to use all existing agencies of government that can be used; third, to arrive at, maintain and develop the closest possible cooperation with the provinces, and the agencies in the provinces; and fourth, to hope for and expect the development of all child welfare services and agencies which already exist and are doing such splendid work. But they could do even better work, because each of them finds that the fundamental obstacle in the way of continuous social betterment is the need for a greater income per child in each family. I can tell the house after a good deal of association with child welfare workers that it is clear that they believe this bill will change the whole character of their work. Instead1 of having to deal with conditions of extreme need and poverty, those welfare workers will be in a position to build so that the child, wherever it may be, under whatever conditions of life it may live, in whatever province it may be, and no matter who its father or mother may be, will have a better chance in its future life.
There has been some experience administratively in dealing with such large numbers. I am reminded that the dependents allowance board distributes 609,254 cheques per month. That is £C very large number. The provision for family allowances will lead to the distribution of something like 1,500,000 cheques per month. However, already a great deal of experience has been gained by treasury officials in administering arrangements of this kind. They believe that the three divisions into which administration will be divided, namely, registration, investigation and payment, can be adequately handled without any great or excessive cost. I saw in one publication that somebody estimated that the cost would be twenty per cent. The estimate arrived at based on the experience of similar measures in other countries and in other connections here would lead one to suppose that the cost will certainly not exceed two per cent, and will probably be less.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have here a measure which in no way interferes with the autonomy of the provinces, as was pointed out by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and which does not purport to deal with education, as my hon. friend the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion)_thqught. All that this purports to do^isTo"say what '" child is the kind of child that will receive the benefit, and this bill contemplates that it would not be the wish of anyone that a child who is working, or was a truant from school should receive the benefit. This bill treats the people of Canada from end to end alike,^ I support it and advocate its adoption and its enthusiastic support by the people of Canada as a great, progressive, constructive step in the building of the future society of our great country^
Gordon Graydon: I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I wanted to ask if with the statements which he has been allowed to place on Hansard he would also give a break-down by provinces and place that on Hansard as well.


Brooke Claxton: I thought I had already explained, and if not I am glad to do it now, that I had asked the bureau of statistics for that information. They informed me that from the census results they cannot get that information for family groups except by going over the 1941 census results and working out the figures from place to place. That would be a very lengthy operation. I will make further inquiries and perhaps answer my hon. friend later on that point.


Gordon Graydon: I understood that that information had been supplied already. That is why I asked the question.


Brooke Claxton: It was given for children up to the age of twenty-four by provinces but not by families. That was done in answer to an inquiry by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. I understand that all the census figures are based1 on ages up to twenty-four. That is their ordinary run of tables. In order to get a break-down for children up to sixteen in families they would have to go through all the census returns, and that would be quite a lengthy operation.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Are these figures by,
provinces not available in the census returns for certain ages up to sixteen years of age?
I have been informed that they are available for 1941, but I do not know whether that is correct.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Family Allowances
Mrs. DO RISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been members of this parliament during these difficult years of the war emergency have had very many controversial issues come before us when it has not always been easy to see clearly the direction we should take, but it would appear to me with respect to this measure which is now before the house that any member who believes in the destiny and in the future of the younger generation of Canada can have no doubt whatever as to the advisability of giving it whole-hearted support. For my own self I feel very glad that I am a member of this House of Commons at this time and that even before the war is brought to its successful conclusion we have had an opportunity of seeing this legislation brought down to be put on the statute books of Canada.
I know that it is the duty of members of this house to look at any measure of national importance as objectively as possible, and yet I find that my own personal feelings do to some degree become mixed up in this. You see, I happen to be one of those unfortunate young women who belong to the generation in Canada who married and started to raise a young family during the most difficult days of the darkest period in the world's history. I know from first-hand experience of the struggles and the difficulties and all the heartaches of mothers who through those years sought to protect and bring up their children and to give them the best they could under such difficult conditions. Possibly there are those among the members of this house who suffered as I did; I do not know. It was a very terrible thing to lose a first son for lack of medical attention. It will always be a source of sorrow to me to know that one of my other children will suffer to the end of his days from physical disabilities which were caused through malnutrition in his early days. It was possibly because of my own sufferings that since I came into this house I have spent a great deal of my time speaking on the need for the introduction of social services to safeguard the life of our younger generation. Of course, the nazi menace reached a point where it overshadowed every other consideration, but to-day, when we find the beginning of the end within sight, it is a good thing that the government should at this time have turned its attention and concentrated upon a measure which will be the beginning of what we all hope to be a better and fuller life for the people of this country. Once on the statute book as a beginning, I sincerely hope that in time it may be 100-339J
broadened out and become part of a wider social security measure.
I think it is agreed by all of us that one of the great ends which this bill will achieve is the raising of the purchasing power of that section of our people who still need purchasing power so badly. It has long been recognized that the problem of production has been solved in the age in which we live. It has always been distribution that has been the snag. Lack of purchasing power, if we allow that to continue, will destroy the marvels that Canada is able to produce. The great productive forces of industry and agriculture which will be unleashed with the ending of this war will be futile to add to the progress of our nation unless we find it possible to increase and extend the abilities of wide sections of our people to consume that which they are able to produce. Certainly these family allowances will make a beginning in that direction.
Certain small sections of labour have registered some protest against this measure, and have even gone further and condemned it on the ground that it may be used as a means of keeping wages from rising after the war. I feel that that is a defeatist argument and that the great trade movement in this country will see to it that it is not so used. I believe that the great trade movement in this country will have the ability to defeat this argument and to prove the incorrectness of such a premise. I know that it will not stop the farm movement from working to secure the basic price guarantees that are needed for an upward adjustment of farm income in Canada.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking in introducing this bill he mentioned that the cost of this measure was estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $250,000,000, and that of that roughly some $50,000,000 would be taken back through the income tax.
I am just wondering whether or not-I am not sure that I am correct-we shall obtain the greatest advantage from the expenditure of this money through grading the allowance to children according to age. Having a little family of my own, I realize that the cost of children does increase, generally speaking, as they grow older. But of course this family allowance is not a measure to cover completely the cost of upkeep of a child. I agree that it is a contribution towards the cost of upkeep. The Marsh report stated, I believe, that according to the rates of 1939, $14.50 monthly would be the minimum for the complete upkeep of a child. If we are to have a system of graded
Family Allowances

payments, it is going to be extremely difficult to administer. It will need a very large force of officials to check the authenticity of claims made, and so on. I am of the opinion that we could cut down the cost of administration and pay a greater part of that $200 million into the pockets of the people if we were to give a straight sum irrespective of the age of the child. Perhaps the Prime Minister in replying later will give arguments to prove that I am incorrect. I am quite open to persuasion on this matter, but it seems to me, from the little I know about administrative costs, that having the graded system would reduce the amount available for grants under this measure.
Another point of which I am not quite sure is whether it is wise to decrease the allowance to the larger family. I feel that it is unfair to the larger family. Perhaps food bought in larger quantities does not increase in cost in direct relation to the number of children, but certainly with regard to clothing, housing and .schooling the expenses increase with the size of the family. If we are to protect the health of the mothers of this nation; if the mother who has a large family is to maintain her health and strength, she needs assistance in her work. It has been said outside this chamber- I have noticed it in the press-that the gradation is for political reasons, that had we allowed family payments in the same amount to be applied in respect of any number of children it would have been said in some circles that this was a political sop to the province of Quebec. I wish to speak about this very frankly. I am an English-speaking Canadian, yet I would not regard any such measure as a sop to Quebec. I am aware that certain inequalities exist in that province, and I cannot believe that the future of Canada will be secure unless we keep the national unity we have and make it stronger, and we have to eradicate as far as possible inequalities among our people. To give a family allowance of equal amount per child to any size of family would have helped in some slight degree to remedy the inequalities which exist in Quebec. I think we should remember that those who sow the wind usually reap the whirlwind. Had the people of Germany not held legitimate grievances it would not have been possible for the nazis to prey upon them and exploit and inflame their grievances with such disastrous consequences. The people of Quebec have certain legitimate grievances. Their wage rates have always been lower than those of the majority of other provinces. Their living standards have been consequently lower, their disease rates have been higher; and but for these legitimate grievances we would not

to-day have certain groups trying to capitalize on those grievances with possibly disastrous results not only to Quebec but to the rest of Canada.
As the bill stands it militates against the French-Canadian people of Quebec. According to the census bulletin on households, occupations and earnings, No. 5, issued in 1941, I believe it is a fairly reliable estimate that while the province of Quebec has only about 24-8 per cent of the total number of families in Canada, it has 34-8 per cent of the families with five children, 43-5 per cent of the families with six or seven children, and 56-7 per cent of the families with eight or more children. There is no reason why any mother anywhere in Canada should not have adequate help and assistance, however many children she has.
This question of the size of the family is rather a delicate one to deal with in this house. A woman does not always have the right to decide how many children she shall have, yet the burden of the care and the constant work which attend the keeping of a large family is hers, and I am sorry, speaking personally, that the woman with the larger family will not receive the allowance which I feel she should have.
The Prime Minister, when he was speaking before, said he did not think that any very large section of the people would misuse this allowance. I agree with him. The twenty-fourth annual report of the Canadian Welfare Council supports the Prime Minister's statement. In this report, dated May 15, 1944, I find this statement:
In any event it seems fair that the success or failure of a children's allowance scheme will depend very largely on the proper development of an adequate administrative plan, and this is now being studied by the federal authorities. It will depend even more on the success of the arrangements which must be worked out to secure proper supervision and control over that small percentage of cases where the allowance would not otherwise be wisely handled.
This is the point I would1 like to emphasize.
The experience of the dependents' allowance board during the war years would seem to indicate that this percentage will not exceed more than one to three per cent of all cases.
That is an extremely low estimate. I still feel, as I said before when speaking on the bill setting up the Department of National Health and Welfare, that we should accompany these family allowances with a wide circulation of educational bulletins on all matters concerning the feeding and care and upbringing of children to give parents the knowledge which is necessary. If the allowance is not wisely spent, I believe that in the

Family Allowances
cases-the small percentage of cases-where it may not be wisely spent it will not be because of wilful misspending; it will be chiefly because of lack of knowledge as to how the money should be spent most advantageously in the interest of the childen.
I would quote again from the same report of the Canadian Welfare Council, where this is stated:
This points, in other words, to the conclusion *that we are not really faced with such a clear-cut alternative of cash allowances versus extended children's services, as the arguments presented on both sides of this much-debated question might appear to suggest. It is probable, almost to the point of certainty, that if we are to have cash allowances for children, we will also be obliged to extend and strengthen our children's services as well, in order to safeguard and control such a substantial national investment.
I feel that an organization such as the division of nutrition, headed by Doctor Pett, and certain other branches of the Department of Health and Welfare, would be only too glad to have the opportunity of presenting in bulletin form to the people of this country all the facts which would help the mothers to understand those factors of nutrition and so on which affect the health of their children.
There is one other thing which is a little surprising to me. I do not know whether I shall have support from any other hon. members on this particular question. I am wondering why, where the bill indicates to whom the allowance shall be paid, it mentions specifically first of all the father. I believe I am correct in understanding that the cheques' will be made payable to the father of the family. Of course, legally speaking, a married man is head of his household; I have no quarrel with that. But this allowance is not for general household expenditures. It is a special allowance which we hope will be used for the benefit of the children, and it is the women who are most elosely concerned with the welfare of the children. In a home where there is a real partnership the woman does usually have an allowance for housekeeping and for her own uses as well. But that is not always so. I feel of course that where a woman does have certain allowance for her own uses and for housekeeping expenses it is a good thing, and gives a married woman a feeling of independence which is very necessary, but unfortunately that does not exist in all homes. I wish it did. There are many homes where [DOT] that is not true. Women take an awful chance on this when they get married. So far as I know, there is no law which allows a woman to claim any part of her husband's wages as her share for the work she has to do in taking care of the family and the home.
In my own experience among rural people I have found that farm women suffer more than their city sisters do in this respect. It is a degrading thing for a woman to have to ask for every cent she wants for the expenditures in the home and for her own private needs, and yet that is precisely the case particularly in farming areas. I have found among many sections of the country, not only among foreign-born but among a good many Englishspeaking people also, that it is the man who, with his grain cheques or his hog cheques, pays the bills at the store, and the woman never actually has the handling of money. The independence of women is a very necessary thing if the women of this country are to go forward and attain that stature of fidl citizenship which they should have. I think that the great majority of the heads of households, the fathers, will pass over the cheques to their wives for the upkeep of the children. Well, if they do, why not pay it directly to the women, and so protect the women whose husbands will not automatically do it? It would be a good thing.
I would remind the Prime Minister of a very old saying. I have repeated it many times, and' no man has ever yet dared to dispute it with me. It is this: The rooster crows, but the hen it is that delivers the egg. It is all very well for the father or the husband to show off his beautiful children and their tricks, but it is the woman who has the daily care and responsibility as well as all the trouble that is connected with the upbringing of children. I would like to see the rights of women protected. I believe there is still great need for us to consider this question. After all, the place of the women in a country is a great indication of the advance of that particular society, and fhere is no real democracy without full equality between the sexes. But we are still a long way from that goal in [DOT]Canada. I would have been glad to see such a principle embodied in the bill, providing for payment of cheques directly to the mothers. I am not sure, but I believe that in section 6 it is provided that if a person is dissatisfied about this allowance that person will have the right to claim an adjustment. If a woman is going to be free under section 6 to claim the right to the allowance, if her husband does not give it to her, why not give it to her in the first place and so obviate additional administrative costs? I suggest that it would obviate a lot of such costs.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend will find in the bill that provision is made whereby the governor in council may determine to whom cheques shall be paid, such determination to be based upon what, after
Family Allowances



conference with the provinces, would appear to be the particular parent to whom the cheque should be made payable. What my hon. friend has in mind will be met, I believe, by that clause.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I am very glad indeed to hear the Prime Minister say that; it relieves my mind considerably. But I wonder what will determine the matter in some homes. Is it going to be a question of individually finding out whether the husband or the wife should have the cheque? I fail to see what will be used as a guide in the matter. I still adhere to my belief that it would cost less in the long run in administration to pay the cheque directly to the woman.
However, I am in full agreement with the bill. As we come to the separate sections there may be a few other remarks I would like to make. I am not just sure about section 6, in which it is stated that if any person is dissatisfied with the way the money is being spent, that person can appeal. I do not know whether that will affect neighbours or gossips or people who for some slight reason or other may have some feeling against a woman. We have to be very careful of the rights of people to appeal. At any rate, I shall be able to deal with these points when the sections come up before us. Generally speaking, I am proud to be able to give support to a bill of this kind, and I only hope we shall see other measures which will continue the social security of our people so that we may go forward in the same direction as this proposal.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Following the hon. member who has just spoken, I am sure that I express the feelings of every member of the house-and the same will apply to the observations last fevening of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) -when I say we recognize that no group of members in this house have more right to speak in support of this measure than the hon. member who has just taken her seat and her lady colleague who sits on this side of the house. It may be that in considering this measure the house is not only providing for the future citizens of the country but is also thereby, by implication, paying a long overdue tribute to the mothers of Canada. I am reminded, in taking part in this debate, of the words of Pitt, who, speaking in the House of Commons on an amendment to the Poor Laws, said on February 12, 1796:
Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and an honour, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt. This will make a large family a blessing and not a curse, and this will draw a proper line of distinction between those who are able to provide for themselves by their
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
labour, and those who, after having enriched their country with a number of children, have a claim upon its assistance for their support.
I wonder if I would be regarded as unfair if I suggested to the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Bruce), who spoke last night, that he should take to heart these words of Pitt and realize that in referring to the children of our country there is no occasion for irony or for anything approaching what I regard as his contemptuous observations of last evening.
This particular measure now before the house is a part of the government's programme of social security. It is not the first plank in that platform. Perhaps the first real measure came with the introduction of unemployment insurance in 1940, under which scheme now two millions of our citizens will share in a fund contributed to by workers, by employers and by the government and amounting to over $205 million. In that unemployment insurance scheme, based upon the experience that other countries have had, an attempt is being made to improve where others failed, and it is now being followed by this measure, which I think Mr. Beveridge, Mr. Marsh and Alvin Hanson have said is the first necessary condition in any real social security programme.
I must say that I was not a little disturbed when I found the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), speaking for a great historic party in this country, failing to fall in step not only with progressive thought throughout Canada but with progressive thought throughout the world. Recently at the twenty-sixth meeting of the international labour conference forty-two nations of the world, representing employers, workers and governments, met, and among the things that they all recommended for adoption in their own countries was a system of family allowances on the basis of the Australian model, which we are following in large measure in this house. In 1938 I find that at the pan-Ameriean conference of twenty-one American republics a recommendation was made that family allowances be set up in eveiy one of those twenty-one republics.
This is not a matter of bribe; this is a matter which in the growing process of history has come to be recognized by all men as part of the very necessary assignment of the state in the duty it owes to its citizens, and particularly to those within the low income brackets. We have given expression in the Atlantic charter to such declarations as freedom from want. What steps are we to take in order to give effect to freedom from want unless we give support to this kind of measure, unless we hurriedly recognize that we cannot wait until we set up a complete system of social

Family Allowances
services, which in answer to the leader of the opposition I tried to suggest yesterday would take many years to achieve on the basis of the evidence given by Doctor Davidson before [DOT]the social security committee of this parliament.
No; freedom from want will follow statesmen and governments throughout the ensuing decades in a manner which perhaps many of us at this stage are unwilling to recognize; and while we have taken a great step in this measure I venture to suggest that in ten years from now this measure, commendable as it is now, will be looked upon as something that is only part of many of the things which must be done to justify our commitment to the general expression throughout the world that there .must be freedom from want. Mr. Beveridge, Alvin Hanson, Mr. Keynes, all the great sociologists and economists of our day have recognized that a system of social security without a system of family allowances is not a system of social security at all. Mr. Keynes has gone on to say that a high level of employment is not possible in Britain unless they have along with it a kind of scheme of family allowances. This latter plan differs from that of Sir William Beveridge.
Thirty-four countries-in Europe; Australia, Japan, New Zealand, some of them since the end and one before the beginning of the last war-have adopted this measure in principle; yet it was left to the leader of the opposition and to his group to be the only voice in Canada opposing the principle of this measure. This is an attack on poverty, and poverty we have-every country has. Poverty exists throughout the world. We have poverty which we hope to mitigate by covering children's maintenance and subsistence, such things as food, clothing, light and fuel. And as one who has had something to do with the Department of Labour, I say that we will find under a system of family allowance one of the ready means of taking care of the problem of over-insurance about which I shall have more to say in a few moments.
As has been said, we are merely extending the principle which we have recognized in old age pensions, in the income tax exemptions, in mothers' allowances and dependents' allowances. It is the same kind of principle, only we are extending it to groups who for one reason or another cannot qualify within the income tax-paying brackets. The fact is that every addition to a family is an additional economic handicap. No one who comes from a large famity, no one who has felt what it is to want, no one who has aspired to positions of greatness in public life or in industry and who has come from a small home with a large
family, can fail to recognize that a large family is an economic handicap; and in providing this additional opportunity by way of perhaps better food, perhaps assisting in better housing, certainly I hope in better education, we are taking a step which in the days to come those of us who are members of this parliament shall not regret. For the fact is that the future citizens of our country have a value to society just as much as our forests, just as much as the development of our national resources upon which the richness of our economy depends. Yet we spend less time and less interest on our children. We have been charged with being emotional, with being excitable, because we lay emphasis on the fact that there are some things in life more important than purely economic and material things.
There is no relation between the size of a man's family and the remuneration which he receives, as I hope to show in dealing with the labour aspect of this problem; there is no possible way of bringing that differential into line. No, Mr. Speaker; family allowances cannot help but be regarded as the way of first guaranteeing a continuing assurance of income regardless of what happens to the father. There is no man or woman in this house who has not seen what the spectre of death can bring to homes where there are no means of carrying on in the absence of the father. Family allowances are a subvention, not a provision for family standards, but an aid to family standards. They will assist the worker who is exposed to a variety of hazards beyond his capacity to control. As I said, we spend money on land, forests and1 factories and the other material assets of this nation. But in the past I think we have not placed sufficient emphasis upon human values. As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) said, in the days that lie ahead, when we shall have to dovetail private initiative into a system of public investment to keep men at gainful work rather than in receipt of the dole, we shall find that this fund of $200,000,000 will serve as a very effective part of that public investment programme. It will serve to provide additional purchasing power as well as to guarantee against insecurity and the like.
There are those who suggest, and the leader of the opposition was one, that instead of direct allowances we should have allowances in kind; that instead of giving money to the father or the mother for the children we should provide sendees in the form of better housing, more milk for the children, hot meals for the children at school and the like. Well,
Family Allowances

I ask him to ask the person who advised him in the remarks he made in this house what she would have to say about a report made in Norway in 1938, where after a careful study some Norwegians, assisted by a group of Englishmen and a group of experts from other countries, recommended that in respect of housing and medical attention collective effort was of special value, but when it came to the everyday things of life, there was, upon examination, only one system which would serve those things and that was a system of family allowances, not based upon the practice of France but based upon the practice embodied in this bill, a direct contributory scheme, not from employers and workers directly, but a scheme directly contributed to by the state, allowing for full control by the government with no intervention by industry or other groups.
I was not a little surprised that the leader of the opposition should have made the remarks he did about this bill, especially in the light of the study made with regard to family allowances by a gentleman, a former distinguished law partner of mine and a man for whom I have the highest personal regard and who was chairman of the national war labour board. He recommended a system of family allowances.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Under certain conditions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. In one breath "yes" and in another breath, " no." Mr. Justice McTague, now Mr. McTague, said in His report:
We are aware that family allowances usually find their place in a general programme of social security rather as a part of a wage control policy, but substandard wages are indefensible at all times and if control of wages below 50 cents is not removed the solution is a system of family allowance.
That is undoubtedly what the hon. gentleman had in mind. For the first time in the history of this country someone recommended the very thing the leader of the opposition opposed. In that statement Mr. Justice McTague was recommending family allowances as a substitute for low wages, the very thing which we in this bill are trying to avoid and the very thing which the leader of the opposition said we must try to avoid. Yet a month later the same gentleman, now the organizer of the Conservative party, now a candidate for office in the next parliament of Canada, said:
There is no use glibly talking about family allowances being a substitute for wages. No one suggests it is. It represents a measure of social security to people whose status really requires it.

I believe that statement of Mr. McTague was correct. But I put that statement alongside the statement made by Mr. Bracken on June 25 and the statement made yesterday in this house by the leader of the opposition. If the Prime Minister or the government of this country is guilty of introducing this measure for one provocation or for one purpose or another, then what is to be said of the chief of the Conservative party organization who gave expression to the very same view? Obviously we are motivated1 in trying to bring about a system of family allowances because we know that under a capitalistic or socialistic form of society there are defects in the wage system which I do not think can adequately be met. There seem to be three main defects.
First, the amount of money required to maintain a family depends upon the number of people going to make up that family. Existing wage payments are made for the work performed and not according to the size of a man's family. Is there any other way of dealing with that anomaly? Second, the expenses of keeping up a family vary with the ages of the children. A father needs the most help when his income is generally low, at a time when his family is at the top level in so far as numbers are concerned. Generally the father is making less when the needs of his family are greatest. Third, in looking after individuals the state provides for them according to their real rather than their imaginary needs. The effect of this is that often it is more advantageous for a man with a number of children to be unemployed. That was the experience in Great Britain in connection with the administration of unemployment insurance, and about that Sir William Beveridge had this to say:
The only way to keep the difference between income during employment and during unemployment as large as possible, and at the same time to keep benefits adequate during unemployment and disability, is to give allowances for children in time of earning and non-earning alike.
That great precursor of reform, Mrs. Sidney Webb-I invite those sections of labour in this country who may still have doubts to bear in mind what she said-had this to say in her minority report to the British government in 1919:
. . ._ the community must face the necessity of seeing that adequate provision is made for children, not by statistical averages, but case by case. The average family is, of course, merely a convenient figment of the statistician's and does not exist in fact. If provision is made in one way er another for three children, this is very far from securing enough food and adequate conditions of nurture for those households in which there are, for years in succession, four, five, or more children dependent. The nation

Family Allowances
cannot be satisfied any more than children can with a family or household average of rations for the rising generation. Each individual baby has got to be adequately and satisfactorily provided for.
That was in 1919. That is the observation of a woman who recognized the defects in the wage system under both the capitalistic and socialistic form of society. She was away ahead of her time, but she recommended the sort of thing we are dealing with now.
I do not think anyone has met this problem more accurately than the present Prime Minister of Australia. In 1929, as a member of the royal commission investigating the problem, he was faced with the apathy, and in many quarters with the criticism of his own party because of a dissenting report he had made recommending family allowances as opposed to the majority report. In his statement Mr. Curtin goes on to say that there is no real connection between the system of family allowances we are envisaging in this bill, and what they now have in Australia, and the general level of wages. This is particularly so because in each country there is a great section of the population who are in a non-wage earning group. Forty per cent of the people in this country are in the non-wage earning group. Even assuming the validity of the argument put forward yesterday by the leader of the opposition, even assuming that it has merit, what about the forty per cent of our people, our farm people, who are not wage earners as such and who because of their low income status are undoubtedly wanting in food and other necessities which in this day and age cannot be denied?
There is one aspect of the problem I should like to deal with. I am glad to hear from the lips of the hon. member who has spoken, and from the leader of the C.C.F., that they support this measure. It will be remembered that some sections of labour did oppose this bill. When the matter was first introduced some sections of labour did express apprehension and concern. They said it might be used as a depressive for wages. What are the facts? I think one should speak plainly in this matter because of the tremendous benefits the wage earning class of this country will derive.
In Great Britain there was some apprehension about this matter. The trade union movement in that country was concerned about the proposal to adopt a system of family allowances. It was felt that as in France the employers would take advantage of this kind of assistance and pay lower wages to their workers. One group after another expressed opposition. But in 1927 the
British trade unions stopped their opposition. A majority report of the joint committee of the trade union council and the British labour party executives stated that they had arrived at the conclusion that the most valuable step that could be taken to further the welfare of the nation's children was the institution of a scheme of family allowances. Later the trade union congress as well as the Labour party gave expression to the same kind of view. I call the attention of the house to the words of a great British trade union leader, Mr. James Griffiths, M.P., who said:
I would feel more resolved and more determined facing the employers, if I knew the children of the men for whom I was negotiating were outside of the power of the owners to starve if conflict came.
I use those words, and I ask labour throughout the country to remember them. No one in his good senses to-day will doubt the right of labour to organize. The fact is that to-day in this country we have a trade union membership of 700,000, as compared with about 300,000 at the beginning of the war. In my opinion that is a good thing, not only for the workers but for Canada. As long as we have an informed trade union movement, as we have in this country, one which I repeat is good for Canada and good for the workers themselves, there need be no fear on the part of labour that the system of family allowances will be used as a weapon by irresponsible employers. I think of the words of Mr. Griffiths, when he said he would feel safer if he knew his children and the children of his colleagues in the plant were to be provided with the necessities of life during a stoppage of work, than he would under the old system where the opportunity of dealing with employers was always rendered one-sided because of the fact that workers themselves did not have the wherewithal to provide the necessities for their dependents during the out-of-work period.
This is the attitude of labour. Labour throughout the whole of the united nations at the recent international labour conference clearly showed where labour, generally speaking, stands on the subject. I am sure all ranks of labour in this country, when they really consider this matter in the light in which we are discussing it to-day, will see that it cannot be used as a depressant, and that it is not to be used as a depressant; and as long as they have strong trade union organizations-which this government has encouraged-they need not be afraid.
There is the view also of the British Labour party, and the trade union congress in 1930, signed not only by a majority of the committee but by a majority of the trade unionists

Family Allowances

on it. They were firm in their views with respect to a system of family allowances, and the joint committee said:
Indeed, we believe that daring industrial conflicts the unions will be very considerably helped by the existence of such a scheme since the workers' children will be removed from the firing line and a great factor of weakness will then be removed.
May I say that I was glad to hear the leader of the C.C.F. support the view of the Prime Minister to the effect that this measure was not a means of depressing wages, but rather a means of supplementing something which wages cannot take into account-the number of children a married man may or may not have. But under no circumstances should we encourage in any way, or should this measure in any way be regarded as an encouragement to industry, large or small, to take advantage of the situation unwittingly to reduce wages, or to take into account wage costs in relation to this matter.
We have reached the stage when we have to have a different conception of the place of industry in society, a conception of industry where the partner is not only the man whose interest is that of investments, but as well the man who gives his services as manager and the man who gives his energy as a worker. These two last named partners have their rights in industry just as much as have the investors. Industry will have to come to recognize that. Just as it is entitled to depreciation on its machinery, it should provide through reserve funds and the like for depreciation of the human beings engaged in industry, and who make to industry an immeasurable contribution. That contribution is much greater than the contribution rendered by the tools or the equipment, buildings and the like in modern industry.
This is a forward measure. We are in the throes of transition. We do know that great changes are taking place. As we go along, measures which now are considered by some to be excessive, in the course of time will be regarded as only part and parcel of a world which is gradually developing, and which now is not wholly apparent to us.
John Curtin, the Prime Minister of Australia, was charged by individuals in his own country, when he wrote his minority report of 1929, with giving encouragement to a system by which wages would certainly be depressed. He said throughout Australia, as every labour man in this country who has studied the matter now knows, that as long as labour is strong, as long as the government recognizes the privileges as well as the obligations of labour, and as long as labour is able to

organize for its own use as well as for the community, these dangers may not be regarded as at all serious. He went further than that, and used in support of Bill 116 in the House of Representatives of Australia in 1941, words which I shall use as my closing remarks to-day. I believe these words represent what is in the mind of each member who gives his support to this measure. They are:
With this bill we are, for the first time in the history of this country-writing into the statute book our realization of the national significance of family life. That is not a mere platitude- that means something. There never has been any doubt of the value of the services, infinite in variety and extent, which the family renders to the nation. Primarily, it is a source of national continuance: it has supplied the human material indispensable for the production of the means of subsistence; it provides for the replacement of the old and the dead, and is a sole guarantee for the redemption, in the future, of those obligations which previous and present generations have found it desirable to incur in order to enjoy the fullest obtainable measures of security, comfort and civilization . . . therefore, every contribution we can make to the improvement of the health and welfare of the children now growing up is a definite contribution to the stability of the national structure in the years to come.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out by the leader of this group, we of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation welcome wholeheartedly the introduction of this measure. We feel, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested yesterday, that its introduction is a tribute to the work that a great many social pioneers have done in this and other countries down through the years, in endeavouring to propagate some of the principles now being enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I refer in particular to his statement that we are members one of another, and that as a community we owe a joint responsibility to our entire citizenry.
I am sure the Prime Minister would be the first to agree with the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that, in part at least, this legislation is a tribute to the work carried on for so many years by the statesman I had the honour to succeed as member for the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth. It must be remembered that it is not very long ago that we of the C.C.F. were criticized for advocating policies in the name of social security which, it was charged, would bring about the degeneration of our Canadian people. We were of the opinion then, as we are to-day, that human beings- and we were speaking specially of Canadians *-are made of good stuff, and the better the

Family Allowances
opportunities for life surrounding our people, the more of initiative and character and resourcefulness will be displayed by them. Accordingly, we support wholeheartedly every move that aims at improving the economic security of all our people.
When the Prime Minister says as he did yesterday that if we mean business when we talk about freedom from want and freedom from fear and about implementing the terms of the Atlantic charter we must do something about it, we must take some concrete steps, I say that in this instance he was reflecting the views of the Canadian people. I am satisfied that there is in this country at the present time a determination, expressed by the phrase that is used so often, that this time not only must we win the war but we must win the peace. Accordingly, I hope that this measure is only one step looking in the direction of a wider and all-inclusive programme of social security that we shall have in this country not very long hence.
The leader of this group pointed out that our major comment in connection with this bill is not one of criticism but is one of tribute to it when we say that we wish it were part of a still larger programme of social security. Members of parliament, it seems to me, should be particularly conscious of this necessity because of the many cases of individual need with which we are called upon to deal. We find time and again that after we have passed this or that desirable piece of social legislation, although it may take care of certain cases, yet there are always coming to us other cases that are not taken care of by these piecemeal steps. For example, parliament provided a special allowance last session for widows of veterans of the last war, veterans who at their death were in receipt of a fifty per cent pension or less. That was a token or gesture in the right direction, but the provision covered only widows of such veterans as had served in an actual theatre of war. England was not so regarded in the last war. The consequence is that we as members of parliament run into many cases of widows whose husbands were volunteers and served during the greater part or all of the last war but did not get to France, and their widows by reason of that technicality are not given the allowance. The widow herself stands in just as great need of it as her sister whose husband did get to France, but there is no provision to cover her need. We continually run up against technicalities like that which underline the necessity of our getting out of this stage of piecemeal social legislation as quickly as we can in favour of an all-inclusive plan.
100-340i
So it is with unemployment insurance, a commendable measure which was brought down by this government. As I pointed out the other night, we run into many cases of employees who have made their payments into the unemployment insurance fund and then have to lay off work because of illness. They find that they are not covered by the premiums which they have paid into the unemployment insurance fund; yet they are unemployed and their income stops. They are assailed by an economic condition which is not covered by the act, and real hardship results. That situation also underlines the necessity of an allinclusive programme of social legislation.
I wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that in making these suggestions I am not talking just to find fault with this measure. Rather I am sincerely and earnestly urging that now that we have gone this far in accepting the principles underlying this measure, we by no means stop there.
I should like to deal with the argument referred to by the last speaker and by some others who have participated in this debate, namely, the fear that family allowances might be used to depress wages. It is perfectly true that certain sections of organized labour have had that fear; some of them still have it. That fear is based on some sad experiences which organized labour has had with certain government departments and boards, and also in its dealings with vested interests. It is also based on the fact that so far as our peacetime arrangements are concerned, the control of labour legislation, working conditions, collective bargaining and minimum wages, is still in the hands of the provinces, whereas this provision for family allowances is being made by the dominion government. It would be far better if both were under the same jurisdiction, and some of this fear would be allayed if we were a little more certain that in the not far distant future control of these matters affecting working conditions, collective bargaining and wages would be in the hands of this same branch of government which is making provision for family allowances. I urge the securing of those necessary powers for the dominion government. In doing so, I want to point out that, as I see it, it is by no means a case of interfering with the rights of the people of our various provinces. It would be an interference, long overdue, with the power of vested interests at the present time to play upon the slogan of provincial rights in order to keep wages and working conditions depressed in some provinces as compared with others, to the detriment of all the people of Canada. I hope that leadership might be given to the people of all our provinces, as
Family Allowances

Canadians, to the effect that it is in. their own interest to have matters of this kind made the concern of the federal government. There is no reason at all why we cannot write a bill of rights that would give an absolute and inviolable guarantee to our provinces over certain matters of a cultural nature which are sacred to them. But so far as matters of this kind are concerned, which bear upon the economic status and the life and well-being of our people as Canadians, it seems to me that we should move, without further delay, in the direction that I have already indicated. I suggest that if we were moving more clearly in that direction it would allay some of the fear about family allowances depressing wage standards. I recognize the steps that have been taken in this direction so far as war-time conditions are concerned. I hope that there may be no retreat from that position.
But even so, Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about the introduction of family allowances depressing wages or the working conditions of our people. For one reason, public opinion is too strong on this point. The people of Canada have done a great deal of thinking about social and economic matters in the last ten years and particularly during the years of the war. It is also true then when people have their standards raised a bit, that is the very time when you cannot turn around and push them down. It is when people are most deeply depressed that they can be most easily taken advantage of. When people are on the way up, when they are feeling their position and having their importance in society recognized, not just 'by talk but by something real like this measure, they become stronger and less subject to abuse at the hands of vested interests.
I should like to quote a sentence or two from an opinion expressed by the joint committee of the labour party and trades union congress in England in 1930 on this matter, when they said:
During industrial conflicts the unions will be very considerably helped by the existence of such a scheme-
The reference was to children's allowances. -since the workers' children will be removed from the firing line and a great factor of weakness thus removed.
I submit that at the present time the worker's bargaining position is weakened by . the fact that his wife and children are dependent upon him to the very limit. But if there were a certain amount of independence for his wife and children-I use the words "certain amount" advisedly, because this is not very much in the way of "independence"-it removes his wife and family from the firing

line and strengthens the position of the employee in bargaining with his employer.
I submit, for example, that the introduction of unemployment insurance has not weakened, but rather it has strengthened the position of labour and of the trade union movement. The fact is that labour's position and the strength of the trade union movement are much greater in Canada to-day than they ever were. Therefore I am confident that this move will not result in a depression of wages or working conditions. For one thing, as I said at the outset of this section of my remarks, public opinion in Canada and the trade union movement simply would not stand for it.
Another argument which is sometimes used against family allowances in cash is that instead of these allowances we should have improved welfare services. The argument implies that, rather than run the risk of giving cash to people who might not spend it as wisely as they should-a false and unworthy argument-it would be better for the community to organize social and welfare services which will see to it that the proper care is provided for the children. In my view it is not a case of one or the other; we should have both. By this I mean that there are some things which can best be done on a community basis. There are some things which will serve our children best if we have them organized as welfare services. But even after you have done that, we in this country place a very high premium upon family life, upon the independence of the family, upon the relationship between parents and children. Consequently I think it is most desirable that an effort should be made to put into the hands of parents cash to equalize as far as possible the position with respect to their children, and the control of that extra money should be in the hands of the parents themselves. So that I say it is not a case of one or the other of these two things; we should have both; and I trust that in the years which lie ahead we shall have an increase in the amount of the family allowances, and also that as we go along we shall improve the services by which we minister to the needs and the welfare and the health of our children.
Another argument which is sometimes used is that instead of providing family allowances the government should allow wages to go up. That would be a trap for labour to fall into if it did not have its eyes open. As a matter of fact, in the days before we had a wagefreezing policy, in other words when theoretically it was possible for wages to rise, they did not do so. We had thousands of families in this country living under depressed conditions and children suffering from malnutrition.

Family Allowances
It is a case not of one or the other but of both. Our economy should be such that the wage income of our workers can increase, and at the same time we need the implementing of this measure so that there may be an equalization of the physical opportunities for children in various families.	_
There are a few comments which I should like to make about the bill and which I trust the Prime Minister will accept as constructive even though they may seem to. be critical.
I am not offering these suggestions out of a desire to find something wrong, but rather in the hope that my suggestions may be given consideration. I suppose that the course which will be followed with respect to this measure ' ' is this. This bill will be passed substantially in its present form; there may be some minor amendments, although one cannot be too sure of that. It is not to come into effect until July 1, 1945. In the meantime there will be another session of parliament, either of this parliament or the next one. My notion is that in the meantime further study will have been given to some of these matters such as I am going to speak about, and we shall probably have an amending act next year so as to take care of some of these matters before the measure comes into effect.
The first suggestion I would make is that payment of family allowances should be divorced from our income tax structure. As it now stands, it is too complicated and will create some rather odd, if not bad, psychological situations. On the one hand, you have people being given the family allowances -all families where there are children of the prescribed ages. On the other hand, in many cases the family allowance is to be taken back by an offset against income tax exemptions. I submit that that is going to puzzle a good many people and may even have the effect of making them feel that it is not such a good measure after all, and I for one do not want to see a social security measure of this kind come into disrepute in any way. The bill states in section 7, and the government has given publicity to the fact, that no allowances under this measure are to be subject to taxation; but in section 8 of the bill it is provided that there can be the taking back of family allowances as an offset against exemptions or benefits provided under the Income War Tax Act. What you have there is really just a confusion of terms. The allowance is not subject to taxation, and yet roughly speaking, for those with between $1,200 and $1,800 a year, depending upon the number of children in the family and then-ages, a portion of that family allowance will be taken back. The bill says it is not taxed.
Technically that is correct, but actually a portion of it is taken back; in other words it is taxed. For those with over $1,800, or in some cases a little higher, depending again upon the number of children they have, they receive it and the whole of it is taken back. Technically it is not taxed, and yet it is definitely taken away from them, which amounts to the same thing. My fear about that is that people may develop a dislike for it, and I am concerned that we should avoid anything of that kind about a piece of social security legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thmk the point the hon. member has raised had better be taken up in committee, because I feel he has not caught the significance of the clauses to which he has referred. For example, to-day there is this exemption under the income tax act for persons with large incomes. He would not feel that the exemption should continue and that those persons should also get the family allowance amount. There would be a duplication in the case of those with large incomes as compared with those who would get the single amount under the family allowance. That is really the point at issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the Prime Minister as to the aim of a family allowance, but the point I was trying to suggest was that the method set out in the bill, whereby we give it with one hand and take it back with the other, is likely to result in a dislike for the measure. I would suggest that the payment of allowances should be divorced from the Income War Tax Act altogether and should be on the basis of a ceiling. The government could set $1,800, if you will, or preferably $2,100, or whatever figure they might decide upon, plus $50 or some such amount for each child, and then say to the families of Canada, " You will receive the family allowance provided that the allowance, added to your income, does not bring your total income over the established ceiling." Thus, if the government set $1,800 and $50 for each child, a family with two children would have a ceiling of $1,900. If the family had an income of say $1,500 they would draw the full family allowance at the established rates, and there would be no double bookkeeping, no mix-up with the Income War Tax Act, no making of rebates to the government. It would be their allowance in full, without any income tax strings attached to it. For those fairly close to the ceiling, their allowance would be that much less, so that the total would not be over the ceiling. For those with incomes already over the ceiling, there would be no family allow-
Family Allowances

ance, and nothing to repay. The Prime Minister has already indicated that allowances are hardly necessary for those in the higher brackets, if, as is the case, the basic aim of this kind of legislation is to make sure that there will be the funds necessary to provide for the food, clothing and health of the children of this country, no matter what families they are born into.
It seems to me that under the legislation as it is now proposed there are likely to be some rather bad psychological situations. For example, suppose an employee at the present time has one child. That means he would be permitted an exemption of $108 against his income tax. But suppose his income is such that he would not pay $108 income tax but for that child, but only $60. In that event, all he saves in income tax at the present time by having the one child is the $60, which amounts to $5 a month, and because of that exemption he is getting that extra $5 a month in his pay envelope. Now the family allowance scheme comes along and for that one child, assuming he is in the proper age bracket, he will receive $S a month. But he cannot have both. He cannot have the $5 benefit under the Income War Tax Act and the $8 benefit under the family allowance scheme. One of them has to be adjusted. As the bill now stands, it looks to me as though the income tax exemption will be taken away, with the result that the amount in his pay envelope will actually be reduced by $5 a month. He will be getting $8 of an allowance which he was not getting before. In other words, his net increase will be only $3 a month. I emphasize the bad psychological effect of this if you have an employee getting an allowance cheque of $8 a month but receiving in his pay envelope $5 a month less than he got before. That would easily play into the fear that some people have about this measure, and I suggest that it would be overcome if the government would set this measure up on its own feet and not have it involved as it is in the Income War Tax Act. In reply to the Prime Minister, I say again that I agree with him that those in the upper brackets do not need this assistance, because the object is to equalize the opportunities of children so far as physique and health are concerned. But the simplest and most direct way is to provide an allowance up to a certain ceiling. I hope that if not before the bill passes this session, at any rate before another session, consideration will be given to that proposal.
In connection with the whole matter of relating it to the income tax structure, I must

call something further to the attention of the Prime Minister. Yesterday in his remarks the Prime Minister said that this was not a new principle. At page 5329 of Hansard he says:
May I say that the principle of this bill is not new; it has been recognized in our income tax legislation . . .
And also in other ways. Later on he says:
The principle and its wider application cannot be made too clear. Already this parliament has recognized that, with respect to families, there is an obligation upon the state to assist in the upbringing of children. This has been done in the interests of the parents and the family itself, but more particularly in the interests of the children. But, up to the present time, that obligation has been recognized only with respect to the more fortunate in our country, those who already have an income large enough to be taxable and to entitle them to exemptions according to the number of children in the family. In other words, where the need has been least it has already been recognized.
The Prime Minister said that the principle of government responsibility to families with respect to their children had already been recognized in the Income War Tax Act, but last year, on April 8, when the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay moved an amendment to one of the budget resolutions with respect to this matter, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) had this to say in reply, at page 1966:
I want to say very emphatically that in no income taxation system that ever existed in this or any other country has there been provision for the maintenance of children out of the tax savings.
Further on he said:
In our taxation system, should we provide that from his taxes a taxpayer shall have deducted an amount sufficient to enable him to support his wife and children? When a person marries he expects and is expected to assume responsibilities. He does not expect the government to assume his responsibilities for him.
And so on. That is the Minister of Finance speaking at page 1966 of Hansard of April 8, 1943. One reason for mentioning this is to suggest that the principle was not previously recognized as the Prime Minister said it was if the Minister of Finance was interpreting the income tax laws correctly as recently as last year. My other reason for mentioning this is that I think the Minister of Finance had a point when he suggested that there would be many difficulties if we tried to connect governmental responsibility for children with the income tax legislation. After all, there is nothing sacrosant about the income tax structure that we have at the present time. It has grown up like Topsy. We have the seven per cent or the nine per cent normal tax, which is the successor to the national defence tax

Family Allowances
that we had at one time. We have the graduated tax which is the successor to the old annual income tax of former years. We have had those two combined and both of them made deductible at the source. This has all grown out of the increased demands of the war. I suggest that there is nothing sacred or permanent about the income tax structure and that we are heading into administrative difficulties and complications if we try to tie this family allowance system to it. I make a plea for reconsideration of this point and for setting up the allowance scheme on its own feet, with a view to its incorporation later in an allinclusive social security plan.
A number of hon. members have spoken about the scaling off of the amount of the allowance as the number of children in the family increases. I shall take only a moment on this, but there is one point that I think should be made. The Prime Minister and others on the other side have emphasized the thought that there are some expenses which are not recurrent for the fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh child, and so on, and that when you have six children the average cost for the maintenance of them is not as great as the average cost when you have only two. The point that the Prime Minister and others are forgetting is that when the fifth or sixth child comes into the home there is no extra income there for him. There is no income to be shared. It is already more than absorbed by the number of children who are there; and if it is the desire of the government in this measure to equalize to some extent the advantages and the opportunities of children we should see that the position of a child who is born as the fifth child in a family does not suffer as compared with the child who is born as the second child in a family. I think the whole question of scaling off these allowances as the size of the family increases should be reconsidered, if our interest is not partisan or political or sectional but simply the well-being of all the children of the Dominion of Canada. I emphasize, too, that the administrative bookkeeping difficulties involved will, to a large extent if not wholly, offset the saving to the treasury and I feel that a change should be made on that point and also on the point of varying amounts according to the age of children.
I also support the plea that was made just now by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), and yesterday by the leader of this group for the payment of these allowances to the mother. I heard the statement made by the Prime Minister that it is possible-I believe he was referring to section 10- for arrangements to be made in various sections or provinces of the country for the payment to be made to the father or to the mother, but I feel that that is not good enough. In most, if not in all, countries where family allowances are paid they are paid to the mother and I feel that should be written into the bill itself.
Another point that I hope we will take care of in this bill is our attitude toward illegitimate children. There has been some progress on this point this year in our income tax legislation. We are starting off on something new with this measure. I hope that we shall not carry over into this measure some of the ideas that we have had in bygone years by means of which we have victimized the innocent child. Our concern in this measure all the way through is for the children of Canada. The illegitimate child is illegitimate through no fault of his own and he should be provided with opportunities equal to those of others in so far as that is possible.
In the course of his address yesterday the Prime Minister recited some of the things he had done along the line of social security and concern for the well-being of the people of Canada during his term of office. I am hoping that I may have the Prime Minister's attention for a moment, because this is a point I should like him to note. In reciting his activities in behalf of working people down through the years he made reference at pages 5548-9 of Hansard to the first measure in which he interested himself when he came back into parliament in 1919 or 1920. That measure had to do with securing pension rights which had been denied to a group of railway workers because of their participation in a strike of 1910. I knew something of the background of that incident, but I know a lot more now than I did because his reference yesterday prompted me to go and get Hansard of that bygone year and look it through. I have in my hand volume 2 of Hansard of 1920, and I find that on about fifty or sixty different pages of this volume the Prime Minister put up a heroic fight on behalf of these men. It is good reading. In fact some day I am going to quote some of these passages again. They fit exactly the case that I have taken up in this house twice this year, and since the Prime Minister referred to it I am taking this opportunity to call it to his attention. I suggest that he look up Hansard for May 1 and July 24 of this year, where I pleaded the case of the Canadian Pacific employees, particularly in Winnipeg, but throughout western Canada, who have been denied their pension rights because they were out on strike in 1918 or 1919. The company has a technical argument on the
Family Allowances

basis of which it has taken an adamant position. That was the situation when the present Prime Minister was putting up his fight in 1920. The Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, saidi on that occasion that whatever the technical position might be, morally these men had a claim, and he insisted upon his right as a member of parliament to fight this thing through until justice was obtained for them. He put up his fight in parliament-*


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman's time has expired1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend, on the matter he has referred to, my recollection is that I claimed that the men had not only a moral right but a legal right. An agreement had been entered into when the strike was called off that the men would be reinstated in their former positions. Their former positions meant that they would be reinstated with all the rights they had at the time they went out. The company after the settlement took the position that the men had lost their pension rights by going out. I claimed that was not reinstating them in their former positions. Their former positions meant that they should get back their pensions. Not only did I succeed in getting that, but their pensions for the intervening period of ten or twelve years were paid. Where some of the men had died in the interval the money to which they had been entitled was paid over to their estates. Where they were living they got what was owing on account of pension with interest, if I am not mistaken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I have a moment to say that the Prime Minister's recollections are substantially correct, except -on this point. I think he will find that he took the position that whether or not there was a legal responsibility in that case, the moral responsibility was so strong that he as a member of parliament intended to fight it'through until he won. He did not succeed while he was in the opposition, but when he formed his government in 1921, one of the first things he did was to implement the fight he had put up in 1920. I congratulate him on that. My suggestion is that if now, in 1944, he is going to boast of what he did in 1920, this other case, is so strikingly parallel I feel that his government must take a hand in it as well. He cannot rest on past laurels. I have drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) on the two occasions to which I have referred, and I trust the Prime Minister will associate himself with the fight I have been putting up on behalf of these men.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group believe that the principle of family allowances paid for in their entirety by the national government is entirely sound, and therefore we will support this bill. However, that does not mean that we are entirely satisfied with all the provisions of the bill, but we will deal with them when we are in committee. Personally I am not very much impressed with most of the criticisms that have been levelled against this measure. For example, it is argued that one of the provinces will benefit to a greater extent than the others. The same people charge that this is a form of appeasement to Quebec. I do not think that is a fair criticism. If the principle of the bill is sound, and I believe it is, that these allowances should be paid as a right, then what difference does it make where children may live, whether they live in the east, west or centre. As time goes on, that is a situation which may very well change. After all, it is a situation that is fully under the control of the people residing in the respective provinces. They can change it as they so desire.
Then it is argued that this will mean a lowering of wages. I agree entirely with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he emphasizes the fact that that cannot be the case because it is always understood that an increase in purchasing power will tend to increase production, and1 that will tend to stimulate employment. Of course when you stimulate employment you strengthen wages. Then again it is argued that it may mean an increase in taxation. So far as that is concerned, I would say, not necessarily so. It will depend entirely on what the financial policy of the government may be after the war. If we are to try to go back to balanced budgets, then in all probability there will be an increase in taxation. Doctor Cyril James, chairman of the advisory committee on reconstruction, emphasized the fact that if we hoped to have full employment after the war we shall probably have to have an increase in the national debt for the next hundred years. Therefore there is no reason why there should be any increase in taxation.
What I do want to emphasize is the fact that if we do have an increase in taxation it will destroy the very thing we are trying to do by this bill, that is, increase the purchasing power of the people. I certainly hope there will be no attempt in this country to increase taxation on the lower income brackets, as has been done in New Zealand. We have a different situation in this country. We can provide

Family Allowances
a certain measure of social service at a high level without imposing taxation on the lower income brackets.
I wish to deal very generally with two or three principles of this bill. First of all, it is recognized that childrein are a valuable asset of a nation; therefore steps are needed to safeguard their welfare. It may be said that this is a somewhat niggardly step. Some people emphasize the fact, and I agree with them, that the scale of allowances for large families should be the same as for the small. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction. I can assure the Prime Minister that whenever legislation is brought into this house to improve the conditions of the people in any degree, those measures will always receive our support even though they do not go as far as we would like to see them go. It is to be hoped that this measure will be supplemented by many other measures that will help to improve the condition of the mothers and children of this nation.
Women are playing a large part to-day in the industrial life of the nation and I think many of these women will wish to continue to play that part after the war. Many young couples cannot afford to marry and have children unless both members of the family continue to work. Therefore I think better facilities will have to be provided in the future so that the children of young people who are working may be cared for. A more generous policy regarding education will have to be adopted. Greater aid will have to be afforded to the provinces by the federal government so that all children, no matter what the financial standing of their parents may be, will be able to go forward and take advantage of higher education.
. Tllis measure recognizes the fact that the internal buying power of the people will have to be raised. The Prime Minister referred to that in his speech. We in this group in the past have emphasized the fact that because of certain practices which are inherent in our capitalist system, industry has not been able to maintain an effective demand for its own production except in times of abnormal capital goods production, such as takes place in war-time or when a country is being newly developed. We are faced with one of two alternatives.
Either we must try to maintain large favourable balances of trade or carry out large foreign investments or, on the other hand, we must take steps to increase the purchasing power of the people. I think we realize that foreign investments cannot be looked upon as a long-term solution. When the countries to
which you lend money repay that money, then the country that has made the loan not only will have to accept imports in exchange for its exports but will also have to accept imports in payment of the loan. That further aggravates the situation which may exist.
I think it is generally recognized to-day that we must accept imports in payment for our exports. In the past we have looked upon foreign markets as a means of disposing of our production, as a means of exchanging our production for the production of other nations. In order to make it possible for us to exchange our production for the production of other nations we shall have to take the necessary steps to increase the purchasing power of the people to the point where we can at all times maintain an effective demand against the production of the country. Family allowances are just one of those steps that are necessary in order to increase the purchasing power of our people.
Large scale national projects will have to be introduced after the war. While the war is still continuing, the government should bring in as many new measures regarding social service as possible. As the Prime Minister has said on several occasions, unless the new social order is well on its way before the end of the war we may look for it in vain. Unless we can assure the people that we are really sincere when we talk about a new social order we may very well destroy the confidence of the people. That will have a great effect on the minds of the people as to what is going to happen after the war.
If, on the other hand, we can start now to bring down these essential reforms in the economic life of the country, I think we can hope to maintain confidence throughout the country and make the people realize that we really are sincere when wre pass such measures as the Atlantic charter. The Atlantic charter refers to all nations, and that, of course, includes Canada.
I could not. help being amused when I heard the Prime Minister refer to the allowances being a right and not a charity. I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister, but I recall in the depression years when members of this group suggested again and again that money should be paid outside the industrial system directly to the people we were taunted with the statement that we were advocating giving something for nothing. I am glad the same people are not making that charge today. I think we all realize the absolute need for measures of this kind. I can assure the Prime Minister that he will receive the full support of this group in connection with this and similar measures.
Family Allowances

This measure may be regarded as the thin end of the wedge, which will have to be steadily expanded. When we recall that to-day 50 per cent of the production of the nation is going for war purposes, then I think we can realize how greatly the purchasing power of the people of Canada will have to be expanded if we are to provide markets for the total production of the nation after the war.
We agree wholeheartedly with the point raised by the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mrs. Nielsen) in connection with allowances being paid to wives instead of to husbands. However, the discussion of that and other points I shall leave until we reach the committee stage.


Mr. J. ARMAND CHOQUETTE (Stan-stead) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in a speech which I made in this house on February 3 last., I reminded the government of the need of helping Canadian families whom economic conditions, more especially in peace time, prevent from giving their children proper care and education.
At the time, I said:
That is why we, the supporters of the Bloc Populaire, have included family allowances in our programme.
And referring to the speech from the throne in which the government announced it would introduce family allowances I added:
But let there be no infringement on the rights of the provinces because we bold autonomy as a sacred right.
We are against centralization. And, according to the spirit and letter of the British North America Act of 1867, these matters, for historical reasons known to all, come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Well, bill 161 (in sections 4, 5, 6 and subsections 2 and 10 of section 8) clearly sets forth the dominion government's absolute control over family allowances. It is granted the sole administration and distribution of these benefits. Under the provisions of this bill, the federal government alone will have the power of settling the terms of payment. People who might consider themselves wronged are prevented from appealing to ordinary courts, whether provincial or federal.
The proposed plan, moreover, empowers this government to interfere in a roundabout way with our provincial educational system, for subsection 2 of section 4 indirectly sets up compulsory education.
We were entitled to expect that the proposal would at least grant equal subsidies to all children; better still, one might have thought that, in order to remedy present inequalities,

the government would provide a scale of allowances rising in proportion to the number of children, that the allowance would be smaller for the first few because the head of the family is generally in a position to support them at least partially. Well, the proposed scheme works quite the opposite way. It grants the full amount to the. first four children and then progressively reduces the scale of payments for the others. The Rev. Father Lebel, S.J., general chaplain of the Catholic Farmers' Union, who has investigated this question for a number of years, writes as follows in La Terre de Chez Nous, issue of July 19, 1944. I quote from an article entitled "Equality or Inequality":
It follows that all the children of mediumsized Canadian families who, as a rule, could do without the allowances, will receive, in the course of a period of 192 months, during which they will be entitled to the payments, a sum of $1,188. In large families, the fifth child will get $192 less, or $996; the sixth and seventh will have their grants reduced by $384 and will receive only $804. As for the eighth and other children, their allowances will be less than half that of the first four, that is $576.
This is indeed an extraordinary way of understanding the equality of opportunity. One might even wonder whether the excerpt quoted at the beginning of the article is not a typographical error, meaning inequality of opportunity instead of "equality" as printed. Indeed, in view of the above figures, the equality of opportunity referred to in the resolution becomes a lurid joke which will surely not be appreciated by the heads of large families in the various Canadian constituencies and racial groups, especially in the agricultural class where a family of more than five children is just about the average.
The heads of large families will have the more reason to find this joke rather galling, because they realize the weight of the tax burden imposed on them by the d9minion government in opposition to the principle of distributive justice. All theologians, philosophers and sociologists contend that distributive justice demand that the legislate distribute taxes for the financial administration of the state according to the paying capacity of every citizen. On the other hand, it is evident that, for similar incomes, the citizen with no dependents enjoys greater resources than the head of a large family, who, however, is bearing the heaviest burden of consumer taxes. . . .
Many of -the countries which have established the allowance system, have adopted a uniform rate, but a majority of them have thought it preferable to set a progressive rate which sociologists have no difficulty to justify by adducing sound reasons:	.
"The family allowance", they say, "is a remuneration whose purpose is to help heads of families to fulfil their duties toward their children when they do not have enough resources to do so properly and to -the advantage of society.	...
"Now, the income of heads of families is generally sufficient to provide for the needs of the first children. That is why, in certain countries, the first and sometimes the second child have been excluded as regards the payment of the allowances.

Family Allowances
"In those cases where it has been decided to begin with -the first child, a rate was adopted which increases progressively up to the third or fourth child; thereafter, the rate remains uniform, because, in general, the salary is quite insufficient to cover the needs of each of the additional children."
Should Canada adopt a progressive rate rather than the uniform rate proposed by Dr. Marsh?
I, for one, am in favour of the establishment of a progressive or a uniform rate for family allowances, but the idea of establishing a decreasing rate is so foolish that no country has put it into practice so far. Nevertheless, I am in favour of the principle of this bill and I shall certainly not vote against it, because we have for a long time claimed that help should be extended to large families.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the debate this afternoon, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) quoted from my address of yesterday, as found on page 5343 of Hansard as follows:
It denies -the basic principle of social justice.
He then paused, and instead of completing the quotation proceeded to place a wholly erroneous interpretation upon the remarks I had made in support of the quoted contention.
I know that no hon. member would do so intentionally, but I cannot allow his words to replace my own, so far as my argument on that occasion is concerned.
Reference to Hansard's report of this afternoon's proceedings reveals that the hon. member stated that one of my objections to the measure was that it treated all people alike, leaving the clear inference that I desired to see favoured treatment accorded to some citizens as opposed to others. He then proceeded to criticize my alleged stand.
No such inference can properly be drawn from any remarks of mine, and I desire now to quote my exact words from yesterday's debate in this house. I said, at page 5343 of Hansard:
It denies the basic principles of social justice.
ch justice calls not for the mass treatment ot all people as the same, such as marked unemployment relief, but for treating life as it is, individually and the needs of families differently as they are different. The needs of a family in the winter in my part of Ontario are
different from those in the far north. Families in a teeming slum and families ill the Okanagan; families in the eastern townships and families in Cape Breton's mining or fishing villages, have very different needs. This scheme lumps them all together and gives the same grant to all. Could the injustice be more patently apparent?
Surely nothing could be plainer. The needs of families vary greatly. To pay every family of equal size and age the same amount, as this bill provides, is mass treatment of all people regardless of their widely different needs, some being vastly greater than others, and because of this, in the final result the bill does not treat all people alike. Equal allowances paid to families in unequal circumstances and conditions do not constitute equal treatment at all.
To draw any other inference from my remarks is but a play on words and does not represent the true intention of my remarks.


Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that a good deal of unnecessary controversy has grown up around this question of family allowances through the introduction of comparatively unessential side issues which themselves are much more debatable than the basic question at issue. I hope, therefore, that I may be forgiven if in the few words I have to offer I try to narrow the question down to the essential points at issue and to show that there is little or no room for argument as to the basic principle of the family allowances. Thereafter I might perhaps be permitted to offer a few personal suggestions, not as to the principle at stake, but as to the best means of attaining the object in view.
Permit me then to stipulate at the outset that this is not primarily a labour question; it is not primarily a capital question; it is not primarily an economic question or problem ; it is not even a farmer's problem. It is first and foremost a question of the welfare of our children. Do I have to prove that by lengthy logic? I dare anyone to suggest that the family allowance should be given in order to increase the income of the working man. I will go farther and say that any measure providing for family allowances should be accompanied by protective provisions which would prevent any unscrupulous person or group of persons from exploiting it as a sort of substitute for fair and honest wages.
Nor can anyone claim that giving allowances to heads of large families will solve any of the nation's economic woes; because, if that could be demonstrated, we would have then to admit that the late Hon. William Aberhart had an even better, because more far-reaching solution.
Family Allowances

Neither is it a women's question, except to the extent that our mothers are generally far more interested in the welfare of their children than in their own. The family allowance will neither relieve the discomforts of gestation nor greatly lighten the burden of bringing up the children, particularly that part of such burden -and it is by far the greater part-which devolves upon the mother.
It is essentially a children's problem. The basic purpose of the family allowance is to even up differences which should not exist, but which unfortunately do, between one child and another, if not at birth at least within half an hour after .birth, and to bring a little nearer to genuine, practical verity that noble principle laid down in the first national document of our great neighbour state to the south-that all men are bom free and equal; for, although it may be possible to produce arguments which will prove, in theory, that because prince and peasant alike come into the world naked and in need of a bath they are at that moment equal, yet I think it can be demonstrated that by the time the babies have gone home from hospital-supposing for the moment that they all were in a position to enjoy the privilege of entering the world in a nice bright hygienic hospital which, of course, is really not true-the inequalities already begin to show themselves.
One needs only to compare the meticulous care and- the lavish devotion which the whole family gives to the first-born with the relatively summary treatment accorded to the tenth to realize what I mean by that observation. My wife tells me that the second child has a great advantage over the first, because its parents know how to apply that triangular garment which is a baby's first introduction to conventional decency without sticking the pin into its tender flesh. With the exception, however, of the comparatively few who happen to drop down the chimney of a penthouse apartment or a sixteen-room mansion, all the subsequent children suffer a definite disadvantage as compared with the first two, and those who drop down the chimney of the west-end mansion have a distinct advantage over those who are born into a working man's home down east or a colonist's cabin up north in the backwoods. We cannot hope ever to wipe out all these inequalities. Some of us have good mothers and some of us have better mothers. Some have good fathers; others are not so good; and no amount of legislation will convert a bad father into a good one, or cause the good father to have more children than the bad one. The experience of other countries tends to show that

even family allowances do not have any noticeable effect on the number of children any group of parents will have. No law has yet been conceived that will change the old jesting adage, "The rich get richer and the poor get children". Whoever is to blame for that, of one thing we may be unanimously and entirely certain, it is not the fault of the children.
Hence, Mr. Speaker, it is definitely incumbent upon us to do what we can and all we can to see that the innocent do not suffer from a circumstance which may or may not result from some form of guilt. The one way in which we can best do that is, in my opinion, by providing the means whereby those children may enjoy the very best training and development of both their bodies and their minds, and that is where the family allowance comes into the picture.
The training and development of the body and the mind imply an abundance of good food, exercise, suitable clothing, sunshine, supervised play, medical, dental, ocular and psychiatric supervision, regular school attendance and adequate facilities for home study. Many of these things are given free throughout Canada, but still they are not equal. For instance, free education costs quite a bit more for a little boy in the city ini which I reside, in the division which I have the honour to represent in this house, than it does, for instance, in the city of Toronto, because climatic conditions make it more costly to dress a child so that he can go to school in safety and comfort in Montreal's ruder climate than it does in the Queen City. And still further north, in the neighbourhood of Chicoutimi and the lake St. John cities and towns, or in the northern mining towns of Ontario, it costs still more. Likewise God's glorious sunshine is free to all, but it costs money to buy the little garments which will let the baby get the benefit of the sunshine without shocking the neighbours.
We have free clinics and health centres in many parts of Canada. I hope to live to see the day when every corner of this great dominion will be equipped with the necessary staff and supplies to give medical and dental supplies to every child in the neighbourhood. But the child cannot make proper use of the advice there given unless the money is available to buy whatever is prescribed. When he leaves the hospital aged ten days, for instance, the hospital probably charges him twenty-five cents for his "formula". If his parents are poor, maybe the hospital will not charge anything, but the corner grocer and the drugstore will continue charging for that "formula"'

Family Allowances
until he is a year old or maybe older. What will happen if his parents have not the money to buy the stuff indicated on his "formula"?
When a family allowance is given to every child in the country, and when the family allowance is definitely earmarked to be expended exclusively and solely for the benefit of that child, these basic inequalities disappear. Some children may still enjoy the luxury of a private child specialist, while others have to go to the baby welfare, but they will both be weighed on the same kind of scales and both will be able to get the foods and formulae that the doctor advises, because they will both have a little monthly allowance specially earmarked for that purpose. There may still grow up a generation of men and women


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member reading his speech? I ask because much objection was taken last night to an hon. member of our party reading his speech. It looks as though the hon. member is reading his speech, and, if so, I object strenuously to it.


Gaspard Fauteux: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. friend interrupted me. Because I am speaking in English-it is very hard-I am reading my speech. As my hon. friend knows, I am a French-Canadian, and I believe that in spite of the fact that we can speak both French and English in this house, I must talk English to be understood, so that I talk English.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I still rise to a point of order. Regardless of whether the hon. member speaks French or English, there is a rule for everybody in this house, and I would ask Your Honour to decide whether or not the hon. member is reading his speech, because last night one of the outstanding members of the Liberal party who is always ready to criticize others rose in his place in this house and criticized one of our members for reading his speech. I told him last night that from now on, when anybody on the other side of the chamber reads his speech, I am going to object to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Gaspard Fauteux: I will obey the rules of this house and I will not read my speech any more. I will, however, ask the house to be generous enough to let me continue in French, and I may be able to sell a few ideas to my hon. friend which it will be too bad that he will not understand, but which he can see tomorrow in Hansard.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, in order to comply with the rules of this house, I shall
put aside the speech which I had carefully prepared for the benefit both of this house and of the constituents whom it is my privilege to represent. However, I shall revert to my mother tongue for I admit frankly that I shall thus express myself with much greater ease and, if I may say so in all modesty, my speech will be more forceful than if I were to speak in a language with which I am not thoroughly conversant. However, I shall be compelled to set aside the arguments which I had started to expound.
Since the present measure has been submitted to the house, we have heard very interesting arguments. The various political groups have approved with some qualification the principle of the bill. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of challenging some of the uncalled for remarks which were made during this debate. A moment ago, I touched upon the subject of national unity. I take the liberty of bringing it up because it is with deep regret and dismay that I have heard certain remarks made by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). I am sorry those remarks were made for, as I have stated previously in this house, I prize more highly national unity than the seat -which I hold or my political career or even the party to which I have the honour of belonging.
Before broaching this subject, I am anxious to take all necessary precautions because I much prefer winning over my opponents with a smile to insulting them. I wish to be cautious, as I am fully aware of the fact that the hon. member for Parkdale is a prominent medical practitioner and that he has played an outstanding part in the civil administration of his province, nevertheless I deem it my duty to challenge at least some of the remarks which he made in this house yesterday in regard to my province. I wish to quote the part of his speech to which I take exception:
Mr. Bruce:	I would ask, Mr. Speaker,
whether it would be improper to suggest that it may have some connection with an election in an adjoining province, when it is hoped that this bill will assist the return of a Liberal government. That province because of its large families will derive the greatest benefit from this measure, at the expense of the other provinces, particularly Ontario, which pays one-half of the taxes of Canada.
And further on he stated:
I am afraid that if these cash payments are to be made on this basis they will not fulfil their objective, for the money will not go to the provinces which did most of the fighting and suffered most of the casualties.
Family Allowances

I could quote further excerpts from the speech of the hon. member for Parkdale, but these are sufficient. Is it possible that such a distinguished member of the house should even think of criticizing this bill whereby the government of this country seeks to help large families, whereby it expects to help young children who did not ask to be brought into the world, whereby it seeks to increase the birth rate? Is it possible that a physician who has undoubtedly received in his office expectant mothers worrying over the birth of their child and wondering if they would have enough money for its care and support, could criticize this bill which may help a province in which there are large families, under the pretence that it has not, as he claims, done its full share in support of the war effort.
Mr. Speaker, could there be anything more humiliating and disheartening for all those members of the province of Quebec who sit in this house and who have supported wholeheartedly the war effort of the government and of this country? Could there be anything more humiliating for all those members of Quebec who have done their utmost in all parts of the province to bring home to our people the importance of getting behind the government and the country in this tremendous war effort so that we may achieve victory. But, Mr. Speaker, can the loyalty of the province of Quebec be judged by the few extremists who give the impression that Quebec is not one hundred per cent behind the war effort? Would we be justified in believing that all Canadians are against the province of Quebec because a few extremists in Ontai'io or elsewhere criticize our province?
Mr. Speaker, this legislation should afford us much satisfaction. I, for one, am pleased with it; not only for the province of Quebec, but for all Canada. I was pleased to hear last night what the Eight Honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had to say in reply to certain charges uttered by people who said that this bill had been introduced in the house as a bribery, to use their own expression, in view of the next dominion election, or, again, to help Mr. Godbout in his Quebec election campaign. I commend the prime minister for having brought down this measure in the interests not only of the province of Quebec but of Canada as a whole. As was so aptly said, nothing could be more necessary, nothing could be more useful to this country than children. Some people would like to see Canada increase its population through immigration, but nothing that the governments might do could be more helpful than family allowances. They will thus increase the birth

rate and ensure to newborn children health, clothing, shelter, education and everything they need.
It has also been said that this measure would perhaps help Mr. Godbout to be reelected. Well, Mr. Speaker, since the subject has been broached, I say that, to my mind, every Canadian, irrespective of his party affiliation, every Canadian who is really in favour of harmony and national unity in this country, must wholeheartedly desire the reelection of Mr. Godbout, who is the only one among the three Quebec party leaders who is fully behind Canada's war effort and who truly supports every movement in favour of national unity and harmony in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not been too fiery and that it will be understood that I do not want charges to be wrongfully levelled against my province, no more than I would tolerate that people from my province should level accusations against another. I believe that all provinces have heeded the call of duty, that all have done their share by giving their sons, their money and their toil in support of this country's war effort. Instead of criticizing each other let us be tolerant. I shall conclude by quoting these words from a Quebec statesman which I would like to hear more frequently in this house and elsewhere, and which, to my mind, should be adopted as a motto in the interests of unity from one end of the country to the other:
Fellow Canadians, let us put a stop to our internecine strife; let us unite!
(Text):


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I fully support the measure for family allowances; in fact I did so quite a few months ago in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At that time I said the following about family allowances:
I welcome the promises of far-reaching reforms contained in the speech from the throne. Without such reforms ... we cannot hope to have national unity. The promise of family allowances is good. . . . But family allowances must not replace measures for increased wages for labour. Family allowances must not become a bonus to employers, but must be a few extra dollars to people whereby they can buy more milk and more nutrition for their families.
I made that speech four days after I had the honour of coming into this house as a member. Even at that time there were certain leaders of trade unions who had made remarks against family allowances. Despite the fact that I felt some of them might attack me for my attitude, I believed that my position was the correct one. I was very much surprised that trade union leaders should have

Family Allowances
made remarks against family allowances. It was not a problem of my position; it was not a problem of any one labour leader; it was the problem of the Canadian people. I considered from the start that family allowances were in the best interests of the people as a whole. But not long ago, in fact only last month I was again surprised to read certain remarks made by certain leaders of trade unions, remarks which I hope they made after not too much thinking. I hope they have changed their minds with regard to the statements they made on June 22.
J. W. Buckley, secretary of the Toronto trades and labour council, is quoted by the Ottawa Journal of June 22 as saying:
Aid to families with children is unnecessary if the wage-earners of the families make decent wages. All organized labour has flatly opposed grants which subsidize poverty and low wages and undermine incentive to self-improvement of living conditions.
I do not know what prompted Mr. Buckley to make such a statement. He is a mature, responsible labour leader.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He was right.


Fred Rose: You would agree with that.


Mr. GRANT:: He must be a Tory.


Fred Rose: No, he is not. The fact is, I
would say, that Mr. Buckley had not thought very seriously about the problem when he made that statement.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He has fought labour
battles longer than any labour leader in this house.


Fred Rose: I would say that any mature
labour leader knows that organized labour will look after the problem of wages. A strong trade union movement has always been the best guarantee for good wages and conditions.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Have they done that in
Quebec?


Thomas Vien: Order.


Fred Rose: Our organized trade unions
have done much more for the workers in the province of Quebec than, any loud-mouthed group have done. I have said that in the past in this house. On the other hand, what I found most regrettable in Mr. Buckley's remarks is the following:
This looks like a subsidization of one province by the others, deduction from the paj envelopes of Ontario and the rest of Canada to maintain low standards and wages in Quebec.
I am not surprised when such statements come from some of the hon. members to my right, but I am shocked when such remarks
come from a leader of a trade union movement, because I -have found in the trade union movement the best instrument in the fight for Canadian unity. I have known of cases where workers from one province would come to the aid of workers in another province when they were involved in a battle for better conditions. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour have taken the stand that wages in Quebec should be the same as wages elsewhere in Canada. I am, therefore, quite shocked to find a labour leader resorting to the argument that this is to subsidize Quebec at the expense of the rest of Canada. Practically a similar statement was made by another leader, C. H. Millard, according to the same issue of the Ottawa Journal. He said:
That allowances will serve under the present circumstances as an indirect subsidy to employers in the textile and other low paid industries.
Labour will welcome family allowances. Labour will strengthen its ranks in its trade union movement. Labour will welcome all progressive social security measures. Organized labour will win minimum wage scales which will be much higher than they are at the present time. I have much confidence that such changes will come about. I have even more confidence, after the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this house yesterday that labour will be even more reassured. I was very much pleased to hear that fighting speech, a speech that I considered to be in line with the new times. There is no sense in anyone trying to say that this is politics, or that somebody wants to play politics. This is a change that has taken place all over the world. The whole world is marching forward, and, as I said before, those who do not want to go forward will be left behind. It is happening all around us and we in Canada must realize that we have no Chinese wall around us. We, too, are affected by the changes that are taking place in the world and, no matter from what part of the house reform measures come, we must welcome them, no matter what party introduces them. None of us has any monopoly on reform. If others want to introduce them we welcome them because the people will welcome them.
I was not surprised to hear some of the hon. members opposing the measure by threatening the people of Canada with bureaucracy. In fact I said that in my speech on reconstruction. In that speech I said that certain elements will come out and speak against reform measures because they are going to be carried through by a bureaucracy. I foretold that a few weeks ago. Yesterday I was
Family Allowances

confirmed in my statement. In, this war certain measures were necessary to carry on the war effort. I would say that if in the future some measures of control are necessary, if those controls will be in the interests of the people, the people will accept them. That is the only way to look at the problem. What the people want are measures of reform. If those measures of reform mean that the people will have to pay a little more in taxes, they will pay them if the reform brings social security. They will accept, if necessary, a certain amount of rationing if that is in their interest. That is the way we must regard the problem. The period of freebootery, as Vice-President Wallace calls it, is not now; that period is over. Government intervention will be necessary in order to fill the gap, to give jobs and security to the people. I consider family allowances as one of the finest means to create employment.
The people who receive this money will not put it away in the bank. The people who receive this money will not spend it on travel overseas or for luxuries. The money they receive will be paid into the stores. It will be paid into the tailor shops to buy clothing. Then the tailor will pay it to somebody else and the money will circulate. That is the best part of it all, and that is why it will create more employment than would $200,000,000 spent in any other way.
Family allowances will strengthen rather than weaken national unity. It will not weaken it, as the house leader of the Progressive Conservative party has said. Why will it strengthen it? There cannot be national unity when one group does not enjoy the same privileges as a group somewhere else. National unity is not something you can play with. You cannot create national unity by just talking about it. You will not get it in that way. We need new ways that will make our people feel that they are equal to the citizens of Ontario or the citizens of British Columbia. That is the way to get national unity. Give the people an opportunity to feel that here is a government that considers their plight and is taking measures to remedy it. That will give them faith in democracy. That is the way to approach the problem of national unity.
It is unfortunate that we have people who say that family allowances are being used to subsidize Quebec. It is not to subsidize Quebec; it is to subsidize Canadians who need these subsidies. What do the large families of Quebec do? Do they sit back? Do they play around all the time? Do they not produce for Canada. Have not the farmers' sons and daughters of Quebec gone

into the factories to produce the weapons of war? Who has filled the most shells in this country? It is the sons and daughters of Quebec. Who has built tanks and guns for our army? The sons and daughters of Quebec. They are doing useful work. Why try to divide the country and -say that these family allowances are to subsidize one province? We must think of our people as Canadians and stop thinking of them as people of Ontario and people of Quebec.
I do not want to speak much longer on this point. I came across a very fine editorial in Saturday Night dealing with family allowances and referring to those people who say that family allowances is a sop to or a subsidy for Quebec. 'I do not know who wrote this editorial, but it sounds like Sandwell's language. He has a very fine approach toward the problem of the unity of Canada. The editorial reads:
We shall 'have a Canadian nation only when we can feel, pretty generally, that a Canadian child is a Canadian child and entitled to certain economic advantages, whether he is French or Scottish or Ukrainian by racial origin, whether he is in Quebec or Alberta, whether he is the son of a Roman Catholic or a Lutheran or even a Marxian communist. We can hasten that time, or we can defer it, by our attitude on this legislation.
I agree wholeheartedly with the attitude expressed in that editorial.
There are a few things in the bill I am not too sure about. The hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) referred to the different rates for different ages. I have one child and I know that a young child needs special food. Younger children require entirely different foods from those required by grown-ups. Special canned foods that are put out for small children are quite expensive. Codliver oil is expensive. I was surprised the other day when I had to pay $4 to $5 for a pair of shoes for a small child. And then a small child will kill a pair of shoes in no time at all. Considering it from that point of view, I cannot understand why $5 should be paid for younger children and $8 for the older.
A complicated accounting system will be necessaiy. Considering it from all angles, I would say it would be worth while to have a flat rate of $S for all children. In supporting this measure I make an appeal to all. We should put the measure through as soon as possible and let the people of Canada feel that no group in Canada stands in the way of a measure so necessary for the welfare of the country.
If anyone has any doubt as to the effect of family allowances upon health, I should like to give some figures which were furnished me

Family Allowances
by a prominent French-Canadian doctor in Montreal. They give the rate of infant mortality in the different parts of the city. In the east end, where the poorer people live, the rate was 81-2 per hundred thousand live births. In Notre Dame de Grace, where we have the middle-class, the rate was 49 per hundred thousand live births. Then in West-mount, where the wealthy live, the rate is 30. The difference in these rates is due to the difference in incomes. I hope that family allowances will help to make up part of those differences. Family allowances is just one of the many measures that should be passed to give everyone in Canada a greater opportunity to live and live happily.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Hal ton):: Mr. Speaker, before entering into a discussion with respect to the arguments which have been advanced by two members of the Conservative party in opposition to family allowances, I should like to take a moment to outline the nature of the plan. Under this plan it is proposed that cheques will go monthly to the parents of all children under the age of sixteen years. These payments will be $5 a month with respect to all children under six years of age; $8 a month with respect to children under ten years of age; $7 a month with respect to children under 13 years of age, and S8 a month with respect to all children over 13 years of age. These monthly cheques for family allowances are to be paid to every parent in Canada. Rich or poor-everyone is to receive his cheque.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no; it is predicated upon their income position.


Hughes Cleaver: I wonder if the hon. member for Waterloo South will be content to wait a moment. It should be said at once that those who do not need the family allowances will not profit financially from the cheques they receive. This result will, I believe, meet with almost universal approval in Canada, even though it may not meet with the approval of the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I just wish to keep the record straight.


Hughes Cleaver: You just wanted to talk,
I fancy. As I view the situation, the government had two options. One option was that everyone would receive a payment, and that no means test would be required. No one would be placed in the embarrassing or uncomfortable position of having to account from time to time with respect to his financial position, or need for the payments. All of that was brushed aside in the forthright scheme
and proposal we now have before us. Under it everyone is to receive payment; and so far as the family allowances bill is concerned, there are no restrictions in that regard.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no, no.


Hughes Cleaver: But when the taxpayer makes up his income tax return and when he asks for dependents' allowance with respect to his children, then he must deduct from the amount of the dependents' allowance which he claims under the income tax law the amount he has received by way of family allowance cheques. I do not know of any finer manner in which the desired result could be obtained. We are not subjecting anyone to a means test. This money is not, however, being wasted. It will be paid to everyone, but will be kept only by those who need it.
There has been quite a little discussion in the press, some of it very misleading, as to just what the benefits are. I should like to take time for a moment or two to place those benefits on record. Much has been said about large families in Canada. I should like, therefore, to place upon the record the maximum amount of family allowances payable with respect to a family of fifteen children which, I take it, would be the maximum family, unless there were dual or triple births. This is a table showing the amount of payments to the fifteen children at their respective ages:
Child No. 1		Years of age 	 15 		Payment per month , $8
No. 2			8
No. 3	
13 ...	sNo. 4	
12 	
7No. 5	
11	oNo. 6	
10 ,	5No. 7	
9 ,	4No. 8	
8 .	3No. 9	No. 10	
6 ...	3No. 11	
5 .	2No. 12	
4 .	oNo. 13	
3 ,	2No. 14	
2 	2No. 15	
i 	
2
The total monthly payment with respect to that family of fifteen amounts to $65.
I should like next to put on the record-and I am coming back to this for the benefit of my hon. friend who has interrupted-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but would he answer a question? I believe it is pertinent to what he is saying.


Hughes Cleaver: I shall be glad to do so.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Supposing that family is in a province where the compulsory school
Family Allowances

age is fourteen years of age or under, and the children are earning money; what is the situation then?


Hughes Cleaver: I will let my hon. friend worry himself with the answer to that juestion.
Mr. H-OMUTH: I am not worrying.


Hughes Cleaver: I am just going to refer him to something that happened 110 years ago.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, listen, we are looking to 1947.


Hughes Cleaver: In 1833 the first factories act was passed, and the government of the day thought they were making very good progress when they passed that act, which provided that no child under nine years of age should be employed in a factory, and provided further that the hours of labour for children from nine to thirteen years should be limited to forty-eight hours a week, and those of children from thirteen to eighteen should be limited to sixty-nine hours a week. I would suggest that my hon. friend read Hansard as to what took place when that act was passed. I am going to let him answer his own problems.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That was before we were born.


Hughes Cleaver: I should like to place on Hansard a record as to the maximum amounts which different sized families could receive under the family allowances bill. The amounts are as follows:
No. of children	Maximum amount
in family	received yearly
1		 $ 96
3	    288
5	  444
7	  552
9	  624
11	  684
13	  732
15	  780
At this point I should like to answer one argument advanced in opposition to the measure, an argument which has been suggested by a question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo South. It will be noticed from these figures that the maximum amount the large family of fifteen could obtain, the large family we have heard so much about, is S7S0 a year. If we go to the province of Ontario and take the normal family of five children found in that province, and divide those fifteen Quebec children I have just been talking about among three families of five in Ontario, what would they receive? The payments in respect of those same fifteen

children in Ontario would be, not $780 a year but $1,128, or an increase of $348. I think that has some bearing on the argument.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It has no bearing at all; what are you trying to get at?


Thomas Vien: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: It is also provided in the bill that family allowances are not income for purposes of income tax. The estimated cost of the plan is somewhere between $250,000,000 and $260,000,000 annually, from which it is estimated that there will be a rebate of $50,000,000 in round figures.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: By taxation.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member
must allow the hon. gentleman who is now speaking to speak without interruption. I must insist that the hon. member do not interrupt again.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
but he is so wrong that I felt I ought to correct him.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman will
have an opportunity of making his reply if he so wishes, but the hon. gentleman who is now speaking has the floor and must have it uninterrupted.


Hughes Cleaver: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but if any hon. member at any time wishes to ask a question and has the courtesy to rise in his place I shall be glad to answer it.
I was saying that the total cost will range between $250,000,000 and $260,000,000 annually, and it is estimated that roughly $50,000,000 will come back by way of income tax, so that this amount should be deducted in order to arrive at the net cost of the plan to Canada.
I want to say right here that nothing has taken place since I first came into this house after the 1935 elections which has given me greater pleasure than the opportunity which I now have of supporting this family allowance measure. When I think of the benefits in the form of human happiness that will flow from this bill I feel that the entire nine years would have been well spent if I had done nothing other than simply be here in the ninth year to support this measure. Those of us who are in this house are past the age when anything can be done to benefit us by way of improved nutrition, further education or anything of that sort; but the young children of to-day-[DOT] and I have in mind particularly the very young-are at an age where, if they do not receive sufficient nutritious food, their lives may be ruined. Any child who is denied the benefits of modern educational facilities starts

Family Allowances
unfairly handicapped in the struggle of life. When I think of the fact that what we are doing now by this bill will ensure to every Canadian child sufficient proper food, sufficient clothing and decent housing conditions, I repeat again that we cannot estimate the wealth of human happiness that will flow directly from this measure.
Practically all the discussion down to thg present has centred on the factory worker. I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that Canada is an agricultural country. One-half of the people in my riding live on farms, and one-half of the children in my riding who would benefit from this family allowance are children who are being brought up on farms. We all know what a small cash income the 100-acre farmer engaged in mixed farming has. We know what this should mean to a farmer with four small children who is struggling along and just getting by in making his payments on his mortgage, paying his taxes and trying to rear his children. Think of what an extra $440 a year coming in in cash, and coming in in such a way that none of it can be taken from him, will mean to that man.
_ I like this plan. I like this type of legislation because to me it is an honest and sincere facing up to the facts of life in this country. Whether we like it or not, there are people in Canada who, on account of their mental equipment or on account of their preferred standing in life at birth, or who perhaps because they are a little more selfish than the rest of us, yearly take unto themselves considerably more than their just share of the national income. In addition to that, there are corporations which by monopoly control, by patent rights which they own, by unfair practices of big business or otherwise, take to themselves much more of the national income in the way of profits than they should. What is the result? The result is that we have many people in Canada to-day-and it was very noticeable during the depression-who are in the low income groups and have not enough to live on.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You belong to the government. Why did you allow it?


Hughes Cleaver: If my hon. friend had paid me the compliment of paying a little attention to some of the speeches I have made, instead of indulging in this type of interruption


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have listened.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are the rulings you make rulings that should be followed?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Minister of Justice does not have to dictate any of the rules of the house to me. I know the rules of the house much better than he does. I have been here much longer than he has.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. gentleman does not make that apparent.


Thomas Vien: I have already called attention to the fact that the hon. member has continued to interrupt the speech of the hon. gentleman who has the floor. I hope I shall not have to call his attention to that again.


Hughes Cleaver: Let me give my hon. friend an example. If he will refer back to a speech I made not so long ago in this house he will get some further information out of it. Does my hon. friend know that $1,000 invested in the stock of- Imperial Oil in 1914 was, at the date I made that speech, paying $1,600 a year in dividends?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, I know that.


Hughes Cleaver: That stock had been split seventy-two for one between 1914 and the time I made that speech. I mention that in illustration of the remark I made a moment ago, which my hon. friend questioned, that there are some clever individuals, some corporations, in this country, taking to themselves so much more than their fair share of the annual national wealth that there is not enough left for the little fellow in the lower income brackets to feed and clothe and house his family properly. This measure is facing up to the fact.
This war has taught us many things. One is that the distribution of income among the people is most important, especially in time of war. Mr. Speaker, if you will take the national income of Canada, which was $8-8 billion last year, and deduct from that the $2-7 billion colic-cited in taxes, .andi deduct the almost $3 billion collected from the people in victory loans, you will have left of national income in the hands of the spending people in this country, a residual amount that is a little more than the national income was at the depth of the depression. Yet in Can-ada to-day we appear to be reasonably prosperous. The lower income-tax groups are getting along well; they are earning good wages. We appear to be reasonably prosperous; and yet back in the thirties, with very little more net income than the net income of 1943, what do we find? Hundreds of thousands out of work, in distress; families on relief, and the like. The only difference that I can see is the fact that as a result of our financial measures-the excess profits tax, income tax in the high brackets,
Family Allowances

and all these other things-we have effected a more equitable distribution of the national income in time of war, and that is why we appear to be reasonably prosperous to-day; whereas in the depression, with very little more national income, we were having very difficult times and hundreds of thousands of our people were going through experiences quite as distressing as, or more so than, war.
For these reasons I have a suggestion to make to the government. I should like to see the government go the whole way and collect by way of excess profits tax the money required for family allowances. I am not suggesting that the Excess Profits Tax Act, which is a war measure, should be continued in its present form, but I suggest that it be revised and brought into shape as a permanent peace-time measure, and I would use the money that would be taken from big companies and others under the Excess Profits Tax Act to pay family allowances, so that we would know that we were doing what we planned to do by this measure. It is simply a transfer of wealth to the tune of S200 million from the pockets of those who do not need it to the pockets of those who need it very badly. I would go farther. I would keep that tax in a separate fund, and, as it increased, as it would with the increased prosperity of this country, I would increase family allowances to the full extent which the excess profits tax returns would permit.
May I turn for a moment to some of the arguments which have been advanced by two members of the Progressive Conservative party in opposition to the present measure. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) stated yesterday, as reported in Hansard, at page 5342 as follows, in enumerating the various objections which his party has to this measure:
3. It adds a further strain on our national unity. There is but one province which has maintained the high birth rate and large family which was so characteristic of Canada's pioneer strains.
I wish also to read from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment, because I have something to say to him, but I must say it whether he is here or not. He made this statement-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What page?


Hughes Cleaver: Hansard, page 5365:
This bill will result in many cases in bonusing families who have been unwilling to defend their country.
Further, on the same page:
Why should a hard working man who has planned a normal sized family have to curtail

his wishes because he is heavily taxed in order to help to support a large family of shiftless people . . . ?
Then, referring back to page 5363:
That province-
Referring to Quebec.
-because of its large families will derive the greatest benefit from this measure, at the expense of the other provinces, particularly Ontario, which pays one-half of the taxes of Canada.
I think the time has arrived when we must face up to this sort of thing. I have never done anything knowingly to light racial fires, to stir up disunity in this country, and from time to time I have taken from the other side of the house quite a bit in that regard that I did not like. Last night I interrupted, because I thought the hon. member making a speech of that kind should at least conform to the rules of the house and make his own speech, instead of reading one which somebody else had written.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Now wait a minute. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member whom the member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) is accusing of having read a speech which someone else had written for him is not in his seat at the moment. The hon. member has no right to make that accusation unless he has proof of the fact. Either he must produce proof that the hon. member was reading a speech which someone else wrote, or withdraw the statement.


Mr. GARDINER:: You are not in your seat, either.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask the hon. member to do one thing or the other.


Hughes Cleaver: There is no point of order about that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The point of order is that the hon. member has made an accusation against another hon. member. He should either * prove his statement that the hon. member was reading a speech written by someone else or withdraw the accusation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the rules you cannot speak from that seat at all.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I speak for a lot of people.


Hughes Cleaver: On a question of privilege to-morrow the hon. member, if he says he wrote the speech himself, can rise in his place in the house and say so, but there is no point of order other than that.

Family Allowances


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order and I ask your ruling on this. There is at least some semblance of order in this house, even though some of us are out of order once in a while. The hon. member made an accusation against another hon. member, and he must either justify the truth of that accusation or withdraw it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has called attention to what he considers is an accusation against another hon. member. I think the fact of his drawing the matter to the attention of the house will bring to the notice of the hon. member who is accused that he may of his own volition take the steps which are usual in such cases.


Hughes Cleaver: As I was saying when I was interrupted, what annoyed me last night and what caused the interruption was the fact that I thought the hon. member was reading a speech which someone else had written, coupled with the fact that the speech had the contents which I have just read. So far as I am concerned, I am not going to sit idly by and let any member of this house, not even the member for Waterloo North-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Waterloo South.


Hughes Cleaver: -attempt to raise racial-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Waterloo North would be very proud of that.


Hughes Cleaver: - attempt to sow discord and disunity in this country. There is one party in Canada whose leader, outside the house to-day, is doing a lot of that kind of thing, and the infection has spread and reached the House of Commons. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, of the leader of a party, on a social measure such as family allowances, dragging in the racial issue? He called attention to the fact that the birthrate in Quebec was higher than the birthrate elsewhere.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What leader outside the house did that?


Hughes Cleaver: Were those words uttered for any other purpose than to raise racial fire, racial hatred? If they were uttered for any other purpose I will give my hon. friend the opportunity right now to give the other reason. I say that it could not have been for any other reason.
What are the facts in regard to this legislation? The present measure with its reducing scale, after you reach the family of four, obviously takes the family of four as the typical Canadian family. When the family is larger than four in number the monthly payments per child drop sharply, with the result that in the province of Quebec the total
cost of this family allowance measure monthly, it is estimated, will be $6,709,000. Then, when you move into Ontario, what is the cost? The same-$6,068,000.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Has he also taken into consideration the amount of income tax returns from those two payments, $6 million in one province and $6 million in the other?


Hughes Cleaver: No; but thank you for reminding me about the income tax.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I thought I would help your speech.


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friends opposite are very much interested in raising these points periodically about the means test and what-not, but I have yet to hear any member of that party advocate that the children's allowance with respect to income tax, to the man earning $25,000 a year, should disappear. Think that one over.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Knock that straw man down.


Hughes Cleaver: It is quite apparent, from the terms of this bill and the resulting cost, that an honest effort has been made to hold the scales level with respect to all the provinces, and it is most unfair that criticism should be made in that regard without a statement of the facts. My hon. friends in the Conservative opposition, I say, raised this racial issue for one reason, and for one reason only. They have nothing to lose in Quebec. Why, bless you, this time they will not even lose their deposits!


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, you certainly will. Don't worry.


Hughes Cleaver: They have no candidates in Quebec. They have nothing to lose in Quebec, but they think that by raising this racial issue they are going to gain a few votes in Ontario. What do you think of a major party which would have utter disregard for unity in Canada, in a time of war, just in order to make a few votes at a coming election? The family allowance scheme, I submit, has been justly and fairly thought out. Every province will benefit and benefit fairly by it.
I now come to the next point raised by the opposition and that is another objection raised by the hon. member for Peel. Listen to this: "9. It denies the basic principles of social justice", because it treats everybody alike. We are told that we have a new Conservative party, that they have a new name, a new leader and a new platform. They would lead
Family Allowances

us to believe; they want us to believe, that they have given up all their old Tory ideas of preference for the rich and the like. What do we find? Yesterday their leader came out and denounced the measure as opposed to the basic principles of social justice because it treats everyone alike.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member ought to be fair. If he is going to quote any part of that particular clause he ought to quote it all. Let us be fair about it.


Hughes Cleaver: I will read the entire sentence.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is a good idea.


Hughes Cleaver: "This scheme lumps them ill together and gives the same grant to all."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Go ahead and read the rest.


Hughes Cleaver: What do you think of tliat? It does not give preference to the rich; it treats everyone alike; therefore it is opposed to social justice.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member puts an interpretation upon it that is not fair. Let him read the whole clause.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member will have his opportunity and he may review the arguments which the hon. gentleman is making.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I certainly will.


Hughes Cleaver: Then we come to the next argument, that the parents cannot be trusted with the money. There is nothing new in that argument.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who said that?


Hughes Cleaver: That argument has 'been advanced many times.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who said it?


Hughes Cleaver: I say that it has been advanced many times in opposition, that you should not increase wages because the man would spend the money unwisely.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, nonsense!


Hughes Cleaver: It certainly is nonsense.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Nonsense!


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friends in the opposition have a right to their opinions. If they distrust the parents of children in this country, if they do not believe that the father and mother of children think more of those children than anyone else, I am not to blame. They are to blame for so thinking.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You are raising the bogey,
not we.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friend says that I am raising the bogey. I say that my hon. friend's party-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Where?


Hughes Cleaver: -have expressed their opposition to this measure because there is no assurance that the money will benefit the children; it may go to the beer parlour.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will you please prove that.


Hughes Cleaver: I will.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: All right; prove it.


Hughes Cleaver: I shall be glad to give a quotation. Bracken House, you know, has been very busy.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You can't find it; I may have it here.


Hughes Cleaver: Does my hon. friend disown the Ottawa Citizenf


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Ottawa Citizen? I
never owned it.


Hughes Cleaver: Let me read from an
editorial of July 4, which states in part:
But the family allowance scheme of the Prime Minister will not benefit them.
Referring to the children.
It contains no guarantee that a single nickel will go to improve the lot of the children.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Where is that quotation
from?


Hughes Cleaver: I am reading from an
editorial that appeared on July 4.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In what paper?


Hughes Cleaver: The Ottawa Citizen. All I have to say in reply to that argument is this. If my hon. friends of the Conservative opposition think that this money will be spent unwisely by the parents, that it will go to the beer parlours and that the money should go into social services, the^ have a right to their opinion. But I have a right to mine. I trust the parents of this country. I know that at least ninety-nine per cent of them will spend the money wisely on additional food, proper clothing and better housing conditions for their families.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I believe in a hundred per cent of them.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Hughes Cleaver: I wonder if I get any credit for the interruptions?

Family Allowances


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not a bit.


Hughes Cleaver: I shall just take up one short matter and leave the rest for another occasion.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Give us one more gibe.


Hughes Cleaver: It is quite obvious that the word has gone out that this measure must be beaten at all costs. Articles have appeared in the press directly contrary to the fact, throwing out the idea that Great Britain is opposed to family allowance, at least, based upon the Beveridge plan. To anyone who wishes to look up the matter I would refer them to the parliamentary debates of the House of Commons of February 16, 1943, which entirely repudiates that statement. That statement has appeared editorially in many papers in Canada. I do not know how they could all be infected at once were it not for the fact that this information emanated from one source. I suggest that it was the Bracken House.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Prove that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You might have said it yourself.


Hughes Cleaver: A long article was written by-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Your time is up.


Hughes Cleaver: -Miss Charlotte Whitton. In this article there is an analysis of what will happen with respect to two different incomes. The first income taken is that of a married man earning $1,500 a year, and after a long-winded explanation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Your time is up.


Hughes Cleaver: -the article purports to show that that person will be out $68. I say that is a deliberate untruth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Your time is up.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Clarence Gillis: It is a difficult task to make a speech on this particular measure at this stage of the debate, because so many good speeches have been made and the subject matter has been pretty well canvassed. The thing that makes it most difficult is the lack of opposition to the measure, particularly vocal opposition. We know there are a lot of hon. members to the right who are ready to oppose the measure as indicated by the statements of their leaders in the house and in the country, but so far as taking part in the general debate is concerned they are conspicuous to-day by
their silence. However, I did not rise to quarrel with them, but I should like to have some idea of the particular angle of the measure on which they base their opposition.
In opening the debate on the bill I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) struck a keynote that is long overdue in Canada. It was gratifying, to the members of this group at least, to hear the Prime Minister make the categorical statement that our human resources were more important than our natural resources. That is a trend of thought that is long overdue in this country. It is the basic philosophy of the movement that I represent in this house. In his statement the Prime Minister elaborated that philosophy to some considerable extent. I think the time has come in Canada for us to decide definitely on two matters in allocating the wealth of this country in the future. I think, and the members of this group think, and have so expressed themselves on many occasions, that the first charge against that wealth should be the care of the aged. The people who are responsible for whatever measure of success Canada has had since confederation, the old pioneers of the country, the people who are responsible for giving us the democratic institutions through which we discuss and bring forward legislation of this kind should be our first care. The first charge on the wealth of the country should be adequate provision for those who made the nation possible and gave us what we have to-day. In line with the Prime Minister's thoughts in expressing the sentiments he did when presenting this measure to the house, I think it is a matter on which we must come to some definite conclusions in the near future. There must be more adequate care for the aged people of this country. Second in importance to that is, I think, the measure now before the house, and the basic principle upon which it is framed. The second charge against the wealth of the country should be the care of the young children, those who are going to take this country forward in the future.
If we are to have in the future a nation that we can be proud of, then we shall have to correct the mistakes of the past with respect to the treatment of the young. One of the reasons why we are supporting this measure is that we feel it. is a step in the right direction. It is at least a general recognition on the part of the government of Canada that we definitely have a responsibility to the youth, to the future generations, to our future citizens, to those who will be running this country in the future. It is our duty to see to it that they
Family Allowances

have some measure of security in the years when they are not able to fend for themselves. That is why we are pleased to be able to support this measure at the present time.
As I understand the principle of the measure, it is, to be a children's allowance. The moneys appropriated and expended by parliament in connection with this particular measure are to go specifically and exclusively to the children of this country. I have heard many opinions expressed across the floor of the house with respect to the limitations and changes that should be made. I heard references to New Zealand and Australia and the systems that they follow. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) made an excellent speech. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) made, I think, one of the best contributions to the debate from that side of the house. That hon. member, occupying an official position in the Department of Labour, viewed this measure in a realistic way, 1 was pleased to hear him express the sentiments he did. I want to take this opportunity to say that, if the necessary action to support the sentiments expressed is taken, then I do not think anyone need have any fear with respect to the working of this measure if and when it is put into effect. The hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Edmonton East referred to the fact that there was a means test in New Zealand. I do not think that is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I said that.


Clarence Gillis: I thought you did. If you did not, I am prepared to withdraw the statement. But the hon. member for Edmonton East definitely did refer to a means test. That suggests to the average person a social service worker invading his home, examining his cupboards and deciding whether he is sufficiently undernourished to receive a grant of this kind. That is not the situation in New Zealand at all. The situation is that minimum rates of five pounds five shillings are established. There is a ceiling on the total income of those who receive the allowance, but there is definitely a substantial minimum income provided first of all. Anyone not earning in excess of the ceiling, which applies to both urban and rural workers, receives an allowance. On the other hand, a rural or urban worker who may not be earning the minimum set will receive a sufficient allowance to bring him up to that minimum. That is how the thing is worked in New Zealand. It is not a means test, but there definitely is a ceiling and a minimum standard set for the whole country. I merely wanted to make that

correction because I think it is unfair to the country which has pioneered so .much in social service measures.
As I said a moment ago, I think the measure now before the house was designed definitely to care for the children of Canada. There should not be any quibbling; there should not be any limitations; it should not be assumed that it will not work properly. I think every child within the age limits set out in the bill should receive this grant. It is immaterial to me whether you get some of. it back by taxing the higher income groups. I may be earning $4,000 or $5,000 a year and my family is well provided for. If you put a ceiling on this it may happen that within six months I have no income because of sickness or from other causes. The result would be that my family would have no income. As the matter stands now, I think the allowance should be paid to every child in Canada. I think also it would be proper to tax it back from the higher bracket incomes. There should be no discrimination. If this is to be given to the children of Canada in recognition of our responsibility to them, then it should be given without any reservation or restriction. That is what should be done in order to keep within the principles underlying children's allowances.
I have in mind the different mothers' allowance acts of the provinces. There is no such thing as a mother's allowance. The qualifying section in those acts requires that the mother shall have two children under a certain age, or one child in extenuating circumstances. It is a children's allowance rather than a mother's allowance. There are many limiting factors which should not get tangled up in this legislation.
I have heard the opinion expressed that there is no need for these allowances. I have heard it said, particularly this evening by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), that in some respects organized labour are opposing the measure. The hon. member went on to name certain people. I would point out to the house that the Canadian Congress of Labour made a presentation to the government in February of this year. There was no direct opposition on behalf of the Canadian Congress of Labour in that presentation. I do not want to read this into the record because the government has it. They accepted family allowances with certain reservations.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But they have some fear.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly, and rightly so. I am going to express that opinion as I go along.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did not Mr. Forsey approve it in the reconstruction committee?

Family Allowances


Clarence Gillis: That is correct. The reservation they make with respect to family allowances is that it must not under any circumstances be used by industry as a means of keeping down wages. In considering the broad social plan they accept the principle of family allowances. All we are establishing at this time is the principle and that principle is accepted by the Canadian Congress of Labour and, I think, by any sensible trades union leader in the country who has had an opportunity of studying the matter.
There may be some who expressed premature opinions when the announcement was made a few months ago that this measure was to be brought in. That was done before they had had an opportunity of studying this complicated problem. Consideration had to be given as to how family allowances could be worked in without disturbing other social measures, and what uses and abuses might occur if it were not administered strictly in accordance with the principle that is being established. Many of those people did not have the advantages that we have in the house, and they were not able to clarify their minds as quickly. I did mental handsprings in connection with this measure before I definitely made up my mind as to what I actually wanted. I am trying to express that decision to-night. I do not want the impression left in this house that certain organized groups across the country are disproving this measure. I am reasonably sure that this measure can be taken to any trades union section in Canada and the principles enunciated will be approved.
Is there a need for it? Yes; there is a definite need now for it. Like other hon. members of the house I am receiving many letters. Take the case of a woman whose husband has been incarcerated in the common gaol." There is no income from the breadwinner. If these allowances were available the wife and children of that family would have a measure of protection. Many of us receive letters from women whose husbands have gone A.W.O.L. in the army, navy or some other branch of the service, with a discontinuance of the dependents' allowances. It is a pathetic sight to see a woman, as I have, whose husband overseas is absent without leave-no income, no means of getting the necessities of life, and restrictions in the field of credit. All these make it impossible for the merchant to carry her; so that the family has nowhere to turn, except to charity.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But she may not get this.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, she will, according to my reading of the bill.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No.


Clarence Gillis: This measure will afford relief in a case of that kind.
Then fears are expressed by some that family allowances may be used to depress wages, and that they may militate against workers, in certain circumstances. May I repeat and also support what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East and by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I speak as one who on many occasions has paced the picket lines in labour disputes, and I say that this measure is taking the wife and family out of the firing line in cases where workers are forced to strike because of an unreasonable attitude by employers.
I can remember back in 1925 when we had a strike which lasted five months, and involved 12,000 miners in Nova Scotia. During that five months we lived on relief, practically, at eighty cents a week per family. It was pretty hard to get by, but we did it. Had we had this measure at that time it would have been a great asset to the workers of Nova Scotia who were endeavouring to establish what was a reasonable, just and fair wage.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does the hon. member realize that if those men had been earning wages subject to income tax, so that they would not have come under relief, the wives and children would not have got anything when the strike occurred.


Clarence Gillis: I appreciate that, fully. But when one stops for a moment he must realize that sixty-two per cent of the workers receiving wages and salaries in Canada are getting less than $1,000 a year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am talking about your particular case.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; in our particular case we would have come under this measure at that time, because we were not in the brackets where we would have been paying income tax.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Would you now?


Clarence Gillis: I am safe in saying that now sixty per cent of the workers in the coal mines would not be affected because of the income tax restriction in this particular measure.
In my view this measure cannot be used to depress wages, if the organized workers of Canada keep their trade unions strong, and police this kind of legislation. They will have to do that. No government body, and no one in Ottawa is, in my opinion, going to stop employers in Canada from taking advantage of this kind of legislation. To keep control of that situation organized workers in Canada must strengthen their trade unions, insist upon agreements, police legislation, and keep those

Family Allowances

who are administering the measure informed as to where other people may be trying to take advantage of it.
Are there employers in Canada who will use it to their own advantage if they can? Yes; there are many of them. But there are also many of them who will not, because many employers in Canada are fair. The kind of employer who would use this measure to his own advantage would be the kind we have in the shipyards in Halifax at the present time. Down there 3,000 workers are being forced to strike to-morrow morning. And that is a strike in an essential war set-up, and one which may spread to the whole of Halifax harbour.
The employer who so far forgets himself as to take that kind of action and to jeopardize the entire natioh's war effort, through that very important port, will take advantage of this kind of legislation, if the workers are not organized and policing it. We do not expect paternalism from the government. We expect only a fair deal. The workers of this country intend to organize democratically, to see that this kind of legislation is not abused. I am not a bit afraid, in my section of the country at least, of employers being able to use this measure for their own benefits. If they do, the government in power will certainly hear about it, and we will insist upon certain things being done.
Unions in Canada are not strongly organized in certain sections, I believe, and I hope that, in the future, legislation, both national and provincial, will be made available, because the trend to-day in the world is toward the democratic set-up, and the extension of the machinery we have had in the past.
I shall reserve my criticisms of the bill itself until a later time. I believe it requires some clarification, but I shall not discuss the sections in detail until we reach the committee stage. For example, section 6 stipulates that a board of referees is to be set up to determine if and when a person has a legitimate grievance because of his not being brought under the operations of the bill. Unless there is equal representation on the boards 'which are to administer the legislation, I have fear as to whether it will carry out the functions for which it is intended. That section merely states that the board is to be set up, but I think there will have to be equal representation across the country on these boards, both provincially and nationally, and that will have to be given if the measure is to work out satisfactorily.
Section 8 of the bill is, in my opinion, rather tricky, in that it gives to the governor in council unlimited powers to determine respecting whom these moneys shall be paid, and as to whether there is any duplication either
[Mr. Gillis.l
nationally or provincially. Then, as I see it, those in receipt of mothers' allowances in a province which, in reality, are a grant to the children, can be removed from the scope of the bill, because it could be considered that there would be a duplication of payment. That, in my view, requires clarification, because certainly this measure should not in any way replace mothers' allowances paid in the provinces. Id my opinion it should not be considered as a duplication of compensation for pensions. The bill itself states that pensions paid to army, navy or air force personnel will not be considered as duplications. There is no mention, however, of compensation or mothers' allowances paid in the provinces. Neither is there any mention of the merchant marine, although personnel of that body are to-day in receipt of war pensions *because of disabilities received in this war.
Before the bill is finally adopted these matters should be clarified beyond shadow of any doubt. As I see the matter, this is the first measure of social security, in the real sense of the term, that has been set up in Canada. This is the first step toward a general over-all social security plan for Canada. It will have to be organized slowly. I realize that there is a great deal of difficulty from a jurisdictional standpoint, and for that reason I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in his speech clarify the limitations in the British North America Act. I believe his opinion was good, and after hearing him I would conclude that we have more latitude than I had at first thought. But before we finally accept the bill it should be clearly drawn, so that there may be no doubt as to who would be entitled to the allowances and who would not.
In closing my remarks, I shall speak briefly with respect to the implementing of the legislation. We do not want to be unmindful of the fact that all the social security measures, or social insurance-because this is the first social security measure-will require the spending of considerable sums of money. We do not want to feel that we shall have to go on in the same old-fashioned ways that we followed prior to the war. I believe that to make this measure function as we wish to see it function we shall require fundamental changes in our economic set-up, and considerable changes in our method of financing. If we are not prepared to make those changes we shall not be able to implement fully this step that we are now taking. There are going to be difficulties which will require the sensible cooperation of. everyone in Canada who is trying to push this country forward.
I am quite pleased to be able to stand here and say that for the first time since I have come

Family Allowances
into this house I can wholeheartedly support the principle of a measure without any reservations whatever, if we all mean the things that we said when this bill was presented to the house. I am going to do my best to see that the provisions of this bill as set out here are implemented, and I shall work to the end that our unemployment insurance, our measures with respect to health and other social services that we have been discussing will be combined eventually in one general social security act applicable right across the country, w'hereby both the aged and the youth of this country may be guaranteed a full measure of social security. I am not concerned about the people in between. They can rustle for themselves; but I believe, as the Prime Minister rightly said, that we in this parliament have a supreme obligation to those who helped to build up this nation and are no longer able to take care of themselves, and also to those who are going to carry this nation forward into what wTe all hope will be a brighter future. It is our obligation to see that these young people are fitted for that duty.


Mr. R. T. GRAHAM (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I think we can all appreciate the very real satisfaction that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) felt in introducing this particular measure to the house. I think the pride that he exhibited in the provisions of this bill and in the purposes it would achieve springs from the fact that it is the fruition of almost his life's work and is something in which we can all join and which we can all thoroughly appreciate.
I agree with others who have said that this is one of the most important measures ever presented to any parliament in any country. So important do I consider it, that one of the reasons why I rise to speak is to put on the records of this house my own spoken support of the measure, and also to give me an opportunity of congratulating the government on formulating such a policy and bringing it down in the shape of the bill that is now under consideration.
When I noted the proper satisfaction and pride exhibited by the Prime Minister on this occasion, I could not help comparing it with another statement that was placed on the record quite recently by another member of this house, indicating the political successes that this particular party had achieved in the last few years. The period with which he was dealing was from 1940 down to the present. We all recall that that period coincides with the life of this parliament and with the four and a half years of this war in which we are all so much concerned. It struck me that that statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)
was unfortunate. It was a matter in which I could not have joined with him in taking pride had he been speaking on behalf of my leader or on behalf of the party which I have the honour to support because, as I listened to him recite the political successes that had been achieved by his party during that period of terrible warfare, it seemed to me that he was giving to the house the war record of the party to which he belongs. And so I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is. to me at least, a matter of great pride, as I am sure it is to every member on this side of the house, that we have sat behind the Prime Minister with his record of achievement in the war effort and with his record of achievement in putting through social legislation which has finally reached its culmination in J,he introduction of this wide and comprehensive measure that we are now considering.
I do not know that there is much that I can add-to the many excellent speeches which have already been made in support of this excellent bill, but there are one or two points that I should like to draw to the attention of the house. The underlying principle of the bill, the keynote of the measure, is equality of opportunity. To me that is essentially a principle of true Liberalism. Personally I have almost a horror of paternalism because I believe it destroys the fibre of the people to whom it is applied. But under this measure we in no way disturb the parental authority, the parental control or the parental direction of the.lives and well-being of the children. In other words, the basic principle of this bill is to help parents to perform a very important task. It is to help them to help themselves.
These family allowances, as has been pointed out, go to those in the income classes who need it most, to those who are not in receipt of sufficient income to pay any income tax, and to those whose income is on the margin where the income tax payable is very small.
I happen to come from an agricultural constituency, and naturally I considered this bill in the light of its effects upon those engaged in farming. The results will, I believe, be wholly beneficial to those engaged in agriculture. One-half of the children of Canada live upon farms, and it seems to me, therefore, to follow that the farmers will benefit largely as a class from the provisions of this measure for the well-being of the children of the nation. I think it will be of particular advantage in the area from which I come in southwestern Saskatchewan, a district that all too frequently is visited by drought or other natural disasters which bring almost untold hardships to the farmers in that area. My memory easily recalls the period of the great drought centring in 1937. One of the things that I remember
Family Allowances

vividly were the cases that came to me seeking advice and counsel as to how the wives and mothers on the farm could take care of the needs of the children during that period. They suffered these hardships despite the efforts of the municipalities and of the provincial and dominion governments, because I think that neither any of these governments nor most of us who took an interest in these matters during that period realized the intensity1 of the problem, nor did we understand the measures of relief that we now know should have been adopted at that time.
I recollect, as I say, the real hardship which faced the fathers and mothers on the farms of southern Saskatchewan when they found themselves incapable of supplying their children with the necessary food and clothing and opportunities of continuing their school education. Nothing excited my sympathy and desire to help so much as that experience during the drought period; and while in these last few years that particular area, with some exceptions, has been visited with good crops, we know that drought will come again, and once more the mothers and fathers will be presented with a like problem where the income from the farm fails for some cause over which they have no control. When I think of the benefits which will flow from this measure into those homes in the shape of a monthly cash income, I say to those hon. members who have not experience of the conditions to which I have referred, that they can hardly credit the new hope, the new courage, the upbuilding of the spirit which will come as a result of those benefits received in times of dire distress.
While someone has pointed out that this bill is aimed at assisting the children of the nation, in my opinion it will assist the parents, because no parent can be a good parent, or create that atmosphere which should surround a home, if dire necessity is knocking at the door. So that I believe this measure will accomplish something for parents as well as for children. I believe, too, that there is a psychological problem which will be met, in part at least, by the provisions of the bill. Any parent would agree with me that a child cannot grow up and develop into the wholesome type of -Canadian citizen that we like to have if the home is an unhappy one, owing to economic necessity and the inability of parents to provide those things which are needed for the proper upbringing of children. As I read letters in the press, or hear it stated that there are parents who will not discharge the duty expected of them, I reflect that that type will be a small, almost infinitesimal minority. But even that minority,
fMr. Graham.]
let me suggest, may be the consequence of no such provision in a bygone generation as is contained in this bill, because in all likelihood those people are the products of homes which were visited with some of the troubles which this measure is attempting to cure. So that in that way, remembering that the children of to-day are the parents of to-morrow, I believe that this legislation will do a great deal for family life, for the father, the mother and the children in the home.
There is one other result which will flow from this measure that, to my mind, has great importance. It is connected with a problem which all hon. members would like to assist in finding a solution for. Roughly speaking, the population of Canada is divided equally between males and females; and when we remember that the establishment of a home and a family is preceded by the institution of marriage, we cannot but feel that Canada in its national policies should encourage in every possible way the marriage of our young women to our young Canadian men. I believe that the overwhelming majority of young women find in the career of a wife and a mother the career which most satisfies the desires of the heart. I know that, if they are denied marriage, a home and a family, they claim the right not to be excluded from any other vocation; but I believe that our national policies will satisfy that great and proper desire, that normal and natural desire on the part of the vast majority of our young women, if those policies are directed to encouraging marriage, the establishment of a home and the raising of a family.
When I hear members of the official opposition state that this particular measure will unfairly assist the large families of certain racial groups, I submit that that is a wholly unwarranted as well as too narrow a viewpoint regarding the results which will flow from this bill. Let us consider it for a minute, and in dealing with this I am not referring merely to the high birth rate which has long been a tradition of the province of Quebec. Many other racial groups in my own and other provinces have the same tradition-and it is a healthy and wholesome one,

that of having large families; and as someone said to-night, we would all be proud of the parents who faced the responsibilities of raising a large family if we were assured that those children would be raised to be happy, healthy and productive Canadians. I suggest that this bill will have exactly the opposite effect to that suggested by the leader of the official opposition. In all likelihood it will not increase the number of children in the groups who now have the traditionally large families, but on the other hand it will encourage other groups

Family Allowances
among whom the birthrate is low to increase the number of their children, simply because it will assist in removing the fear of accepting the financial responsibility that goes with marriage, the establishment of home and the raising of a family. Therefore I believe that this legislation will have a most wholesome and beneficial effect upon the family life of the whole dominion. Health and education are two great correctives of political and economic ills.
Let me suggest, too, that what we all seek is a common ideal on the part of the younger generation as it grows up; and if we apply the means available through this bill we can broaden the viewpoint, increase the health and the education of those in the large families which this measure is intended to help. If, too, we can encourage those groups who do not go in for large families to accept with this assistance the responsibility of having them, giving them the same assistance in the matter of attainment of health and education, I believe that we shall be doing a great deal to accomplish unity among the Canadians who are growing up to-day. When they reach manhood and womanhood they will have ideals in common, and be able to give to this country greater unity of effort and assure to the nation as a whole greater happiness than it has known in the past. I recommend to the government constant consideration of what I believe to be a very real problem facing this nation, namely, the encouragement of marriage between our young men and young women.
I believe it was the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who pointed out that, roughly speaking, it requires an investment of $5,000 to build a home which would be suitable for the average Canadian family. Most of us can remember when a like home could have been built for a great deal less. One can readily understand therefore that the average young man of to-day would hesitate, in view of the financial responsibility he would assume, to get married, because he feels he might not be able to give the girl of his choice a home, or to shoulder the responsibility of raising a family. I think we will all agree that marriage without children is not as conducive to happiness as marriage with children.
The whole programme of the government, in [DOT] its national housing plan, in the Unemployment Insurance Act, in its placing of floors under certain farm product prices, in its social security legislation, in its national health legislation, and finally in this family allowance measure, is one that receives my wholehearted support. It is my profound belief that it will result in the establishment of homes and in the raising of young Canadians who will
contribute, when they grow up, substantial dividends on the amount that we are investing in the welfare of our young people.
I do not intend to keep the house any longer. I have fulfilled the purpose I had in view in my remarks, in expressing my warm support of the measure and1 in again congratulating the Prime Minister on the fact that in 1944 he sees the fruition of a thought that had its birth many years ago. I thoroughly agree with him that his life has been largely devoted to the endeavour to have that thought translated into legislation in this house, and I share in the pride he must feel at the comparatively united support which this particular measure is receiving in the house.
In conclusion, I would recall a statement made by the Prime Minister in connection with this bill, with which I heartily agree:
Human personality, its recognition and development, are of more importance than the protection of property, privilege or position, and the increase of human well-being of infinitely more importance than .the increase of material wealth.
I think these are words which every member who supports the bill can quote with approval in recommending it to his constituency.
Mr. J. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Populate Canadien,

to which I am proud to belong-and I myself have asked the government on several occasions to help, in every way possible, families and especially large ones.
Until the present session, the government turned a deaf ear to our pressing and oft-reiterated appeals in favour of this country's most valuable asset, our manpower.
On February 3, 1944, during the debate on the speech from the throne, I stated the following, which I quote from Hansard:
The speech from the throne contains the announcement concerning the adoption of family allowances by the government. I hope that this is not simply an election campaign promise but that, on the contrary, a bill will be brought down in this connection, in the course of this session. Allowances should not be granted exclusively to families of five or six children, but should apply to all families irrespective of their size.
Families of ten or twelve children are not a scarcity in the province of Quebec. Some are even larger. Personally, I am one of fifteen children, twelve boys and three girls, and I am convinced other families just as large can still be found in the constituency of Rimouski. The government, who had always refused to help large families has now a unique occasion to do so through family allowances. This is not the first time I take the opportunity of pleading this cause in the House and I shall continue to do so until the government decides to be fair to large families.
For us French Canadians, large families are our means of survival, and, as long as, in the province of Quebec, large numbers of children are brought into the world, we shall not need refugees or immigrants from whatever country
Family Allowances

they might come; that is the way to bring happiness and prosperity to the province of Quebec and to Canada.
Of course, on the eve of elections and for campaign purposes only, our leaders changed their minds and at long last decided to give in to the pressing appeal of those who tirelessly urged that the Canadian family be encouraged and treated fairly.
Indeed, we rejoice in the fact that the government has deemed fit to recognize the principle of helping the family, but we cannot help noticing that the proposal fails in two most important respects. Lin the first place, it disregards the autonomy of the provinces; in this field, however, their rights cannot be ignored. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, it has always claimed them. For that reason, each particular province should be entrusted with the administration of the aet^
The proposal provides, moreover, that the allowances be paid on a "decreasing" scale from the fifth child on. This is a most unjust procedure. No other country has put into effect a similar method. Some have chosen a uniform rate, others have preferred an "increasing" scale. If the government really wants to help large families, it should put the latter into effect. French-Canadian families will be particularly hard hit by this "decreasing" rate and if approved, it would cause unforgivable injustice. I hope the government will reconsider the matter and remedy that injustice by adopting the progressive rather than the decreasing rate provided for in the bill now before us.
The true originator of family allowances in Canada was the great patriot Honore Mercier, former prime minister of the province of Quebec. He was the first to take a sympathetic stand toward large families in the province of which he was unquestionably the greatest prime minister. He granted to families of twelve or more children a certain acreage of land. He was an ardent believer in the "revenge of the cradle". Consequently, his memory is ever cherished by the people of the province of Quebec whose motto will always be "I remember".
I listened the other day to the speeches of some members who are horrified by the fact that the government have decided to spend $200,000,000 in order to help large families. Yet, those members are the same ones who had no hesitation in voting $2,800,000,000 as a tribute to England. They are the ones who demand total war, who do not hesitate to state that Canada should fight to the last man and spend its last penny in this war. But when it comes to protecting this country's most valuable asset, the large families, they are horrified and condemn the government.
[Mr. d'Anjou.J
As far as I am concerned, I join those who have congratulated the government on having at last brought down this measure of family allowances. It is a step in the right direction.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) said last might, as reported on page 5365 of Hansard:
Is it not amusing to observe a Liberal government, which laughed at Aberhart's $25 a month to all families, suddenly bringing down a baby bonus proposition which will cost the country $200 million or more? This bonus will be given to children up to fifteen years of age, whereas even in Russia it is proposed to bonus children only up to five years of age. It should be remembered that the government will get the money for their largesse out of the people by taxes. This means that everyone who pays taxes will have less money to educate and bring up his own family. I believe that it is a fact that sixty-three per cent of tile families with ten or more children live in the province of Quebec. Contrast this with British Columbia where families are small and where forty per cent have no children living at home. When eight provinces realize that they are being taxed for the benefit of one province, will it not accentuate the disunity which has shaken Canada from coast to coast, because the government chose to listen to the powerful voice of this same province which refused to share equally with others in fighting the common enemy ?
If there are people who can sow disunion in the country, they are like the hon. member for Parkdale, who forgets that recently a French Canadian, Major Triquet, won the Victoria Cross.
He also forgets the losses sustained in this war by the French Canadians. If he were to peruse the daily casualty lists, he would notice that the losses among the French Canadians have been especially heavy, in Sicily, in Normandy and elsewhere. He would see that the Royal 22nd has fought nobly and the Regiment de Quebec has been practically annihilated. This same gentleman states in this house and before the whole country that the province of Quebec should not benefit from the family allowance proposed by the government, because the French Canadians of Quebec have not discharged their duty. As long as this country harbours such fanatics and imperialists, it will be very hard to attain Canadian unity.
I shall not labour this point any further, but I shall repeat that these very same gentlemen are the ones who do not hesitate to claim that the tribute we pay to England is not large enough; who maintain that we are not sending enough men to the slaughter in foreign lands; who. to-day, oppose a vote of $200,000,000 to safeguard the most precious asset of our country. Family allowances will be a great encouragement to large families and. after the war, we should be in a position to do without immigrants. It is better to take

Family Allowances
care of our human resources in Canada than to spend fabulous sums to attract immigrants from overseas.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I favour this measure and hope that the administration in power when the bill we are now considering has become the law of the land will administer it with Justice and fairness to all.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I rise at this time to join with others in my support of the measure that has been introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), namely, family allowances. In the few minutes at my disposal I wish to say that it seems strange to me that most of the opposition to this bill has emanated from those who, so far as I know, have never felt the hand of poverty. To me it is most remarkable that those whose lot in life lay along the easy path, shall I say, are the ones in this country who are now raising their voices loudly against this measure. I noticed also that in the address given by the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Graydon) against the measure, although he claims to be a farmer, no mention wa? made by him of the fact that this measure would benefit one class above all others, namely, the farming class. The man who claims to be a farmer made speeches and diatribes against this measure but did not mention that it would benefit the very class to which he claims to belong.
Statements have been made by some that it would benefit certain provinces more than others. I took the time the other night to go into the child population of the various provinces. I obtained a statement from the bureau of statistics, a brief analysis of which is as follows:	There are some 3,409,911
children in Canada between the ages of birth and sixteen.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The census of 1941?


Thomas Reid: Yes. They are spread out throughout Canada in this proportion. In Prince Edward Island the population is 30,484. The percentage of the children under sixteen to the total population within the province is roughly thirty-two per cent. In Nova Scotia the population is 577,962. The percentage of children under sixteen is thirty per cent. The population of New Brunswick is 457,401. The percentage of children under sixteen is thirty per cent. Quebec has a total child population under sixteen of 1,133,137; the percentage of the children in that province under sixteen is thirty-five per cent. Ontario has 988,933 children under sixteen. Their proportion works out to about twenty-eight per cent. Manitoba has 204,684 children. Their percentage is twenty-eight per cent. Saskatchewan has 286,821 children under sixteen. Their percentage is thirty-two per cent.
Alberta has 243,547 children under sixteen. Their percentage is thirty-one per cent. British Columbia, I am sorry to say, has the smallest percentage of children of all the nine provinces. That province has a total population of 817,861. The children under sixteen number 187,427, w'hich works out to about twenty-three per cent of the population within the province.


Douglas King Hazen: Would you mind repeating the number of children in New Brunswick under sixteen?


Thomas Reid: The papulation given to me is 457,401.


Douglas King Hazen: In other provinces you are giving the number of children.


Thomas Reid: The children under sixteen total 155,319.


Douglas King Hazen: How many children in Nova Scotia?


Thomas Reid: 179,559. It works out roughly to thirty per cent. These figures do not reveal a preponderance of children in the province of Quebec as compared with other provinces. In Quebec there is only a total of thirty-five per cent of the population under the age of sixteen years, whereas in New Brunswick there is thirty-four per cent, and in Prince Edward Island, thirty-two per cent. I think these figures are most interesting; at least they were to me.
The figure for British Columbia is only twenty-three per cent, but I noted that there is a greater percentage of older people in that province when compared with her population than in some of the others. As is well known, nearly all the provinces are represented in British Columbia by former residents. People in ill health or up in years are told to go there to enjoy the splendid climate we have, and usually they stay there to end their days at a time when the rearing of a family is not to be thought of.
It has been said also that some labour leaders have opposed this measure, and they have. Speaking to-night as a labour man, I want to say that I was astonished that any man who had fought his way up through the labour ranks would protest against a social measure of this kind. The contention that it would reduce wages is, to my mind, all wrong. Throughout the years when a man is applying for a position the employer does not consider whether he is married or not. He is employed for the work he is able to perform. When a man is hired because of ability, the employer generally does not look around to see whether a man is married or single when it comes to laying men off.
Not all labour has been against this measure, because I noticed an article in the last issue
Family Allowances

of the Labour Review, where the Canadian Federation of Labour has this to say:
Nobody has yet objected out loud to the payment of cash allowances to the members of the armed forces for the support of their Children. That fact is worth nothing now that many persons are inveighing earnestly against Mr. Mackenzie King's proposal to continue the allowances when the troops return to civil life and to extend them to all Canadian families.
Millions of men now wearing the uniforms of many countries rely upon the state to provide for their children's upkeep. When the war ends, a large proportion of them will continue to enjoy the same provision. In quite a few countries, children's allowances were paid before the war. After the war, still more countries will have them. Canada has to decide whether or not to keep abreast of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand in social progress and population policy.
In so far as social legislation is concerned, Canada is not only keeping abreast of some countries; she is well ahead of a great many with the introduction of this piece of social legislation. The article goes on to refer to the objection by some churches, and states:
The objection of some religious sectarians answers itself. If they took as much interest in the size of the population as they do in its habits they would not need to fear the spread of any church. Their sensible course would be, instead of opposing children's allow. ances, to urge the members of their communions to let marriage bear fruit and enlarge the congregation.
I say that the churches should take note of that, but so far they have not raised their voices. To my mind it is time they raised their voices about this very thing.
There is one warning I should like to give to those who will be responsible for the administration of this legislation. An effort should be made, to see to it that the money paid out goes entirely for the benefit of the children. To-day the members of the special committee inquiring into the problems affecting the dominion government and the city of Ottawa were taken on a tour through the city. One man in the party who knew the different districts pointed out certain houses where the children were not attending school for one reason or another. The thought came to me that when this measure is in effect those children and any others should be made to go to school or the money should be kept back from the parents, and not paid until they do.
I have another suggestion to make. There may be a few fathers who will take advantage of the legislation and, so to speak, become vagrants, and who will not be inclined to work. If that is the case, steps should be taken by the municipalities to institute pro-
[Mr. Reid.l
ceedings against such parents who are ready to lie back and not earn money other than that provided by the state for the upkeep of their children. When in the past it was left to the woman of the family to lay a charge against the husband, in many cases the home was broken up. Some other authority should lay these charges. It should be made known to these men that if they are not ready to carry out their responsibilities, a charge will be laid by the municipalities, and they will be made to contribute to the upkeep of their families rather than simply lie back and allow the state to send a cheque along each month, which cheque is intended entirely for the children.
I think this is about all I have to say at this moment. But I do want to say that it is a proud moment in my life that I am a member of this House of Commons at a time when this measure is being placed on the statute books. I come from a humble home, and I realize, perhaps better than some of those who are opposing this bill, just what it means. Those of us who come from fairly large families know that quite often the children who come first are not as well provided for as those who come later on. The children who come first quite often have to go out to work quite early and contribute toward the support of the other members of the family. The children who come later on receive the benefit of this help, and likewise the parents themselves may be in better circumstances as the children grow older.
Coming from a humble family, I know what this would have meant to our family had we had it. I realize what it will mean to hundreds of families throughout the length and breadth of this country. I ask those who are opposing it to take stock of why they are opposing it. If they oppose it simply from a political point of view they should be ashamed. This is the finest piece of legislation this House of Commons has brought down and I am proud that I am a member of the Liberal party. While in the past few years the Conservative party and the Liberal party have got to the point where it has been at times difficult to distinguish between them, especially since tariffs have been done away with, this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes us truly Liberals, and I am giving it my unqualified support.
On motion of Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.



END OF VOLUME V