1954-01-20

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to a statement made to the house yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Yesterday afternoon, in response to a question, the Prime Minister made the statement that the question of the removal of the national film board remained an open one until some definite item would be brought before the house. Then in the late afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal I read that the definite recommendation in regard to the adoption of a tender for the construction of the national film board building was definitely going to the treasury board. It seems to me that these statements are inconsistent. Having regard to the general principle involved and the assurance by the Prime Minister that we would have something before us before this move was definite, it seems to me that we should know what the situation is.


Righi Hon.  L. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the house would take the statements made by the government in the house in preference to speculative reports by newspapers.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, of course that will depend upon the extent to which we can accept the statements. Does the Prime Minister say that the report in regard to this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not altogether sure that because a reply was given to a question on a certain day, the hon. member may rise on a question of privilege the next day in order to get the answer corrected, especially if it is because of a report in a newspaper. As is provided by the rules, a member who makes a statement in this house does so upon his honour and the statement must be accepted. Once the question has been raised and a reply has been given, I should like to submit to the house that the matter cannot be debated. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has submitted his case. The Prime Minister has replied. I do not think that at this time, on this formula-that is,
on the question of privilege formula-you can have a debate on the point which has been raised. That is the matter that I should like to submit to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I accept without any question the proposition you have put forward. You have stated that when a question is asked and a reply is given, that disposes of the matter and there can be no debate. However, I submit that it is not an answer to the question I have asked to state the hope that the Prime Minister has that we will accept one formal statement instead of another. I have pointed out that there is a positive statement that this matter was to be submitted to or to go before the treasury board, a statement which is inconsistent with the statement made here. I think we have a right to know which is the correct situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that I prefaced my remarks by saying that when a member

and that includes, of course, the Prime Minister-makes a statement in the house, it is made upon his honour and must be accepted. What the Leader of the Opposition is putting against that statement is a statement which appeared in the press. Once he obtained clarification from the Prime Minister, I think the matter should end there. There will be other opportunities to discuss the point but I do not think that the matter, in the way in which he raised it-that is by way of question of privilege-should be debated at this point.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in order that the record will not be uncertain, may I say that I am not questioning the fact that the Prime Minister stated yesterday what was, in his opinion, the correct position. But I would point out that circumstances change and that this was a later statement. I want to know if there has been a change.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke to me yesterday about the request made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that the report to the Postmaster General by Messrs. J. D. Woods and Gordon be tabled in

Post Office Department the house. After pointing out that it was not the practice to table such documents and that there was no obligation to do so, the Prime Minister said that a minister could of course table such documents if he felt it was desirable, and he asked me if I had any objection to doing so. I would not wish to do anything to alter the general practice or to create a precedent which would have a bad eifect on the proper administration of government.
The investigation by J. D. Woods and Gordon was undertaken by my predecessor, Hon. Edouard Rinfret, in a laudable desire to improve further the efficiency of a department which most hon. members have agreed was already well administered. The report was prepared for the guidance of the minister. When I received it, I studied it with the senior officials of the department and we have sought, where possible, to follow its recommendations.
The report was not prepared for parliament and I had no intention of tabling it, though I was not in the least ashamed of it. On the contrary, it emphasizes that the department is well administered and any changes they suggest should be carried out by departmental officers, who are well qualified to do it. However, it is well recognized that a minister may, if he feels it is desirable and will serve a useful public purpose, table documents which he is not required to table and which it is not the practice to table.
Since the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) has seen fit to cite selected extracts from the report with a view to putting the department in an unfavourable light, it is only fair to let the house have the full information; and since no harm will be done to the public interest by making the whole document public, I am tabling it.
In doing so voluntarily, I am expressly repeating the position of the government that there is no obligation to table documents of this character and that it is not our parliamentary practice in our Canadian system to do so.
If managerial reports to ministers are to be written with a view to tabling or publishing, they will deteriorate to uselessness. I hope, Mr. Speaker, it will not become a parliamentary practice in our Canadian system
to cite in parliament documents to which one has been given confidential access.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, naturally I welcome compliance with the request for the tabling of this document, but I submit that the closing remarks of the minister were most improper. The document was made available to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace for the purpose of examination and for the purpose of taking a record of what was there. It was known to the minister that this was being done. I submit that the business of government is not the private business of those who temporarily occupy these executive offices but that it is the business of the people of Canada, and that when such a procedure is followed the people of Canada, through their representatives, have a right to know what the information is.
Moreover, I would point out that the practice that is now suggested as being an acceptable practice, that of hiding behind the statement that reports of this kind are confidential, could quickly close the door to all information about departments by the simple device of having the minister who orders inquiries in every case of this kind declare such reports confidential. Thus he could throw a veil over all the administrative activities of the department by means of this device, and I submit this should not be accepted as the practice in this house.


Mr. Claxton:: That would close the door
to all confidential advice.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways own any trucks, trucking lines, or participate in any truck operation, either directly or indirectly, in the province of Alberta?
2.	If so, to what extent and under what trade names are these vehicles licensed?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.
Number of	Type of	Co. under which vehiclestrucks	service	Location	licensed10	Local Cartage Calgary	Canadian	National
Transportation Limited
14	Express	Calgary	Canadian	National	Railways1	Express	Drumheller	Canadian	National	Railways32	Express	Edmonton	Canadian	National	Railways1	Express	Jasper	Canadian	National	Railways

At other points in the province of Alberta, where pick-up and delivery service is provided for Canadian National Railways express traffic, it is by arrangement with local carters.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of non-contributory service pensions, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150.00 or over per month?
4.	How many are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150.00 or over per month?




Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has any provision yet been made for any increase in the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25.00 per month?
2.	Has any reconsideration been given by the government at any time since the matter was last discussed in the House of Commons on May 12, 1953, to increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, discussed with the government the possibility of the amount of the said basic pension being increased? If so, are there any records of such discussions?
4.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to approve of the Canadian National Railways increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what was the government's answer?
5.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to take the responsibility for providing an increase in the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what reply has the government made to any such request?
6.	If no decision has yet been taken on this matter by the government, is the matter now under consideration?


Mr. Chevrier:: I have explained to the hon. member that the answers to these questions will take some weeks to obtain because of reasons that I enumerated to him. He may find it possible to withdraw them and perhaps put them on the order paper at a later date, say in five or six weeks' time, when the answers will be available from the Canadian National Railways.
Questions


Mr. Knowles:: The minister did speak to me about these questions this morning, and I want to say that I appreciate his desire not to have them appearing on the order paper for several weeks. It might seem to indicate that the department was not giving attention to them. I also appreciate the point that there is no need to have them printed every day until the time the answers are ready. Therefore I am quite willing to withdraw the questions now on the understanding that I will put them on the order paper again six weeks or two months from now when I understand the minister will be prepared to place the answers on Hansard-


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.



PAYMENTS TO GOLD AND COAL MINES

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What were the total payments made to Canadian gold mines under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1952 and March 31, 1953?
2.	What assistance was given to the Canadian coal industry, for the fiscal years 1951-1952 and 1952-1953; (a) by subvention payments on the movement of Canadian coal to market; (b) under the coke bounty act?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	1951-1952, $11,207,863.27; 1952-1953, $11,016,099.40.
2.	(a) 1951-1952, $4,623,696.94; 1952-1953, $5,949,004.86; (b) 1951-1952, $396,935.55, 19521953, $337,631.07.
With regard to (b) it should be pointed out that this assistance is paid to a steel manufacturing company to implement one of the recommendations of the royal commission on maritime claims and was approved by parliament on May 30, 1930.
It provides that, so long as the provisions of tariff item No. 1019 in schedule B to the customs tariff, permitting a 99 per cent drawback on coal used for making steel remains in effect, the government would pay to the manufacturers of iron and steel 49-5 cents per ton on bituminous coal mined in Canada and converted into coke and used by the manufacturer in the smelting in Canada of iron from ore, or into the manufacture in Canada of steel ingots and steel castings.



KIPLING, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	Has the government purchased property In the village of Kipling, Saskatchewan, for a new post office?
2.	If so, (a) what is the location; (b) from whom was it purchased; (c) what was the purchase price?


Mr. Bourget:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Questions



STEEP ROCK IRON MINES-RAILWAY LINE PATENTS ISSUED

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have there been any discussions, at any time since January 1, 1952, between representatives of Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited and the federal government concerning the possibility of a line of railway being built from Atikokan, Ontario, to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway? If so, when were such discussions held, and what views were expressed by the government?
2.	Have there been any discussions at any time since January 1, 1952, between representatives of Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited and the Canadian National Railways concerning the possibility of a line of railway being built from Atikokan, Ontario, to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway? H so, have such discussions included any reference to a reduction in freight rates between Atikokan and the lakehead on the Canadian National Railways as an alternative to the building of such a line?
3.	What is the present status of any proposal for the building of a line of railway from Atikokan to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: How many patents were issued in Canada in each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive, to (a) Canadian citizens and/or Canadian corporations; (b) government-owned agencies or corporations; (c) citizens and/or corporations of a foreign country, indicating the total for each country?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, it would be extremely difficult to prepare an answer to part (b) of this question as there is no separate record kept in the patent office of the patents granted to government departments and agencies, and probably the only way to secure the information would be either by an examination of the individual files or by making inquiries of every department and agency. It is quite easy to answer parts (a) and (c), and perhaps the hon. member would consider whether he really requires an answer to part (b). If so, he could put the question on again. Parts (a) and (c) are answered.
1 and 2. No.	Mr.	Speaker: Agreed.	3. Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.	Mr.	Pickersgill: The answers are as follows:	(a)	(c)Fiscal year	Total patents granted	Patents granted to Canadian applicants including corporations	Patents granted to foreign applicants including corporations1949-1950	. . 8,513	1,478	7,0351950-1951	. . 8,461	1,389	7,0721951-1952	. . 9,516	1,538	7,9781952-1953	. . 9,700	1,393	8,30736,190	5,798	30,392



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD


Mr. Knight:: 1.	What is the number, by provinces, of children of deceased veterans granted federal aid to their education since July 1, 1953?
2.	What is the monthly amount now being paid to such children in each province?
3.	Have the authorities in any of the provinces protested such federal payments?


Mr. Bennett:: Return at January 18, 1954:
1. British Columbia, 36; Alberta, 18; Saskatchewan, 14; Manitoba, 26; Ontario, 115; Quebec, 26; New Brunswick, 20; Nova Scotia, 33; Prince Edward Island, 6; Newfoundland, 2.

2.	$25, plus the pension to which they are entitled under section 26 (1) (b) of the Pension Act.
3.	No.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How many persons in Canada had incomes of (a) $2,000; (b) $2,500, in each of the years 1951 and 1952?
2.	How many farmers, by provinces, paid income tax during each of the above mentioned years?
3.	What was the total payment of income tax paid by farmers in each province during each of the years 1951 and 1952?

Motion for Papers
++NAYS
Messrs:



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of the report of the civil service commission on the method of keeping records and issuing stock in the Post Office Department, made in 1950, and referred to in the report of J. D. Woods and Gordon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This document is a
document which is prepared by the organization and methods branch of the civil service commission in the ordinary operation of the administration of the government for the purpose of keeping the machinery of government as efficient as possible in all the various departments. These reports are prepared often in very candid terms for the information of various senior officials of the government, and the whole purpose of preparing them would be defeated if they were made public. It is well understood that documents having to do with the internal administration of departments and agencies of government are not made public, and the government therefore will have to oppose this motion.


Mr. Goode:: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).

Family Allowances Act FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT



PROPOSAL TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID TO COMPENSATE FOR INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: 1:
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: I am glad to have the opportunity once again, Mr. Speaker, of moving a motion asking for a substantial increase in the family allowances. I only wish that a similar motion that I moved in this house a year ago had received the approval of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and that the government had put it into effect. The approval of such a measure would have made this resolution unnecessary.
I should like to see the family allowance increased by 60 per cent, the minimum payment increased from $5 to $8 a month, and the maximum family allowance payment increased from $8 to $13 a month. I believe sound argument can be submitted for a 60 per cent increase in the family allowance. Moreover, I believe the country can well afford it. I also believe that at this time, when we see a loss of overseas markets for food products and a rise in industrial unemployment, our home markets should be expanded. In that regard I can think of no better way of expanding the home markets than by increasing payments made under the Family Allowances Act.
Since 1944 the general cost of living, according to the consumer price index, has increased by 55 per cent. The two main components of that index, particularly as far as home-makers are concerned, are food and clothing. The food index has increased 73 per cent and the clothing index by 65 per cent. I am sure food and clothing must constitute the two main items on which family allowances are spent, and I would therefore submit that the suggestion I am making of a 60 per cent increase in the family allowance is a very moderate and reasonable one.
I would like to make it quite clear to the house that there is one thing this motion does not ask for. A year ago when a similar debate took place the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) suggested that if this resolution was passed and the government changed the family allowances in accordance with the terms of the resolution it would mean that family allowance would

be tied to the cost-of-living index. The resolution does not say anything of the kind.
This resolution merely asks for an adjustment now in the family allowance based upon the increase in the cost-of-living index. It would not mean, as the hon. member for Skeena suggested and as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) appeared to agree, that the family allowance cheques would be up a few cents one month and down a few cents the next as the cost of living altered. I would suggest to the minister that that is no argument against the merits of increasing the family allowance at this time.
The government has increased-and we all supported the measure-the salaries of civil servants, and recently the old age pension has been extended. In my opinion any progressive government must from time to time examine its social security measures and see if some adjustments should be made. I say that the Family Allowances Act, which was passed almost ten years ago, should now have an upward adjustment of 60 per cent in its rates.
A year from now, two years from now, or at some later date, we can then look at the new family allowance rates and see whether there should be a further change in them at that time. Certainly this motion does not advocate a varying family allowance rate from month to month, depending on changes in the cost-of-living index.
I believe that the family allowance legislation has been of real benefit to the people of Canada. The government of 1944 deserves credit for having introduced the measure, and the members in the house at that time deserve credit for having supported and having placed this valuable measure on the statute books.
The party of which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a member has never ceased to remind the people of Canada that it was the Liberal government that brought in family allowances. That is fine, but when they are doing that I would suggest to them that they also remind the people of Canada that they are the same government that, by allowing inflation to take place in Canada, took back 40 per cent of the purchasing power of the original family allowances passed in this house in 1944. That is the government that gave family allowances to Canada; that is the government that over the last ten years has been taking the purchasing power of family allowances away from the people of Canada. All I am saying now is

that the government and parliament should restore to the family allowances their purchasing power as of 1944.
I do not think there is any argument that family allowances have been of real benefit to the mothers of Canada. It has enabled them to clothe their children more adequately, to feed them more adequately, to give them better education and better medical attention.
I believe that the greatest asset any nation can have is the children of the nation, because they will be the citizens of tomorrow. If we are to have a healthy and progressive Canada we should be taking every practical step to see that the health and the educational standards of our children are steadily improved.
There are other reasons why I believe an increase in family allowances should take place at this time. For example, I believe that an increase in family allowances would result in greater employment in the textile industry in Canada, because I am sure it would result in a greater demand for clothing. I am sure that the dairy industry, the poultry industry, and the beef producers of Canada would welcome an increase in family allowances, because it would result in an increased demand for their products.
Every time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), a colleague of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, speaks of his agricultural policies, he says that one of the main planks in his agricultural policy is to see that surpluses are consumed in Canada. If that is the policy of the government, one of the best ways of seeing that it is brought about is to provide for this suggested increase in the amount paid in family allowances.
I notice that in Canada in 1946 there was 60 million cwt. of milk consumed, but that in 1951 the consumption of milk had dropped to 58,600,000 cwt. During the ten-year period from 1941 to 1951 there was an increase in the population of Canada of 18-6 per cent. I can only come to the conclusion from these figures that since 1944 there has been a drop of 10 per cent in the per capita consumption of milk. The dairy farmers do not know what to do with their surplus milk, butter and cheese. The people of Canada cannot afford to consume as much milk per capita now as they did ten years ago. So I suggest that for the health of the children of Canada, for the health of the people generally, for the benefit of the dairy industry of this country, the minister should recommend to his colleagues an increase in the amount of family allowances.
Family Allowances Act
I believe that the degree of prosperity in the nation is not nearly as great as many members of parliament believe, and would have other members of parliament believe. There is a real need, in the majority of families in Canada, for increased family allowances. In the debate a year ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out that 19 per cent of the wage earners in Canada are responsible for the care and maintenance of 84 per cent of the children of Canada. The minister nods his head in agreement. Nineteen per cent of the wage earners in Canada are responsible for the care of 84 per cent of the children. If that is so, then surely we should consider a redistribution of the purchasing power in Canada so that the 19 per cent responsible for 84 per cent of the future citizens of Canada will have a better opportunity to clothe, maintain, educate and provide better medical care and so on for the children.
What is the income of the wage earners of Canada? Their wages have increased year after year, but how prosperous is the average wage earner in Canada? How high is the standard of living of the average wage earner in Canada? According to the 1951 census there were 4,085,000 wage earners in Canada. In that year 2,188,000, or 53-5 per cent, or well over half of all the wage earners in Canada in 1951, earned less than $2,000 a year. That is not a very high standard of living. In Canada in 1951 1,497,000 workers earned less than $1,500 a year. Thirty-seven per cent of all the wage earners in Canada earned less than $1,500 a year. Put these figures alongside the statistics of the minister, which were that 19 per cent of the wage earners of Canada must care for 84 per cent of the children of Canada, and I believe you have an irrefutable argument in favour of the resolution I am proposing.
I say that we must come to the assistance* of the heads of families in Canada at this time, to assist them to take better care of our future citizens of Canada and we will when we realize that 19 per cent are responsible for 84 per cent of the children, and 37 per cent of the wage earners earn less than $1,500 a year.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who in the past has been parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, has pointed out on past occasions that family allowances are not an ordinary tax; that it is not in the economic sense the same type of burden on the Canadian economy as the armament program. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) has pointed out that

Family Allowances Act family allowances are transfer payments, that family allowances are the transfer of income from the well-to-do to the less well-to-do. Therefore the adoption of this motion would mean that a small percentage, the well-to-do in Canada, would help to pay by this method some of the costs of rearing the future citizens of Canada.
In practical terms, as I said a year ago, all it would mean would be that perhaps a few people would make one less trip in their lifetime to Bermuda, Florida, or California but a great many children who are in need of medical attention would be able to make more visits to the doctor. It might mean the purchase of fewer mink coats but it would mean more snowsuits for children. It might mean fewer Cadillacs, but more baby carriages. It might mean a little less champagne but it would certainly mean more milk in the stomachs of the children of Canada.
I believe that this motion should be supported on all sides of the house. The Family Allowances Act of 1944 was a good measure. I contend that it was such a good measure that in 1954 its value should be restored. But that is not being done because the family allowance cheque today will buy just 40 per cent less than it bought when this act was placed on the statute books.
Hon. members may ask: Can Canada afford an increase in family allowances? In one budget speech after another the Minister of ^Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been telling us that the gross national product of Canada is increasing each year by four or five per cent. If this motion were put into statute form it would take just one per cent of that four or five per cent increase in the gross national product. In other words it would not in any way lower the standard of living.
First of all, it is a transfer payment. If it were actually a levy, which it is not, on the standard of living of the people of Canada it would constitute only 20 or 25 per cent of the increase for one year in the gross national product. In 1946-47 family allowance expenditures amounted to $245 million while in that year the gross national product was $12,000 million. In 1952, which is the last year for which figures are available, the cost of family allowances was $320 million but the gross national product was over $23,000 million. In other words, during that short six-year period the gross national product almost doubled.
I submit that this measure should be implemented in order that family allowances shall continue to represent a reasonable percentage of the gross national product. As compared to the gross national product,

family allowances are going backward year after year. While the minister may not agree with this there are a great many Canadians who will agree that the government might be able to obtain a large part of the amount necessary to increase family allowances by squeezing out some of the inefficiency there is in government departments.
The budget for this year is well over $4,000 million. I think it is reasonable to suggest that there could be a substantial saving by more efficient methods of administration.
Our defence program, which includes the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production, totals $2,067 million. On January 19, 1953, the Minister of National Health and Welfare told us, as reported on page 1122 of Hansard, that in the first nine years of the operation of family allowances it had cost the Canadian treasury $2,131 million. In other words, the cost of family allowances for a nine-year period was just about the same as we are spending this year on national defence. I think that puts the amount of money necessary to provide family allowances in its proper context; it is a small percentage of the money we expend on national defence.


Mr. Boisvert:: Is the hon. member opposed to national defence?


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all. That is not a very sensible question.


Maurice Boisvert: It is a very sensible question.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group have always supported the government's defence program, as the hon. member knows. But that does not mean that we will consider the government right to the precise dollar in the amount it may bring down any time in the future for defence expenditures. I think other hon. members of the House of Commons will agree that if as a result of the lessening of tension in the world we can get a reasonable settlement with the Soviet union, if there is a new atmosphere in the world, as I believe can already be felt, then before too long consideration will have to be given to the size of our defence program. I for one hope that the time is not far distant when the defence expenditures of Canada can be reduced because of a lessening in international tension.
In a series of articles appearing in the Ottawa Journal Henry Shapiro, who has been a correspondent in Russia for 21 years, states, in the first two articles at any rate that have appeared to date, that in his opinion there has been a definite shift in

emphasis by the present Russian administration. He suggests at the end of his article that in the future it may be a case of competition between standards of living. He believes that the Soviet union is now turning toward increasing the standard of living of the people of that country.
If Mr. Shapiro is correct, then I submit that the government of Canada must more than ever give sympathetic consideration to all measures which will increase the standard of living and the well-being of the people of Canada. I think an increase in family allowances is one of the best ways to bring about a definite increase in the standard of living of the people of Canada.
During and after the last war the government said that it would have a plan to take care of any unemployment that might come about in the future. They said they had a program for full employment and for adequate markets. Farm income is going down today in Canada at an alarming rate and there is unemployment in many industries. The head of General Motors yesterday forecast that there will be 11 per cent fewer automobiles sold next year on this continent. I think now is the time for the government to make certain that a recession does not occur. I hope the government will not wait until unemployment reaches tremendous proportions, or until there is a further large and severe drop in the income of agriculture, before it takes action. Action should be taken now in order to prevent a recession. I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this is one of the best ways by which this parliament could improve employment, improve markets for agriculture and assure our nation that a recession does not take place.
The minister could say, "This suggestion is fine; I am all for it; but we are going to have to add $200 million and perhaps more to the tax burden of the people of Canada". I suggest to the minister that that is an old record, one that is fairly well worn and that it does not necessarily mean a thing. When we had this discussion in the house last year on January 19 the minister raised the same objection. Here are his words which are to be found at page 1122 of Hansard of January 19, 1953. I shall quote a full paragraph so that I will not be taking anything out of context. This is what he said;
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.
I might interject that the minister, shortly after he said that, moved the adjournment
Family Allowances Act of the debate, a procedure which is a very good way of opposing and killing a measure like this. In any event this is what he says:
There is no one who could legitimately oppose that measure.
Someone behind me says perhaps he then opposed it illegitimately. He continued;
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.
There is the reference to responsible and practicable means of carrying out that proposal. He continued;
And I suggest with vigour and sincerity to the hon. member who proposed this resolution that his suggestion is not practicable.
In other words, you would have to add another $200 million to the tax rolls in Canada.
One month later, to the day, the minister's colleague, the Minister of Finance, brought down his budget; and lo and behold, he reduced the taxes in Canada, mainly on the well-to-do, by an amount that would have provided a 60 per cent increase in family allowances, as well as tax reductions.
I thought the argument made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare was a fairly good one at the time, and that a member should be prepared to suggest ways and means of adding to the tax burden in order that this amount of money could be raised. But the government did not need to do that at all. All it had to do was to leave the corporation tax where it was. All the government had to do was to leave the income tax on the wealthy where it was. The government also could have left the $12 million stamp tax on cheques and could have forgone the unnecessary removal of further taxes. I therefore suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that when the Minister of Finance brings down his budget for this year, there may perhaps once again be a sufficient surplus in that budget so that this necessary reform could be brought about without increasing taxes in any way. If there is not enough in any surplus there may be in the budget; if there is unemployment, and if there are surplus farm products, I say to the minister that this measure should be adopted and that the government should not add an equal tax burden, as a result of the adoption of this measure, on the backs of the people of Canada. That is the cyclical theory of financing. The government has said that it is for it, that in times of scarcity when you have a budget surplus, you reduce the national debt; and then in times of overproduction, when there are falling markets and growing unemployment, you adopt worthwhile social measures in order to take up the

Family Allowances Act slack. I suggest to the minister and to the government that the proposal I make, namely that family allowances be increased by 60 per cent, is a sensible and realistic proposal and one which would contribute to the welfare and the well-being of the people of Canada.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the hon. members of this house could be forgiven if, when a motion of this kind comes before us, we indulge in a bit of history. Family allowances in Canada have been on trial now for eight years. During that time, it would appear to me, we should have learned a good deal about them. I think it is about time for somebody in the government to present to parliament a detailed report, with plenty of evidence, showing what the effect of family allowances has been upon the economy, upon the people and upon our financial system. I should like to know if a careful study of the kind that I have mentioned has been made, the kind that would make possible a really comprehensive report of the financial consequences, the moral effects and the overall economic results that accrue from this social security measure.
The fundamental principle upon which family allowances were based was a measure of stabilization of our economy through maintaining consumer purchasing power at a level high enough to prevent widespread unemployment and business recession. The procedure or technique which was originally decided upon was that of direct gifts of purchasing power by the government to ultimate consumers throughout Canada. In my judgment this was a wise procedure, because through its use the aggregate of purchasing power in the hands of Canadian consumers could be kept at a satisfactory level without creating much, if any, inflationary pressure. This result was made possible by the fact that the purchasing power was to be paid directly to consumers without having it first pass through the channels of industry, and thus enter into costs and hence push prices higher.
I recall that over twenty years ago we Social Crediters began pressing hard and consistently for the adoption of this basic principle, namely that of direct gifts of purchasing power to the Canadian consumers, in sufficient amounts to balance our economy and to induce full production and employment. At that time we were called economic idiots for even daring to suggest gifts of purchasing power for this important purpose. Imagine, we were told, gifts! Why, you destroy the moral fibre of the people and, not only that, you ruin the economy. These were the things that were thrown at us at that time. However, we were not to be dissuaded. We

thought we were on the right track. We believed we were and we still believe we were. At that time we were not only called economic idiots but there were some in the Liberal party who attempted to debate with us. That day seems to have passed because I do not hear them trying it nowadays.
If the idea of direct gifts of purchasing power by the government to ultimate consumers in Canada had been employed in the thirties, Canada could very quickly have pulled out of the depression she was then in and could have avoided much of the dislocation, suffering and frustration that attended that terrible depression of the thirties. But then, of course, the idea was ridiculed, and that was the only kind of consideration that we got. We were ridiculed.
We Social Crediters were not alone in advocating gifts of purchasing power to consumers as a means of stabilizing the Canadian economy and preventing depression. In 1934 the government of the United States appointed a body of commissioners. There were amongst them economists, engineers, accountants and students of every description. I understand there were about forty of them under the chairmanship of Dr. Harold Loeb. Their purpose was to investigate the United States economy fully and to report to the government what it was that was causing the depression. In 1935 this commission, called the national survey of potential product capacity, made its report to the United States government and it was published in that year under the name of "The Chart of Plenty". I should like to refer very briefly to page 161 of that report where one finds words to which I hope hon. members will give careful attention, and I hope they will let them soak in. At page 161 there is the following:
Since the present economic system has no means of distributing goods and services in excess of an amount which provides little more than subsistence for those possessing no property income, either the present system of rewarding labour must be discarded, or the plant and personnel must be operated at two-thirds' speed, or one-third unneeded productivity must be diverted into waging war, preparing for war, or some new large-scale speculative undertaking whose nature has not yet been envisaged. This is the dilemma of society as exposed by the study of the national survey of potential product capacity.
It would seem that the simple and obvious way out, that of giving a buying power adequate to procure desired goods and services to the limit of our ability to produce them, might well be tried. It is simple in principle but has not been attempted.
I should like to emphasize what the survey committee said, "it would seem that the simple and obvious way out"-and remember they were in a depression at that time and a serious one-"that of giving a buying power adequate to procure desired goods and services to the limit of our ability to produce

them, might well be tried." But when we Social Crediters put forward the idea, an idea, by the way, which had been first promoted by Major C. H. Douglas of Scotland back in the early 1920's, we were ridiculed and were called a bunch of economic idiots.


Mr. Blackmore:: The lunatic fringe.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, and funny money artists and all that sort of thing. However, we Social Crediters quoted the recommendations of the national survey of potential product capacity, Dr. Harold Loeb's report. We continued to argue the principle and to put it forward throughout the years in spite of the ridicule that was heaped upon us. Not only did we advocate these things on the floor of the house and invite intelligent debate on the matter, but we also attempted to educate the people of the country far and wide with respect to it. We showed the government how such gifts could be given without taxation and without creating inflation.
We were alone in advocating the principle in those days. We continued to be alone all during the hungry thirties, and everybody, including the Liberal party, called us crazy. Came 1944, and the end of the war was in sight. That meant of course that within a few months over two million soldiers, airmen, sailors and other servicemen would be thrown back into civil life and into productive effort. Of course anyone with a lick of sense could see that the productive capacity of Canada would go ahead by leaps and bounds, and that an economy that could not distribute what we were then producing certainly could not distribute successfully the increased production as well.
The judgment of the government economists at that time told them that adequate preparations would have to be made for maintaining mass purchasing power at an economic level, one that would make it possible for our people to maintain a high standard of living and to maintain in Canada a high level of production and employment. Prime Minister Mackenzie King was one of those who did not turn a deaf ear to the arguments which we Social Crediters had put forward over the years. It is quite evident that he was wise enough to recognize an important principle. Of course he was very fortunate in those days in having at his elbow the gentleman who has since become the crown prince of Newfoundland, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). He was very fortunate because I understand that this gentleman claims that he was the one who put the idea in Mr. Mackenzie King's mind. We will not quarrel
Family Allowances Act about whether or not he is the father of family allowances. We are ready to give credit to whoever deserves it.
However that may be, it is correct that Mr. Mackenzie King, facing the end of the war and some economic changes of magnitude as well as an election campaign, did need a real issue for that coming election, and he saw in the principle of these proposed gifts of purchasing power to ultimate consumers in Canada exactly the kind of issue he needed. He recognized the soundness of our contention that some method of putting purchasing power into circulation, without first having that purchasing power pass through the channels of industry, entering into costs and prices, would have to be found. So he held out to the people the hope of an increase of purchasing power through family allowances, and family allowances were introduced.
All honour to the man and his government for doing what I think was an essential job and a good job. But the method he used at that time was a method which did not succeed in increasing the aggregate of purchasing power in the country at all because he proceeded to give with one hand and take back with the other. All it did was to introduce the principle of gifts which we had advocated, but he used the socialist technique of doing it which meant a redistribution of what was already there. It was just a straight redistribution of purchasing power that was already in existence. We had been arguing the case of a need for an increase in purchasing power and we were not the only ones. We were able to support our case with incontrovertible evidence; at least no member of the government ever took issue successfully with us on it and has not to this day. The fact was that what our economy needed was an increase in purchasing power, not a redistribution of the poverty that existed.
However, the method having been decided upon, the government embarked upon it. Since that time it has never been of maximum benefit to the people of Canada, because even in times when we needed an increase in purchasing power the method of giving a direct gift of that purchasing power to the people without first taking it away from somebody was' never tried. Over the years since 1945, when family allowances were introduced, through the mismanagement of the Canadian economy -by the present Liberal government there has been a serious decline in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. This has had a most serious effect upon family allowances.

Family Allowances Act
The hon. member who introduced this motion said something about that. I should like to support the figures that he gave with some figures which I have been able to collect.


Mr. Martin:: Will the hon. member be correcting the figures given by the proposer of the motion, because they were not accurate?


Solon Earl Low: I think I shall. I obtained these figures from government publications which I feel are accurate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Government publications are, but the hon. member was not.


Solon Earl Low: I do not know about that. I am not going to vouch for the accuracy of the figures the hon. member used, but I certainly will vouch for the accuracy of these, which have been checked rather carefully.
When family allowances were introduced in the year 1945-46, we find that in current dollars the average payments per child in Canada-by the way, they were paid to 3,299,000 children in that first year-amounted to $52.32. Now, between 1945-46 and 1947-48 the average per child increased from $52.32 to $70.07. The average per year in current dollars has remained approximately at $70.00. I think that it could be shown that in 1953 the average in current dollars was $70.66 per child. It was evident to me from the way the average in current dollars levelled off at about $70 per child that the government felt we needed to inject into our economy, in the hands of the ultimate purchaser, about $70 per child in order to create the results they wanted.
If that is so, let us argue from that point for just a moment. Between 1945 and 1953, the cost-of-living index was allowed to rise from 123-6 to 183-6 which meant that, with respect to the real purchasing power of the family allowances, there was a decline from the original $70 to $38.48. By 1953 this meant a decline of no less than $32.17 per child in Canada, as a consequence of the mismanagement of our economy and allowing the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar to seriously decline.
What would that mean to the children of this country? I think I have heard it said that a child needs about a quart of milk a day to sustain it in good health and wellbeing. I am prepared to accept that estimate. I think the minister's department has put out figures that would indicate that fact. If we accept that as a necessity for the children of this country, and if we argue that family allowances were originally given at least partly for the purpose of helping the children of Canada to live in something like a state

of good health and well-being, then surely we must take a look at the effect of the reduction of the purchasing power of family allowances in supplying milk and other necessities to our children.
The fact is that by 1953 the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar had declined so seriously that every child in Canada was being denied 151-8/10 quarts of milk as a consequence of the decline in the purchasing value of the original family allowance. This amounts to almost a pint a day or half of what a child requires to maintain it in a state of health and well-being. Now, that is the effect of the mismanagement of our economy by the Liberal party during those years. When I supply those figures, Mr. Speaker, I calculate them on the basis of an average price across the country for a quart of milk in 1953 of 21-2 cents per quart. That is a serious thing, when you contemplate denying each child in the country as much as 151-8/10 quarts of milk which he could have had if we had taken the trouble to maintain the original purchasing value of the family allowances.
It is clear then, Mr. Speaker, that something will have to be done if we are going to achieve the original objective, at least so far as helping the children and the families of the country is concerned. Certainly, we ought to take steps to restore the original purchasing value of these family allowances. If $70 is considered to be necessary, then we should see that they have $70 of purchasing power. This means that something needs to be done to restore the value of our dollars. I think we should have tackled the taxation question long ago, especially the kind of taxation which enters directly into costs and has the effect of pyramiding prices. I suggest that the government should pause and consider the unemployment situation today. I am told by those in authority that in Canada today unemployment is at a higher level than we have ever had it in history, that is by numbers and not by percentages. It is becoming serious.
I say that as unemployment does become more widespread, then family allowances should be increased to take care of the distribution of surplus goods and services. Then, our people would be able to use and enjoy them and these surpluses would not clog up markets and bring on a business recession. The method of payment should be changed so as not to be simply a redistribution of the inadequate purchasing power presently in the hands of the people. There

should be a clear addition to the purchasing power so that it will fill the need, and fill it completely.
In my judgment the value of family allowances has been adequately demonstrated. There have been some abuses of course. I think the minister is wise enough and his advisers keen enough to clear these things away. I believe family allowances provide a measure of stabilization for our economy and they will go at least some distance in preventing depressions. But if they are to fulfil their purpose then we must change the method by which we handle them and see to it that they are not paid out simply as a means of redistributing the purchasing power that is already in existence, but rather to put a fair share of the purchasing power into the hands of the people. I support the resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not intended to take any part in this debate, sir, and I do not intend to transgress on the main subject matter of the resolution which, I am sure, will be discussed more than adequately by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). But since the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has seen fit to bring my name into his remarks, or at least to bring the name of the office I occupy into the debate, and also to bring in the name of the prime minister I had the honour to serve, for a good many years; and since I am by profession an historian and actually made my living at it at one time, it seemed to me it might be useful if I corrected the historical version placed on the record by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) when he said I claimed that I was the father of family allowances.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Don't be too
modest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made no such modest
claim, sir. As a matter of fact, I heard it suggested in my presence on one or two occasions and on every one of those occasions I demurred.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask the Secretary of
State this question. Is it not a fact that during the election campaign that statement was made in newspapers throughout Canada on a number of occasions, and did the minister deny the statement at that time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir. I did not attempt to deny it to every newspaper that published it-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the subject of many
choice cartoons.
Family Allowances Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, several of which I
treasure, and there are some others of which I would be glad to get the originals.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have these.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was one, in fact,
if I may interject a light tone, which annoyed my wife very much because it showed my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare about twice my height.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which way are you looking?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On every occasion on
which any allusion of this kind was made in my hearing I demurred, and it was not simply my natural modesty. I demurred because it is not true. My recollection of the course of events with respect to the enactment of family allowances in Canada is, I believe, still fairly clear and precise. As I recall it the subject first entered what may be called the field of practical politics when it was adopted as a resolution by the Liberal party at a meeting of the advisory council of the national Liberal federation in, I believe, the month of September, 1943.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was in our national platform in 1942.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will send a copy of it to
my hon. friend.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your party was opposed to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any event, I think it is a matter of record that it was in the document which was the result of the deliberations of the advisory council of the national Liberal federation in 1943. My hon. friend who is now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and a number of other members of the present government, were present at those meetings. I was not.


Solon Earl Low: You were close by.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was in the east block,
yes. The hon. gentleman suggested that I put the idea into Mr. Mackenzie King's head. I can assure him I did nothing of the kind. The idea was there, it was very much there, though I will not deny that I encouraged Mr. King as much as I could to inaugurate this very important reform, and I am very happy to think that such little encouragement as I was able to give him may have been of some practical advantage. But there were a great many other people who could make the same claim. The point I wanted to make was that it was Mr. Mackenzie King himself who was the father of family allowances and no one else, and that the measure was introduced in this parliament-

Family Allowances Act


Mr. Campbell:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he give any credit to Mr. J. S. Woods worth for fathering the idea?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am a Winnipegger and like most civilized Winni-peggers of my age I was a friend and an admirer of the late Mr. Woodsworth. I revere his memory. I believe he was a great Canadian. Though I did not agree with everything he did and I was never a political supporter of his at any time-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I do not think there is any doubt that on balance he made a constructive contribution to the public life of this country. But so, I think, did Mr. Mackenzie King.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On balance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me it would be rather difficult, since Mr. Woodsworth unfortunately died in 1940-


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1942.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1942. At any rate, whoever had it in his political program this subject only became active politically in 1943.


Solon Earl Low: 1935.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was enacted in 1944 and it came into force in 1945.


Solon Earl Low: It became active politically in 1935.


An hon. Member:: $25 a month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend seems to equate family allowances with social credit. I lived in western Canada in 1935, and I do not recall that the ordinary uninitiated person at that time made that kind of equation, whatever we now do in retrospect in trying to climb on bandwagons.


Solon Earl Low: You know all about climbing on bandwagons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any doubt we would not have had family allowances at the time we got them if it had not been for the action taken by Mr. Mackenzie King and the government of which he was head in bringing the bill into this house in the year 1944. That was inspired, as far as I know, by no one but Mr. Mackenzie King himself and it seemed to me only fair to his memory, since the matter was raised by the hon. member for Peace River, to have this correction made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to make it quite clear that as far as I

am concerned I am not personally opposed to any increase in family allowances. I think I should make that clear at the beginning. The bill to provide family allowances is a progressive social measure, and in a manner these allowances serve to share the production of a rich country among all classes of people, particularly to the benefit of those who are not so well off. We all recognize that family allowances are considered as a strong bulwark in fighting the menace of communism. Therefore there is no quarrel either with the principle of family allowances or, as far as I am concerned, with increasing the amount.
After listening to the arguments put forth I have some questions that come to my mind that I should like to put forward early in the debate so later speakers may be able to deal with them to my satisfaction. We all agree that the family allowances measure was introduced and implemented in the interest of the poorer classes. This resolution also has as its object to benefit those classes whose incomes are in the lower brackets.
The first question that has come to my mind is whether it is really in the interests of these people whom we are trying to help. We cannot consider any measure of social security, or any measure that is going to involve an expenditure of government funds, without coming up against the hard question of where the money is going to come from. The government as such certainly has no money of its own. If it is going to spend additional money it must get it from the people, and the first question that comes to my mind is this. Is it really in the interests of the people to give them something with one hand and then turn around and take it away from them again with the other hand? That is something we should examine very carefully lest we offer our people something which may turn out to be a delusion.
The second question that comes to my mind, after listening to the arguments, is this. Is there not a better method of helping these people whom we are trying to help by this resolution? We know that the main argument put forth by the proposer of this resolution was the lower purchasing power of the dollar. We have used that argument in a great many different ways. Particularly it has been used by the labour unions as an argument for higher wages. The value of the dollar goes down and therefore we must pay more dollars to compensate for it.
I was interested in an editorial that appeared in today's Gazette which speaks about a resolution which was adopted by the Norwegian federation of labour, in which they

resolved not to ask for any general revision of wage contracts because they have really come to the conclusion that higher wages and more purchasing power are really not in the interests of the people themselves. There is some parallel in this question of increasing family allowances, because some economists- rightly or wrongly I cannot say, because I do not pretend to be an economist-hold that measures such as family allowances are responsible for inflation, which in turn lowers the purchasing power of the dollar.
Therefore, if we are trying to help these people would it not perhaps be better to adopt a measure which would increase the purchasing power of the dollar itself rather than giving more dollars which would perhaps accentuate inflation and reduce the purchasing power still further? That is the second thought that came to my mind as I listened this afternoon, and I hope somebody will undertake to answer these questions during the debate.
In addition there are other considerations which must be taken into account. We all agree that the family allowance is a good thing. I am not saying that an increase in family allowances would not be a good thing; I am not sure yet as to whether it would be. But even assuming that it would be good, is it not possible to have too much of a good thing? Here we must pause and consider our country, this great nation of Canada, and examine whether or not we might be travelling a little too far along this road of security.
It would be a great tragedy if a country such as this did become security conscious or security minded. The greatness of the country and the great wealth that we enjoy were brought about by people who were certainly not security minded. If our forefathers, the pioneers of this country, had thought mainly in terms of security we would never have had the great country that we have today. There is a danger here which perhaps it would be well to stop and examine to make sure we might not be going too far along this road.
As the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) said just now, when we consider a measure like this we have to take into consideration its effect, not only the financial effect upon the people and upon the economy of the country as a whole, but also its effect upon the minds of the people. That is something we may well pause and consider, as to whether it is not possible to have too much security, and in concentrating too much on security we may achieve a state of mind which later on will retard the progress of this country and perhaps be an obstacle for the generations that are to come.
Family Allowances Act
The other consideration that has come to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is this. May there not be a danger in removing the incentive to produce? In my province at the time of union we had a flourishing bank fishing industry. Within four years of union that industry absolutely and completely disappeared. Some people claim the reason the bank fishing industry disappeared so rapidly was the payment of family allowances. The fact that this additional income was coming to the family removed the necessity for the father, the breadwinner, going to the banks and undergoing all the hardships that are associated with that very arduous fishing industry. I do not know how much truth there is in that, but some very serious-minded people believe that if family allowances did not destroy that industry altogether, they certainly accelerated its passing.
I mention that merely as an example of what is possible if we remove the incentive to produce. Most of my constituents are people in the low income bracket, and we certainly want to help them all we can. But much as I would like to see family allowances increased, if that is the best way of doing it, on the other hand I would not want to offer them any illusion. If the same objective could be attained by increasing our production and having a larger share of our wealth divided among all the people, if it could be done by providing more encouragement to produce rather than by reducing the incentive to work, then I think we could increase our gross national product which in the final analysis is the source of all social security and of every other kind of material security.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words in support of this important resolution. I shall not go into the matters which have been discussed most thoroughly by my colleague, but there is one phase which I think is very important and to which I should like to devote a few words.
During the course of his remarks the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) referred to the necessity of keeping up the purchasing power in our economy in relation to the production of the country. There may be some who will question whether this is the right time to bring about these social security measures or improve them in order to keep up our purchasing power, but I notice that only as recently as January 8 a statement was made by an official of the government. I am always curious to know who these unnamed officials are. There seem to be many of them, as they are forever making statements. But they are not named; they are referred to as government spokesmen. I should like to quote from a statement made

Family Allowances Act to the press by one of these mythical characters, and I refer to a Canadian Press dispatch of January 8 as follows:
The government is convinced that Canada's economy will continue its post-war growth this year, but its advisers have carefully mapped out means of fighting a recession if it comes.
The strategy is to employ fully "built-in stabilizers", monetary and fiscal measures, public works projects, incentives to investment and even deficit financing in the drive to keep the economy buoyant, an official said Thursday.
The definition of "built-in stabilizers" is given as follows:
"Built-in stabilizers" are such things as unemployment insurance, family allowances, and old age and veterans pensions.
That is apparently the plan of the government, as that is a statement made by advisers of the government. I am not in a position to know who are those advisers, or who that particular spokesman was. However, it was handed out as government policy. If that is the case it would appear that the government, or at least the advisers of the government, agree with the mover of this resolution that now is the time to protect the purchasing power of the people in order to avoid a recession or what might develop into a major depression.
I was pleased to see that statement in the press, but then when I read further down the column I come across this statement:
Officials emphasized, however, that the government has "no over-all, grandiose blueprint" for fighting depression.
Of course that is a masterly understatement. Any time this government had an over-all blueprint for fighting depression would certainly be something new. But even if they are prepared to go only part of the way and protect the economy of this country by providing sufficient purchasing power to buy that which is being produced and which will be produced in such abundance, then I believe this is the most desirable means by which we can place that purchasing power in the hands of the people who need it most.
I am not going to repeat the statistics which have been placed on the record, as they speak for themselves. They do point out that a large portion of the population of this country are still living on very low incomes. The families of wage earners in the lower income groups certainly would be able to use the extra help which would be made available by means of increased family allowances.
I should like to place some emphasis on another phase of this discussion. While it is true that the group with which I am associated have been spearheading the drive for social security over the years-


Mr. Marlin:: You have supported the drive the government has initiated.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) thinks there is something to support. I would like to point out that when it comes to action there seems to be a lapse of at least 20 years between what his party proposes and what they are prepared to do. I am not going to go back 20 years at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is 35 years in the case of health insurance.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall not go very far back, because a jump of 20 years might prove a shock to the minister. Reference has been made to the possibility of financing an enactment of this kind. The hon. member who just spoke indicated grave doubts in his mind as to whether the production of the country could carry this extra expense.
As has been pointed out already, the government has estimated the gross national product for 1953 to be in the neighbourhood of $24 billion. That is a tremendous increase over previous years, and certainly a large increase over the year in which family allowances were first enacted. So far as the production of the country is concerned, certainly there can be no question that we are able to support far greater measures of social security than we have had until now.
It boils down to the question of how we are going to allocate our finances. Shortly after the budget was brought down last spring I received a copy of a Liberal newsletter which apparently was produced for general distribution. I hope it was not sent out without postage. This came from the Liberal association, and they seemed to take a great deal of pleasure in the headline "Smile in Every Line of Budget". This was their sunshine budget. The newsletter stated that government revenues were slashed $361 million, nearly a million dollars a day in a full year.
I am not going to quote the newsletter in full, but as you go through it you find they refer to the fact that the stamp tax has been taken off, that there is an increased deductibility of dividends from corporations, and so forth. In most respects those measures provide relief not for those in the lower income groups but for those who were comfortably well off. By doing that the government reduced the revenue to the treasury by $361 million. That would be more than enough to double family allowance payments. It is a matter of choice. We feel that it should be the first concern of the government, whether it is in this parliament or in the provincial legislatures, to look after the general welfare

of the public. Certainly if we have to make a choice we should lean toward the public welfare.
I also want to point out that certainly candidates of the party which now occupies the government benches left the impression as late as August, 1953, that they were allout for social security and for the improvement of our social security measures. I have in my hand the official platform of one of the candidates of the Liberal party, published by authority of the Manitoba Liberal Progressive election committee. I might point out to some of our eastern friends that out west they are Liberal Progressives. They are only Liberals here. In that platform very prominently displayed we find such words as these, "Vote Liberal for advanced social legislation". On the next page they are even a little bit critical of the party to which I belong. They say:
Have you any time to listen to the socialist party's promises of social security measures to be enacted only if they form the next government!
And they end up by saying, "Where have the socialists spent their time?"
As I have already pointed out, we have spent a good portion of our time urging this government to go ahead with these social security measures of which they say they are in favour. If the question arises as to where we have spent our time, I will go back 20 years and see where some other people have spent their time. I have in my hand a copy of the Canadian Liberal Monthly.
I do not know whether it is still in circulation, but this issue goes back to January of 1934. At that time, as will be recalled, a Conservative government was in power. The Liberals were attempting to point out what they would do if they replaced that government. Here is a statement made by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. King, who sets out Liberal policy in these words:
The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production, and believes that personality is more sacred than property.
That belief certainly was not reflected in this sunshine budget of 1953. I continue the quotation:
It will devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.
Those are fine words I agree with every syllable of them. But those words were spoken on February 27, 1933, more than 20 years ago. Yet today, when a proposal is
20, 1954	1295
Family Allowances Act made which would carry out that philosophy, we find that in the government ranks there is reluctance to take any action.
The hon. member who just preceded me expressed some doubts as to whether social security was the best thing for the future of the people of this country. If he has any doubts may I suggest to him that he should take them up with the Liberal federation because, as late as 1948, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was chosen leader, one of the most prominently displayed resolutions passed at that convention was one which called "for the provision of adequate social security". It is one thing to talk about social security, but it seems to be another thing when it comes to the practical problem of putting it on the statute books of the country or improving it.
In view of the fact that we in Canada are now facing surpluses of a variety of goods for which we can improve the domestic market only by increasing the purchasing power of the public; and as the cost of living since 1945 has risen to the extent pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), thus cancelling approximately 40 per cent of the original provision in the Family Allowances Act, in view of these two developments alone there seems to be no good reason why the members who support the government should not on this occasion rise and support this resolution.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I just add a few words to what has already been said on this resolution. In doing so, I do not want to give the impression that I am against family allowances. I cannot be in that position, because it was this government and its predecessors who initiated the move for family allowances. It would therefore be extremely illogical for any member on this side of the house to speak against family allowances.
The only question is this. Are we at this time in a position financially, as a government, to make the increase that is suggested? I do not know. I am here for the first time. I am a freshman. I am in the kindergarten, you might say, of the House of Commons. I find some statements that are made here to be extremely confusing to my immature mind and little experience in this house. In this discussion there have arisen some basic questions concerned with government and economics. For instance, it is a peculiar statement to hear someone say that all this government is doing is distributing what it collects. You cannot distribute anything that you cannot collect as a government; hence

Family Allowances Act that is to me a confusing statement. I will pursue it further in the privacy of my own thinking.
As to the question of raising the allowances and the general discussion on the allowances, it has been stressed by certain hon. members that the main purpose in bringing in this legislation originally was to stabilize the purchasing power of the people of Canada by putting extra money into the homes in Canada. To my mind there has always been another consideration in connection with this matter of family allowances, namely the question of equalizing or stabilizing the family income.
1 will illustrate what I mean, and then it will be clear. For instance, suppose you have a bachelor holding down a job at $200 a month and a married man holding down a job at $200 a month. Let us say that the married man has responsibilities to the extent of five children in his family. The wage is the same for the same work. I think one of the intentions with regard to family allowances was to assist that married man and bring some additional funds into that home in order to iron out the differential as between the bachelor and the family man. It would give him not a wage boost, but extra money coming into that home to the extent of $15, $20 or $25 a month. I think that is an extremely important consideration in connection with family allowances, as well as this idea of bringing more purchasing power into the hands of the general consumer in Canada, and I do not think it should be lost sight of.
As to the question of increasing the allowance, here again I meet extremely confusing statements. The same people who are battling to reduce taxation do not want to see an increase in the postage rates, and they want us to remove the 3 per cent floor on medical expenses in the income tax structure. I suppose both these ideas are all right, but the same people who are asking for an increase in the expenditure of money are the people who, defending the taxpayer in holy righteousness, are asking us to reduce taxation. As I say, my immature mind just cannot grasp that, and I go on record as saying that the reconciliation of these two attitudes is very confusing to a new member of the house when such suggestions come from people who have been here a long time.
I am willing to learn and I hope to learn, but so far as this whole matter of increasing services and decreasing taxation is concerned I believe there is some loose thinking going on somewhere. I do not know where it is, but it is somewhere.


Hazen Robert Argue: We can hear it.


Mr. Noseworihy:: You had better move over to the right side.


Henry Philip Mang: I am on the right side.


Hazen Robert Argue: If he moved over he would be out.


Henry Philip Mang: I am on the right side.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Still wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are at the extreme right.


Henry Philip Mang: What I am getting at is that there are people in this country who are telling the public that we can distribute something we do not have, that they can ask for more services without paying more taxes, and all that sort of thing. As I say, to my mind there is some loose thinking somewhere.


An hon. Member:: That is where it is.


Henry Philip Mang: Let me start with what I believe is the foundation of all our thinking in this house. I look at the whole economy of the country in this light. In the early days of Canada there were no people here at all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No Liberals.


Henry Philip Mang: All there was in the country was that with which nature had endowed us, iron ore in Quebec, fish in the sea, forests, lakes, rivers, and vast plains in western Canada. These are the things that nature gave us. I am trying to get to the bottom of the economics of the situation, and I am using some little economic blocks, if you like, to build this house. Then you can knock it down and start all over again.


An hon. Member:: Don't talk about building houses.


Henry Philip Mang: What applies to this country applies everywhere. Then people came to Canada, but all the things nature had left us were of no value to anybody except to look at.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Until labour was supplied.


Henry Philip Mang: The fish are not good for anything other than to look at until someone from Newfoundland catches and prepares them for use. The same thing is true of our forests. They are not worth anything other than to look at until someone with ambition, drive, imagination and vision chops down the trees and makes logs out of them or saws them into lumber, thus making the forests usable. The same is true of all our gifts from nature. By making the things that nature left us usable, call them natural resources if you like, you create wealth, and

that is the only way you can create wealth. By people applying their brains, brawn, initiative and imagination to the job of turning natural resources into usable things you create wealth. You do not do that for anybody else. You do it for yourself.


Angus MacInnis: There is one way of creating wealth but there are several ways of accumulating it.


Henry Philip Mang: That is the only way you can create wealth, and that is what we mean by applying private initiative to our natural resources to create the wealth we have. We have many individuals who are making usable things. In the west they grow grain, in the east they manufacture, and the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia catch fish, as is also done off the shore of British Columbia. By this process you create wealth. What happens?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Who gets it?


Charles Edward Johnston: Somebody takes it away from you in taxes.


Henry Philip Mang: All right, just hold your horses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is you fellows who have the horses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are not there.


Henry Philip Mang: The responsibility of governments enters into the picture after a country is developed. Let me put it this way. This is not a prepared speech, and hon. members will pardon me. I am a beginner but I am trying to get an idea across. Where does the wealth come from that we are trying to distribute so equitably?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Tell us where it goes.


Henry Philip Mang: Yes, I will.


Angus MacInnis: Tell us who has it.


Henry Philip Mang: In this process we do work as individuals, and as the country develops we find that we need certain public services. For instance, we have to build a road. We as individuals cannot build it, so we get together with our neighbours and build the road. Each family cannot hire its own teacher for its children, so we get together, form a school district and provide ourselves with that public service. It is the same all down the line.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Right down to family allowances.


Henry Philip Mang: It is the duty of government to perform this function. It is the fundamental duty of any government to do those things for the people which they cannot do for themselves.
Family Allowances Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: Good C.C.F. philosophy.


Henry Philip Mang: Having created this wealth as individuals, what do we do? We take some off the top, throw it into the pot and build a school. We take some more and build a road. We take some more to provide other services for ourselves. We take some more out of our wages, or from the sale of our wheat or whatever it is, throw it into the pot and give ourselves pensions at 70 and family allowances. We retain the rest.
I maintain that these social services can only grow and expand to the extent that individuals within the nation are prepared to put something in the pot to be redistributed. You cannot create something out of nothing merely by putting some little monetary gadget of interest-free money into the hands of our treasury department or the Minister of Finance. It is only brains, brawn, vision and ambition that create the wealth that some people are asking us to distribute in the form of social services.
I maintain that we reach a point in our economy where the individual is no longer prepared to put more into the pot for general distribution to all. It has been the policy of the Liberal government to gauge what our people are willing to put into the pot, and increased social services are brought about having in mind not only what people can pay to the treasury but also, which is just as important, what people are prepared to pay.
There is a point in taxation beyond which you cannot go because two factors enter into the picture. One is ability to pay and the other is desire to pay. The second is as important as the first. This government has always followed the policy of trying to gauge and time advances in social services with these two things in mind, ability to pay and desire to pay. It is only upon that bedrock or elementary basis that you can increase those family allowances which have been introduced and maintained by a Liberal administration, and will be expanded when the proper time comes.
I hope hon. members will forgive me for not having all my thoughts in sequence. I had not expected to say anything at this time. You will pardon me for being in the kindergarten. The people did not elect me before, so it is not my fault. I am willing to learn. If anyone in this house can show me how you can distribute something which you do not have or do not know where to get, I am willing to learn. If people here are prepared

Family Allowances Act to show me that by substituting these monetary gadgets of interest-free money or substituting in our economy the idea of having the state own and control the mediums of production, distribution and exchange, and thereby create a higher standard of living, create more wealth and power, then I am prepared to learn. So far I am only at the kindergarten stage, where I sincerely believe that the only way you can create wealth is by the individual applying his brains, his brawn and his vision and ambition to those things with which nature endowed us. Those things are then distributed by means of those green tickets that we call money.
Until the proper time comes when the people are willing, as I said before, to pay more taxes-I should not call them by that ugly word, but I should say willing to put more of their things into the pot-and have the ability to pay, I do not think we should call for an increase in family allowances as requested in this resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) introduced this resolution in the last parliament, Mr. Speaker, he spent, as I think you will remember, some time in defining the authorship of family allowances. Other members in his group in supporting his motion claimed greater authorship for the measure than any other political group in this house.
I could not help but note with great interest today, when the hon. member introduced the resolution we are now discussing, that he was generous enough to pay credit to the government of the day for having introduced this important social measure. He went on, quite properly, to pay tribute to the members in this house who supported the measure which was proposed in the first instance by the government of the day headed by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. I am glad the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) took occasion, on invitation by an hon. member opposite, to place on record the undoubted fact that authorship of family allowances in Canada must be credited to that statesman who, more than any other up until the time of his death, had done so much to promote the social welfare of this country.
The resolution which we are debating is an important one. It affords us an opportunity of assessing the value of family allowances, a measure that is costing this country a considerable sum of money and which, at least once in every session, should bear examination at the hands of this house. Not one of those who have opposed the resolution can be accused of being opposed
fMr. Mane.l
to the principle of family allowances. Certainly no one on this side of the house who finds reason to make a reservation in respect to the resolution as offered can be accused of being opposed to family allowances.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Some of them came
rather close to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says that
some of them came rather close to it, but coming rather close to it does not mean that anyone has opposed family allowances in this debate. As one who is responsible for the administration of family allowances for the time being, I cannot help but feel some encouragement in noting the wide measure of support that exists for family allowances from one end of this country to the other. The only people who now oppose family allowances no longer form the bastions of privilege in the Tory party, because that party is now in support of this measure. In fact in this house the only real opposition I have noted to family allowances comes from what I might call the Tory wing of the socialist party, sometimes more properly called the Moosej avian splinter.
I am happy, therefore, that in discussing this measure today I do so with a background of general support from practically every member in this house for the principle. In order to appreciate the value of family allowances one must understand the relationship of family allowances to social welfare measures generally. As the hon. member who has just spoken said at the conclusion of his remarks, we on this side of the house do not look upon the present totality of social measures as by any means representing all that we propose to do, as a party and as a government, to improve the social welfare of the people of Canada.


Joseph William Noseworthy: If you stay in power
long enough.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If we stay in power long
enough, and I have not any doubt we shall, this country will reap increasing benefits from increasing and new measures of social welfare yet to be introduced in parliament.
It is also very important for this house, if proper appreciation is to be had of this measure, to know something of the cost involved. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested that during the course of this session he was going to push and prod me on every occasion-and he has resorted to almost every occasion-to try to get me to pronounce the government's policy concerning health insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about it?


Murdo William Martin: The other day someone spoke of the desirability of lowering the age limit for old age pensions, and someone else mentioned the desirability of increasing old age pensions. I believe no one should hope by these ventures into imaginative processes to fool themselves, this parliament or the people of Canada on one thing, and that is that health insurance, improved old age security benefits and other social measures can be brought about-


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: At an
election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -only when the nation can afford them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one is going to do social
security much good by taking a course that is anything but realistic. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) just said we only introduce these measures when we are faced with an election. The hon. member knows that is not the case.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I know the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Family allowances were
introduced in 1944, and elections took place in 1945.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are now in the first session of the present parliament, within a few months of a general election, and this government is not waiting until the year before a general election to bring in a dominionwide system of disability allowances. On Monday and Tuesday next I will be sitting in a room in this building conferring with the ten provincial governments on the proposal of the federal government to bring about a system of disability allowances. I am sure I will never hear from any of the members opposite, directly opposite, any word of commendation for having brought in such a measure in the first session of parliament immediately after a general election. In spite of what I have just said, hon. gentlemen will go from one end of this country to another and say that the only time the government brings in any social security measure is when it is faced with the prospect of a general election. Here is one instance at any rate, among many others I could recite, where that is not the case.
This measure, introduced without prodding or urging by a government headed by Mr. Mackenzie King, has resulted in the payment of over $2,480 million since the inauguration of family allowance payments. That is up to December 31 last year. Every month
Family Allowances Act $29,370,000 flows into the homes of 2,080,000 families on behalf of 4,860,000 children. I need not emphasize to the house what this means in terms of improved social benefits and security for these children and these families.
As I said on a previous occasion, roughly 19 per cent of the working population of Canada is responsible for the maintenance of 84 per cent of the children of Canada, and the value and validity of this measure has to be determined by that important fact, which was outlined again today by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
So I do not propose in what I have to say today to justify family allowances. I take it, but for the splinter group I have mentioned, we are all in favour of this particular measure. We recognize what it does by way of providing better food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for the children of our country.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) will vote for this if he gets a chance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is also interesting to note that by the time a child reaches the age of 16, the average amount paid out in respect of that child through family allowances represents about $1,188. No one, particularly those who support this motion, should take the position that because of the increase in the cost of living, which has varied since the end of the war in this and in every other country, the contribution made by family allowances is not a significant one.
It is no wonder, then, that this measure has been referred to by no less a figure than the President of the United States during the course of the presidential election last year as the most significant piece of social legislation introduced in any country of the western world in the last 50 years. If this measure, which is costing us now over $350 million a year, were established in the United States it would represent an expenditure in that country of over three and a half billion dollars. So let no one say that this measure with its present proportions does not represent a very significant contribution to the problem of welfare and social security in our country.
It is all very well to suggest that this amount should be increased when no responsibility is reposed on the proposer for finding the wherewithal, the necessary resources to make this possible. It is all very well to say "Let us have health insurance, improved old age security, and increased family allowances," without giving one bit of evidence of appreciation of what the total cost would be

Family Allowances Act by way of increasing the tax burden on the people, particularly when the majority of the people of this country who pay taxes are the people who themselves come within the embrace of family allowances.
It is all very well to suggest that this measure would cost only $170 to $190 million, which is estimated to be the cost of the proposal now before the house; and it is all very well to say that is not much money. That represents a great deal of money, and if that amount were added to the cost of the proposals that have been made in this house thus far one will realize how justified I was last year and how justified I am this year in saying that the proposal lacks any serious practical quality at this time in the light of existing obligations and in the light of trying to do something further in developing other fields of social welfare for the future.
We have some yardstick by which we can compare our position with that of Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. They have family allowances and their schemes, while not in most cases as generous in terms of the individual amount given to a child, are nevertheless in principle comparable with ours and justify the kind of comparison I am now about to make.
The total amount spent on family allowances in Canada is greater than the total amount spent on family allowances in Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain on the basis of the figures for 1952-53. What about the percentage of national income spent on family allowances in these three countries? We are spending more by way of percentage of net national income on family allowances than Australia and Great Britain, and we are only slightly behind New Zealand. But, with regard to New Zealand, the total amount given to a child in Canada in the course of a year is greater, and the purchasing power in relation to the cost of living on the basis of the figures I have for the past six months is certainly to our advantage in Canada.
In Canada the percentage of net national income spent on family allowances for 1952-53 is 1-84 per cent; in Australia it is 1-50 per cent; in Great Britain it is -71 per cent; and in New Zealand it is 2 [DOT] 61 per cent.
Another basis of comparison is the relation of family allowances to other social security expenditures. In Canada family allowances represent 25-5 per cent of all social security expenditures. That is a larger proportion than in the case of Australia where it is 23-3 per cent, and in New Zealand where it is 22-5 per cent, and in Great Britain where it is 4-5 per cent. These calculations are based upon the figures for 1951-52.
IMr. Martin.]
When hon. gentlemen criticize the government because of the attitude which, I believe realistically, it is taking with regard to this particular measure, they should bear in mind that we have in support of the attitude we take the policies of governments in comparable countries and of governments made up of political parties who do not always share our political views. Perhaps the reason they have been actuated in the policies thus developed is that like ourselves they have other commitments and they conceivably have other social welfare projects in mind, as we have, which we shall bring in at the appropriate time, in the light of what the government conceives to be the obligations of the people of Canada at that moment.
In the estimates of my department for 1954-55, to foe presented, we are appropriating or estimating $348 million for family allowances. Therefore it is against that background that we must consider the resolution now before us. The sum of $348 million represents a substantial amount of money. Compare that with the total cost of government on the federal level before 1938, and you will have some appreciation of the significance of the measure.
In 1946 the total annual cost of family allowances was $240 million. That represented at that time 2 [DOT] 68 per cent of disposable personal income of Canadians. My hon. friend spoke a while ago of the tremendous increase in the cost of living, and what a great reduction had taken place in the value of family allowance because of this increase in the cost of living. I have just given the figures for 1946 in relation to the disposable personal income, which I said was 2-68 per cent. In 1952, when we spent $330 million in family allowances, the figure represented 2-09 per cent of disposable personal income in Canada. It is therefore clear that family allowances, as a component of disposable personal income, have not declined to anything like the extent suggested by the proposer of this resolution when he spoke earlier today.


Hazen Robert Argue: The value of the individual cheque has gone down 40 per cent; that was my statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When my hon. friend looks at the statistics he will find that that is not the case.


Hazen Robert Argue: For food it is up 73 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will choose to read what I have just said, and compare it with what he has just said, he will find that my figures are more satisfactory and more germane to the issue than the very generous oratorical luxury which he allowed himself this afternoon.

We must keep in mind three important points in connection with this measure. Family allowances were never intended to cover the complete cost of child maintenance. No social benefit can ever hope to do that. All we can provide is assistance toward maintenance in one way or another, and family allowances are no different in that particular from any other social welfare measure. But it is important to note, secondly, that without any increase family allowances, in this fiscal year costing some $348 million, represent an additional increase over last year of some $18 million.
What is proposed in the resolution before us? It is proposed in the language of the hon. member for Assiniboia that we should increase family allowance expenditures by 60 per cent. I say to him that if he carefully examines all the implications of what he proposes I do not believe that he will seriously renew this resolution in the form in which it has been presented.


Hazen Robert Argue: Next session.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says "next session". I am sure that before I finish he will feel that it would have been better to give second thought to this measure than to adopt precisely the words he used in the resolution last year.
If we were to accept this proposal, instead of estimating for an expenditure of $348 million I would be asking this house to approve $500 million for family allowances alone. By proposing an increase of some $170 million a year, as the hon. gentleman has done today, in family allowances, already our largest single item of expenditure in the social welfare field, my hon. friend is doing more than has yet been done this session to jeopardize the possibility of advances in other important fields of social welfare and health.
On reflection I am sure my hon. friend will realize that what I am saying as the responsible minister is really representative of the situation in its entirety. This session we are going to embark upon a system of disability allowances, and no hon. gentleman opposite has yet commended the government for the initiative it has taken, in co-operation with the provinces, in providing for a system of disability allowances. My hon. friend smiles. I suppose he smiles because I have suggested that no one opposite has commended the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are trying to get you to smile.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not have much difficulty in smiling because I have the advantage of looking at hon. gentlemen opposite. I do say
Family Allowances Act that the measure which we are going to discuss with the provinces on Monday is an important one.
Would it have been possible to bring in disability allowances if last year, for instance, we had accepted the proposals of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and various other members, proposals which in their entirety totalled over $1,500 million? Would it have been possible to bring in a system of disability allowances if we spent all our money on one branch of social welfare? Is there any responsible member in this house who, in the light of our defence obligations of over $2 billion, and our other obligations, would seriously propose that there is merit in the suggestion now made by the hon. member for Assiniboia?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the point, billions for defence, but-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We on this side of the house will take second place to no one in our zeal to do what we can to help those groups in our country who need social welfare assistance. I do not say that we have a monopoly in that, any more than I agree for one minute that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has, who says he prods me and will prod me until the last day of my political life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not for one moment say that he has a monopoly. Every hon. member is sincerely interested in doing something to improve the lot of those who need the benefit of social security measures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be glad to see the minister introduce health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We could not do more on that particular item, or on a proposal put forward at a particular moment, but let us take the position that all of us are interested in these measures.
We are spending in Canada this year $1,650 million on social security. Of that amount $1,200 million is provided by the federal parliament; $350 million represents expenditures made by the provinces, and the municipalities are responsible for roughly $100 million, making a total of, as I say, $1,650 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without giving a breakdown, would the minister give the categories of social benefits that are included in that figure that is paid by the federal government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; family allowances, $348 million; old age security, $345 million; old age assistance, $22 million; allowances for

Family Allowances Act the blind, $3 million; national health program, $30 million-these are only estimated expenditures-Indian health services, $16 million, representing in national health and welfare alone, $765 million. Veterans affairs: pensions, $128 million; war veterans allowances, $26 million; treatment and prosthetic services, $45 million, making an estimated expenditure on veterans affairs of $199 million. In the case of the Department of Labour, unemployment insurance benefits totalled $135 million. These are the principal items.
I say that this government need not ask anyone to believe in its declaration of faith in family allowances. Family allowances were introduced by the Liberal party made up of many hon. members on this side of the house who were then in the house, and it was supported by many hon. members sitting opposite. But it was initiated by a Liberal government. If my hon. friend will look over the debates in Hansard over the years he will find that it was private Liberal members of parliament who proposed in the first place that there should be adopted in Canada a system of family allowances. So no one should take the position that because we are now taking issue with the particular resolution we are not in favour of family allowances.
I read some of the speeches made by certain hon. members during the last election. When talking about family allowances they referred to this callous, this careless government, the government that is not concerned about the welfare of the people, the government that opposed family allowances when they wanted to give $170 million more to the children of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I read that several members-


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am prepared to name them, but I want to deal with something more constructive at the moment. That is what will be said again. Hon. members will leave this chamber and will say that the government is not interested in the children of this country. It will be suggested that a motion was brought in proposing an increase in family allowances and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that hardhearted man, the spokesman for the government of Canada, said, "no". No reference will be made to the fact that the act was brought in by the present government. No reference will be made to the fact that old age pensions were introduced in this house by a Liberal government.


Angus MacInnis: Under pressure.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says "under prodding", but I do not know what he means exactly.


Angus MacInnis: Under pressure, I said.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member says "under pressure." I do not think that is really the proper phrase. I will not deny that a distinguished member of this house, a former leader of the C.C.F., played a great part in the development of social welfare in Canada. I would be the first to join in paying deserved tribute to a great Canadian statesman. But by the same token I should like to see hon. gentlemen opposite recognize the great part played in the development of social welfare by Mackenzie King. I have never heard but one hon. gentleman opposite acknowledge the contribution made by Mackenzie King, made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), made by the government in the development of this program.
It was a Liberal government that brought in the veterans' charter. It was a Liberal government that brought in pensions for the blind. It will be a Liberal government that will bring in assistance for certain disabled people in our country. It was a Liberal government that brought in unemployment insurance. It was a Liberal government that brought in a national health program. Every bit of social legislation on the statute books of our country on federal account was placed there by a Liberal government.


Mr. Knight:: Is it not likely that whatever government might have been in power in this country during the last 20 years would have done the same thing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not speaking about a hypothetical situation so remote from reality as that proposed by the hon. member. I will say that perhaps I am sensitive on the point, but I do find it difficult sometimes to appreciate some of the speeches that are made outside of this house by certain members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about speeches inside the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I must say that I am sensitive about some of the speeches made in this house by certain members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Particularly when we refer to the 1919 Liberal commitment on health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Having pointed out clearly
the authorship of these measures, I do not want to belittle in any way the contribution that has been made over the years by so-many members of parliament and by all

political groups, particularly by certain members who are now in the house. I remember a speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and I recall his words. Even though one cannot always agree with him one can always find occasion to respect what he says. I remember him talking about a particular measure and saying that we must not fool the people of Canada, we must let them realize that these desirable measures can be provided only out of the hard work of the masses of the people.
I have never forgotten the effect his statement had in that particular debate. We must not forget those words today. We must not for the purpose of political jockeying, even early in a session or in a parliament, put forward proposals for which, because of their very relationship in the context of the times, no reasonable man would conclude there was any hope of adoption or acceptance.
There are some who criticize the government because it does too much in this field. All one has to do is to pick up the editorial pages of newspapers of this country. This government was once referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) as a government made up of men who give service to socialism in a silk hat. It has been said that we are proponents of the welfare state.
Then there are others who say that we do not do enough. I think it may be said that sometimes we are overly cautious. I think it can be properly said that sometimes we perhaps balance things a little too carefully. But that is the Canadian way of doing things. We believe in a responsible course, a responsible middle-way, standing in between extreme proposals, standing in between what those who are against doing too much and those who want more have to propose.
We do not believe in the welfare state in the sense in which that term is used by some people who criticize what we are doing. It is said that we are trying to create a welfare state. If by welfare state is meant something by which the state is trying to acquire more power, by which it is trying to impose exclusive paternalism, we certainly do not believe in that kind of society. We believe in the welfare state where emphasis is on welfare and not on the state. That is the idea that has characterized all we have done.
In taking the position I have taken today I do so with the knowledge that at the present time this nation has great responsibilities beyond the confines of this land in
Family Allowances Act our efforts to preserve the peace of the world. That is a very important obligation. In spite of that we are gradually, in a responsible way, increasing various measures of social welfare in which we believe. We have not stopped. We are firmly convinced that additional steps will be taken by us in the light of our responsible consideration of the situation in which we find ourselves along with many other nations of the world.
With all that I am sure hon. members, whether they sit on this or the other side, cannot help but conclude that the course we are taking is in the interests of this great nation.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but because of some of the things that have been said and some of the arguments that have been made I think possibly there are a few words that can be said with beneficial results.
I do not believe we should look only at what has been done with regard to social welfare in this country, but rather that we should also look at the circumstances in which it was done. I have been here for quite a long time. I came here first in the 1930's. In fact I came here in 1930, when conditions in this country were very bad. I came here at the time of the election of the last Conservative government we had, under the leadership of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Although that was a time of peace, not only in this country here but generally all over the world, we were confronted with the fact that nothing could be done to improve the lot of the common people of this country.
During the last election I was interested to hear speakers for the Liberal party assert that they were seeking election on the party's record. I was intrigued to notice that in referring to that record they never said anything about their years in office between 1935 and 1940. It was only the years after 1940 to which they referred. There is a good reason for that omission, because they were no more able to do anything in the years between 1935 and 1940 than were the Conservative party from 1930 to 1935.


Mr. Brooks:: And before 1930, what did they do?


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to get into a discussion of that matter. That was a little bit before my time. But before I go on and say something further in that connection, may I say that I have here in my hand a copy of Maclean's magazine for August 1, 1953. In that issue of this magazine was an article

Family Allowances Act by four Canadians. Its title was "How I'm going to vote". Hugh MacLennan of Montreal spoke for the Liberal party; Scott Young spoke for the Conservatives; I believe Lister Sinclair spoke for the C.C.F. and Bob Bowman for the Social Credit party. I am going to read a short quotation from Hugh Mac-Lennan's article because here is a Liberal speaking for the Liberal party. He is a reluctant Liberal, as he himself says; and I do not blame him for that because there is every reason why a person could be a Liberal but not a very enthusiastic one. Underneath Mr. MacLennan's picture are these words:
Reluctant Liberal Hugh MacLennan lives in Montreal where he is working on his fifth novel. He also lectures in English at McGill University.
Indicating whom he would vote for in the election of last August, this in part is what Mr. Hugh MacLennan had to say. I am quoting it because it indicates whence has come the pressure for social services and other beneficial measures in this country. I am also quoting it, of course, because it is from a Liberal and for that reason could not be far wrong. This is what he says:
As I live in the province of Quebec, it is pointless even to consider the claims of Social Credit. They will run no candidate in my riding. Nor is the C.C.F. likely to do so either. In any case the C.C.F. is in the position of a man whose store has been robbed, and robbed consistently, for more than ten years.
As the lawyers would say, the key word in the sentence is "more", "more than ten years". For how many more years than ten, Mr. MacLennan did not say; but he said that C.C.F. policy has been stolen by somebody for more than ten years. He does not leave us in the dark as to who was doing the pilfering. He says this:
The Liberals have lifted so much of Mr. Coldwell's stock and sold it under their own trade-mark that he has been left with little of his own that would tempt me to buy.
I am not at all aggrieved at the Liberals for stealing from the C.C.F. because it indicates that the C.C.F. had something worth stealing. They could not very well steal from any of the other parties because the other parties did not have anything worth stealing; and the reason the Liberals stole from the C.C.F. is that they did not have anything worth while in their own program. I think that answers, and from the horse's mouth, as we might say-and a Liberal horse's mouth at that-the question as to who was making the drive for social security in this country for more than ten years.
I come back to the point I made a little while ago, namely that the Liberals did not say anything about the five years they were
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
in office from 1935 to 1940. I contend that they did not say anything about their record in those years because they did not accomplish anything; and they could not accomplish anything until war came. With the exception of the old age pension that came in 1927, all our social security services and all the improvements that have come since then have come when the country was at war, or when the country was preparing to defend itself in a future war, or when the country was repairing the devastation of war.


Mr. Hahn:: Will the hon. member entertain a question?


Angus MacInnis: I would rather not, because my time is short. It is with regret that I refuse to answer the question my hon. friend wishes to ask, but I do not want to talk this motion out. I want to leave time for a vote if a vote is desired.
I have pointed out that all the improvements in our social services came under these conditions to which I referred. When did the family allowances come? As my hon. friend pointed out a while ago they came in 1944, when more than half the revenue, the labour and the resources of this country were going into the war. Then when we got old age security, in 1952, again half the revenue of the country was going into preparing for defence and for the war in Korea.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but between 1935 and 1940 he forgets pensions for the blind and he also forgets housing legislation.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, there was nothing in housing legislation since 1935; and the mere bagatelle that went for pensions for the blind is hardly worth mentioning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But my hon. friend said nothing was done.


Angus MacInnis: My friend realized that so little was done that he did not say anything about it himself. I am saying now that nothing was done and that the need was terrific. What I want to say now is that if we had not had the misfortune, or the good fortune, to have a war, to be repairing the devastation of that war and to be preparing to defend ourselves in another war, it is doubtful whether to this day we would have any social legislation. That is the record of the Liberal party.
We are coming now to the time when we may have no war on our hands, when we will not be preparing to defend ourselves in another war, and when we will not be repairing the devastation of war. The number of unemployed is increasing now. It is

greater today than at any time since the Korean trouble started in 1950. There is nothing in the past record of the government to indicate that they have any policy for full employment except in times when great expenditures have to be made in non-constructive and non-profitable ways, such as war purposes.
I suggest that the time has arrived when we should be preparing to put more money and more of the resources of the country into social welfare projects, a time when our energies are not being used up in costly non-productive ways. I hear people refer to how much social services are costing the country. Is it a cost to the country that the people are fed, clothed and sheltered through the labour of the people themselves? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) pointed out today how wealth was created by applying labour to the natural resources of the country. As he should know, that is the only way by which wealth can be produced, but there are many ways in which wealth can be appropriated. It is up to us to see that our wealth is appropriated and kept for those who produce it and not allowed to get into the hands of those who cannot use it for productive purposes and will not allow it to be used for the welfare of the people of the country.
As I see it, there is no other reason why people should live or attempt to live except to give themselves the best standard of living that their labour and the resources of the country can provide. In this country at the present time, as was pointed out in an editorial that I read the other day, there are hundreds of people who have not enough to eat. There are hundreds of people who have none of the comforts and the few luxuries that make life worth living. If the wealth of the country cannot be used to make life better for these people, to what use can it be put?
We are coming to the stage when tensions in international affairs are lessening and when production for the wasteful purposes of war will no longer be necessary, and there is a responsibility confronting whoever may form the government of the country to see that our productive forces are kept busy providing not only subsistence but good living for every member of the community.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word. When I spoke about the social legislation of the Liberal party during the last election campaign the government was accused of doing too much and killing the initiative of Canadians. I think there is something in that. I do not agree with my hon. friend that the government did nothing from 1935 to 83276-83
Family Allowances Act 1940. The first thing we did was to close the relief camps, and as far as those that were kept open are concerned, the people were paid.


An hon. Member:: Fifty cents a day.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: They were paid wages. The people who came out of these camps were given emergency work on the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. That may not be considered much, but it was a lot of help to Fort William.
I was going to ask the minister this question. What is the outstanding need for this provision? Are children today not getting enough food? Are they not getting enough clothes? Have they not enough bicycles? Do they not attend picture shows often enough? What is the outstanding need? I think the minister emphasized a very important point when he said there is more urgent legislation ahead of any suggestion such as this. Those are not his words, but that is his meaning. If you compare this suggestion with national health insurance there is no comparison at all, and I cannot support the resolution.
I am strongly in favour of family allowances and would not agree to any reduction in the amount, but I do not see that the children of today have any outstanding need. I go to a school in Fort William or Port Arthur and what do I see? I see hundreds of bicycles. I see children who are well clothed. If you go to a picture show it is packed with children. Show me the outstanding need.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a very satisfying experience for a Liberal to speak about social security. Bearing in mind what the Liberal party has accomplished in this field in the last 25 or 30 years, it is always easy to speak about this matter pleasantly and calmly.
Long before the birth of the Canadian socialist party there were, in the ranks of the Liberal party, men who were thinking about the development of social security in this country. It is with great pleasure that I refer to the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King who, as early as 1900, was giving serious thought to social questions in Canada, and founded our first Department of Labour.
In 1917, long before the appearance of the socialist party in this country, Mr. Mackenzie

Family Allowances Act King wrote a book which has, I am sure, provided a source of inspiration to our socialists. This book, entitled "Humanity and Industry", defined for the future that very social legislation on which we pride ourselves today. In 1927, in order to carry out his ideas on the development of social security, Mr. King had parliament adopt the Old Age Pensions Act. About 1936 followed more social security legislation which was to transform this country's approach to economic problems and increasingly demonstrate to our people that social problems as such were among the first matters to be provided for in the Liberal party's platform. At that time Mr. Mackenzie King brought in the Bank of Canada Act. By thus controlling our credit, Mr. King set his footsteps firmly along the road leading to the economic transformation of this country.
On reading this interesting book by Mr. Hutchison about Mr. King, one becomes aware of the extent to which this great far-seeing statesman has influenced this country's and the United States' policy, since it is said that he influenced Roosevelt's New Deal policy. There is cause for pride if one stops to consider what the Liberal party in this country has done by way of social security and industrial legislation.
In my constituency alone, $3,600,000 was distributed last year for social security, in old age pensions and family allowances alone. Furthermore, I note that in my constituency, thanks to the Unemployment Insurance Act, $600,000 was distributed in the form of unemployment benefits. All in all, the Liberal government has re-established the equilibrium which must exist among all classes of society and it has distributed the money where it was needed; it has acted in such a way that our children, our old people and the sick may enjoy the security to which they are entitled.
We are in favour of social security; it is indeed an object of satisfaction and pride to us Liberals. The present policy, which we have been moulding these last thirty years, is essentially a social security policy. It is because of this that today, in all parts of Canada, people of all ages, religious faiths or beliefs endorse the policy of the Liberal party. Let us develop our resources for the benefit of all Canadians. However, our immense natural resources are and must be developed through private enterprise. It would be bad for our country to kill this spirit of initiative through overtaxation.
I believe that every member of this house and everyone in this country recognizes the good will of the Liberals in trying to settle

this social problem in terms of security for all. A Liberal whose heart is in the right place cannot help but understand that it is necessary to pass legislation to ensure that those who have nothing may live a life that will make them proud of being Canadians.
That is something we all want, we Liberals. We have a long-term program that will, within a very short while, provide our disabled people with a little joy and sunshine. Our social security program is such that the government will be able to bring into effect necessary health insurance legislation. There are many Liberals who believe that we must always go forward, but cautiously. It is quite easy for certain political opponents to confine themselves to outbidding the social security program by asking that it be doubled or tripled, but I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that a certain middle course approach should be our aim in this field as in others.
At the present time, family allowances cost this country $350 million.; to double that amount would mean an outlay of $700 million. Apart from the children who benefit from family allowances, there are those invalids who come to see their member and say: "How is it that the government seems to ignore us? How is it that we seem to be considered as outcasts in our own country? You pass legislation in favour of old people and children, but what about us who are penniless and who are out in the streets?" I think that one of the first legislative measures to be adopted in this country, at the present time, should be in favour of these invalids.
Mr. Speaker, one could speak at some length on this social security question. It is a subject on which a lot has been written in every country. But if we consider what has been accomplished in this country these last 25 years and what has been done in the United States and elsewhere, we find that, thanks to the genius of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, our country is ahead of practically every other country, because of our decision to distribute the wealth of the nation among all classes of our population.
Well I believe that the great advantage of the Liberal policy is this: it is a middle-of-the-road policy. We sympathize with the socialist party people who feel pity for the poor and who want to help them, but they should not think that they are the only ones to have such feelings. We, also, sympathize deeply with all those unfortunate people who ask the government for assistance.
If we were able to double the amount of family allowances, if we could give to our population the benefit of all the social

measures possible we would do it with pleasure. I for one believe that people with means should help the poor.
Mr. Speaker, I notice it is six o'clock. My voice is getting hoarse and I move the adjournment of the debate.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Breton the debate was adjourned.
83270 -83J
Family Allowances Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I have announced three times that the business for tomorrow is housing.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

' '* . * ,

[DOT] . >
Thursday, January 21, 1954