1953-01-19

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 95th SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1953

[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 19, 1953


Mr. E. W. George (Westmorland):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to deal with the personal attack made against me by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) in this house on the evening of January 15. He asked for an explanation regarding the matters he then raised, and I am glad to give him the explanation for which he asked. I make this explanation out of a strong sense of responsibility as a member of this house.
When I heard of the nature of the hon. member's speech, I naturally wished to take time to read it in Hansard and put myself in a position where I could verify properly all the factual references made in that speech and the one which I am making this afternoon. I am, therefore, taking the very first opportunity which has been open to me to rise in this house and reply to the hon. member for Calgary West. I propose to deal with this matter simply by laying the facts of the situation before this house.
On a matter of this kind involving the privileges of the house, and myself as a member, I recognize that it is for the house to decide whether my actions, as a member of this house and as a commanding officer of a reserve unit, have been proper or not. It is in the sense of one being concerned not only with the charge that has been made against me but with the broad principles which ought to govern the conduct of members of this house that I make these remarks today.
When I assumed command of my regiment, the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick) Hussars, in January, 1951, on the death of the former commanding officer, we had an excellent unit, and it was rated as the best reserve army regiment in Canada by Mr. Ross Munro in the Edmonton Journal on the 17th February, 1951. In 1950 we won the Leonard trophy, emblematic of the best reserve armoured regiment in Canada.
The death of the former commanding officer created a real problem as to what 68108-71
would happen to the regiment, and how and by whom it would be led in the future. As second in command, in order to maintain continuity within the regiment, I felt that I was under a strong moral obligation to the unit, and to the army itself, to contribute what I could to the maintenance of the unit's excellent reputation.
The former commanding officer did an excellent job, by his initiative and application to the heavy task. I, as second in command, in Ottawa a large part of the years 1949 and 1950, was not completely in the picture when I took over the regiment. Naturally, on assuming command, I had to devote a large amount of time to the task of familiarizing myself with all the details of the unit's operations and in addition as a consequence of the change of command certain organizational changes within the unit occurred. I mention this so that hon. members will appreciate the problems with which I was faced in 1951, as a result of having assumed command.
I think that many hon. members are familiar with the difficulties faced in the administration of reserve units in a rural area. As an example I might give some details about the organization of my own regiment, and the large territory in which it carries on its operations. Our regimental area is spread over a radius of 85 miles; regimental headquarters and "B" squadron are at Sussex; headquarters squadron at Hampton and St. Martins; "A" squadron at Petitcodiac, Havelock and Salisbury; and "C" squadron at Dorchester, Sackville and Port Elgin. This is a slight change from the regimental areas of 1951, as in that year we were training in both Saint John and Moncton, but we did not have the Petitcodiac-Salisbury area.
In order to familiarize myself with the affairs of the regiment, as well as looking after the day-to-day affairs I spent most of my spare time working for the reserve army.
I took no holidays, and spent any time I had, including every week end, in the interests of the reserve.
The training program for 1951 included one evening at local headquarters, and one week end per month at Sussex on corps training; three Sundays per month were used by the squadrons, one or two of them at a time, depending upon their number of personnel

Privilege

Mr. E. W. George and on the fourth Sunday the officers, W.O.'s and N.C.O.'s trained on the equipment. If there was a fifth Sunday, this too was often used. During the Easter and Christmas recesses tradesmen courses were conducted with about one hundred personnel attending each course. This extensive training program was carried on over the regiment's large territory; and it will be understood that, in addition to the training time, a large amount of time had to be spent in administration by the senior officers of the unit in organizing these activities.
As commanding officer of the regiment,
I also have under my command the army camp at Sussex which has sufficient accommodation for a regiment, in addition to a former R.C.E.M.E. workshop which we use as a tank hangar and for stores. In addition, I have on charge the Sussex armouries, which is used by "B" squadron. I also have on my charge accommodation at Hampton, St. Martins, Petitcodiac, Havelock, Salisbury and Sackville, the tank driving range ait Camp Sussex and the Sussex rifle range. Altogether, I have on my personal charge over three million dollars' worth of buildings, tanks, training equipment, clothing, et cetera. While I have not seen all the training areas in Canada, I am sure that our reserve army training facilities are among the best in the country.
No hon. member would expect that the great responsibility of administering these extensive training facilities could be properly undertaken without the devotion of a large amount of time to it. I felt and continue to feel a real responsibility for the proper use of this property and equipment, and consider it to be a necessity to spare no time or pains in this task.
Unlike the situation under active service conditions, when one had a complete establishment of fully trained personnel and when the troops were always in camp, we as a reserve unit have to make all these administrative arrangements ourselves and to provide for the transport of our troops on Saturday evening from their homes to Sussex, feed, sleep and train them, and then transport them to their homes on Sunday evening.
In May, 1951, the regiment supplied its quota to the Panda recruiting program for the 27th brigade in Germany. Teams were entered in all rifle shooting competitions. During the year I attended many unit and area conferences on training and administration. Summer camp was conducted under unit arrangements at Camp Sussex with the tank shoot being held at Camp Tracadie in thfe northern part of the province.

One who has not commanded an active reserve force unit has little idea of the amount of work required by the commanding officer and his staff. Naturally, the more training that is done, the more problems arise and the more personal supervision is required. As I think any other commanding officer who tries sincerely to run a truly good unit would find, I have found that running a modern reserve armoured unit absorbs virtually every bit of his spare time.
The days when commanding officers could satisfy themselves with relatively few weeks' work a year are, I believe, over. If our reserve army units are to be kept in a state of readiness to face potential wartime mobilization, then the job of the commanding officer is a big one indeed. My predecessor found it necessary in 1950 to expend the equivalent of 214 army days as commanding officer of our unit.
Regardless of whether I was in Ottawa, Sussex or at home, my officers continued to provide me with hours and hours of detailed work which I had to handle.
Whether I want to or not-and I do not want to-I cannot divorce myself from my unit during the half-year I am in Ottawa. I spend a good many hours every week doing army work such as reviews of boards of inquiry, endless correspondence, keeping in touch with my scattered sub units, and in general keeping my finger on the pulse of the regiment; all these things absorb hours of time.
For that portion of my reserve army work which I have done in Ottawa I have received the remuneration provided for by the regulations. I say that without shame or without apology. Many members of parliament, in these years when parliament has come to absorb so much time, find it necessary to conduct their affairs from Ottawa. I, too, found myself in this position in respect to my responsibilities toward the reserve army.
Like all armoured corps units in Canada, our regiment is a member of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps association. This association annually puts up trophies for competition and there are five which may be won by an armoured regiment. As I said before, in 1950, we won the Leonard trophy. In 1951, the year under discussion, my regiment won four of the five trophies and, in 1952, we won all five of them. Here I want to pay tribute to the officers, W.O.'s, N.C.O.'s and men of my regiment for their loyal and wholehearted support. Without them, and their untiring efforts and sacrifice, the regiment would not have reached this present high position in the reserve forces of Canada.

It is said that figures do not lie, but they often can be used for a specific purpose. Certain figures were given by the hon. member for Calgary West as reported at page 1055 of Hansard. He suggests that during the year 1951 I was paid for 204 days of service in the army, while at the same time this house was in session for 224 days. He then makes the allegation that I was paid for services performed for more days than there were in the year 1951. In passing, I might mention that, in fact, my pay was for 202J days' service with the reserve forces. The important point, however, is one which will be appreciated by every hon. member, namely, that the actual sitting days of this house are much fewer than the length of the parliamentary session would indicate. For example, in 1951, parliament was in session 363 calendar days, not 224 as the hon. member stated. In the first session there were actually 105 sitting days, and in the second session there were 56 sitting days, making a total of 161 sitting days.
In addition, as all hon. members are aware, during each session a member of this house is permitted 15 days of absence. In 1951, therefore, I was entitled-as was every other hon. member-to absent myself from this house for 30 days; so that in actual fact, had I claimed the full privilege of being absent for 30 days, I would have been required to sit in this chamber for only 131 days. The mere recitation of these figures will indicate the inconsistency of maintaining that I drew pay for more days than there were in the year.
My constituents and the regiment know that, as is the case with a good many other members, my family and personal business affairs suffered because of the time I have spent on my parliamentary and regimental duties. However, I can assure hon. members that I have never neglected the duties and responsibilities which are mine as a member of parliament.
As hon. members know, I am not a lawyer, but I have read the statutes and discussed this matter with my friends, and I am convinced that a person can be a member of the reserve army and receive pay for the work he does without disqualifying himself as a member of the House of Commons. I also recognize that service in the reserve forces does not change the rule regarding attendance in the house except for camps and courses, and during 1951 I complied with the house rules regarding attendance. Having done so,
I felt that there was nothing to prevent my
68108-71i
Privilege-Mr. E. W. George service in the reserve army, whether that service occurred in Sussex, Sackville, Tracadie or Ottawa.
That 1951 was an exceptional year for the regiment is obvious from what I have said. The death of the commanding officer, and the reorganization to which I referred, combined to create difficulties additional to the ordinary responsibilities of the commanding officer of the unit. Results of that work I have briefly mentioned. That the year was exceptional is indicated by the fact that the number of days required to conduct the affairs of the regiment was reduced from 202J in 1951 to 133J in 1952, and I am proud to say that the regiment won all the five trophies available to it.
I have been concerned in this address simply to lay all the facts before the hon. members. In making this explanation, I have endeavoured to keep my personal feeling out of it, but I resent deeply the imputation that I am in the reserve army for what I can get out of it financially. All these charges, implied or directly stated, I deny with indignation and with clear conscience.
I have devoted every hour I could spare to my unit, both in New Brunswick and here. The unit, I feel, reflects this. This required many, many hours of work. For that work I have been paid. For nothing else but that work have I been paid.
I have acted in the sincere belief that there is no ethical, moral or legal taint to what I have done in performing my duty as a member of this house and as a member of the reserve forces.



IRRIGATION


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to lay on the table two copies of the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan project, and to inform the house that copies 'are available for immediate distribution to all members of parliament.



CURRIE REPORT


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Last Tuesday, I referred to correspondence regarding the Currie report, and the correspondence I referred to was entered as an appendix to Hansard. In order to bring the house up to date I should like to table copies of a telegram from Mr. Currie to myself dated- January 10, 1953; a letter from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to myself dated January 17, 1953, reporting on the

Questions
result of the investigation of the R.C.M.P.; and a letter from me to Mr. Currie dated January 17, 1953, sending him a copy of the letter of the Minister of Justice. Since the other correspondence was printed as an appendix to Hansard, perhaps it would be the wish of hon. members that this correspondence be likewise printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence, see appendix, page 1143.)



QUESTIONS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Has any effort been made by any department of government to secure the services of any firm of United States consultants, in connection with the construction of a new Canadian uranium refinery?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Were the services of any firm secured?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited has employed the services of several United States consulting firms from time to time over the past three years, in connection with certain phases of its refining operation. The firms consulted were: Podbielniak Incorporated; Pittsburgh Lectromelt Corporation; Catalytic Construction Company; Chemical Construction Company; M. J. Udy; Komarek Greaves Ltd.; Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Company; Otto H. York.


CAMP SHILO, MAN.  WATER SOFTENING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Dinsdale:: X. What firm was awarded contract No. G39-3A-494 (G23-515-67) for the installation of water softening equipment at Camp Shilo, Manitoba?
2.	What was the figure for the successful tender?
3.	What other tenders were submitted?
4.	Is the successful firm supplying fully automatic . equipment as specified in the original contract?
5.	Have tenders been called for a secondary contract in connection with the Camp Shilo water softener project?
6.	If so, has any secondary contract been awarded for this project?
7.	Are contracts No. G39-3A-494 and No. G23-515-67 identical?
8.	If so, what were the reasons for the change in designation?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The contract was awarded by Defence Construction Limited to W. J. Westaway Company Limited, Hamilton, Ontario.
2.	Amount of contract-$33,931.
3.	Five other tenders were received as
follows:	(a) International Water Supply

Limited, London, Ontario-$27,597. (Tender specifications not acceptable to the Department of National Defence); (b) Stanley Brock Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba-$36,008;	(c)
Power and Mine Supply Company Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba-$39,995; (d) Cotter Bros. Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba-$65,500;	(e)
Oshkosh Filter & Softener Canada Ltd., Brandon, Manitoba-$76,204.10.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Yes.
8.	It is standard procedure on such contracts to assign one designation while in the inquiry stage and a different designation when purchase action is started.


RADAR STATION, ST. MARGARETS, N.B.   CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How much money has been spent, on a cost plus basis, on the construction and development of the radar station at St. Margarets, New Brunswick, from its beginning until the present time?
2.	By whom was the work done, and how much was paid in each case?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	$3,223,688.73, on a "cost plus fixed fee" basis.
2.	Diamond Construction Company Limited, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Construction of all buildings and utilities required, $3,233,688.73.



FIRST WAR VETERANS


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many veterans of the first world war, 1914-1918, are in receipt of disability pensions?
2.	How many veterans of the first world war were under twenty-one years of age at the time of their enlistment?
3.	How many of these veterans were (a) Canadian born; (b) naturalized citizens; (c) from other countries?
4.	Of those veterans enlisted from other countries, how many are receiving Canadian pensions?


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	62,394 veterans of the first world war, 1914-18, were in receipt of disability pensions as at December 31, 1952.
2.	134,906 veterans of the first world war were under the age of twenty-one at the time of their enlistment, according to attestation.
3.	(a) 318,728 veterans of the first world war were Canadian born; (b) there is no record to show the number of veterans who were naturalized citizens; (c) 300,908 veterans of the first world war were born in countries other than Canada.

4.	Of the 62,394 disability pensions in payment as at December 31, 1952 in respect of veterans of the first world war, 53,651 were payable in Canada; 5,277 were payable in the U.S.A.; and 3,466 were payable in other countries.



LETTER CARRIER SERVICE, SOUTH PEEL, ONT.

Mr. Graydon:: 1.	What progress has been made by the Postmaster General's department in providing letter carrier service for the citizens of Port Credit, Lake-view and other sections of South Peel?
2.	When will door-to-door delivery commence?
3.	What steps will be taken to ensure that every residence in each of the said areas will be provided with this service?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	All necessary preliminary arrangements have been made.
2.	Service will be established as soon as possible after 90 per cent of the residences and business places have been equipped with suitable mail receptacles.
3.	All residences falling within the scope of letter carrier delivery requirements and conforming to conditions set forth in paragraph 2 will receive delivery when service is established in the area.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	Under what date did the soldier settlement board of Canada acquire, by purchase, certain lands situated in township 44, range 25, west of the 5th meridian?
2.	From whom was the above land purchased by the soldier settlement board?
3.	Were mines and minerals on the said lands acquired by the soldier settlement board at the time of the land purchase?
4.	Are such mines and minerals now held in the name of any department of the federal government?
5.	Has consideration been given to the transferring of the mineral rights to those veterans who purchased land in township 44, range 25, from the soldier settlement board?
He said:	Mr. Speaker, since there is an
error in the first part of this question, may I ask that a change be made as follows: "west of the fifth meridian" should read "west of the fourth meridian".


Mr. Muich:: Subject to that correction, I should like the question to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Courtemanche:: For a copy of the original pay cheques in connection with construction or repair work to the wharf at Ste. Anne du Lac, county of Labelle, between June, 1949, and November, 1952.
Family Allowances Act



STE. ANNE DU LAC WHARF    PAYROLLS AND STATEMENT OF MATERIALS

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of the payrolls and a statement of materials purchased for the work done to the wharf at Ste. Anne du Lac, county of Labelle, from June, 1949, to November, 1952.



OIL-EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, NORMAN WELLS

Mr. Wright:: For a copy of agreements entered into by the government of Canada and the Imperial Oil Company regarding exploration for oil or unit operation and production of oil in the vicinity of Norman Wells.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation increasing the amounts paid under the Family Allowances Act to the extent necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since the said act was first enacted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon again to have an opportunity to move a resolution similar to the one I moved at the last session of parliament, asking that family allowances be increased to an extent necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since August 1944, when the Family Allowances Act was first passed.
I believe it is in the interest of Canada both at this time and in future years to see increased family allowances, and in this way help to provide better food, better clothing, better educational opportunities and better medical care for growing Canadian children.
I would hope that in the discussion of this resolution the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will not do as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) did a week ago in discussing a resolution offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wherein the hon. member asked that all medical expenses be allowed as a deduction from income tax, upon which occasion the Minister of Finance adjourned the debate, thus providing the guillotine, so far as the discussion of that resolution was concerned.
I hope we have a fair discussion of the resolution now before the house. I hope, too, that members supporting the government will allow a vote to be taken, and will not talk the resolution out, so that by having a
1106	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act vote we may test the opinion of the people's elected representatives on this important matter.
The Family Allowances Act was passed in August 1944, and went into effect on July 1, 1945. During the last year family allowances were paid on behalf of 4,500,000 Canadian children, and to almost two million families. Payments for the year ended March 31, 1952, amounted to $320 million. I believe those payments have resulted in some improvement in nutritional standards, in better clothing, and in better educational and medical care and facilities for Canadian children.
An increase in the family allowance at this time is an investment in the future. It will mean that our children, who reach manhood and womanhood in better health, will have the opportunity of receiving better education. It will mean that when they take their places as adults in our national life they will make a greater contribution to the production of our country because of their improved health standards and better educational qualifications. This increase in our national production will bring with it an improvement in our standard of living.
When introducing the measure in 1944, the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the then prime minister, pointed out that of the persons presenting themselves for enlistment in the armed services, 39-3 per cent were rejected for medical reasons. He went on to point out that if a family allowances act had been in effect in previous years it was his belief that the rate of rejection would not have been as high.
'Not only will an increase in family allowances contribute to a greater production of wealth in Canada in years to come, but if this country in the future is again called upon to face a national emergency such as we had between 1939 and 1945, I believe our young citizens would be better able to come to the defence of our way of life.
When I introduced the resolution a year ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that perhaps I had missed a more important point, that I should have been advocating that the age limit be increased from 16 to 18 years. All I say to the minister on that point is that if the government thinks that is a better way to improve family allowances, than by increasing by some 60 per cent the basic rates, as I now advocate, I shall be perfectly happy to accept such an amendment, and shall agree that such action would constitute a reasonable improvement in family allowances for the time being.
I do feel however it is not right or fair for any government in any year to pass a social


security measure and then, in years following, by permitting a condition of inflation to prevail, take away a large part of the social security effected by the measure.
The increase in the cost of living has reduced by at least 40 per cent the effectiveness of amounts received for family allowances since August, 1944. If we are to restore to the family allowance cheque the 1945 value, then the present dollar value of those cheques needs to be increased by 60 per cent. This would increase minimum payments from $5 to $8 per child per month, and maximum payments from $8 to $13 per child per month.
The cost of living index in August, 1944, was 118-9, while in November 1952 it had risen to 184-8, or an increase in that period of time of more than 55 per cent. If one looks at the main items on which family allowance payments are spent one finds that while the clothing index was 121-5 in August, 1944, in November of last year it stood at 205-5, or an increase of 69 per cent. In that same period of time the food index increased from 131-5 to 229, or an increase of 74 per cent.
I say that in view of these increases of 69 and 74 per cent on clothing and food, respectively, the suggestion I make that family allowance payments should now be increased to the extent of 60 per cent is a modest one, and something the government should implement immediately.
If one looks over some of the important food items he will find that the increase in cost is considerably greater than the general cost of living increase. For example, we realize that milk is the most important single item of diet in the life of every child, and we find that the price of milk has increased from 10-4 cents a quart in January 1944 to 21-1 cents in October 1952. This increase was brought about mainly by general inflation, and a general increase in the cost of production and distribution. But, in part, the increase was brought about by the fact that the government removed the subsidy that at one time it paid on milk.
The price of stewing beef, one of the cheaper cuts of meat, increased from 22-7 cents per pound in January of 1944 to 59-5 cents in October, 1952. Meat is a high protein food which is one of the essentials in the diet of children. I am sure that any medical man will tell you that it is necessary to good health. As I have pointed out, the cost of stewing beef increased by some 150 per cent.
The general effect of the increase in the cost of living has been a decrease in the consumption of milk. In 1946 the consumption of milk in Canada was some 60 million hundredweight; the consumption of milk in

1951 had decreased to 58,650,000 hundredweight, or approximately 2 per cent. From 1941 to 1951 the population of Canada increased 18 * 6 per cent. In other words, in the period from 1944 to 1952, although the consumption of milk was going down, on the other hand our population was increasing rapidly. From the figures that I have already given I estimate that from 1944 to 1952 the per capita consumption of milk in Canada went down 10 per cent.
I think part of the reason for the reduction in the consumption of milk can be attributed to the fact that the family allowance cheque was steadily losing its purchasing power. There is no one in this house who can say that Canada cannot produce all the milk that our people can consume if they have the finances with which to purchase it. As a matter of fact the dairy industry is looking today for increased markets. That industry in the face of a United States embargo on cheese and other milk products is finding it most difficult to continue efficient production. I believe that an increase in family allowances at this time would be followed by an increase in the consumption of milk and that in turn would react to the benefit of our dairy industry. The same could be said in relation to our poultry industry and in relation to our textile industry.
We have lost our overseas markets for many agricultural products. Because of inflation, because of the decrease in the purchasing power of the family allowance cheques, the mothers of Canada are finding considerable difficulty in maintaining purchases of the very commodities that are in surplus supply in this country. I advocate an increase in family allowances at this time because I think it is essential to the welfare of our children.
As I have stated, another argument that might be used in favour of an increase in family allowances is that it would provide a greater home market for our poultry, dairy and textile industries at a time when they are losing many of their former markets. The present family allowance cheque is pretty small. Five dollars per month will not buy many quarts of milk. Five dollars per month will not contribute very much toward the cost of providing for a new child coming into the home. During the debate last year I quoted an article from Life magazine which stated that in New York city it cost approximately $400 to provide all the things necessary for the well-being of a newly-born child. The article went on to state that the various items of equipment, the utensils and clothing necessary, might be purchased for as low as $275, but that was considered to be
Family Allowances Act the rock bottom price. It would take a great many family allowance cheques to pay the cost of the things necessary to provide for the care of a newly-born child even at that lower price.
Speaking in this debate last year the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out that we have a large defence program. It is true that we have a large defence program, but each year, even with our defence program, the real production of Canada keeps going up. The defence program is not going to continually take up that increase in real production. In recent weeks the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated that in his opinion the danger of war is decreasing. I believe the Prime Minister is right. I look for at least a levelling off-if not a decrease-in our defence expenditures.
While our defence expenditures may level off or decrease, I hope for a continued increase in the real production of wealth in this country. In recent years our wealth has been increasing at the rate of between 4 and 5 per cent annually. That annual increase of between 4 and 5 per cent in our gross national production is sufficient to cover all our social security payments including family allowances, old age and blind pensions and those made under other measures.
So we now have an opportunity to provide an increase in family allowances, partially because our defence program is likely to level off before too many months go by and because the real production of wealth in Canada is likely to continue to increase. Even if that were not so I would still advocate an increase in family allowances. In advocating an increase in family allowances I would point out that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), formerly parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, in a well-delivered speech in this house before Christmas argued that social security payments were transfer payments, that they were not for the provision of materials and labour for the use of the government. In other words, an increase in family allowances does not increase the burden upon the Canadian people; an increase in family allowances merely transfers purchasing power from the more well-to-do to those less well-to-do, in this instance to Canadian parents.
I say that there is a glaring need at the present time for a redistribution of purchasing power. I was amazed to read a publication put out by the dominion bureau of statistics based on the census of 1951 and entitled "Labour Force Wage Earners". That publication showed that in 1951 there were in

Family Allowances Act Canada a total of 4,085,000 wage earners. Of that number some 2,088,000 or 53 per cent received less than $2,000 a year. In my opinion an annual earning of less than $2,000 a year by a married man with two or three children is insufficient to properly clothe, to properly feed and to properly educate his children.
The same publication shows that, in 1951, of that total number of 4,085,000 wage earners, approximately 1,500,000 or 37 per cent earned less than $1,500 per year.
Going on, this official publication shows that of the four million wage earners approximately 900,000 or 22 per cent earn less than $1,000 a year. Let us take the million and a half wage earners in Canada who in 1951 earned less than $1,500 a year. Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare contend that the present family allowance cheque is sufficient to help adequately heads of families who earn less than $1,500 a year to clothe and feed their growing children. It is nearly impossible for those parents in that 37 per cent of working Canadians to feed and clothe their children adequately. I know that even the increase I suggest would not guarantee proper food and clothing for all children for whom family allowances are paid, but it would be a substantial contribution to that end.
Over the years that family allowances have been paid I feel that the mothers of Canada have spent the money as it was meant to be spent, for the betterment of their children.
I think that is borne out by the fact that, according to the last annual report, since May, 1947, only 136 prosecutions were successfully completed. When one bears in mind that there are some two million families receiving the family allowance, I think it is clear that almost without exception the family allowance cheque is used for the purposes for which it was intended. Therefore if it is used for the purposes for which it was intended and if, as is correct, a million and a half wage earners in Canada earned less than $1,500 in 1951, surely it is time for the government to give sympathetic consideration to increasing the family allowance, and I suggest to the minister and the government that legislation should be introduced at this session of parliament to increase the family allowance by not less than 60 per cent.
The question needs to be answered as to whether Canada can afford such an increase.
I believe we can. I admit it is a considerable amount of money but I believe it can be paid, as I have said, out of our increased wealth production. I estimate that a 60 per cent increase in the family allowance would 
cost $192 million. Our gross national product for the year ended March 31, 1952-


Mr. Martin:: Will the hon. member permit a question? The figure of $192 million was for what?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry, I did not hear the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask my friend whether, when he quoted a figure of $192 million, it had relation to what the increased expenditure resulting from this proposal would be.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. That is my estimate based on the cost for the year ended March 31, 1952, which was listed in the annual report as $320 million. The minister may have some figures that are more up to date, but I do not think the estimate would be far out in any event.


Mr. Gibson:: Barnyard economics.


Hazen Robert Argue: What kind do you follow, rule of thumb?


John Lambert Gibson: Just the opposite to yours.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder what the hon. member would say about the motion. I hope he is not suggesting that he opposes it.


John Lambert Gibson: I think so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I estimate that an increase of 60 per cent in the family allowance would cost the national treasury an additional $192 million in any one year. Our gross national production for the year ended March 31, 1952, was some $21-2 billion. The 60 per cent increase in the family allowance that I aim advocating represents less than 1 per cent of the gross national production. Let us take a look at what has been happening to the share of the gross national production that is being used for family allowances. In the fiscal year 1946-47 $245 million was spent on family allowances. Our national wealth production in that year was some $12 billion. In other words, 2 per cent was paid out of our production in 1946-47 for the purpose of family allowances.
For the year ended March 31, 1952, the amount paid for family allowances had increased to $320 million but our national production had increased to $21-2 billion, and family allowances in 1951-52 represented only 1J per cent of our national production compared with 2 per cent in 1946-47. The suggestion I make is that the percentage of our national production that is used to provide family allowance payments should not be allowed to decrease, and most certainly not to the extent of 25 per cent over a five-year period. Instead of the government marching

forward with improved social security measures, it has allowed our social security program, so far as family allowances are concerned, to go backward rather than forward.
As I have 'already said, the Minister of Fisheries put the payment of family allowances in proper perspective when he said it was not taxation on materials and labour for use by the government but was a transfer payment. It was taking certain moneys from well-to-do Canadians and helping to redistribute and reallocate our purchasing power so that mothers, especially those in the lower income groups, might be better able to provide for their families. Such a redistribution in purchasing power might mean for a few people a reduced number of trips to Bermuda, Florida and California. Perhaps they could make one trip fewer in a lifetime without any serious result. A redistribution in purchasing power might mean fewer mink coats but it would mean more children's snowsuits. It might mean fewer Cadillacs driven in Canada but it would mean that mothers would be better able to afford baby carriages and children's go-carts. A redistribution of purchasing power so as to bring about an increase in family allowances might result in the use of less champagne but more milk.
In my opinion such a redistribution in purchasing power for the benefit of Canadian children is long overdue. I recommend this resolution to the house for serious consideration. I believe that in our democracy we dare not allow our social security measures to stand still. Democracy is on trial throughout the world, and if we are to prove to our Canadian citizens and to the world at large that democracy is the best type of political system anywhere in the world, as we all believe it to be, then it is essential that year after year we add to and improve our social security measures.
I do not expect that I shall live to see the day when, in my opinion, social security measures are adequate. It is something you must work at year in and year out. I believe the year 1953 is the time when this government should bring before parliament legislation which would provide an increase, as I have said, of at least 60 per cent in family allowances. It would not increase the real purchasing power above that prevailing in 1944, but would merely restore to the family allowances cheque the purchasing power that was represented by such an amount when the act was first enacted in 1944. If we do that, as I hope we shall, then the time may not be too far distant when there should be an increase in the 68108-72
Family Allowances Act real purchasing power of the family allowances cheque. I feel this legislation has proven to be of value, and that an improvement in the legislation by way of increasing the purchasing power of the family allowances cheque will result in our Canadian children being better fed, better clothed, better educated, and will give them an opportunity of more adequate medical services.
I believe that such a program is an investment in Canada's future. It will not cost anything in the way of reduced production of the nation but is, in fact, merely a transfer of purchasing power from the well-to-do to those who need it most, namely, the mothers of families in the low wage group, particularly the group to which I have referred, the 37 per cent of all wage earners in Canada who in 1951 earned less than $1,500.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: I could not take very serious issue with the hon. member when he feels that family allowances should be continued and increased as we can pay for them. He has made an impassioned appeal to many classes in this country, including labour, the textile industry and the dairy industry. There is only one particular class to whom he did not make a very serious appeal, and that is the taxpayer. It is not the man who drives the Cadillac or the lady who wears the mink coat who pays the largest amount of taxes in this country, but the ordinary person like the hon. member and myself. We pay indirect taxes on practically everything we use. Most of the revenue of this country comes from that source.
Another matter I should like to discuss is the fact that the family allowances were never expected to cure all the economic ills of this country. In other words, people were raising families in this country long before family allowances were conceived, and the head of the family was expected to provide what the family needed. Children were born, grew up and were educated, and the head of the family provided for their education and their maintenance.
Several years ago the former leader of the Liberal party in Canada, who was prime minister at the time, felt that our greatest investment should be in the future, in the children of the country who would grow up to be the men and women who would govern the nation and produce what the country required. I understand that when he mentioned family allowances to his cabinet they were an unheard-of thing. The cabinet did not know what he was talking about, and did not believe that that was
llio	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act the part of government at all, to give money to parents for any purpose without its being earned. Finally, he impressed on the people of this country that they had a duty to the children and future of the nation, just as much as they had a duty to grant a pension to the people of the country who had passed their ability to earn. The idea of giving money to young families was an unheard-of thing. The subject was not brought up on the floor of the house or any other place except there. It was an idea that originated right in that place.
As a result the Liberal party, which was in power at the time, passed the family allowances bill, so that the people of this country now have something that very few countries in the world have. The money that is paying for this measure is coming out of the taxpayers. We are a step in advance of practically every country in this world by reason of this legislation. Like the hon. member, I feel that all this social legislation should be advanced just as quickly as it is possible to advance it. I feel also, and very strongly, that there are countries in the world that have gone overboard for social legislation. They have brought themselves into a position where they are financially embarrassed by the amount of money they are paying out in social legislation. We must remember that if the economy of this country is working at top speed, it can produce jobs which enable the heads of families to make money to raise their children.
I recall that during the thirties young people were going together for years and years, but were unable to get married and raise families because they could not get jobs that would pay enough to allow them to do so. Today we find that young people going together can afford to get married while they are young because we have a sound economy which will allow them to get jobs, to go into farming or industry, and thus set up homes. Let us consider a country which would be loaded down by taxes in order to pay for excessive social services. Practically everything that was produced would go to the government, and the government would dole out these various social services like family allowances, medical services and the others. We would find that the economy of the country would become tighter because people could not earn the money they needed.
I feel that family allowances are very important, and I feel that as soon as we can collect enough money from the taxpayers to increase those allowances we should do so. But I believe that our one great aim should be to see that everyone in this country has an opportunity to get a job that will pay enough money to keep a family. Then our


family allowances program, as it goes forward, could supplement the income that the father earned. As I say, I am not greatly opposed to the measure the hon. member has brought forward. I am in favour of family allowances, because I certainly support wholeheartedly the government that conceived them, introduced them and is paying them now. As soon as it is felt that we can afford to increase those allowances, then I shall be in favour of that.
One thing we must remember is that we cannot burden the country by these transfer payments as they are called, to the point where a person who is trying to get ahead and expand his business finds himself under a load of taxes which will not allow him to do that. For that reason I feel we should go carefully. Once again I want to say that I am not opposed to the proposal, but at the moment I feel that we have gone about as far as we can in that particular direction. I believe that our biggest job is to provide the young parent with a good job at an adequate income, and do the other things necessary to keep our economy sound. Whatever we can do, in addition, to give increased family allowances, I feel we should do.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take about two minutes to speak in support of the motion. The family allowance was introduced to fill a gap in the earning power of many of the family wage earners in this country. At the present time it is insufficient to fill that gap and to serve the purpose for which it was designed. I believe, however, that there are one or two other considerations which the government should take into account at the present time. The first is that, in my opinion, a larger income tax exemption should be allowed for those who are receiving the family allowance. At the present time the exemption is pretty much of a joke. But more important than that point is this one. Before any increase is given, I believe that consideration should first be given to the extension of the age limit beyond 16 for those children who are carrying on with their education. In many cases, among the lower income families, we find that the children have to quit school after 16. As a result of that fact their productive capacity in later life is restricted.
As I say, we agree that the family allowance is inadequate at the present time and we should like to see an increase in it. But at the same time I think that consideration should first be given to those children over the age of 16 who wish to continue their education. What the age limit would be is something I would leave to the Minister of

National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). But in many cases the children are forced to quit school immediately upon reaching the age of 16 because the family income just does not allow them to go on.
As for the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and his saying that it was something unheard of when the federal government proposed this particular piece of legislation, I am not going to say too much except that it is an application of the dividend that has been advocated by the Social Credit members of this house since 1935. It does not go as far as we should like to see it go. The money does not come from the same place that we should like to see it come from. Nevertheless, we dislike the idea of the government's getting the credit for adopting something that we have been advocating for years.


Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would have had little to say on this resolution had it not been for the contribution of the sponsor of it and that of the hon. member who has just spoken, namely, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas). Some months ago, being intensely interested in the over-all picture of social security, particularly as it applied in the province of Alberta, I took the time to examine and to inquire with regard to family allowances and other social security measures such as health care and pensions for the aged. I learned that every month there flows into the province of Alberta an amount of $1,800,000. This amount goes into 140 thousand homes and provides a better opportunity for more than 300,000 children in that province. We all know that this means that the mothers and fathers in the province of Alberta have each year $21 million extra to spend on the care of their children. All of this $21 million is paid out of the federal treasury. It is paid entirely by the dominion government.


Mr. Johnston:: Where do they get the
money from?


Albert Frederick Macdonald: It can
only come out of the pockets of the taxpayers; it can come only out of the taxpayers who work hard to put it into their pockets.


Charles Edward Johnston: It comes out of the people of Alberta in taxes. Why does the hon. member not say it plainly?


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Because of these allowances, the children are able to get better food than they ever before had, and certainly more than they received eight years previously, before this good social measure was adopted. They are able to get better medical, dental and optical care than 68108-724
Family Allowances Act they ever before received. In every part of Alberta, as in every part of Canada, because of the allowances there has been a great improvement in school attendance. In fact, someone has said that family allowances are Canada's best truant officer. Because of family allowances, thousands of our children are now able to get the equipment they need in order to take part in sports and other recreational and cultural activities. These opportunities were not always open to them before the introduction of family allowances. By helping to relieve the fear of want that presses on every home where family incomes fall short of family needs, family allowances have given new hope and new faith in the future to a great many thousands of the parents of these 300,000 children who were recipients of family allowances in Alberta last year.
I have heard some suggest that the introduction of family allowances was a dangerous thing. Those people had little faith in the integrity and the sense of responsibility of the mothers and the fathers of this nation. After eight years' experience with this program we all know that the federal government's trust in the parents of this country was well placed. Experience has clearly shown that, in every part of the country, the allowances are being spent wisely and well to provide better food, clothing, health care and education for our nation's future citizens.
However, in the discussion of family allowances I believe that we are being insular when we think that it is the one form of social security to which the people expect us to give particular consideration. Family allowances are good, but there are other matters that we must consider. In 1951 the federal government enacted a vast new program of old age security. That program, in the generosity of its provisions and in the breadth of its coverage, is unequalled anywhere else in the world. Under our federal old age security program no less than 37,250 -and I am speaking of Alberta citizens only -receive more than $1,500,000 every month, which is paid entirely-every last cent of it-by the federal government, and without a means test of any kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: Out of the taxes of Alberta.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Federal expenditures on old age security alone in Alberta amount to something more than $18 million a year, and this is in addition to the federal share of the old age assistance payments to those in need between the ages of 65 and 69. Through this self-respecting pay-as-you-go pension program the federal government has extended responsibility for
1112	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act the care of our senior citizens beyond the family circle, to take in the community and the whole nation. This program finds its purpose in the neighbourly instincts of an entire people and its fulfilment in their unselfish resolve to provide a better, more secure life for those who have grown old.
Every one of us can take pride in the fact that Canada is the first nation to pay a full scale universal old age pension without a means test. In looking at this whole picture of social security, of which a very important part is family allowances, may I say that family allowances and old age pensions help provide for the needs of the young and the old. But we have something else in addition in this nation, partly promoted by the federal administration, namely, our national health program.


Charles Edward Johnston: Where is that?


Albert Frederick Macdonald: That provides for better health care for everyone in Canada. Since the hon. member who has just interrupted me comes from Alberta-


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say "what is it?" I said "where is it?"


Albert Frederick Macdonald: -I welcome his interruptions, and probably for his enlightenment I should tell him what the national health program means to the province of which he represents an important constituency in this chamber. Under the national health program, Mr. Speaker, more than $3i million was available to the province of Alberta last year to help provincial authorities increase our hospital accommodation and improve our general health services. This program of national health grants, established a little over four years ago, is without question the greatest single event in the health history of this country. Since the program began, more than $11 million has been made available to improve health standards throughout Alberta.
Federal grants have been used for a thorough survey of the provinces' met and unmet health needs. The report of the health survey committee contains important recommendations regarding hospitals, nursing services, dental services, public health services, the care of crippled children, cancer control, mental illness, the control of tuberculosis, and many other matters vitally affecting the health of the people of the province of Alberta. Other federal health grants will be used to help implement these recommendations.
Moreover, I should like to tell the hon. member who interrupted me that for hospital
[Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East) .1

construction alone in the province of Alberta more than $2 million in federal grants have been given to thirty-five individual hospital construction projects to help provide more than 2,000 additional hospital beds. Through the federal grants, additional training has been given to 400 physicians, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists and other health workers throughout Alberta. Grants have also been used to help establish Alberta's nursing aides school in Calgary where more than 700 nursing aides have already received training.
Substantial numbers of trained health personnel have been employed with the aid of federal funds to keep health services united throughout the province of Alberta. Other grants have been used to establish and operate new health units. In Calgary and Edmonton, federal grants have been used for the purchase of equipment and for the establishment of cerebral palsy clinics, well-baby clinics, and the development of immunization programs.
I would not have gone into this and other matters in such detail if the question had not been asked by the hon. member for Bow River as to what the federal government were doing with the money that they were collecting in taxes from Alberta. I say that through these and other responsible social measures, administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare and other federal agencies, effective steps are being taken to safeguard the health and welfare of the citizens of Alberta and of all Canada. I know that everyone will agree with me that each of these measures has been developed to meet a real need, but always within our capacity to afford.
Family allowances, old age pensions and the national health program are good in themselves, and I support them; but there is one thing that we should never forget, that our responsibilities as members elected from the constituencies are to give the kind of leadership that our constituents require from members attending sittings in this chamber. We should never forget that this social security program is built upon our system of free enterprise. The success of every social measure depends on the encouragement given to individual initiative because, in the long run, it is the hard work of the Canadian people, of whom I am one, that makes these measures for social security possible.
Just this week I had the opportunity and the privilege * of being present when representations were made by representatives of the sightless people of Canada. They too have

a problem that must be reviewed; they too have something that the minister, I hope, will give every consideration to and resolve in the way in which they wish it resolved. I have told the minister that, if he resolves it in the way they suggest, it will have my blessing as one member of this house.


Charles Edward Johnston: That ought to help a lot.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: The hon. member will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
This proposed resolution to increase family allowance payments by $192 million is something that takes more than just a moment's consideration on my part. We have a fine system of social security in this country. In addition to having the basis of the family allowances established as it was eight years ago at the amounts that are now payable, we have made it possible for the largest working force in Canada's history to be employed and earning fair wages, good wages compared with those paid a few years ago. There is room for improvement in the wages that are being paid to the people who are working; but the hon. member for Bow River well knows that in the province of Alberta we have never enjoyed such prosperity as has been brought to the citizens of that province by the manner in which the affairs of this country have been conducted by the federal administration.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Did they put the oil there?


Mr. Ferrie:: No, but they sold the wheat, and wheat has got more to do with it than the oil.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will use his usual good judgment. He is in his seat, and listening attentively to the remarks of hon. members on this resolution. I would ask him to make sure that it is within our ability at the present time to pay another $192 million a year to increase by 60 per cent the family allowance figure set out by the hon. member who proposed the resolution.
This is one form of social security I wish to see retained on the statute books; and if it is ever going to be increased I want it to be increased to an amount we can sustain for all time to come.
I would hope that when the minister speaks he would take into consideration the amount of money involved, and that he would consider the resolution and, in the light of the amount of money available from the taxpayers of this country, consider the possibility
Family Allowances Act of supporting an increase in this form of social legislation.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided by the resolution to speak briefly on one aspect of the family allowances question which is of particular concern to me. Before doing that however may I say that I most certainly welcome anything which would place more money at the disposal of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to be spent for the benefit of the people of Canada. I feel confident he would enjoy spending it for that purpose, and that he would spend it wisely. What I. do not know, however, is whether, if he had an additional $192 million at his disposal at the moment, he would decide that this particular method of spending it is the best one, or whether there may be other even more pressing social problems now facing us.
The aspect of the problem with which I am more particularly concerned and of which I am more appreciative is the payment of family allowances to our native Indian population. I feel sure that interest in the mental, physical and moral welfare of our Indian population is not confined to any one political party, and in these observations I am not trying to play politics. Indeed, I would give due credit to hon. members on the opposite side of the house, just as I would to those on this side who have shown clearly that, irrespective of political affiliations, they have the interests of the Indians at heart.
I believe there is no hon. member who speaks as the official spokesman for the Indian population, and there are only a few of us who represent ridings in which the Indians are a major factor. In my constituency they form a large percentage of the population. I have had some opportunity to see how family allowance cheques have influenced and affected the lives of the Indians.
The annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year ended March 31, 1951, states that there were 57,587 Indian children in 20,014 families receiving allowances as of December 31, 1950. I regret to say that in the departmental report for the following year there is no comparable statistical figure; the actual figures for the Indians have not been set out. May I suggest incidentally to the minister that in next year's report those figures should be included.
I have no doubt however that the figures, if they were shown, would indicate an increase comparable with or greater than the proportion of increase among the rest of the
1114	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act population in Canada. At page 93 of the departmental report which I have indicated I find this:
It is the opinion of the Indian affairs branch that family allowances have been a very important factor in the continued improvement noted in school attendance and enrolment records. Reports from the Indian affairs field staff continue to indicate that the payment of family allowances is making a substantial contribution to the better health of Indian children generally.
There is no doubt whatever that, even in districts as far away from centres of civilization as that which I represent, there has been a very general improvement in conditions among the Indians. God knows, and I trust the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) will note, that there is still ample room for improvement. At the same time we are gradually improving the lot of those people whom, for many years, we failed to help to any great extent. During the last fifteen or twenty years, I believe, we have developed a social conscience which has extended to our Indians as well as to our other countrymen.
I do not know to what extent the improvement among the Indians is due to family allowances, but there can be no doubt that they are a contributing factor. There are of course other contributing factors this government has brought into operation, and there are other things for which perhaps the government cannot take a great deal of credit.
After all, there has been an extension of civilization westward and northward. As I said before, there has been a development of our social conscience, apparent not only among politicians but among others as well.
Coming to the resolution, I would point out that there is a point which may or may not be profitable or advantageous at election time, but which in my view should now be emphasized by someone. In Canada the prime responsibility for the children still rests with the parents. If we should reach a stage when the first responsibility for bringing up children passes from the parents to the state, we will have come dangerously close to the moral, or immoral, system adopted in Russia.
At the same time it is only right that we should consider the basic reasons for the inauguration of family allowances. Put briefly, as I understand it, the situation is this: A single man may work side by side with a married man who has three children. They may be doing exactly the same kind of work and, under our industrial system, both will draw the same pay. Yet one has far greater responsibilities than the other.


So in our governmental system we have endeavoured to assist in equalizing the burden.
The family allowance cheque is not the only assistance given. A far greater assistance, proportionately, is given by income tax deduction allowances for children. There are other and less important forms of assistance, such as medical deductions permitted in respect of members of a family. At the same time I think we are in danger of overlooking what I consider a basic and important fact, that family allowances were not introduced for the purpose of having the state bring up or assume the responsibility for feeding and clothing our children; they were brought in, as was the dependents' deduction for income tax purposes, in order to bring about a levelling of burdens and responsibilities.
In so far as the actual proposition put forward in the resolution is concerned, I suppose it is a tying of the family allowances to the cost of living. The resolution does not say so in so many words and I do not want to distort the resolution, but it reads in part: -increasing the amounts paid under the Family Allowances Act to the extent necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living . . .
To all intents and purposes I think that is tying the family allowance cheque to the cost of living. Should a catastrophe occur and a depression of major proportion engulf us, and as a result the cost of living be reduced to one-half of what it is now, I assume the hon. member would not be able to object to reducing family allowances to the same extent.
I would be strongly against a fluctuating family allowance cheque, one which would go up a few cents, down a dollar, up a few cents and down a few cents as the cost of living varied. I speak of this with knowledge as I have discussed it with heads of families. They tell me that they are able to budget better with a fixed dollar income than they would be with a fluctuating cheque, even though prices might vary. I do not know why that should be. Perhaps it indicates one of the shortcomings of human nature, but I am told that a steady income is easier to spend in advance, to budget, than is a fluctuating cheque which might always be a little behind the variations in prices.
There is another aspect of this matter which I think the hon. member for Assin-iboia (Mr. Argue) has inadvertently overlooked. No one can argue that there has not been a tremendous increase in the cost of living, but that has been accompanied by an increase in prosperity, that is, by an increase in the funds in the hands of our

people. The higher cost of living is, at least to some extent, the result of wages being higher, of the prices paid for the produce of primary producers being higher than they were at the time the act was first brought in. Parents have more money; they have more dollars today than they had when the cost of living was 100. That may not be the whole answer to the problem which the hon. member is trying to solve, but I think it must be taken into consideration as being quite a factor.
The example I am about to give is taken out of thin air and may not be entirely tied to facts. Let us assume that the cost of living is up 100 per cent and at the same time that the income in dollars of a family is up 75 per cent. You cannot maintain exactly the balance that you had at the base period by raising the family allowance to take care of the cost of living index unless at the same time you make some allowance for the income increase. I do not know how that formula can be worked out, but I do say that the assumption that people earn no more in current dollars than they did in 1939 dollars while the cost of living has gone up by approximately 100 per cent is surely not correct.
In his speech, more than in his resolution,
I regret to say that the hon. member for Assiniboia gave me the impression he was rather pounding upon what I am afraid has been the theme of his party for recent years, that is-give, give, give. They have advocated, doubtless at times quite justifiably, increased family allowances, increased old age pensions, disablement pensions, health insurance, relief for the needy and so on and so on. I favour them all; we all do. But unfortunately the same opposition-it is all opposition-which day after day hounds us on this side to approve resolutions advocating the expenditure of millions of dollars are continuing to needle, perhaps not me but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and others to reduce the tax burden.
I do not think anyone wants to take a hard and fast line and say that nothing can be increased or that no tax can be reduced, but, my goodness, we have to use some judgment. We have to decide what are the important things that we want to increase before we can decide what there is going to be in the way of reductions. I think it was the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) who stated that greater assistance can be given to the heads of families by increasing the income tax deductions for children than by a 60 per cent increase in family allowances.
Unfortunately the situation is that if we are going to carry out all the requests which
Family Allowances Act have been made by my hon. friends of the C.C.F. we will eventually land in one position only: the government will take the whole of the pay cheque in taxes and then undertake to feed, clothe and shelter the people of Canada. I do not think that we want that. I have pointed out that danger and we are getting closer to it all the time.
That does not mean for one minute that anybody on this side is suggesting that we have not a continuing duty to correct inequalities which involve hardship for certain classifications of our people. Sometimes the groups upon which these hardships are inflicted are fairly small in number and not very vocal. We must not overlook that there may be some of them who are far less in number than are the heads of families. I should think that to ensure that those inequalities and hardships are removed is a more pressing problem at the moment, with the Canadian economy as it is, than to increase family allowances.
So far as an increase in family allowances is concerned, I feel that, as long as we have the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), as soon as an increase in family allowances is feasible and desirable, we will get it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this resolution. I had no intention whatever of saying anything but some remarks that have been made make it necessary for me to say a word or two on this occasion. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) went out of his way to make certain remarks to which I want to refer.


An hon. Member:: Facts.


Charles Edward Johnston: For the most part he read from a prepared speech, although he said that he would not have spoken if it had no1 been for certain references made by the hon member who moved the motion and the hon member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas).


Albert Frederick Macdonald: I rise or a question of privilege.


Charles Edward Johnston: The greater proportion o: his speech was prepared, and outside of : few interjections


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon member is rising on a question of privilege


Albert Frederick Macdonald: I shouh like to make it clear that I was not readinj from a prepared speech. I spoke extern poraneously from a wide knowledge of thi question of social security that I gained fron a particular study I made recently of th provisions-


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the privilege?

Family Allowances Act


Albert Frederick Macdonald: -of the
federal health program and other social security measures as they pertain to the province of Alberta. I would not have spoken at some length upon this matter if it had not been for a question by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johniston), who is now speaking.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I suppose because there is likelihood of an election in the offing that my hon. friend was a little more persuaded to make the speech he did. That thought particularly runs in my mind, having listened to the way he praised the federal government for all the money they were spending not only in other parts of Canada but in Alberta. Of course the hon. member is going to be re-elected in Alberta, he hopes.


An hon. Member:: Sure he will.


Charles Edward Johnston: Peace River (Mr. Low) says, they are giving back somebody else's money. Nobody is trying to belittle what the federal government has done toward inaugurating a national health plan, but there again let me remind hon. members that it was a Liberal government that promised in 1919 to do something about a national health plan, and that after all these years we would not have got to the place where we are now if it had not been for constant prodding by the members of the opposition.
I do not hesitate for a moment to give the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) all the credit that is due him for providing such assistance to the people of Canada in the form of health services as he has made available. I do not say this to flatter him-I do not often flatter anybody on that side of the house-but I think he would have gone much further if he had been permitted to do so. The hon. member for Edmonton East spoke about $2 million being provided for hospitals in Alberta under the national health plan. I suppose the figure of $2 million is correct, but that only goes to show how much the province of Alberta has done on its own', and that province is only one out of ten. When the federal government gave $2 million for hospitalization that was also the amount that the province of Alberta put up because it was on a fifty-fifty basis.
I am glad that the hon. member for Edmonton East used the province of Alberta for purposes of comparison because it stands far ahead of any other province in the Dominion of Canada so far as health services are concerned, and Saskatchewan of course follows along closely behind. Alberta has taken the lead in the field of health services, so it is no wonder that the hon. member for Edmonton East can boast of what the province has done for the health of its people. It has not only done that but it has paved the way for all the rest of Canada. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is a peculiar thing to me when I hear some members on the government side get up and make excuses as to why we cannot increase the family allowance. They point out that the federal government is giving old age pensions of $40 a month without a means test. I would not be too proud of that. The other day I was speaking to old age pensioners in Calgary and they were asking for increased pensions. One old fellow got up and said, "We hardly have enough to eat". It seemed rather peculiar that there should be people in that audience who were actually hungry.


Mr. Whiteside:: Give them some Social Credit money.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am coming to that. Don't worry. It seemed rather peculiar that there should be people getting up and asking for another loaf of bread and yet the Liberal government and those who support it say that we cannot give another loaf of bread when we have millions and millions of bushels of wheat in this country that we do not know what to do with. Last year we had the largest crop in the history of Canada by over 100 million bushels. We had1 no place to put it and yet we cannot give the old age pensioners another loaf of bread. Why? Because, as my hon. friend interjected, we have not got any Social Credit money. Just because we cannot find that little piece of paper to distribute purchasing power to our people we have to deprive them of a loaf of bread when we have millions of bushels of wheat that we do not know what to do with. What kind of thinking is that? Of course, I suppose that is what you would expect from people who have never stopped to discuss or think about the matter.
My hon. friends take some pride in saying that family allowances were introduced by a Liberal government. One of them went on to point out how the family allowance increased the purchasing power of the people receiving it and thereby helped all the people of Canada. Yes, that is true. I remember when the then prime minister introduced the bill years ago. When speaking on this very subject he pointed out that by giving people the family allowance, money, mind you, that was never worked for, it would increase their purchasing power. He said it would not only raise their standard of living but would raise the standard of living of everybody in the country because it would provide a greater market. Those words are the very words that have been used by Social Crediters ever since we have been coming to the House of Commons, and even before that out on the hustings.
In 1935 when we were advocating the issuance of a national dividend, not the printing of money wholesale but based on our production alone, every one of the members on the other side criticized us. They said, "How are you going to give money to people unless they go out and earn it?" They said it could not be done, that it was silly. My hon. friend wanted to know something about Social Credit money. The people are now getting this national dividend, and they do not have to go out and work at a job to receive it. It has added to the purchasing power and is raising the standard of living. It is increasing the prosperity of everybody in Canada. I should like to have a Liberal member get up now to deny that point. The
Family Allowances Act Liberals did lots of denying before the Prime Minister of that day brought in the legislation. Now they sit silent. They do not speak about a national dividend because, to a degree, that is exactly what it is.
One of the last speakers indicated that there were other ways of giving this assistance to these people. One means was through an income tax deduction to married people with families. Family allowances were not given to assist those in the higher brackets who can pay income taxes; they were given for the primary purpose of assisting those who had not sufficient earning power to pay income taxes. How does he arrive at the idea that an income tax deduction would assist these people when they have not sufficient income to pay income taxes? Surely we have not come to such a financially depraved condition, when we live in such a prosperous country as we say Canada is, that we cannot afford to give these people a little added purchasing power to afford them a better standard of living than they now have. You do not have to go to the province of Alberta to find that condition. Let me tell you that there are such conditions in both Quebec and Ontario, as well as the city of Ottawa.
Then another hon. member spoke about how inflation had assisted the people who are receiving family allowances; how it had increased the number of dollars in their pocket. It has, to a degree; but it has not greatly increased the number of dollars in the pockets of those people who really need family allowances or old age pensions. They are on a fixed income, and it is very low indeed. They can hardly eke out an existence, let alone live in any semblance of prosperity. It must not be forgotten either, Mr. Speaker, that it was under this administration that our dollar has been depreciated to the point where it is now worth only about 50 cents. Inflation has been a help to those people who have increased the number of dollars in their pockets, but it has hit at the very root of this problem of family allowances. It has hit those people the hardest who need the assistance, and has not increased the number of dollars in their pockets. Their lot has -been made much worse.
How is the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) going to assist the people who really need this help? Surely he would be the last person to say that there are not a great many families in Canada who need it. The question we should ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is not whether or not we have sufficient money to increase these family allowances. We should ask ourselves, can Canada afford it? I believe that is a different problem. If this country could produce the

Family Allowances Act goods and services to increase the standard of living of these people who are in dire need, then there should be no question as to whether or not they will get it. It should be forthcoming.
From the agricultural point of view and the industrial standpoint, this country is richer by far than it ever has been. In fact we have come to the point where our agricultural production is increasing so rapidly that the farmers are saying we shall have to control production because we have not an export market. Those people who speak that way, and those people who say that we cannot afford family allowances are forgetting that when you export you must import, unless you want to give the goods away. When you import goods you must make provision for consumption in this country. The only way you can do that is by increasing our standard of living. Accordingly, it would seem that the best market for everything we can produce, either in the primary or secondary industries, lies right in Canada. We can help ourselves by helping those people to get an increase in family allowances.
Can we afford it? Last year our production was close to $22 billion. Just before Christmas the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that this country was more prosperous than it had ever been before.


Mr. Dupuis:: True.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then why do we refuse to give a little bit more in family allowances?


Hector Dupuis: We do not mind allowing a little more if we can afford to give it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have just been trying to tell you that we can afford it.


Hector Dupuis: This is just election talk.


Charles Edward Johnston: That has been the trend of Liberal thinking, that we have not enough dollars. It is not a case of whether we can produce the goods and services. It is time we got out of that line of thinking, and then we would not have these poor indigents coming up here and asking for a loaf of bread. We have members of the government standing up and saying that we cannot afford it.
We have not come to the point yet in our thinking where we can say that children are an asset in this country instead of a liability. They are the greatest asset we have; yet we are not making it possible for people to raise the families they would desire. We have to bring in immigrants from other countries in order to build up our population. We should not forget that there are needy people in this country. They are not confined to

the group receiving family allowances, but may be found in the different classes that already have been mentioned, the old age pensioners and those who are physically not fit to work, the incurables. Surely in a country as prosperous as Canada it should never be said that we cannot adequately take care of these people who are in such dire need.
When I think of the waste in this country, especially as it has been revealed in the last few weeks, with government members standing up and trying to defend that extravagance and waste which runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars-the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) says millions and Mr. Currie said it will never be estimated-


Hector Dupuis: Well, don't mention a figure then.


Charles Edward Johnston: -it is difficult to understand why some members in this house say we cannot afford to increase these family allowances. They say we will do it when we can afford it, that is if the children have not starved to death beforehand. One of our first concerns should be to take care of the needy now and not wait for another ten, twenty or thirty years.
Mr. Speaker, I would not have spoken on this occasion in support of this resolution if I were convinced that Canada could not afford it. But from the facts and figures that have been given by the Prime Minister himself, other ministers in the cabinet and other hon. members in this house, 1 know that we can well afford to increase the family allowance, to increase the old age pension and to help those who are unable to help themselves. By helping those people we are helping ourselves to greater prosperity because we are providing a greater market right here where it is needed.
Let us judge whether or not these people need this assistance, Mr. Speaker. If we come to the conclusion that they need it, the next point we should look at is: Can Canada produce it, and is she producing it now? Those are the only two things we need to ask ourselves. Once those two questions are answered to our satisfaction, we should say: We will get the money to do it.
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that a member for a constituency which swarms with large

families should rise to give his opinion on this matter. There will be no need for me to speak very long to assure my hon. colleagues that I am favourable to any measure calculated to improve the living conditions of our large families.
Having been a frequent visitor at the various welfare centres in my constituency, I believe I may say that I am aware of the situation in which the families of the constituency I have the honour to represent happen to find themselves at this time. Comparing it to that which I knew between 1930 and 1935, under a Conservative government, when I was a member of the municipal council of the city of Montreal as well as of the executive council, I believe I am in a position to say that there is absolutely no comparison between the two situations. What we saw at that time, in fact, was the worst possible plight in which a human being could find himself whereas nowadays we enjoy relative prosperity, a prosperity which is not entirely due to such and such a set of circumstances but which is the result of sound administration. This administration, mindful of its responsibilities, goes neither too rapidly nor too slowly in the preparation of its legislation where it is faced with the necessity of deciding how to meet any particular situation.
Before admitting that our hon. friends of the Social Credit party have the monopoly of compassion, pity and solicitude for the people-since that appears to be their idea-we must remember that even before the existence of that party in Canada, there were two great parties, two great parties which were diametrically opposed to each other on certain principles, particularly on social matters, when it came to being more liberal-that is generous-toward society. We then heard the Tories protest that it was bad policy to socialize the country, to which the Liberals replied that we had to allow for circumstances and progress in all directions.
The party to which we belong is not one which goes on harping upon the heroic deeds of the past. We must face the new situation brought about by changing times not only in our country but in the whole world, and rise to it. The Liberal party is the one which has managed to create and establish on a permanent basis the various social laws which make it possible for the people in general to hope for at least easier if not much happier days than those they have known, before the existence of these social measures.
Family Allowances Act
Such was the situation as far as allowances are concerned in all fields of social security where the state is called upon to grant some measure of assistance. The government has provided for the new needs of the people as they occurred and has enacted adequate legislation to meet any situation.
Such a policy indicates that the government had at heart the welfare of those who asked not pity but help to go successfully through difficult times. On the other hand, we heard Conservative leaders say, especially when mention was made of family allowances, that they were more or less a bribe to get votes, more particularly in the province of Quebec. They accused the government of the day, in a sly way that I would have trouble to describe, of trying to buy the votes of the people of Quebec by giving them a measure of social security to alleviate their misery. Well, the government had understood the situation. It was not a matter of political expediency, but rather of sound comprehension and of wise administration. As long as the Liberal party will keep pace with times and conditions which bring about a change in the complexion of the various problems in this country, they may rely on the support not only of the member now addressing the house, but also of all the right-minded people in Canada.
This is the reason why we see, on the eve of an election-since there is to be one this year-our friends from the left, especially those from the Social Credit group, continuously getting up to suggest increases of all kind, which we also favour, because we have favoured them in the past and because we are as kindhearted as our Social Credit friends can be.
We would like, of course, to lighten the burden of the mothers in particular who look after most of these problems arising in the home. We, from the government side, are in favour of these things. But we can see how inconsistent our opponents are when, on the one hand, they are asking the government to reduce taxes, that is its own source of revenues, and, on the other hand, they are asking increase after increase on behalf of those whom we have been assisting long before being requested to do so by the hon. members from the Social Credit group.
Well, Mr. Speaker, though I am favourable to every possible increase, in every field of social welfare, as I have demonstrated by favouring an increase in the old age pensions, for example, in spite of what we have done in the past, as well as in supporting all those measures we have so far adopted, maybe the government should levy two distinct

Family Allowances Act taxes. I am not saying that I would be for or against such a step, but at any rate it would be the measure of our leaders' sincerity. I might favour a general social welfare tax plus the present income tax, modified of course to take care of the changes brought about by the new tax. I do not wish to leave the impression that I am suggesting this particular levy but I do wish to point out the importance of making a difference between the income tax proper and that part of it which goes to welfare purposes.
It seems to me that it would be wise and advantageous to introduce a motion along that line, in order that the government might be allowed to consider the advisability of such a measure. I am not prepared, however, to commit myself upon the value of such a motion.
Going back to what I emphasized a moment ago, it should after all be realized that we cannot adopt, without some reservation, this resolution in its present form, before the minister concerned has given us his opinion on the matter. I have much more confidence -and it is not by way of flattery, nor in the hope of receiving anything in return that I say this-in the hon. minister at the head of the Department of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) than I have in those people who preach a certain policy in their province but who find it wiser, later on, not to implement it. I shall fall in therefore with the explanations of the minister.
On the other hand, it must be recognized that there is a difference between parliament and a city council. With your permission, Mr. Speaker-and I think I am keeping within the rules of the house in so doing-I will show the difference which exists between moving a resolution in this parliament and moving a similar resolution before a city council, that of Montreal for instance.
Formerly, we would move a motion as follows: "It is moved by alderman so-and-so, seconded by alderman so-and-so, that the executive committee consider the advisability of adopting this or that measure". That did not necessarily mean that the executive committee was bound to carry the motion, but it meant that we were all agreed that the proposed resolution deserved the attention of the executive committee, which was in that case, if I may be permitted such a comparison, like the municipal cabinet of the day.
Then, when we came back before the city council, we could not be accused of having ignored the unanimous stand of the council members, for we simply admitted that such


and such a measure was excellent, but that the executive committee had simply decided to postpone any further study of the matter. Thus the executive committee was never upbraided for not taking into consideration the unanimous opinion of the members, who had presented a motion asking the executive committee to consider the advisability of presenting a particular piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) vented his discontent, the other day, against a government which took no notice of his motion concerning the Income Tax Act and the abolition of the 4 per cent floor in connection with medical expenses. The hon. member voiced his protest in the name of sound democracy; he accused the government of taking no heed of a unanimous vote in the Commons, nor of the judgment of their own supporters, and asserted that they were anxious about one thing only: the possibility of doing just what they pleased.
I would not like to be caught in the same position. If I decided to vote in favour of the motion, I would have to blame the government for not having respected the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons.
On the other hand, following certain explanations supplied by the government I might find that it could not grant wishes expressed in this motion.
I believe that there is a very great difference between a motion calling for consideration of the advisability of adopting such and such a measure and the enforcement of that same measure.
To sum up I want to say this: considering all the things done so far by the government which for many years now has been at the helm in our country; considering the happy disposition of the hon. the Minister of National Health and Welfare; considering all that the government has accomplished in the social field, I do not hesitate, for one moment, to rely on the Prime Minister and his colleagues to decide whether it is possible, under the circumstances, to grant the increase asked for in the motion. I say once more that this motion thus presented on the eve of an election is nothing but eyewash. I am sure that if I asked for the opinion of my colleagues, they would say one after the other: Certainly, we also have feelings. We know that many families cannot afford to live as we would like them to live and we are eager to help the needy wherever they may be. However, we take into account the responsibility which our government must assume. We know that they must find the necessary funds in order to give what is

asked for. We realize that the opposition would take advantage of the opportunity to claim that we were illogical if, on the one hand, we were pleased to raise the benefits already granted by the government, while asking, on the other, for substantial tax reductions in the budget prepared by the same government.
I had to state these facts in order to make the situation clear. Inasmuch as we are concerned, I do not wish-although I could accept such a responsibility-to put my hon. friends and especially my constituents under the impression that I am not always willing to ask the government to consider measures which would be beneficial to my constituents. Nor do I wish it to be charged that we, on this side of the house, refuse to face these problems when, on the contrary, it is this very government that has found the best remedy to apply in the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is five o'clock. Before concluding I wish to voice all the confidence I have in the present government leadership, in the cabinet itself and more particularly in the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not doubt in the least that, as we have done in the past, we * will, whenever circumstances allow, whenever we are in a position to help those who depend on us, prepare and implement measures calculated to relieve those who, socially, look up to the government.
Mr. Speaker, is it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to point out to the hon. member that today we go on until six. We are not interrupting the present debate to study public or private bills; we are going on until six o'clock.


Hector Dupuis: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I now close my remarks. I merely wanted to know whether my time had expired. After all, the member for St. Mary can be fair in his own good time. I do not want to depart from the rules of the house.
I wish to thank the government for all it has done up to now in order to help those who are in need, and I am confident that it will manage to settle this question of family allowances to the satisfaction of all concerned.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation increasing the amounts paid under the Family Allowances Act to the extent
Family Allowances Act necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since the said act was first enacted.
No one has suggested, and I am sure no one will suggest, that the government takes issue with the principle of the suggestion involved. Certainly to oppose this resolution, as I shall, for the reasons I shall give, will not justify anyone in saying that the administration or the supporters of the government in the house do not believe in the principle of family allowances.
The principle of family allowances, embodied in an act introduced by the present government of Canada, has been referred to by a number of important individuals, such as Miss Kathleen F. Lenroot, chief of the United States children's bureau, as one of the greatest social acts of its kind; by Dr. Evelyn Burns, of the New York school of social work, as a magnificent measure; by R. E. G. Davis, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, as the cornerstone of Canada's social security program, and by Dorothy Thompson, who referred to the act as the most significant social legislation in the Americas.
This was legislation introduced by this government, without any suggestion of a parliamentary committee; and, in spite of all that may be said by some opposite who claim some credit, the fact is that the first suggestion for family allowances was made in this country by a Liberal member sitting on this side of the house at least eighteen years ago.
I make this reference lest anyone who should read Hansard, or the report of this debate, and who is not familiar with the earlier history, should conclude that we were not sympathetic to family allowances. This may not be the moment, but we will not fail to recall that when family allowances were introduced nine years ago there was certainly strong opposition from certain sections of the opposition. Not only was there opposition in the house, but there was strong opposition elsewhere against the measure, in other parts of Canada, and by political leaders of parties not represented by those who support the government of the day.
It is true that at the present time everyone in the house seems to be strongly in favour of the Family Allowances Act. That confirms perhaps not only the wisdom of the act, but also the good judgment of the government of the day which, in the face of strong opposition, decided to introduce the measure. And I should like to say at this juncture- and perhaps it should have been said long ago-that the name of the late Dr. Clark, deputy minister of finance, who passed away

Family Allowances Act a tew weeks ago, must always be associated with this project; for in the preparatory stages, in advising the government of the day, he contributed richly to this measure that has brought so much relief to those segments of our population whom we refer to as Canada's greatest resource, its children.
The hon. member who introduced the resolution, I am sure, spoke for his party. But I would point out to him that the only opposition to family allowances that I have heard in the house within recent times came from a member of his own party, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). I am not for one moment suggesting that the latter was not sincere when he complained about the expenditures involved in family allowances, but I wish simply to point out to the hon. member who proposed the resolution that everyone in the house now is in favour of the measure, with the single exception of one of his own colleagues.
The proposal put forward by my hon. friend is naturally one that captures and encourages the support of anyone who wants to see our children receive increasing opportunities. There is no one who could legitimately oppose that measure. But it is one thing to propose, and then it is another thing to be able to find responsible and practicable means of carrying out that proposal. And I suggest with vigour and sincerity to the hon. member who proposed this resolution that his suggestion is not practicable.


Mr. Herridge:: Nor accepted by this group.


Mr. Marlin:: "Nor accepted by this group" -I would point out to the hon. member who interjected those words, that, beside the proposition put forward by the hon. member who moved the resolution, that is a very interesting interruption.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thought the minister was referring to the views of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, when I said that.


Murdo William Martin: I am glad to note this intervention^ Those things will have to stand side ay side, and we will have to see whom we aelieve, in the context of things, deserves the greater approbation.
The significant thing, in answering the suggestion that the government should commit ;he people of Canada to an expenditure of 5192 million in addition to what has already aeen spent for family allowances, is that it s important to note the history of the idministration of the measure. This would nclude not only its present total cost, but dso all those related factors which would

enable a responsible man to come to a conclusion as to whether or not at this time, in the light of overriding obligations in regard to health, or other obligations of the government, this is the moment to embark upon such a proposal.
We have paid out in nine years in family allowances some $2,131 million. That is the amount up to December 31, 1952. The expenditure on family allowances for the fiscal year 1951-52 is to be found at pages 140 and 141 of the report of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which I tabled last Thursday. That report indicates that the estimated cost of family allowance payments in the fiscal year 1951-52 will total $320,880,854.
That in itself represents a substantial sum of money. There is only one source from which that money can come-indeed, there is only one source from which any expenditure of this or any other government can come-and that is from the hard work of the people of the country.
That fact cannot be emphasized too often; because it is one thing to suggest that there should be more social services-and I take second place to no hon. member in pressing for that objective-but, at the same time, if one wants to be responsible in his protagonism of legitimate social reform, there should constantly be brought home to the people a reminder as to the only source of all government expenditures.
May I say to the hon. member who at the moment, perhaps for another reason, is enjoying himself-perhaps I misunderstood him, and I will not go on to say what I was going to say, that he was laughing; I hope I am wrong in that-that the question before us is whether or not, in the face of the expenditure of $320 million for family allowances, apart altogether from what other expenditures are maintained in the field of health and welfare on federal account, we can honourably impose upon the people of Canada at this time a further expenditure of $190 million in connection with this one particular matter.
When you add to that the fact that we are spending over $300 million on old age security payments, let alone the other expenditures which I am going to detail before I resume my seat, I question very much whether the people of Canada would agree that this is the moment to embark upon this particular proposal. Not only do I question that; I would say to the hon. gentleman that my correspondence and contacts as Minister of National Health and Welfare lead me to suggest that if there

is any reform in connection with family allowances that is being put forward with greater vigour than any other, it is the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas), who said that he would prefer to see the age qualification increased from 16 years to at least 18 years.
I would certainly agree with him that there seems to be greater justification and greater demand for that kind of reform than there is for the reform put forward in the motion now before us.
Then there is the further argument made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite), that there is great danger to any social benefit when you apply the principle of movable benefits. That is a most dangerous thing to do. I do not think that as long as I am holding this post I would recommend to my colleagues in the government or to the people of Canada that that principle be adopted. The dangers are precisely as related by the hon. member for Skeena.
I have given the estimated expenditures in family allowances for the fiscal year 195152. The figures for the calendar year 1952 are very interesting indeed. They show a total of $330,827,545, with an average monthly payment from January 1952 to October 1952 of roughly $27 million. November and December of 1952 show an increase in family allowance payments, with the result that the average for those two months was a little over $28 million. In January 1952 we paid out in family allowances $27,400,000 to 1,956,183 families representing 4,496,739 children. In December, when the average monthly payment rose from $27 million to $28 million, payments were made to 2,021,745 families representing 4,668,987 children.
Is it any wonder that writers like Dorothy Thompson and others have admired this program because of the far-reaching distributive effect on the children of the nation, and indeed on the nation itself? When one looks at the various amounts paid to all the provinces one will appreciate what that means to the children at the present time as well as what it meant to them in 1945 when the act was introduced. If I have any criticism to make of the speech of the proposer of this resolution it is that he belittled the accomplishments to date of this great measure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "not at all" and I am happy to have the correction. When one looks at the amount of money paid in family allowances to Canadian children from Newfoundland in the east to British Columbia in the west, including the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, one cannot
Family Allowances Act help but conclude that those who were responsible for the inception of this measure will deserve for a long time the thanks of the great majority of the people of this country.
This act was intended to benefit the great majority of the people. It was predicated upon the fact that 19 per cent of the working population of Canada is responsible for almost 84 per cent of the children of Canada up to 16 years of age. It was predicated upon the fact that our wage system does not take into account the obligations of a parent with one or more children as compared with those of an employee who is not married. It was done in a way that no other country in the world has succeeded in doing, without in any way encouraging a disposition to depress the wage scale of the wage earners of the country. At first labour was a little concerned about this measure, and not unnaturally so. They had seen the experience of France and at least 20 other countries of the world where family allowance schemes were in existence and where their maintenance had been used, not to add to the daily receipt of income by the wage earner but as a means of depressing wages, as a means of substituting payments by the state for the fact that the employer had failed to carry out his obligation in terms of economic return to his employees.
Those of us who sit on this side, and I as the minister responsible for the administration of this act, make no apology for the attitude I am taking with regard to this proposal. In fact in taking the attitude that I do, I feel I am strengthening-I say this with great respect to the hon. member-the structure upon which the family allowance measure in this country is based. I want to see it preserved. I do not want steps taken now which might result later in a serious reduction in this or in any other social welfare measure. That has happened in Great Britain; it is happening today in France. That has happened in Belgium and in at least four other European countries. It has happened in at least three Latin-American countries that I know of.
The estimate for the fiscal year 1953-54 for family allowance payments is $347 million. We estimate that the increase on the basis of the present program is from $12 million to $15 million annually. I know those are facts and considerations which my hon. friend would feel it was necessary for me to indicate in answering his proposition. I have before me a table which I would ask the house to allow me to place on Hansard, unless it is insisted that I go through it in
1124	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act all its detail, which I think would be unnecessary. This covers December, 1952, and shows the number of families in pay, the number of children in pay, the average allowance per child and the average allowance per family for each of the ten provinces. It represents a total payment of $28 million in that month to 2,021,745 families representing almost 5 million children. With the unanimous consent of the house I think this table, printed in conjunction with

what I am saying, might prove of interest to those who want to peruse my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister wish to have the table printed in Hansard? Is that what he meant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The table is as follows:



TREASURY OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
Province	Number of Families In Pay	Number of Children In Pay	Average Allowance Per Child	Average Allowance Per Family	Total Amount$ cts.	$ cts.	$Newfoundland	53,481	155,497	5.96	17.33	926,709Prince Edward Island	13,232	34,959	6.03	15.93	210,815Nova Scotia	93,960	226,109	6.04	14.54	1,366,136New Brunswick	74,141	199,607	6.00	16.16	1,198,269Quebec	558,834	1,489,147	6.04	16.09	8,989,977Ontario	673,377	1,382,531	6.01	12.33	8,305,108Manitoba	112,546	241,679	6.01	12.91	1,452,529Saskatchewan	120,171	271,048	6.08	13.70	1,646,961Alberta	145,548	316,204	6.04	13.12	1,910,081British Columbia	172,172	342,665	6.02	11.98	2,062,522Northwest Territories and Yukon	4,283	9,541	5.99	13.34	57,128National	2,021,745	4,668,987	6.02	13.91	28,126,235
There are other considerations that I think one should bear in mind in connection with this measure because, while there are occasional abuses, those abuses, as the proposer himself has indicated, are by no means as great as the occasional critic suggests. One financial journal in Canada and one daily newspaper in Toronto, the Globe and Mail, have questioned the validity of the whole measure. We have sought to indicate the false position and the false premises of these arguments, but I can say on my responsibility as the minister in charge of the department that family allowances have helped Canadian 
parents to provide for their children better food, shelter, clothing, health care and education.
As the hon, member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned, the family allowance measure is perhaps the most successful truant officer we have. There is no doubt that, almost coincidental with the introduction of the measure, school attendance in Canada achieved and has maintained record proportions. This, of course, is as the act intends, as suspension of payment for a child is made if he or she fails to attend school, except for some legitimate reason.

It is significant that last year, as an indication of the careful supervision given, there were a little under 39,000 suspensions of family allowance payments for children who were not attending school and for whom family allowance benefits were claimed. The number of prosecutions for illegal receipt of family allowances, fraudulently or for other reasons since the inception of the program in 1945, is under 200, which indicates that, whatever may be said about family allowances, the people of Canada are honest in their attitude towards them.
There are in rare instances people who abuse the measure, but they represent a very small section of the receiving public or receiving children. I had a man say to me the other day, "If you want to see how family allowances are spent go into a beer hall or tavern at the end of the month." I told him what I am telling the house, that that kind of assertion cannot be substantiated in fact. We trace that sort of thing with great minuteness, and we have yet to find any serious case where it could be demonstrated that that was the habit. I am not saying there have not been cases. I am not saying that we are not on the alert and do not find cases of this sort, but what I do say is that they represent a small section of the parents of this country, and it is a tribute to the honour and honesty of Canadian parenthood that I should be able to make this statement.
By the time a child reaches the age of 16, it is estimated that under this measure he has received approximately $1,188 over that period of years. For some people that may not represent a great sum of money but I could read hundreds of letters-I have a few here today but I am not going to read them- from all sorts of parents, from mothers and fathers and children too in all parts of the country; and I can tell you that the sum of $1,188 representing the average payment does mean a great deal to the masses of our people. This represents money that comes not from the government but from the people, but as a result of policies conceived by the present government of Canada. While I am on that subject I think I should say-and I am not surprised; I have said it before-that when provincial elections take place, and we have had them recently, knowing human nature as I do I think it is interesting to note that there are some provincial governments that try to urge the people of their provinces to return them to power because they hold themselves out as the authors of the family allowance measure. I need not tell any hon. member of this house that family allowances in Canada are due exclusively to an act passed by the parliament of Canada.
Family Allowances Act
The significance of this measure may be seen from the fact that if the United States were to adopt such a proposal-and there are there strong proponents of the measure, including the man who retires tomorrow from the presidency of the United States-it would cost almost $3J billion a year. Our family allowance program was, by implication, compared today with those of some other countries. The three other countries that have family allowance schemes of proportions comparable with our own are Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, but none of these countries provides the same amount of cash benefits provided by the Canadian act.
It is interesting to note the percentage of net national income spent on family allowances in the four countries, including Canada. It will be seen that on this basis of comparison Canada is ahead of Australia and Great Britain, our percentage being 1 * 86, Australia's 1-44 and Great Britain's -55, while New Zealand is higher than Canada, being 2 * 62. But taking the relation of family allowances to other social security expenditures- and this is something we must do when we consider a proposal of the magnitude put forward by the hon. member whose motion we are now discussing-in Canada for 1951-52 family allowances represented 25-5 per cent of all social security expenditures. This is a larger proportion than in any of the three countries I have mentioned. It is larger than Australia whose percentage is 23 [DOT] 3, than New Zealand whose percentage is 25-5, and than Great Britain whose percentage is 4-5.
Therefore if we were to adopt the proposal the result would be that in relation to other social security benefits we in Canada would be spending much more on family allowances than on our other social security measures. What one has to do-because there is a limit to the availability of money for these purposes-is consider the effect of any particular proposal on existing measures or upon other proposals or projects that the administration may have in mind.
Mr. Knowles:: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if he has information with respect to the four countries he is dealing with as to what percentage the total social security payments are of the gross national product in each case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may deal with these things in order, I am going to come to that in a rough way, and if I do not do so just mention it to me later. However, I think you will find that I will. It seems to me we have to keep
1126	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act in mind three important considerations. First of all, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) mentioned, family allowances, or any other social benefits, were never intended to cover the complete cost of child maintenance. That is what any social benefit is, a contribution toward some form of maintenance. It cannot be anything else; and certainly if family allowances were intended to provide for full maintenance we would have to acknowledge at once that we had changed the character of our economic and social system. The second point to consider is that, without any increase in the amounts of benefit, family allowances this year will cost us $332 million and some odd thousand. Third, each year there is an increase in the cost of this measure by some $12 million.
Now, the house will no doubt agree that, in the face of the fact that we are engaged in a commitment to spend over $2 billion for national defence, for preparations to preserve our way of life, together with other tremendous but I think responsible expenditures in the field of social welfare, and having in mind the universal demand that is made by hon. gentlemen opposite for a cut in taxation, it is hardly responsible at this time, in respect of this one measure, to make the proposal that has been made. If one were to calculate the suggestions for expenditures made on the other side, and place those alongside the charges that are being made against this government, I am sure that would be the greatest demonstration of lack of logic that the political life of Canada has ever witnessed.
Speaking immediately after the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), I want to say that I believe he overstated his case when he tried to suggest that this government was not concerned with the proper expenditure of money, that we were interested in defending extravagance. I hesitate to take issue with him because of the conciliatory attitude he took towards me personally, but as the first minister to speak after his observations I want to say that I am sure that, upon reflection, he would want to do a lot of editorializing on the remarks he has just made. On that point I suggest to him that the administration of family allowances is an indication of the concern not only of the department for which I am responsible but of the government for the proper administration and the wise expenditure of public moneys.
I have indicated that this year we will spend $332 million in family allowances. When you consider the huge amount involved, it would not be unnatural to expect that we would be spending, by way of total administration costs, much more than is being


spent. Last year the Department of National Health and Welfare spent in the administration of this gigantic program less than $2 million, specifically $1,858,000; treasury spent $2,627,335; public works, which looks after our ten regional offices, spent $234,758. The whole administration cost of family allowances, administered by the federal government, was $4,720,093. I doubt if you could find a better example of careful accounting and careful expenditure.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not question that.


Murdo William Martin: I know you did not, but I thought this would be a very good example to disprove what I thought was a very wide accusation and charge that the hon. member was making. Now, Mr. Speaker, the estimated expenditure on social security in Canada for the current fiscal year will be $1,300 *million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that federally or for all
levels?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is for all levels. The federal portion will be $1,010,500,000; provincial, $255,400,000; municipal, $83,200,000. This makes a total for all governments of $1,349 million. Those are figures that are in addition to the voluntary expenditures which are made but which, alongside the total of the government expenditures, represent a surprisingly small amount. One could give a further breakdown, but I would not want to tire the house. I simply give one example. In the matter of government health expenditures, which come within this category, the federal government on all counts, including the national health program and other departments of government as well as the Department of National Health and Welfare, will spend in the current fiscal year $91,900,000; provincial governments will spend $158,600,000, in respect of matters that are admittedly within their exclusive constitutional competence, and municipal governments will spend $62 million. This makes a total of $312,500,000. Approximately one-half of the total that goes for health care in Canada is already distributed by taxation across the whole population.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this very dry recital of the facts from our point of view will be a conclusive answer to the hon. gentleman who is proposing this resolution. It is not a denial of the validity of the principle. We believe in family allowances within our capacity and to the extent that we are able to meet other obligations. This suggestion has been made from other quarters of the house as well, and we should like to be able to accede to it at this time. For the

reasons I have given, I believe we should not accede to it. I believe that the family allowances measure, our old age security measure, the provision for veterans under the veterans charter, the significant work-as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out-of the national health program and other measures, together with the social welfare measures introduced and carried, on by all our provinces, represent a contribution toward responsible social reform of which no Canadian need to be ashamed. I feel that the program for which I am responsible as Minister of National Health and Welfare, along with my colleagues of the government, is one which commends itself to reasonably-minded people in this country, and most of our people I think are reasonably minded.
The people know that if we stop at one particular measure, it is not because we do not want to do anything further in that particular field, but rather because we take into account the commitments for national defence and the desirability of expenditures in other fields as well. I do not know how long I shall be in this particular post, although I am sure a Liberal will be in this post for a long time; but I know that with Liberals recognizing the need of maintaining a balance between security and freedom the result will be more and more measures of a humanitarian kind.
This will demonstrate to those who would challenge our way of life that the free world is capable of giving, in a more lasting way, succour and assistance to those in our nation who need it. We must never lose sight of the importance of that objective. In speaking to this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say if there is any argument I can adduce to show that this government will never be unmindful of its social welfare obligations, it is the record in the field of health and welfare of the Liberal party and of the present government of Canada.
I move the adjournment of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Martin moves, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), that this debate be now adjourned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Family Allowances Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


Mr. Cardiff:: I did not vote; had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. SOLDIER SETTLERS

Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles, to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as this resolution now almost qualifies for the other place, I hope it will not be necessary for me to move it another year. Its subject matter has been before the house since 1937; and if it takes another sixteen or seventeen years to bring it into operation, I would hope to keep it at all times before the house. I say this because in my view it is something worthy of consideration and should be attended to, even before this government goes out of office.
The resolution in its present form is somewhat trimmed down as compared to what it was when first placed before the house. The preamble, it will be noted, has been removed. Perhaps this is a good thing, because it has been before the house so often that it would no longer seem necessary to have the preamble.
I believe hon. members know very well what I have in mind in placing this resolution before the house. They know that back in 1919 a piece of legislation was passed by the government of that day making provision for loans to veterans of the first great war who had returned to Canada, but who were congregating in the town and cities. In order to get them out on the farms, and

so they would not cause trouble where they were congregating, the legislation was passed.
That legislation has been described by one minister, in whose charge it was, as having been hastily improvised. That is about the best that could be said about it. I am pleased to say, however, that its successor, the Veterans Land Act, has been greatly improved. Had the old vets been given the opportunities given those who came back from world war II, it would not have been necessary for me or for anyone else to keep a resolution of this kind before the house for so many years.
I do not think anyone will question the justice of the claim I have propounded. We made solemn promises to the veterans of world war I, and we did the same with those of world war II. Why in the world we should renege on those promises is beyond my understanding entirely. I can see no reason for it, because we have been told time and again that our productive capacity is increasing from year to year. Our national product is now valued at about $22 or $23 billion, and there is no reason why an injustice that has existed since 1919 should not be cleared up at this session, at the very latest.
I should like to place on record an article I have read on many occasions before. This was an address by Sir Robert Borden, at a time when he was prime minister of Canada, to members of the Canadian expeditionary force in 1917. This is what he said:
You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain, and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such a strain without breaking; but you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come.
You men are about to enter one of the most serious engagements that ever faced the Canadian corps. I cannot, at this moment, give any information as to where this attack will be staged; whether it be successful or not, it is to be borne in mind that it will not be an easy success. We feel confident that you will succeed where others failed; for you have never yet failed in anything you have set your hand to, as a Canadian corps.
You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government, I give you this assurance; that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion, that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.
Starr
Stewart (Winnipeg North) Tustin
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
Wright-40.

Anyone who has lived in Canada since 1919 and has kept track of the treatment handed out to those old vets of world war I, particularly when the act was administered by the department of mines and resources under Hon. T. A. Crerar, and when Mr. Murchison was director of the department, cannot agree with this statement by Sir Robert Borden to the men in France.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Nonsense.


Robert Fair: In the days of depression, men were thrown out on the roadside. It was not because these men did not do their duty; it was not because they did not work their farms as well as they could; it was simply because of the conditions they faced. First of all, they were burdened with debt because of the high prices they had to pay for land, livestock and machinery. It was impossible for them to surmount those difficulties.
In spite of all this a number of men were kicked off their farms and made to sign quitclaim deeds. Evictions were even resorted to, with the result that members of the house got busy and stood up for these men and finally Mr. Murchison was fired out of office and a good man put in his place. These men were being treated in a way that was not worthy of this country.
When I first brought in this resolution I was told by a former minister of veterans affairs, the late Ian Mackenzie, that the only way to deal with this matter was to give clear title. I believe he fully intended going through with that program, but apparently somebody else in the cabinet had a little more power than he did. My guess is that possibly the treasury board had something to do with it. The result was that these men were not given clear titles during the late Mr. Mackenzie's tenure of office.
Then later on another funny occasion arose. When the matter was brought up a man prominent in Liberal politics in Saskatchewan talked the matter out. Some say that he is coming back here to us again. In order to talk it out he had to bring in mothers' allowances, old age pensions and many other subjects that did not have anything to do with veterans' affairs. When some of us laughed at the way he was using the time of the house he got rather peeved, and I do not think he is over that yet.
Since that time the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), whom we all respect and have respected since we first knew him, gave the old veterans a break. He was responsible for these veterans being given their oil and mineral rights. I want to thank the minister publicly. A lawsuit was under way, but the minister felt there was justice
Soldier Settlers
in our claim and saw to it that those rights were handed back. I want to thank the present Minister of Labour, then minister of veterans affairs, for what he did in connection with that matter.
Since that time we have had another Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe).
I do not see him in the house tonight, but his parliamentary assistant is here. I want to thank that parliamentary assistant for the good work he did as chairman of the committee on veterans' affairs. Before he came in I said that I hoped this would be the last time it would be necessary to move this resolution. Then one of my friends on the other side suggested that they would be glad to see me back again. But I do hope that this resolution is agreed to before prorogation.
It must be realized that this matter has been brought to the attention of the house on other occasions. Looking over Hansard I find that on February 24, 1930, the late Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, then prime minister, when dealing with returned men, made this statement, as reported on page 44 of Hansard:
May I say that after giving a great deal of time and careful thought and study to this question, the government has come to the conclusion that the existing legislation is not adequate. In particular it has been borne in upon us that there are a large number of returned men who, while not suffering from any disability immediately traceable to some particular happening, are nevertheless finding themselves breaking down through causes more or less unknown. In other words, they are experiencing after a number of years what I think would be described in medical terms as the effects of deferred reaction. Though they went through the strain of the war, though they suffered mentally and physically as they did in those years, the fact that at the time they were strong and in good health led to nothing being immediately visible as a consequence of the strain they had been called upon to endure. As the years have gone by however, and the system has weakened from other causes, the strain of past years has begun to tell and many men are breaking down today apparently for no other reason than that of the strain of the war period.
I have read that statement by the late Mr. King to show that he was thinking of the problems of the veterans. On one occasion I visited the former prime minister in his library at Laurier House in connection with clear titles, and found him most sympathetic. Apparently there was some other power that did not surrender to his wishes.
I hope we are coming near the end of the road as far as these men paying off their debts are concerned. To begin with more than 25,000 were involved. On January 1, 1952, we find there were 862 still in debt, owing a total of $950,725.33 or an average of $1,102.90. That was the result after they had paid for something like 33 years. That does not look very good to me. I have

Soldier Settlers
farmed all through the game and have worked just as hard as the other fellow. I did everything I could, even to the extent of working off my farm at other work so that I could stay on it and perhaps some day get out of debt. On the first of this month I find there were 548 men still in debt to a total of $572,411.33, or an average of $1,044.55. It means that these men will still have to work pretty hard in order to pay off their debts within the year unless some good reduction is made.
These figures indicate that 314 men got clear titles during the year just finished. During that year they paid in $293,876.92. In 215 of those 314 cases reductions were made to the extent of $122,023.25, or an average reduction of $567.55. Instead of wholesale evictions and signing of quitclaim deeds under Mr. Murchison, only one foreclosure took place during the year just ended. I believe that was because the man had left the land years ago and was still residing in England.
There have been heavy crops during the past three years, and in my opinion that has helped to account for the good showing that has been made by these old veterans during the past year. Of course the average reduction of $567 has helped. But considering the conditions under which these men have to work I contend that the whole amount should have been wiped off many years ago.
I bought land in my territory for one-quarter what some of these men paid for theirs, and I feel I paid a good price even at that. These men were saddled with heavy prices for livestock and machinery; they were saddled with worn-out horses that were good for nothing else but crow bait, and with milch cows that were just in the canner class.
During the past few years cattle and hog prices have been much better, and this has contributed to these men being able to pay off their debts. Actually many of them have gone without the things they needed in their homes, including improvements to their homes, so they might be able to get clear title before they passed on to the great beyond. I believe that all these men are 60 years of age or older at the present time, some of them being many years older than that. I do ask the government to give consideration to this matter and spend $572,411.33 in order to clear off this indebtedness.
I believe we may now get this matter cleaned up, and that it will not be necessary for me to bring it before the house again. As I said earlier, however, if it is not cleared up then it will be before the house again next session. I want to thank members of all parties for their co-operation. Thanks for

this co-operation have been expressed time and again by members of the soldier settlers' association of Canada, and I express it on my own behalf tonight. The men who are not on the treasury benches know the hardships that many of these fellows have gone through, and I hope the men on the treasury benches will see to it that no time is lost in rectifying this injustice.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) for again bringing this matter before the house. As he has said, it is a subject that has been before the house on many occasions. As a matter of fact I think this is the sixteenth time he has moved this resolution, and I confess it is about the sixteenth time that I have spoken on the matter. The resolution he has moved today is the same or nearly the same as he has moved in former years. The subject has been well covered not only in the house but also on many occasions in the veterans affairs committee. It has also been a subject of discussion with the Legion and other soldiers' organizations across Canada.
I must say that I do not consider the matter as important today as when the hon. member for Battle River first brought it before the house. A great many changes have been made and there have been a great many improvements. We must iadmit that. A great many improvements were recommended in the veterans affairs committee by veterans' organizations, and I am pleased to say that some, if not all, have been implemented. But, Mr. Speaker, it is now 1953, and it is a long time since 1919 when these so-called soldier settlers came back from the first war and took up these farms. I do not suppose any group of men in Canada deserves more credit than the soldier settlers. For all these years some 25,000 of them have been endeavouring to pay for their farms against very great odds. Most of them have now succeeded in doing so, and we are pleased to hear from the hon. member for Battle River that today of the original 25,000 there are only about 500 remaining who have not fully paid for their farms.
It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments we have heard many times in the house with respect to why we consider these men deserve great consideration and praise. They took up farming after coming back from overseas, when farming was not a profitable occupation. They took it up at a time when the prices they had to pay for their farms were out of all proportion to what they were worth at a later date, and what they were worth prior to the time they

bought them. The hon. member for Battle River also mentioned the price of the stock they had to buy. They paid $125 or $150 for a cow which a few years afterwards they had to sell for $15 or $20. What was true of their cows was true of their horses and the other stock they purchased.
They also went through what I suppose was the hardest period of years in the life of farmers in Canada. In the period from 1920 to 1939, when the second great war started, there had been two depressions. These men struggled through the bad times. Their case was considered by the government on several occasions during that time, and some improvement was made. In addition, Mr. Speaker, these men were never their own bosses. If they had something to sell they could not, like the ordinary farmer, go out and sell in the best market or sell when they wished to. There was always someone from the soldier settlement department at their elbow who told them when they could or could not sell. I know from the experience of potato farmers in particular in my own province that when the soldier settlement board felt they should pay whatever was due on their farms they were practically compelled to sell their product at the then market price and not wait, as other farmers had the opportunity to do, until prices increased. All these things reacted against these men.
I believe the hon. member for Battle River also spoke about the high interest rate these men had to pay. If he did not do so this year I know he has in the past. For many years these men were charged 5 per cent on the money they had borrowed, and any who did not make their payments were charged 7 per cent. All this indicates the great hardship under which these men operated. I am satisfied that most of them not only paid for their farms but paid for them two and three times over.
There is another matter that we should take into consideration when we are considering the debt we owe to the soldier settlers. When the second war came many thousands of them joined the veterans' guard and did their part a second time for the safety and protection of our country. Many thousands of their sons joined the forces and went overseas.
As I said before, there were 25,000 soldier settlers in 1919, but today I understand that not more than half of them are living. We must remember that most of them are now over 60 years of age. They have become old men, and I think it is only a matter of justice for us to say to the 500 who have
Soldier Settlers
found it impossible to pay for their farms in all these years that we as a parliament and a people feel that we owe a great debt to them and that before they pass on, as hundreds of their comrades already have, they will be permitted to own the land for which they have tried to pay for so long a time.
I was speaking a moment ago about the difficulties these men encounter when they come to sell their products. I wish to mention the fact that those who come under the Veterans Land Act also face the same difficulty at the present time. When I was home for the Christmas vacation I had occasion to discuss the problem with a settler under the Veterans Land Act. He told me that over a year ago he wanted to cut some pulpwood. At that time he could have obtained $20 a cord for it. He made application to the board for the privilege of cutting the pulpwood, but did not receive permission until nearly six months after his application had been filed. When he cut the pulpwood he found that the price was not $20 a cord as it had been when he expected to cut it, but only $10 per cord. Then he found that it was impossible for him to sell at that price. The board would not allow him to sell, so he is holding his pulpwood today and it is rotting in the woods. This man, who is a poor man, cut 25 cords of pulpwood in the hope that he would receive $500 for it but today it is not worth anything. I say that because of the bureaucracy of the officials administering the Veterans Land Act the men are suffering somewhat the same as did these men under the Soldier Settlement Act.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to labour this question at any length. As I said a moment ago, 34 years is a long time in which to ask a man to pay for property. I believe we owe it to these men to give them clear title. I understand there are only 500 men involved, and the amount is only $500,000. Today we are paying $150,000 a year to clear up the indebtedness on these farms. In a few years, at $150,000 a year, we would soon equal the $500,000 that is owing. I agree, therefore, with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). Let us clean this matter up today and give these old men, who for so many years have hoped that before they died they would have their homes paid for, a clear title. I am sure we will not only be doing justice to them but justice to ourselves.
Some people may contend, and I have heard the argument in this house, that such an action would establish a precedent. As I said a few moments ago, the original agreement with these men has been changed many

Soldier Settlers
times. On many occasions the Legion and the veterans' organizations in this country have recommended the very procedure which is recommended in this resolution tonight. I do not think there is a returned man in this country who would feel that a precedent had been established. In addition to that, the only men who could claim that a precedent had been established would be these men under the Veterans Land Act. These men were given 33 per cent off the price of their farms when they purchased them after the second world war. A large amount was also spent in helping them to buy machinery. Today the men under the Veterans Land Act are paying 3J per cent on the money they borrowed, whereas up until 1944 the men under the Soldier Settlement Act paid over 5 per cent, and if money was overdue they paid 7 per cent. In my mind, therefore, there is no argument at all about a precedent being established.
I am not going to labour this point any further. Like the hon. member for Battle River I hope this will be the last year that it will be necessary for this resolution to be brought before this house. It is a very small matter indeed. It will mean very little to the people of Canada, but it will mean a great deal to these few men who still remain. I believe it is only a matter of justice that this should be done.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to add my words, Mr. Speaker, to those of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in support of this resolution which the hon. member for Battle River has presented to this house so often over the years. It has been my privilege to support him in presenting this resolution during the years that I have been here. As a soldier settler myself, and one who knows something of the trials and tribulations of the 25,000 veterans who took up land under the soldier settlement board in 1919, I can assure you, sir, and this house that the few remaining men who still have debts under this act would be almost invariably those who have had trials and difficulties over and above the ordinary disadvantages that have accrued to farming over this number of years.
Originally we had 25,000 veterans who owed some $109 million. The average original debt was about $4,380. By 1951 that debt had been reduced, as had the number of men who still owed money, and there were 1,272 settlers owing some $1,428,000. At that time the veterans affairs committee recommended that that debt should be cancelled. On page 547 of Hansard for 1951, you

will find the recommendation the committee made to this house. It reads:
Your committee recommends that all indebtedness of soldier settlers under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, 1918, be remitted, and that they may be granted clear title to their holdings.
At that time we had real hopes that the government would accept that recommendation. Unfortunately they had decided previously to take a different course of action. They decided to set up a fund, and individual applications were to be made for refund of debt. In 1949 there were 692 of these applications and a reduction of $269,311 was made. In 1950 there were 226 reductions-I should not say applications because there were a greater number of applications, but that number of applications were given favourable consideration. In 1950 some $106,386 was written off individual debts. During the last two years still further reductions have been made, to the point where today there are only 548 settlers owing about $573,000.
I should like to know just what it has cost the government to screen all those individual applications. It seems to me that it must have cost them almost as much as the total debt that is still owing on these lands. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman who replies on behalf of the government would give us the figures, they would show that the amount of money these 548 settlers who still owe the government have paid over the past 34 years is probably three or four times the amount of their original debt. They have been paying for about 34 years on these debts when they were able to do so, yet the average debt is over $1,000 today. Surely after 34 years some consideration should be given to these veterans who gave their best in the first world war. Many of these men were wounded, and many of them are unable to carry on as you or I have been able to do over the years.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Does he happen to have at hand the average interest rate over the years?


Percy Ellis Wright: I know that during the first years the interest rate was 5 per cent, and if there were any overdue balances the interest was 7 per cent on those. This interest adds up rather quickly. I know that at various times the government came to the assistance of these settlers. At one time there was a reduction of some 30 per cent in the indebtedness on stock and equipment. Another time fifty-fifty payments were arranged with regard to back payments, so that if you paid fifty cents on the dollar you

were credited with the dollar payment. But even with those steps that were taken by the government there still remained a hard core of veterans who, because of no fault of their own-because of sickness in their families, ill health, the fact that they had been settled on poor land, or perhaps that they did not have any farming experience to begin with-were unable to meet their obligations. I do not think it is asking too much of this parliament to ask it to clean up those remaining 548 cases and give those old veterans, who for 34 years have been struggling to pay for their land, clear title to that land.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) with respect to soldier settlers. I should also like to say that he deserves great praise for his persistence in bringing this matter before the house every year. I am quite sure that he has earned the distinction of being a fighting Irishman, because I think this is the sixteenth or seventeenth different occasion on which he has brought this matter before the house.
1 do not rise to support this motion merely because I happen to be an old soldier. I rise as a Canadian, because I want to see justice for these old soldier settlers. The matter of granting clear titles to these men has been brought up for consideration in the veterans affairs committee on many different occasions. The matter has also been raised in the house here. The Canadian Legion has supported it; in fact, the Legion has given it every support. The hon. member for Battle River and other hon. members of the house have put on the record statistics covering the last 30 years. No good purpose would be achieved by my putting those statistics on the record again. According to the remarks of some of the members who have already spoken, these old soldier settlers now owe about half a million dollars; I think the hon. member said the amount was $572,000.
I can talk from practical experience, having been a settler in this country. When those soldier settlers were buying their farms wheat was $2.50 a bushel. Everything they bought-whether it was the farm, horses or anything else-was based on $2.50 wheat. You did not get a particularly good team of horses in those days for $500. Cows were $150 apiece. Implements were on a level with those high prices. It is the men who have stuck to the farms, the veterans of the first world war, whom we want to see have some comfort and pleasure after an extremely hard life.
Soldier Settlers
One could talk about the frozen crops, the drought, etc., but they lived through the thirties, a period which was calamitous not only to soldier settlers struggling for an existence but to all farmers. Like my colleague the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), I sometimes wonder what the administration costs are in connection with this half million dollars that is now owing. I wonder if it would not be good business for the government to write off that amount. I wonder whether they would not be farther ahead, whether they would not save themselves considerable money by so doing.
Most of these men are now over 60 years of age and should be entitled to every consideration in connection with giving them clear titles. This is not a political matter. In the past hon. members of all parties have supported this resolution. On behalf of these men who rallied to the call of Canada in the years 1914 to 1918, in our hour of need, I appeal to the government even at this late date to give them clear titles and let them hold their heads high for the few remaining years they will be here..


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first occasion on which it has been necessary, or on which it has been my pleasure and responsibility, to speak on this motion. I need not remind the house-because the hon. member for Battle River never lets the house or me forget it-that on two occasions from my seat in the house I supported the resolution which is now before us, and did so with a vote.
I think perhaps I can show that in recent years I have been able to do something more about it than support it, when I say that during the time I have been associated with the department, under successive ministers, as a matter of policy some $825,000 has been contributed toward the liquidation of some of these cases of debt in an orderly fashion, by means of an annual grant, on the principle of applying this measure of relief where it was most imperative that it be given and where it was most needed.
I rise now to suggest to the house that this is a proper practice which has been carried out for the last five years, I think it is, and is now projected for another year. I would point out that what has been accomplished has been, year by year, to do in an orderly fashion rather more than to give consideration, which is what the resolution asks for. We have not only given consideration; we
have actually liquidated the problem______and
to an increasing extent-each year.

Soldier Settlers
I think there is more to be taken out of the progressive increase in the number of cases of debts liquidated each year than the mere fact that although these old veterans are getting a little bit older, most of them living in Alberta and Saskatchewan, I am told, have in recent years had rather better than average crops with better than average prices, and they have responded by helping themselves.
I am quite frank to say that on a couple of occasions when the numbers involved were greater; when the stability of Canadian agriculture was infinitely inferior to the position at the present time; when there was a great demand all across the country for handouts of various kinds, I supported this motion as it stood. I also supported it in the veterans' affairs committee, as was mentioned a moment ago, at least to the extent of receiving the recommendation and reporting it to the government-I think I was chairman of the committee at the time-on the ground that it was uneconomic to send good money after
bad.
But I would remind the house that members of the government have a responsibility- and surely those in the opposition would not quarrel with this statement-to husband public money even more carefully than they would their own. I accept the figures which were given to us tonight of a reduction of approximately $400,000 in the amount for last year as against a contribution from the government of less than half that amount. I think perhaps there is a good deal to be said for a good business policy of orderly reduction of debt by assistance.
I reject out of hand the suggestion in the speech of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) tonight for the first time, that these people had been badly treated, that they have been subjected to injustice. I think the hon. gentleman was more unfair and a bit more bitter in his presentation tonight than he had ever been before. It surprised me a little, particularly when he is getting so near to the end of the road and when so many pleasant things have been said to him about keeping this matter before the attention of the house. He has been fairly successful. To put it in his own words and in the words of others, this campaign of his. has been so successful that I was surprised a little that he should be digging back into the past to claim any credit for his opinion of former officials, rather than to accept the fact that his voice has been listened to, as all voices are listened
to,	when that which they propose has merit.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce)
also had something to say. I know him; I know his sympathetic instincts. I know the

tendency of the Scot to be sentimental. I know as well as any man in this house the difficulty of keeping the sentimental approach away from any matter dealing with veterans, and particularly of veterans who are ageing and under financial or physical stress. In his remarks he indicated that he had accepted the idea that there was something unjust about it. The injustice of what has happened to these people in individual cases is often the result of their differences of opinion with administrators in the field, or it is the result of the prevailing prices which existed at the time of purchase, or it is the result of bad advice which was given and taken by the members of the then department.


Robert Fair: If I might come to the hon. gentleman's assistance, the injustice I mentioned was the price these people had to pay for land, livestock and equipment, which was two or three times what it should have been at that particular time. That is the injustice.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I was coming to that. I just said that it had sometimes been related to prices, and I was on the point of saying that in certain circumstances it has long been recognized that too high prices were paid an good land and a great deal of inferior land was, in other circumstances, procured for and sold to soldier settlers.
I am not going to dig back into the political history of the early twenties to remind the house of some of the situations which arose then. I am not denying what some of my hon. friends have said tonight, that there were factors which were recognized in the first instance by some of those who, if they did not perpetrate the mistakes, permitted them to happen during their administration, and by those who succeeded them. One must remember when we talk loosely of injustice that 30 per cent of that indebtedness was written off at one crack, and that many others who were industrious and who were good operators were given a further opportunity under the inducement that was mentioned of a fifty-fifty break on their indebtedness if they were able to meet the offer, and thousands of them did meet it.
Therefore I am a little surprised at my hon. friends coming to the house now at the close of the fifth year of a rather unusual experiment in accomplishing the very thing which they desire to happen, and not showing at least the same kind of appreciation in public which the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) mentioned a moment ago when he spoke about his realization that the urgency had gone out of some of these problems. I did not take it that he meant that all the bad cases had been dealt with; neither did I take

it that he felt that it was not-I was going to say any reflection-on those who were still in difficulty, but that would be too strong a word. I do not take that position myself, but I do not believe, as the hon. member for Selkirk suggested, that all those men who remain under indebtedness have been the victim either of their service or their circumstances, any more than I believe that all those who already have had advantage of these various reductions were always entirely deserving.
Really it is too late to look into that aspect of it; it is too late to make an issue of whether the late director of the soldier settlement board was a saint or an angel. It is almost bad form to think of him in relation to this particular type of legislation, and certainly I was surprised that any hon. member should claim any credit for the fact that he has been translated to another sphere in the public service. That is not an issue which is germane to this matter.
We have a problem. About a year ago we had 862 people who owed roughly $950,000. As the result of the administration of a fund of $175,000 last year we have been able to reduce these numbers by 262. I did not subtract the figures, but the figures used a moment ago show a balance outstanding of less than $600,000. Taking into account the figures which my hon. friend has given, this probably means that in about two years' time, at that rate, we shall have removed the problem, and we shall not have established a precedent of saying that if you are stubborn enough and you live long enough, even though you make a contract with the government you will not have to pay.
I am not suggesting that a single one of these remaining men is taking that attitude. There have been instances of men who did. I do not know of any at the present time. I am not suggesting that, but I do suggest that there is a principle which has to be recognized; there is a contract. Under these conditions I do suggest it is unfair to say that any injustice has been done to them as individuals as compared with all of the other 25,000 who have succeeded or who have passed out of the picture, having striven and failed.
I am particularly and peculiarly aware of the fact that we have here a great new field of contracts with the veterans of world war II. We shall have more shortly. I am not unmindful of the importance of the way in which this or any other government succeeds in winding up the soldier settlement board scheme. I feel sympathetic. I am as sympathetic to the objects of the hon. gentleman as I was when I stood up in my place in 68108-73J
Soldier Settlers
the house and voted on the first occasion, with some personal embarrassment.
Being as close to the administration of the department as I am, I am convinced from what I have seen that what we are doing is not working the type of hardship upon these people which has been indicated tonight by some of my hon. friends. I believe that we are accomplishing our objective in an orderly, businesslike manner, and in a way which is not likely to prejudice the contracts which will exist in the future or give rise to hard feelings on the part of those who made the necessary little bit of extra struggle or had the necessary little bit of extra luck to fulfil their contract at the full price.
There is no one, I am informed, who is in dire necessity as a result of his indebtedness to us who is not given consideration, who is not assisted in many instances either partially or by outright payments. I submit, sir, that this approach to the problem, with which I have had some association and which has been received so well by most of those who have profited by it, is as much as the house should ask of the department at this particular time. I submit that it is meeting the situation and will continue to meet it in full whether or not my hon. friend will have an opportunity to come back and make one more appeal for the last time. I suppose that is in the hands of other persons than him and me. If he is elected, I am sure he' will make the plea again. If he does and I am speaking with any responsibility at that time, I am quite sure that I shall be able to tell him that the number is reduced again; that the cases of real hardship have been taken care of, and that the people for whom he pleads and for whom he has pleaded for so long-whom I too, in my own way, have tried to serve-are not getting a deal that can be described as unjust, but that they are, among debtors, in a preferred position, and that we are glad it is that way, and have every intention to keep it that way.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to make one or two comments on the speech of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mutch). He has referred to the fact that many reductions have been made in the past. However, perhaps many hon. members are not aware of the fact that the reductions that were made rarely, if ever, caught up with the accumulation of back interest.
In those early years, in 1919 and 1920, when the soldier settlers first settled on their lands, the costs of those lands and of the equipment were excessive. Unfortunately

Soldier Settlers
it seemed to be the practice of many civilians at that time to soak the veteran the very highest price for any land he bought or any stock they sold him. As a result of that, and the fact that the prices of farm products fell very rapidly after the first war, soldier settlers very soon found themselves in a position where not only could they not make payments on principal, but they could not make their interest payments. The result was that interest charges accumulated on the overcapitalized value of the farms.
Finally, when the government saw that many of those soldier settlers were going to throw up the sponge, a reduction was given. But the reduction was too small. The interest had already accumulated, and the reduction did not bring the amounts owing by soldier settlers down to a level which bore a fair relationship to the value of the commodities they owned.
It has been pointed out that only 500 are left, and it is urged that this is not a bad record when one considers that originally there were 25,000. That, however, is not the case. It does not mean that only 500 of the 25,000 have not paid for their land, because a large percentage of that 25,000 simply quit. If we could say that they had all paid for their land, with the exception of 500, it would be a pleasing picture; unfortunately, however, a large percentage lost their land, and we cannot do anything about it now.
I went through the depression years as a soldier settler, and I know about many of the tragedies enacted in those years. I know of farmers who were trying to hang on, trying to get along on a shoe string, while at the same time pressure was being placed on them to make payments on their land. Those men were having tremendous difficulty in barely existing on their farms. That is why so many of them became discouraged and gave up.
As I say, we cannot do anything about that now. I appreciate what has been done in recent years in cutting down the amount of indebtedness of our older soldier settlers. Yet we must keep in mind that those few who remain are getting on in years. They are in a position now where they should be able to build up a reserve for their old age, and they should not have to continue to make payments on land. Let us keep in mind that the soldier settlement scheme was supposed to be a re-establishment scheme under which soldiers could become established within a period of 20 years. But now more than 30 years have gone by, and still they are not established.

The parliamentary assistant would admit,
I am sure, that this situation has developed through no fault of these men. We recognize that in certain cases it was not possible for veterans to become established in 20 years, or in any length of time. Now we have 500 of them left, and it is 33 years since they first took up their land.
Surely we can very well write off the small amount that is left. The parliamentary assistant has suggested that this would be a bad example to the veterans settling under the new scheme. I think it would be just the opposite, because it would give those veterans who are settling today an assurance that if they play the game and if, in years to come, owing to conditions over which they have no control, they are unable to meet their obligations, the government will play fair with them and, if necessary, make a further reduction.
I can see the parliamentary assistant does not fully agree with what I am saying. But let me say that right today perhaps too much pressure is being placed on some of the veterans under the new scheme. I have heard that observation from some of the department's own field supervisors, who say the main point of consideration should not be how much money a veteran pays in, but rather to what extent he has improved the land; and that if certain improvements have been made the government should ease up on its collections. If certain farms are to become really productive, then a certain amount of money must be spent on them. If they are permitted to depreciate, to go downhill, they will suffer a loss of revenue.
I am quite satisfied that if we treat these 500 in such a way that we finally wipe off the debt it will not encourage veterans now settling on the land to say that they are not going to pay. I am sure they will not wait 20 years to have their debts reduced.
These old veterans have been on the land 30 years. While I appreciate what the department has done in recent years in cutting down the debt, I appreciate especially the work of the parliamentary assistant, because I feel that in the years he has served as chairman of the veterans affairs committee he had done everything within his power to see that the veterans get a fair deal, not only in regard to land but in regard to pensions and other matters connected with veterans affairs. He has done good work.
I suggest that at this time the government might very well say, "Well, there are only 500 of them. They have done their best. We will wipe the thing out."


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), who is away on duty, I should like to say a word on this resolution. It is a pleasure at this time to renew acquaintance with my old friend the resolution of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). Each year, when I had the honour of being minister of veterans affairs, I had that pleasure.
I express my thanks to the hon. member tonight for bracketing my name with that of the present minister and of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in connection with the useful efforts that have been made on this subject. I am not going to make a prolonged speech. Certainly I am not going to make the old speech made in the past, because I have not had a chance to dig it up.
I am interested, however, in seeing that this problem, brought before the house each year by the hon. member for Battle River is, like the old soldier, not dead, but gradually fading away. Indeed it is fading away very rapidly, if we may judge by the figures quoted tonight. I believe it was in 1948 when we did institute a program, and at that time we said it would be a long-term one. However, it is not going to be so long because, as the parliamentary assistant said this evening, before very long, the whole matter will be wiped out in orderly fashion. And perhaps it will be cleared up with priority given to those-and I say this after due thought-who deserved it most in the first instance.
Having said that, it is with a good deal of regret that I must tell my hon. friend again this year that the government is not prepared to concur in, his resolution. Consequently I shall find it my duty to vote against it. However, I join with him in expressing appreciation to the minister and his parliamentary assistant, as well as to the director of the Veterans Land Act, for the sympathetic understanding they are giving to veteran problems, and particularly the problems of the old-timers affected by this resolution.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have supported the motion.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Veterans Affairs VETERANS AFFAIRS



AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS TO PROVIDE FOR STANDING COMMITTEE

Percy Ellis Wright: That standing order 63 be amended by inserting therein immediately after subsection (1) the following new subsection:
(m) on veterans affairs, to consist of 35 members, 10 of whom shall constitute a quorum.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it hardly seems necessary for me to speak to this motion which in effect would set up a permanent veterans affairs committee of the house. The necessity for such action is quite evident from resolutions passed by the Canadian Legion over the past number of years. In almost every presentation they have made to the veterans affairs committee they have asked for a permanent committee. The veterans affairs committee played a very prominent part in drawing up the veterans' charter which parliament passed after the last war, and I believe it was of great help to the government in so doing. That was natural, because on that committee there have always been members who were veterans and who from past experience have been able to give ideas and suggestions to the government in the preparation of veterans' legislation for the house.
It was because of the veterans on the veterans' affairs committee that the new act dealing with land settlement was so much better than the old Soldier Settlement Act that we had after the first war, and which the house has been discussing tonight. It was due to the suggestions of veterans on the veterans affairs committee that housing projects for veterans were initiated after the last war and the small holdings scheme brought into operation. It was due to the suggestions made by the veterans affairs committee to the government that much of the legislation in the veterans' charter was placed there. Therefore I feel that a permanent veterans affairs committee would be of great assistance to the government in seeing that the purpose for which the legislation was passed is carried out in the administration thereof.
As time goes on the administration sometimes gets farther and farther away from the intent and purpose for which acts were passed. After some five or ten years the people administering such legislation forget the purposes and objectives underlying its passage, and I am sure that a veterans affairs committee of the house dealing with these matters from year to year would be able to see that the intention behind the various pieces of legislation in the veterans charter was carried out. Only with a permanent veterans affairs committee that can keep the

administration of the legislation close to the needs of veterans are we going to get the kind of administration that we should have.
Take, for instance, the war veterans' allowance. At the present time there is a payment of $50 a month to a single man and $90 a month to a married man, with an allowable earned income over and above that of $120 per year. Surely no one can argue that is enough for a veteran to live on. Surely the allowable earned income should be greater than it is at the present time. Surely the $50 and $90 should be raised to at least $60 and $120, and we should allow our veteran whatever he may be able to earn over and above that amount. These are matters which should be dealt with by a permanent veterans affairs committee.
Over the past number of years the government has seen fit to set up veterans affairs committees approximately every second or third year to deal with legislation which they proposed to bring before the house in the form of amendments to the various pieces of veterans' legislation. These committees are set up for a specific purpose, and are not able to deal with the general veterans' legislation. The discussion in the committee is held to the matters which are referred directly to that committee, and we are not able to bring forward many of the suggestions that we, as members, have from our own organizations in the country or from individual veterans as to how the administration of the veterans' charter could be improved.
As I said, as time goes on there are going to be more difficulties in the administration of the veterans' charter. The people administering it are not as sympathetic as they were when the acts were first passed. At that time most of the men who were holding administrative positions in the department were veterans themselves, and were in immediate contact with their comrades. As time goes on they become civil servants rather than the representatives of the veterans.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he suggesting that the interpretation and administration of the veterans' charter has suffered by a lessening of the community of interest between the officials of D.V.A. and the veterans?


Percy Ellis Wright: I am saying that has been the tendency in the past. Certainly that is what happened between the first world war and the second world war. I am saying that that tendency in the Department of Veterans Affairs will grow unless we have a permanent committee of this house. I believe it is quite evident to the hon. member who has just

spoken that that did happen between the first war and 1939. At that time there was a much less sympathetic attitude in the department than there was in 1919 and 1920, so far as the administration of veterans' legislation passed after the first war was concerned. I am quite certain that will occur again in the department.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Since the hon. gentleman has challenged me, I would not concede that. I believe that the interest, the knowledge and the understanding of the intent of parliament was much greater, and that within the scope of the legislation individuals were much better treated in 1939 than anyone thought possible in 1919.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member who has just spoken has expressed his opinion, and I am expressing mine. I am expressing an opinion which I think was held by a great number of veterans. I believe I am expressing an opinion which is becoming prevalent among the veterans today. They believe that as time goes on there is a less sympathetic administration of the various acts under the veterans' charter.
I believe one of the main reasons for establishing a veterans affairs committee is to ensure that the intent and purpose expressed by the veteran members of the committee when the various acts were passed are carried out by the administration as the years go by. If that were not a fact, why would the Legion representatives ask for a permanent veterans affairs committee? That has been one of the things we have had placed before us by practically every representative of the Legion during the last three years. Surely they must have a reason for that. The Legion usually has sound reasons for making requests to this government. From time to time the government has seen fit to listen to these representations and, in part at least, to put them in the form of legislation.
I should like to hear from the hon. member who has interrupted as to just why. we should not have a permanent veterans affairs committee, in view of the fact such a committee could assist the government in the administration of the veterans' charter. That is the only reason I have for putting forward this suggestion at this time. It is a suggestion which I believe would assist the government in keeping the veterans' charter what it was intended to be, something of real assistance to our veterans in their re-establishment in civil life.
Another matter which is being brought up this session is that of further assistance to
Veterans Affairs
veterans' children for education. This subject was discussed when the charter was first being considered by the veterans affairs committee. On different occasions I, along with other members of that committee, asked that some provision should be made in the veterans' charter for the education of veterans' children. It is only now, after several years, that the government is considering the matter.
I do not know what legislation the government may introduce concerning assistance to the veterans' children for education, but I hope they will appoint a veterans affairs committee of this house and submit the legislation to that committee. In this way the government would receive the benefit of the knowledge of the members of this committee, and that would be of assistance to the government. As yet we have had no indication that it is the intention of the government to set up the veterans affairs committee and refer that particular legislation to them. I believe that should be done.
If this motion were accepted and a permanent veterans affairs committee established, it would add to the effectiveness of the veterans' charter by reason of the fact that the committee would be kept in close touch with those who are affected by the charter. I am sure that if he had been here the minister would have had something to say about this matter. I am sorry he is not in his seat tonight. Probably his assistant may have something to say on the subject. I hope what he says will be sympathetic, and I hope he will agree with me that we should have a permanent veterans affairs committee of this house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to say a word or two on this motion. I am rather surprised that the hon. member took up so much time. On a motion as important as this, I would not try to talk it out. I should like to say that I agree with him, but if the matter comes to a vote I shall not be able to vote because I am paired with one of the members in his group. I am putting forward a different argument in favour of the motion.
I happen to be a member of two committees of this house, I believe. One is the committee on the restaurant. It might just as well be sitting' in Korea for all it does. Then I have the honour to be the chairman of the printing committee. I believe I have been the chairman ever since 1940. We have had one meeting since 1940. I would have liked to have meetings oftener. Once when I thought we were going to have a room all to ourselves I saw a picture in the press of

Veterans Affairs
the place our new offices were going to be in Hull. I still cannot swim, so I could not hold the meeting over there.
I believe the government has stated how important this committee on veterans affairs is. If I recall correctly, last year we spent $228 million in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am looking at it from the straight financial point of view, and $228 million is a lot of money. I do not know of any committee that should be more important than the veterans affairs committee. If we owe a debt to anybody, we owe it to the veterans of this country and their dependents. We have had excellent committees ever since I have been here. I have had the privilege of sitting on them. On the whole we have got on very well together as members representing all parties. I have never been able to see eye to eye at all times with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). But on the other hand, any man who could see eye to eye with him on all matters should not be here. He should be in a position which is a long way upward. But the veterans themselves have asked for this committee. All the veterans' organizations have asked for it because they and I think it is in the best interests of the veterans themselves.
We had an excellent committee, Mr. Speaker, which had more to do than anything else in this house with bringing in that excellent old age pension legislation we now have. That committee studied the matter continuously. I believe we should have had a committee this year on health insurance. Whether that view is right or wrong, that is my opinion.
We have a large number of veterans in the Dominion of Canada. I am not going to say here and now whether or not they have been properly treated. That is not the point as I see it. For the benefit of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), I may say that I am not reading my speech. In the interests of the veterans throughout the country and, as a matter of fact, in the interests of the economy of Canada as a whole, we should have a permanent committee. Obviously as the years go by we shall have to review the plight of the veterans and their dependents from a different angle from year to year. We brought down an excellent veterans' charter, but that charter should be kept up to date. In order to keep it up to date we shall have to look at conditions as they change. We have had inflation to a certain extent. We therefore have to view the financial remuneration to these veterans and their dependents in the light of world conditions of the day.
rMr. Cruickshank.]
I am not trying to talk this resolution out. Probably I am in the unfortunate position that I am not able to vote for a few days because of my pair. I believe that the people of Canada, including the majority of the members of this house if they look at this matter from a free point of view, would like to see this committee set up. As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, when we have set up a committee that sits once in ten years and another that sits about once in three or four years, whose members do nothing but look at one another and sympathize with one another over the poor food we get in the cafeteria, surely we should have a permanent committee to consider the affairs of our veterans. I am entirely in favour of it. The veterans of my riding, through their Legion, are entirely in favour of this committee. I also believe that the people in my riding are in favour of having this permanent committee set up at this session of parliament.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I do not wish to talk this resolution out because I think it is an extremely important one. It is one that has been before the house on many occasions. The house well knows my views on this subject. On a good many occasions I have recommended a permanent veterans committee of the house. As I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat stated, the veterans of this country look upon the veterans committee as their forum.
Since the first veterans committee was set up many years ago-I am not sure of the date but I think it was in 1916-we have had a great many veterans committees. We have had one practically every second session. As far as veterans are concerned, the situation keeps changing from year to year. When the veterans' charter was put through here in the house a few years ago-and at that time the members who sat on that committee worked for many weeks-we thought we had evolved a fairly perfect charter for the veterans. But since then there have been a great many changes; and year after year, as conditions change in this country, the veterans' situation changes. I am sure it is obvious to all of us that, with these changes, it is necessary that the veterans committee of the House of Commons should be permanent.
When I was speaking on this matter on a previous occasion I think I pointed out that there are in the House of Commons a number of permanent committees which never sit at all. They never have any business to come before them. A veterans committee,

however, is one in which, every year, extremely important business could be discussed.
For instance, there are now two government resolutions on the order paper. One of them, of course, is not particularly important because it is more or less routine. The other, however, is important and should be discussed by a veterans committee. There should be other resolutions as well. I am not going to discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act tonight, but there is not a member in the house who does not realize that the situation with regard to that act is highly unsatisfactory to war veterans all across this country who are in receipt of that allowance. There should be a change in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am hoping that a committee will be set up this year and that the War Veterans Allowance Act will receive consideration by this committee and by the government.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to assist in talking out this resolution. It is a most important resolution. I sincerely believe that a committee of this house should be set up. I wish to express my strong approval of the resolution which has been moved tonight by the hon. member, and to express the hope that the house will give favourable consideration to setting up this year a permanent veterans committee of the House of Commons.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat any of the arguments used by those who have already spoken in this debate, but I want to indicate my approval of this resolution and to express the hope that the government will see fit to set up this permanent committee. We have veterans' legislation coming up from time to time; and from all appearances we shall have such legislation coming up for quite a number of years. With a permanent veterans committee set up, it will be possible to deal with those items as they come up without having to wait-as I know we have had to wait in the past-for a number of pieces of legislation to come up, hold them back and lump them all in one bunch so the committee could be set up and take them all in one lot.
In addition, we find that the veterans' organizations hold their conventions annually. With a permanent committee set up we could hear their briefs and consider their recommendations without having to wait to set up any special committee. We regret that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) will not be able to vote on this matter; but he is in the fortunate position 68108-74
Veterans Affairs
of being able to indicate which way he would have voted when he stands up to announce that he is paired.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have already stated
that.


Ray Thomas: That is fine. The hon. member can do it again.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with this resolution. At the very commencement of my remarks I wish to say that I am in favour of the principle of this resolution with respect to the setting up of a permanent veterans committee.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, without my reiterating it now, we have a large number of house committees. We also have at various stages of development and, I might say, of impotency, special committees of the house. They are set up annually, and as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has already said, they seldom meet. Anyone who looks at this problem will have to appreciate the fact that as long as the cold war continues-and at the present time there seems to be no abatement of it-as long as we have the great number of veterans that we have from world war II, and as long as we have that diminishing number of veterans of world war I, it seems to me that the establishment of this committee is a great deal more essential than a lot of the other committees that are now recognized as established committees of the house.
.In addition to that, there is the question with respect to the changing conditions of the veterans. Last year, as a member of the veterans committee, I supported Bill No. 181 because I felt it was a step in the right direction; not that it was the complete answer to the veterans' problems but at least a step in the right direction. I think it is the duty of all hon. members in all parts of the house to be interested in the welfare, health and wellbeing of every man who in the hour of national crisis as far as the freedom of our country was concerned, saw fit to enlist in one of the various branches of the armed services of our country. I do not know of any class of citizens within the Dominion of Canada possibly more entitled to consideration than the men who offered their lives in the service of their country.
That is why I wish to say very tersely and affirmatively that as far as I am concerned, and I am sure as far as the veterans' organizations and the general population and the electors of my own riding are concerned, they will support me one hundred per cent when I make a plea for the establishment of this committee at this time.

Veterans Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No, we
will not vote on the question at the moment. If one accepts the speeches we have heard on it tonight, to say nothing of the ones we have heard before, at anything approximating their face value, this matter should not be decided in the last three minutes of a long day, and particularly in the absence of the minister of the department. It is also a question in which numbers of those on previous veterans' committees, which includes the hon. gentlemen who just called "Question", have been gravely concerned. I am not going to attempt to deal with it in the three minutes that are left, so I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it ten o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the debate, b
On motion of Mr. Mutch the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move the adjournment of the house, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we shall take up the motion to set up the committee to examine national defence expenditures. If that motion is disposed of we shall take up the resolution relating to the appointment of an associate minister of national defence; then the items on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Green:: In what order, can the minister
say?


Alphonse Fournier: Items 32, 31, 30 and 26
on today's order paper.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
1953 Jan 10
MOA091 39 Montreal Que 10 1227P The Honourable Brooke Claxton Minister of National Defence Ottawa
Your telegram ninth received. Have had private investigation underway and some significant developments. On speaking ROMP headquarters here am told not yet instructed but will put my investigators in touch with them with all information and co-operation.
G. S. Currie.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Canada, January 17, 1953.
My dear Colleague,
Referring to your letter to me of January 10th, 1953, I now wish to inform you that the R.C.M.P. have now completed their investigation and their report discloses that a copy of a draft of the report by Mr. George S. Currie was stolen from a printing shop in Montreal between November 25th and November 29th, 1952. In our opinion there
is sufficient evidence to identify the person who took the report and warrant a criminal charge against him.
Following normal police practices, the facts as disclosed by the investigation have been made known to Mr. Currie.
Yours truly,
Stuart Garson.
The Hon. B. Claxton, Q.C., M.P.,
Minister of National Defence,
Ottawa, Ont.
Ottawa, January 17, 1953.
G. S. Currie, Esq., C.A.,
507 Place d'Armes,
Montreal, P.Q.
Dear Mr. Currie:
Following your letter of January 7 and my telegram of January 9, the R.C.M.P. as you know have been investigating the matter.
I have just received from the Minister of Justice a letter of this day's date reporting on this and I enclose a copy.
Yours sincerely,
Brooke Claxton.
08108- 74*
[Stage Direction]

[DOT] i
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, January 20, 1953