1955-02-23

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I should like to table a copy of the letter which I referred to in the course of a discussion on immigration, as requested by the hon. member for Kamloops.



QUESTIONS


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 per month?
2.	Has any reconsideration been given by the government at any time since July 1, 1954, 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 July 1, 1954, discussed with the government the possibility of the amount of the said basic pension being increased?
4.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since July 1, 1954, 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 July 1, 1954, 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. Marler:: I think I should respond to
this question orally by saying that I can only repeat the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. member on March 17, 1954, when he stated there had been no change in the position in regard to an increase in the basic pension granted to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways since it was fully discussed in the house and in the railways and shipping committee in 1952. Accordingly, the answer to each of the six parts of my hon. friend's question is no.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the minister permit a
supplementary question? Will he table in
the house any reply he has made to associations that have raised this matter with him recently?


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say, Mr. Speaker,
is that no reply has been given to any of the associations mentioned by my hon. friend, since I have been Minister of Transport.


SAINT JOHN, N. B.    TRANSFER OF RAILWAY SERVICES
Mr. Bell:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways transferred any of its departments or facilities during the past year and/or does it contemplate transferring any of them from Saint John to Moncton?
2.	If so, how many employees are involved?
3.	Will the proposed extension to the central traffic control building of the Canadian National Railways in Moncton mean a transfer of any of its departments or facilities to there from Saint John?
4.	If so, how many employees will be involved?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	No; see answer to No. 3.
2.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 3.
3.	The complete extent to which the central traffic control building, Moncton, may be used is at present under study by the management.
4.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 3.


JASPER PARK LODGE
Mr. Holowach:: 1.	What was the final audited cost of the new main building constructed during the winter of 1952-53?
2.	What was the total capital construction cost of the previous building before destroyed by fire?
3.	What was the total revenue received from all departments for the year ending December 31, 1954?
4.	How much was the net profit or loss for the year ending December 31, 1954?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	$2,934,929.
2.	$798,554.
3.	$1,042,801.
4.	Net profit $42,540.


BANFF NATIONAL PARK-TRANSPORT LICENCES
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	What are the names of park authorities who issue licences for the transportation of lumber and/or other produce across the Banff national park?
2.	What is the approximate number of board feet of lumber transported across the Banff national park for the years 1954, 1953 and 1952?

Questions
3.	What are the load limits of produce the transportation of which is considered by the park authorities to be most destructive to park roads?
4.	How many trucks does Mr. Bruno Mennegozzo, who owns and operates a planer mill at Wilmer, British Columbia, use in transporting lumber across the Banff national park?
5.	Have licences been issued for the year 1955 to Mr. A. C. Howell; Mr. Moffat; and Langridge Bros., for the purpose of transporting lumber and/or other produce across the Banff national park?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	Messrs. F. Bryant, E. Peatfield, S. Por-cina, M. M. Hollybow, N. Vernon-Wood, J. Thomason, F. Galvin and A. Chapronier.
2.	No record available.
3.	The degree to which a vehicle may damage park roads is judged by the gross weight of the vehicle rather than by the type of produce carried. The maximum weight limit permitted for trucking on park roads is 20 tons including the weight of the vehicle, the driver and the load carried. This maximum is allowed under ideal conditions only and on roads that are built to stand periodic use by vehicles of this weight. On many park roads with a lighter base or with lighter bridges, a much lower maximum weight limit is set. The park superintendent has authority to enforce a lower maximum weight limit for trucks using any road at any time when poor weather conditions reduce the bearing quality of the road surface. In the case of the winter haul of lumber, which is permitted in special circumstances from the Columbia valley, across park roads, the maximum weight limit allowed, including vehicle, driver and load, is 15 tons. This limit is permitted only when ideal weather has left the roads in the best possible condition.
4.	Mr. Bruno Mennegozzo has operated a maximum of three trucks under licence. Only one vehicle is being used at the present time.
5.	No.
1953 ELECTION


R.C.A.F. PLANES USED BY CABINET MINISTERS
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Were any Royal Canadian Air Force planes used by cabinet ministers from June 1 to August 10, 1953?
2.	If so, on how many occasions, and on what trips?
3.	Was any payment made for the use of these planes?
4.	If so, how much and by whom?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Minister of National Defence, 1 June, Kingston-Rockcliffe; Prime Minister, 10 June, London (UK)-Rockclifle; Secretary of State

for External Affairs, 10 June, Boston-Rock-cliffe; Secretary of State for External Affairs, 13 June, Rockcliffe-Lebanon (Vermont); Minister of National Defence, 30 June, St. Johns (PQ)-Rockcliffe; Minister of National Defence, 7 July, Montreal-Rockcliffe.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.



FEED GRAINS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What was the average freight rate per ton on feed grains shipped to British Columbia from each of the following provinces; (a) Manitoba; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Alberta, In each of the years 1952, 1953 and 1954?
He said: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to withdraw this question in order to reword it.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



HISTORIC SITES

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Are records kept of visitors at various historic sites?
2.	If so, how many visitors registered at each of the historic sites during the season of 1954?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	Records of visitors are maintained at the national historic parks and at the Halifax citadel where there are full time employees available to maintain the records. At the other historic sites no records of visitors are kept as there are no full time employees available to maintain the records.
2.	Visitors to national historic parks and to Halifax citadel-April 1 to December 31,
Halifax Citadel, N. S	 94,705
Fort Anne, N. S	 19,579
Fort Battleford, Sask	12,162
Fort Beausejour, N. B	 23,245
Fort Chambly, P.Q	 70,119
Fort Lennox, P.Q	 11,899
Fortress of Louisbourg, N. S	16,411
Fort Malden, Ont	 15,600
Fort Wellington, Ont	 9,046
Port Royal Habitation, N. S	 20,882



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Brooks:: How many officials on the Canadian National Railways received a yearly salary between the following figures; (a) $10,000 and $14,999; (b) $15,000 and $19,999;	(c) $20,000 and $24,999; (d)
$25,000 and $29,999; (e) $30,000 and $40,000?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer this question orally, I should like to say that the management of the Canadian National Railways take the position, as they have always done in the past, that it is not

in the interest of the company or its personnel to make public information pertaining to salaries. Accordingly, I would ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.




Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many tons of coal (a) mined in the maritime provinces; (b) mined outside Canada, were used on the Canadian National Railways in the calendar year 1954?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The management of the C.N.R. advise that it would be difficult to provide figures of Canadian or United States coal used if by that term is meant coal consumed, as when coal goes through the stockpiles it loses its identity. Purchases of coal in 1954 amounted to:	Eastern Canadian,
515,000 net tons; United States, 2,115,000 net tons.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	Has the government taken steps to have the cow fence erected by the Canadian Pacific Railway at Lake Louise removed?
2.	How much land is owned and/or leased by the Canadian Pacific Railway at Lake Louise, and how close to the water's edge does this come?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	The government has no knowledge of any cow fence erected by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Lake Louise. If the question refers to the attractive ornamental rustic fence surrounding the Chateau Lake Louise, that fence has not been removed.
2.	The Canadian Pacific Railway Company holds under lease at Lake Louise an area of 63 acres. Of this area, the nearest point to the high water shore line of Lake Louise is a distance of 16 feet.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many lawyers, by provinces, have been engaged by the Department of National Revenue, during each of the last five years, to write letters or take other steps in connection with the collection of sales taxes?
2.	How much has been collected as the result of such efforts?
3.	What is the total amount paid to such lawyers, by provinces, during each of the past five years, for such services?
4.	Why does the Department of National Revenue not write such letters and do such work itself?


Mr. McCann:: I should like to answer this question orally. I have endeavoured to assemble the information sought in this question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but find it entails more work, I am sure, than the member could have anticipated.
Questions
Our records reveal that, for the five years referred to, a total of 703 different lawyers were used in sales tax cases. To break down the figures as requested raises the problem of first segregating sales tax cases from excise tax cases, a practically impossible task, since these cases are not separated in the records, and in many instances both forms of tax are involved.
I should like the hon. member to know, too, that since 1952 legal agents have only been appointed for the prosecution of delinquents, and not for the collection of taxes, as implied in the question. Our departmental officers carry on collection proceedings until legal action by way of prosecution becomes necessary. It would be a task of several months to even approximate the over-all results of the action taken by legal agents, since in many cases the threat of prosecution results in the payment of both arrears and current taxes, whereas in the case of prosecution less than the amount may be collected and, in some instances, imprisonment imposed as an alternative to failure to pay the fines and the taxes.
The dimensions of this problem can be indicated by the fact that some 2,500 separate cases were handled by the 703 lawyers employed during this period. Should the member have a more specific inquiry in this case, I will be pleased to see if we can answer it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he has the answer to the third question, namely, the amount paid to these 703 lawyers for the work referred to in the answer he has just given.


James Joseph McCann: No, I have not that information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister get it?


James Joseph McCann: I will try.



SALE OF WHEAT TO RUSSIA

Mr. Thatcher:: What steps, if any, has the Canadian wheat board, or any other government agency, taken in the past year to sell wheat to Russia?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: If wheat were to be imported into the U.S.S.R., the importing would of course be done by the government of the U.S.S.R. Subsequent to an inquiry by the embassy of the U.S.S.R. early last spring, officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, at frequent intervals, have been in communication with embassy officials in Ottawa. The embassy has not, however, given any further indication that the U.S.S.R. is interested in importing wheat.
It is noted from latest FAO statistics that the U.S.S.R. has in fact made some limited exports of wheat during the past year.

Questions



R.C.A.F. BASE, CHATHAM, N. B.

Mr. Hamilton (York West):: 1.	When was the Royal Canadian Air Force, Chatham, New Brunswick, base established?
2.	When was the Chatham, New Brunswick, Royal Canadian Air Force base first used lor jet aircraft training?
3.	How many flying accidents have occurred involving the use of jet aircraft based at Chatham, New Brunswick, Royal Canadian Air Force base?
4.	How many Royal Canadian Air Force personnel have been killed in such accidents?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The present base was established in May 1949.
2.	October 1949.
3.	In the five-year period that jet aircraft have been operating at R.C.A.F. station Chatham, excluding cases of minor damage, there have been 38 aircraft accidents which resulted in destruction of the aircraft and 55 aircraft accidents in which moderate or substantial damage was done to the aircraft.
4.	22.



JOHN A. A1TKEN

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Is John A. Aitken, formerly of Ottawa, in the employ of the Prince Albert national park?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, what is his position, and what is the salary?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.



CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS, TORONTO

Mr. Michener:: 1.	In administering the citizenship act what does the Toronto area comprise?
2.	In this area how many applications for citizenship were awaiting hearing on November 30 and December 31, 1954, and on January 31, 1955?
3.	In this area how many applications were heard in each of these months?
4.	How many judges conduct such hearings?
5.	How many certificates of citizenship were granted in this area in each of the years 1946 to 1954 inclusive?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I had a word with the hon. gentleman who is asking this question and I explained to him that the information asked for in parts 2, 3 and 4 of the question would be information in the possession of the courts, which are of course under provincial jurisdiction. While I have no doubt that there would be the greatest co-operation in supplying it, it would be asking for something that is not normally within our federal records. We could provide the answer to part 5. The answer to the first part is, of course, York county.
However, I rose to say something else about this situation which I think is what the hon. gentleman is really trying to get at. The

situation in York county is very unsatisfactory indeed. About one-fifth of the immigrants who have come to Canada since the war, as nearly as we have been able to calculate, have settled in the Toronto area. Time has gone on and the number of applications for citizenship that we anticipate this year is far beyond the capacity of the courts under present arrangements to carry out in a satisfactory manner.
I have been in touch with the attorney general of Ontario, with the judges and with the clerk of the court, all of whom have been most co-operative. I visited the premises myself and the Minister of Public Works has since made new space available. We are trying as fast as we can to make new arrangements which will make it possible to deal expeditiously with these citizenship applications, as I am sure every hon. member would vant them to be dealt with.


Mr. Michener:: In view of the explanation and the recognition of the problem in the Toronto area in connection with processing applications for certificates of citizenship, which was really the point of my question, and in view of the assurance given to the house by the minister that he recognizes this problem and proposes to deal with it, I am prepared to drop parts 2, 3 and 4 of the question. I would be glad to have an answer to part 5. Part 1 has been answered. My main purpose in asking the question was to have it recognized that there is a serious backlog in dealing with the processing of applications for citizenship in Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: One of the questions has been answered. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 have been dropped, and paragraph 5 will stand.



FERRY TERMINAL, YARMOUTH, N.S.

Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the construction of a ferry terminal at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, (a) what is the name of the contractor; (b) what is the amount of the contract; (c) does the amount of the contract include all expenditures, other than for the purchase of land, which will be required for the construction and establishment of the ferry terminal; (d) on what date is the contractor required to complete the contract; (e) does the information available to the Department of Transport indicate that the contract will be completed on or before the said date?
3.	Were tenders called for, and if so, what other firms or persons tendered, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Kenney Construction Co., Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S.; (b) $612,000; (c) Preliminary work, consisting of clearing of the site, placing of a fill and enrockment, and dredging of the crib sites and berths, was performed

under separate contracts during 1953; (d) March 11, 1955; (e) Yes, on basis of information available to Department of Public Works.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) Cameron Contracting Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $679,011.00; T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia), Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.,	$689,777.22;
Mannix Limited, Montreal, P.Q., $722,425.00; the J. P. Porter Co., Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $745,180.00; E. G. M. Cape and Co., Montreal, P.Q.,	$791,538.00; Marples Ridgway Ltd.,
Montreal, P.Q., $797,301.00; George Mills & Sons, Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $814,550.00; Grant-Mills Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.,	$813,940.00;
McNamara Construction Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $895,165.00.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY TENDERS

Mr. Balcom:: To what extent is the government financially responsible in the acceptance of tenders by the St. Lawrence seaway authority?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The St. Lawrence seaway authority must first obtain the approval of the treasury board before entering into an agreement involving any expenditure in excess of $50,000.
Sections 13, 15 and 16 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, chapter 242, R.S.C. 1952, provide for the borrowing of money and the collection of tolls by the St. Lawrence seaway authority and sections 25, 26 and 27 of the said act provide for loans and guarantees by the crown.



OLD AGE SECURITY

Mr. Holowach:: 1.	How many people 70 years of age and over are presently residing in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How many persons in each province are presently receiving old age security pensions?
3.	How many Canadian citizens in each province are disqualified from receiving old age security by reason that they have not been resident in Canada for 20 years?
4.	Has the government considered the advisability of reducing the residence requirement to the five-year term required by the Naturalization Act?
5.	Has the government considered introducing legislation during this session making the old age security pension available as soon as persons become Canadian citizens?


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, I will give written answers to the first, second and third parts of this question, and then with regard to parts four and five I can say now that the answer is "no".


Mr. Speaker:: Did I hear the minister say that he wanted parts 1, 2 and 3 to stand, and that the answer to parts 4 and 5 is "no".


Murdo William Martin: Yes.
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Then paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 will stand. For the purposes of order it might be advantageous to supply the information when it is ready for parts 1, 2 and 3, and to answer "no" as far as parts 4 and 5 are concerned. If this practice carries on of ministers standing up and saying that the answer to one part of a question is "no" and other parts of a question should stand, it becomes difficult for the officials of the house to carry on. There might be mistakes tomorrow in Votes and Proceedings. It also provokes discussion which is most irregular at this stage of our proceedings.


Murdo William Martin: I see that your suggestion is one that I should have considered earlier. I gave the answer because of a comment made elsewhere. I thought it desirable to answer at this time. I think your suggestion is one that should be acted upon by old members as well as new.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Have the plans for the location and construction of that portion of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia, between Chase and Sorrento, British Columbia, yet been completed?
2.	If so, do they call for the elimination of the level crossing over the Canadian Pacific main line at a point east of Chase, where the highway first reaches the shore of Little Shuswap lake?
3.	Is it proposed to replace this level crossing by an overhead crossing?
4.	If not, what type of crossing is planned?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	No submission has been received for approval from the provincial government which is responsible for the preparation of these plans.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



UNITED KINGDOM DEBT TO CANADA

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Does any debt exist between the United Kingdom government and the government of Canada?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of that debt?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes, the United Kingdom is indebted to Canada.
2.	The War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942-$120,000,000.
United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946-$1,127,255,220.91.



ARCTIC BOUNDARIES SURVEYS

Mr. Herridge:: 1.	Have the Arctic boundaries of Canada been surveyed?
2.	If so, on what principle?
He said: I wish this question dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.

Questions



REGISTERED MAIL STORAGE

Mr. Barnell:: 1.	Do postal regulations require the provision of a fireproof safe for the storing of registered mail and other valuables in all post offices?
2.	If not, in what classes of post offices are such facilities required to be provided?
3.	Whose responsibility is it to provide such facilities?
4.	Who is responsible if no such facilities are provided and a loss occurs through fire or other causes?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: 1.	No.
2.	Semi-staff and staff offices.
3.	Department of Public Works on recommendation of Post Office Department.
4.	Department assumes the loss unless postal officials have not taken proper precautions within the sphere of their responsibility.



H.M.C ,S. &quot;MAGNIFICENT&quot;  TELEPHONE SERVICE, VANCOUVER

Mr. Herridge:: What was the total amount paid to the British Columbia Telephone Company for supplying telephone connections and services between H.M.C.S. Magnificent while docked at Vancouver last year?


Mr. Blanchette:: 



$51.10. STATUE OF WELCOME, HALIFAX HARBOUR

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Have representations been made to the Department of Public Works respecting the construction of a statue of welcome on George island at or near the entrance to Halifax harbour by (a) the city of Halifax; (b) the board of trade; (c) any other organization?


Mr. Bourgel:: (a), (b) and (c). No.



MAISONNEUVE HOSPITAL, MONTREAL-GRANTS

Mr. Deschatelets:: 1.	Has the federal government given any assistance to the Maisonneuve hospital in Montreal?
2.	If so, what is the amount granted each year and for what purpose is it given?


Mr. Martin:: 1 and 2. Yes. Federal assistance totalling $1,057,347.91 has been given to the Maisonneuve hospital under the national health grants program as follows:
Under the hospital construction grant:
Assistance towards the construction of 506 active treatment beds, 89 bassinets, 33 chronic convalescent beds, 345 nurses' beds and floor areas for the out-patient department and for other community health services at the hospital, 1951-52, $207,264.75; 1953-54, $414,529.50; 1954-55, $193,784.06. Under the professional training grant:
Assistance towards necessary staff and equipment for the establishment of a pilot

demonstration school of nursing at the hospital, 1953-54, $24,181.06; 1954-55, $39,450.00. Under the mental health grant:
Special equipment was purchased and assistance provided towards employment of staff for the new psychiatric clinic at the hospital, 1953-54, $4,496.36; 1954-55, $13,530.32. Under the general public health grant:
Assistance towards the purchase of special equipment (radiology, laboratory, electroencephalography and other) for the institute of cardiology, developed in the hospital, 1953-54, $99,128.51; 1954-55, $60,983.35.
Total federal assistance: 1951-52, $207,264.75; 1953-54, $542,335.43; 1954-55, $307,747.73; total $1,057,347.91.



C. H. BLAND

Mr. Girard:: 1.	Has Mr. C. H. Bland, chairman of the civil service commission, reached the retirement age? If so, on what date?
2.	Has he been given any extension of his term of office? If so, when and for what length of time in each case?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Yes. September 6, 1951.
2.	Yes. January 27, 1951, until March 31, 1953, February 26, 1953, until March 31, 1954, January 14, 1954, until September 5, 1954, August 11, 1954, until September 5, 1955. (Order in council, P.C. 1953-1895, dated December 10, 1953, passed under the powers conferred by the Public Service Superannuation Act, provides that a deputy head who has attained 65 years may continue to be employed in the public service thereafter from year to year if, prior to each anniversary of his birthday, the Prime Minister approves in writing that the deputy head continue to be so employed).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Churchill:: 1.	What has been the total cost of transportation for the wives and children of the Canadian forces overseas from Canada to the United Kingdom and Europe and return for the years 1952, 1953, 1954?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such transportation for the year 1955?
3.	What has been the total cost of providing married quarters for the Canadian army and Royal Canadian Air Force in the United Kingdom and in Europe, for the years 1952, 1953, 1954, under the headings: (a) capital cost; (b) maintenance?
4.	What is the estimated cost of construction and maintenance of such married quarters for the year 1955?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this question it would be much easier to reply

if the hon. member would change the wording of the question from calendar year to fiscal year. If he would agree to that, I would ask that the question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada from each European country during 1953 and 1954?
2.	In what European countries does Canada maintain immigration offices?
3.	In each case, where is the office located, what was the total number of employees in each office and the total salary paid during 1953 and 1954?
4.	What are the names of any organizations working with the department of immigration or working privately to bring immigrants into Canada?
5.	What are the names of organizations or individuals charged with aiding the illegal entry of immigrants into Canada, and in each case, how many immigrants have been brought in illegally and from what countries?
6.	What steps are taken by immigration offices to (a) check the police record or citizenship record of each immigrant recruited by such organization; (b) check the health and freedom from communicable disease of each immigrant recruited by such organization?
7.	During 1953 and 1954 how many immigrants have been deported back to each country and for what reasons?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask that this question be made an order for return, but there are one or two modifications that ought to be made in it. Part 4 of the question reads:
What are the names of any organizations working with the department of immigration or working privately to bring immigrants into Canada?
If the words "or working privately" could be struck out of that part of the question, we could answer it. We would have no official information on what organizations might be working privately in this field. Then, sir, I am not quite sure what is meant by "such organization", which appears in the concluding part of 6. I am not sure whether that refers to organizations working with the department of immigration, or whether it refers to organizations working for the illegal entry of immigrants. The kind of answer given would depend a good deal on which was referred to. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could clarify that point. Whichever it is, we would be quite prepared to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return, subject to the corrections made by the minister.


AUTOMOBILES, IMPORTED AND ASSEMBLED
Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	What Is the number of automobiles imported into Canada each year since 1945 inclusive?
2.	From what countries have these been imported and what is the number from each country for each year since 1945 inclusive?
Orders for Returns
3.	For what makes of automobiles assembled or built in Canada may parts be imported duty free?
4.	What automobile companies doing business in Canada since 1945 have been unable to meet the tariff regulation of 40 per cent made in British commonwealth content on auto parts?
5.	Have any of these companies discontinued the building of cars in Canada because of their inability to meet the above-mentioned regulation?
6.	If so, what companies have thus been affected in the past two years and what makes and models of automobiles have ceased to be assembled in. Canada for this cause?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many deportation orders, by provinces, have been issued by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in each of the five calendar years 1949 to 1954, inclusive?
2.	What are the reasons or grounds on which each of such orders was issued?
3.	Were all of the said orders executed?
4.	If not, how many are not executed, and for what reason?



TAX RENTAL AGREEMENTS

Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	What amount has the federal government collected annually in each province from personal income tax, since the last renewal of the tax rental agreement?
2.	What annual amount has each province received in return, under the tax rental agreement?



FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide an increase in the family allowance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am moving this motion which asks that family allowances be increased because I wish to protest the attitude of a government which brought in a measure in 1944 to set up family allowances at a certain rate and has allowed over that 10-year period almost continuous inflation to eat away a substantial part of the purchasing power of the family allowance. I do not think this government should allow the benefits of family allowance to wither away as they have over the last ten years without taking action now to restore the value of family allowances.
I see that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is in his seat. I believe that he himself should consider this problem carefully and introduce legislation which will restore to the family allowance cheque the purchasing power it had when the cheques were first issued back in 1945.
I would go even further and say that no more should this government, than any other government, rest content with the body of social security legislation as it now stands.

Family Allowances Act Not only should it at this time restore the value of the family allowance but its objective should be to increase the value of the family allowance in the years to come. A nation cannot stand still. I do not think any government should allow its social security program to stand still or worse-as it is doing with the family allowance-allow the benefit of family allowance gradually to wither away as the result of inflation.
A year ago my motion asked in specific terms that the value of the family allowance be restored to the value it had when the act was first brought into effect in 1944. I have deliberately worded this motion in more general terms. It sets forth a principle, namely that the family allowance should be increased. I challenge the government to allow a vote this afternoon on the principle of this motion. If government members talk this proposition out, I say it will be because the government itself dares not face a vote of the members of this house on such a vital issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Talk for yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Every year that I moved this motion I have said that I was not endeavouring to take away any credit that was due the former prime minister, the late W. L. Mackenzie King, and that I was not attempting to take away any credit that was due the government. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) amended that statement by saying that J. S. Woods-worth, the late leader of this party, also played a substantial part over the years in promoting social security legislation. But this government that has followed the Mackenzie King government should not allow the benefits of the family allowance legislation to wither away through lack of action and because it has failed to restore the purchasing power of the family allowance.
The family allowance is one of the most important social security measures on the statute books in Canada. Recent figures show that family allowance payments are now made to over two million families. The number of children on whose behalf family allowance payments are made was 4,729,000 in March, 1953. Family allowance payments for the year ended March 31, 1953, amounted to $334 million.
The government may argue that, with increasing population, the amount paid out for family allowance at current rates has increased and that that is sufficient burden on the nation. However, I should like to point out that in 1946-47 family allowances were 

paid to the amount of $245 million out of a gross national product of $12 billion, so that the ratio of the family allowance to the gross national product at that time was approximately 2 per cent. If the same ratio were maintained today there should be paid out in family allowances not less than $480 million. However, the amount paid out in the year ended March 31, 1953, was $334 million. Not only in relationship to the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque but in the relationship of the amount paid out in family allowances to the gross national product-the wealth production of this country-the government is allowing family allowances to decrease as the years go by.
I believe that family allowances have been of great value in helping parents to feed their children better. I believe that family allowances have increased nutritional standards. I believe that family allowance cheques have enabled parents to clothe their children better. There is no doubt in my mind that the family allowance cheques have enabled parents to have their children receive a better education. There is no doubt in my mind that the payment of the family allowance has meant better medical care for the children of this country. I am one who believes that our nation's greatest asset is its children. If we want to build a nation that is secure for the future, we need now to look after the welfare of the children of family allowance age. Because I believe this, I have once again moved this motion asking that family allowances be increased.
The general consumer price index since 1945 has increased considerably. From 1945 to 1954 there has been an increase in the index from 75 to 116-2, or an increase of some 55 per ce-nt. The two main items on which I would think the family allowance cheque is ordinarily spent, namely food and clothing, have increased by an even larger amount. In 1945 the index for food was 66-3. In 1954 it had become 112-2, or an increase of 69 per cent. Let us look at the index for clothing in the same period. In 1945 the index stood at 66-9; in 1954 it stood at 109-4, an increase of 63-5 per cent. While the general cost of living index has increased, the cost of the main items for which the family allowance cheque is spent has increased at an even greater rate. I suggest that that is an additional reason why this government should take action at this time to increase payments made under the family allowance.
The government has not hesitated to increase the salaries of public servants and especially to increase by large amounts salaries of public servants who are already receiving relatively high salaries. Almost

every income group in the nation in the last
10	years has received substantial increases in salaries and income. That being the case, I believe the government should consider an increase in the family allowance.
As I have already said, my greatest objection to inaction is the fact that the government stands idly by while the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque has gone down and down. In this house the other day I mentioned something of a similar attitude on the part of this government in relation to another security measure, namely prairie farm assistance. The government had allowed the value of the moneys paid out under that act to decrease, I believe, by some 58 per cent during the period in which it has been in effect. This government has allowed the value or the purchasing power of the old age pension cheque to go down by a substantial amount since the last increase in the monthly cheque for old age pensioners, namely April, 1949, until today the $40 a month for the old age pension is nothing short of a starvation allowance. No old age pensioner in Canada can live in decency on $40 a month if that pensioner has no other income. The same callous attitude is shown with regard to family allowances.


Murdo William Martin: Is "callous" the word?


Hazen Robert Argue: Exactly. The $5 a month family allowance cheque, in the first year after the government had made its initial payment, was reduced in value by 10 cents. It took only one year for the government to reach in and take away 10 cents of the value of a $5 family allowance cheque. The next year the same government stepped in and, by allowing inflation to run wild and doing nothing to maintain the value of the family allowance cheque, allowed another 50 cents to be taken away from that cheque. So that after two years the cheque had become worth just $4.40 in terms of 1945 purchasing power. In the next year the government allowed 50 cents to be taken away from the family allowance cheque and it became worth $3.90.
All of these calculations are based on changes in the consumer price index, the official index of the dominion bureau of statistics. In 1949 another 15 cents was taken from the family allowance cheque and it became worth just $3.75. In 1950 another
11	cents was taken from the cheque and in purchasing power it became worth $3.64. In 1951 a further 35 cents was taken from the family allowance cheque and it became worth just $3.29 in terms of 1945 purchasing power. In 1952, with another increase in the cost of living, the value of the family allowance cheque went down an additional
Family Allowances Act 8 cents and it became worth only $3.21. In
1953	there was a lowering of the consumer price index as the result of which 3 cents was restored to the value of the family allowance cheque, making it worth $3.24. In
1954	the value of the family allowance cheque again decreased by 2 cents and it was worth only $3.22 based on the purchasing power of 1945 dollars. The government had allowed a reduction of $1.78 to take place since 1945 in the value of the $5 family allowance cheques.
I think that demonstrates how necessary it is for the government to do something towards restoring the value of the family allowance. Of course what has happened to family allowance payments in other categories is similar. In the same period the $6 cheque was reduced in value by $2.13, becoming worth only $3.87. The value of the $7 monthly family allowance cheque has gone down by $2.48 to $4.52. The value of the $8 family allowance cheque has gone down by $2.84 until, in terms of 1945 purchasing power and according to the consumer price index, it is only worth $5.16.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that almost year by year the value of family allowance has gone down and has been allowed to wither away. The effect on families must be very serious indeed. Oh, members of parliament who are living quite comfortably, whose income in this period has been increased very substantially indeed, almost doubled, may not realize just how little income a very large percentage of Canadians actually obtain. The 1951 census shows that of 4,085,000 workers 2,188,000, or 53-5 per cent, earned less than $2,000 a year. In 1951 over half the wage earners in Canada were earning less than $2,000 a year.
It is no doubt true that since 1951 wages have gone up to some extent, but I am sure if statistics were available today they would show that a large percentage of Canadian workers earn a very small salary indeed. The 1951 figures show that 1,497,000 wage earners, or 37 per cent, earned less than $1,500, and that 895,000, or 22 per cent, earned less than $1,000 a year. When one considers these figures in conjunction with the statement made in the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that 19 per cent of the working population are responsible for 84 per cent of the children, one can see that the average income of the people of Canada who have children is not high. In fact it is low, and with such a low income as these statistics indicate I believe there is no excuse whatever for the government not taking action immediately to restore the value of family allowance cheques. And

Family Allowances Act why? So that Canadian children can be better fed, better clothed, better housed, better educated and have the opportunity of obtaining better medical assistance.
In speaking on this question on former occasions the Minister of National Health and Welfare has to my mind advanced only one argument against increasing family allowances. His argument can be summed up in these words: Where is the money going to come from? The motion is fine, says the minister, but if the member moving the motion were on the government side of the house he would then be responsible to the Canadian public and would have to find where he could get the money.
The statement has been made in debate after debate that such a move would necessarily add to the terrible tax burden on the Canadian people. The present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) has answered that argument very successfully in the past when he has pointed out that family allowance payments are not a burden in the ordinary sense of the tax burden, in the sense of the burden of national defence expenditures, that they are not a deadweight burden on the Canadian public but rather that they are merely transfer payments. In the general tax structure of Canada family allowances ordinarily mean that the well-to-do paying most of the taxes help to take care of the children of parents who have smaller incomes.
When one considers that payments for family allowance are merely transfer payments, I say that even if our tax structure today were as high as the Canadian public could bear we could afford higher family allowances because it would be a transfer and a transfer only. But I believe that under present economic conditions the government could increase family allowances and restore their value without adding to the tax burden of the Canadian public in any way, shape or form.


Mr. Garland:: Tell us how.


Hazen Robert Argue: To point out how it can be done, I have in my hand the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1956, and I see that a reduction in estimates of $153 million is being forecast. There is $153 million. That in itself would be almost sufficient to restore the family allowances to their value in terms of 1945 dollars. I suggest to the government that rather than considering a reduction in corporation taxes or a reduction in income taxes of the high income tax groups, the government should take the $153 million that it has been estimated will be saved and use it to restore

the value of family allowances. That would not result in any increase in taxes whatsoever.
If the government wants more revenue they should go back and read their 1945 proposals to the provinces at the dominion-provincial conference. If the government would reread those proposals and, having become imbued, if possible, with the same philosophy contained in them, would decide that Canada should no longer suffer from an unemployment situation where there are in the country 600,000 idle persons who should be adding to the wealth of production, if they would apply and practise the philosophy of full employment and do everything possible to see that there was full employment, tax revenues would go away up.
Canada can afford whatever can be produced in Canada. When you want to decide what Canada can afford, try to ascertain the total wealth production that Canada is capable of producing. In 1954 this government has allowed wealth production to be $1,200 million less than it would have been had they adopted a full employment policy. The gross national production may go along fairly level in 1954, after having taken out the factor of widespread crop failure, but the gross national production should go up year after year by not less than 5 per cent because of increasing population and improvements in technology and methods of production.
Any time Canada's gross national production remains level we are losing 5 per cent annually. It is estimated that in 1954 we have lost $1,200 million in wealth production. If that wealth production had been coming forward, not only would the general standard of living of the Canadian people be increased but the revenues going into the federal government would have been increased by at least 5 per cent-yes, by more than 5 per cent-because when wealth production goes up it means more money in the hands of those in the higher income tax brackets and the higher corporation tax brackets, and therefore reflects itself in an even larger percentage increase in tax revenues to the government. Had there been full employment in 1954 we should have had an increase of at least 5 per cent or $225 million in our taxation revenues. Add that to the $153 million reduction in estimates, and you have another $378 million from which the government could take all the money that was necessary to increase the family allowances. Even at this late date, in the light of the fact that Canada has lost $1,200 million of wealth production that will never be regained-it is gone and gone forever-if the government decided on a program of full employment and

full production in 1955, then I suggest there could be regained not only the 5 per cent which was lost in 1954 but the additional 5 per cent that should normally accrue in 1955. With a continuing full employment policy, instead of revenues going up in 1955 by an additional 5 per cent they should go up by an additional 10 per cent or about $450 million. If we add that to the $153 million that the government says it is going to save, we have over $600 million from which family allowances could be paid, old age pensions increased, an expanded program of road development in Canada, increased federal grants for education and health, and all those things that the C.C.F. and the people of Canada believe in and desire.
Instead, the government does literally nothing and allows the value of family allowances to wither away, allows the purchasing power of the $40 per month for old age pensions to wither away. Over a period of 10 years, this government has staged a successful attack on the value of family allowances. This government has been instrumental in the destruction of 35 per cent of the value of family allowances, and that is the reason I propose to the house this day that we consider and vote on a proposition which says that the time has arrived when family allowances in this country should be increased.
Mr. Jean-Fran?ois Pouliot (Temiscouata):
The hon. gentleman who has just spoken, Mr. Speaker, is greatly mistaken. The members of parliament who have respect for the Canadian mothers come from all quarters of the house. It is not only the members of the C.C.F. party who try to help the mothers in bringing up children and who are interested in the education and welfare of all children. This is the first point.
My second point is that the hon. member who has just spoken has stolen the thunder of the union des electeurs, the Quebec branch of the Social Credit group. To my knowledge it is the first time that one of the policies advocated by the Quebec branch has been brought before the house by the C.C.F. party. Last year I had a very interesting experience in the banking committee where Mr. Maynard, the attorney general of Alberta, was a witness. I asked him a pointed question which reads as follows:
Q. . . . I want to understand something and I wish to take the liberty of asking you some questions following the questions asked by Mr. Philpott. Do you represent the Social Crediters of the province of Quebec?
A. I represent the Social Credit government of Alberta.
Q. But you do not represent the Social Crediters of Canada?
50433-91i
Family Allowances Act
A. I am here speaking on behalf of the Social Credit government of Alberta.
Q. Yes. Period. Thirty-
A. Yes.
He did not want to speak on behalf of the union des electeurs of Quebec because these men and women are known as cranky and crazy throughout the province. To show you how silly they are, they wear white caps with the symbol of a pen and book on them to show they are intelligent. They go around chanting hymns, reciting prayers and wearing this funny cap. It is like a Mardi Gras cap, but they wear it all the year round. It is a sign of craziness. Probably this is the reason why Mr. Maynard did not want to have anything to do with them.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: What has that got to do with the subject in question?


Mr. Pouliot:: I am speaking of what covers their heads, and afterwards I will speak-


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to ask what the Social Credit party had to do with presenting these briefs to the government, and what has that to do with the subject under debate? If the hon. member is looking for an argument here, he will find one. I would hope you will give us the same privilege as you are extending to him.


Jean-François Pouliot: It proves my argument, and my argument was that the C.C.F.-


Charles Edward Johnston: I would like your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon.
member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) raise a point of order. I understood that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) was going to explain, but apparently the hon. member for Bow River would like me to intervene immediately. I understood the hon. member for Temiscouata to say that the C.C.F. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) had stolen a platform which is that of the Social Crediters in Quebec.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have done that right along.


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member went into detail concerning what these people do and what they wear, he was perhaps going a little bit far afield. I would hope, therefore, he would come back to the question of family allowances.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was speaking of the embroidery on the cap which identifies the Social Crediters in Quebec. My point is this. The policy advocated today in the house by the hon. member for Assiniboia is

Family Allowances Act exactly the same as that advocated by the Quebec branch of the Social Crediters.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Although they do not seem to want to have anything to do with them today, the policy is the same. My point is that in Quebec we hear something advocated by the union des electeurs and here by the C.C.F. party. That is my point. It is the same policy I am going to speak about. And I will tell you it is quite a difficult thing, because a spinster wrote to me advocating family allowances. I told her, "In the first place, get married and have children, and we will discuss it afterwards."


Charles Edward Johnston: Was that in your constituency?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I will give you the letter.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure the hon. member will be able to take care of that matter without assistance.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now, there is another case- and, by the way, I do not want to argue with those people, because I find them crazy. One day I was going out with my wife and my son, and a group of those silly fellows came to my house and said that they wanted to speak to me. I said, "Can I do anything to help you?" They said, "We want to converse with you." I said, "What about?" They said, "About the Social Credit policy, in the main." I said, "I have no time to waste; I am going with my family for a drive. Good-bye" -because I was not going to waste more time in silly talk like that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is how you vote that counts.


Jean-François Pouliot: Wait just a minute, and I will tell my hon. friend more. I have something special for him.
But now it is worse than that. These people are fanatics. They have a small group in Montreal; and one woman-a respectable woman, I presume-wrote to me saying, "If we do not have an increase in family allowances we will have a revolt in this country." I answered her, stating, "I know you; I know you as a person who is erratic and eccentric. If I did not know you, I would give your letter to the mounted police; and then who would look after you?" And I never heard from her again.
I should like now to speak objectively about the social program of this government-not only of this government but of the Liberal party at large. It is not so many years ago that there were no pensions for the old or for the blind. Who instituted those pensions? It was the Liberal party. It is not so long ago that there was no provision for workmen's


compensation in the various provinces. I do not know exactly what happened outside the province of Quebec, but I remember distinctly that in Quebec the workmen's compensation act was passed by the Liberal party.
And It is not so long ago that there were no family allowances at all. Who brought them in? Was it the C.C.F. group? Was it the Social Credit group? No, it was not-not at all. They did not even have representation in the House of Commons at that time. It was done by the Liberal party. And instead of complaining about the Liberal party they should be thankful for what that party has done in the matter of social legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep your facts straight.


Jean-François Pouliot: I could mention many other things. But I speak along this line to remind the house that the social legislation brought in by the Liberal party is superior to all the other legislation passed by any country in the world. And I pay a special tribute to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who has done so much. In my heart I am still thankful to him for what he said last year when he introduced the legislation to help invalids. He said at that time that the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) was one of those who had insisted to him that the legislation should be brought down.
But the Liberal party is not given credit for this. The fact is that the Liberal party did it; and the C.C.F. want to take the credit for it. Instead of using language such as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has used, when referring to the government, they should bow to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; they should thank him, and say, "You are public benefactors. You have done more for social legislation than any government, including socialist governments, has done throughout the world." And that is that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend will have ample opportunity to answer me. He will have every opportunity to say what he likes after I have finished. Meantime, let him take his pill; and let him remember that what counts is not words that are said, but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What counts is how you vote on the resolution.


Jean-François Pouliot: How I will vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, I have not finished yet. My hon. friend thinks I am through, but I am not through at all. And does he think that I will accept a suggestion to the Minister of

National Health and Welfare and the government that is wrapped up in so many ugly words?


Hazen Robert Argue: Read the resolution.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have read it; and I will answer the hon. member if he will not interrupt me. I will tell him what it is and I hope I shall have time to look after my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) too.
I want to tell the house, answering the C.C.F., that their suggestion is always to spend more money, and they explain to us that it can be done without taxation- speaking in the same way as the white caps speak in the province of Quebec. "You can cut it here and cut it there, and let us have a lump sum to double the family allowances". But it is not done like that. The purpose of family allowances is not to provide a living for parents; it is to help them educate their children, to feed them, to give them tonics when required, and help them to dress better. That is the purpose of it. It is a kind of compensation that is given by the government to help the parents of large families.
However, it is not my purpose to interpret the intention of the government. Who are these people who insist upon double, treble or four times larger family allowances? They are the do-nothings; they are those who won't work. And I did not say "want"; I said "won't"-w-o-n apostrophe "t". They won't work. They imagine life as something in which you are doing nothing, sitting comfortably, playing the accordion and chewing gum -an easy life.
I mentioned this once before the banking committee when I said that the election agent of my Social Credit opponent went to the publisher of the local weekly paper at Riviere du Loup and the publisher said to him, "Well, my impression is that you are afraid to work, and that you will not work under any consideration." This man said, "Exactly, sir; that is why we like so much the policy of the Social Credit party-because we will have nothing to do but sit on an easy chair. We will live in a paradise of fools."
I will refer hon. members to what took place in the banking committee last year, where I recited the magnificent description of the Social Credit machine as it was given in the house some years ago by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am very sorry that the then minister of finance interrupted me and I did not have a chance to pursue it; but with your permission, sir, I will put it all on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does it relate to family allowances?
Family Allowances Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. I will explain to you how. It is because the Social Credit policy is to the effect that family allowances can be doubled, trebled and so forth, without any more taxation, and here comes the Social Credit machine that does the work. It was described by the hon. gentleman at page 1540 of Hansard of March 3, 1939. I asked him how the machine could provide anything for the 100 people and how many of the 100 people would have to work on the machine. I assumed for the moment that the whole population of the world could be reduced to a hundred people, and I wanted to know how many people were required to operate the machine and how many would benefit from the work of the machine. Here is the explanation:


Mr. Blackmore:: That is a sincere question, and I think I can bring the answer forcibly to the hon. member's attention in this way: If we continue at our present rate we shall arrive at the point where all the goods and services people can possibly use will be produced by about 2 per cent of the population.
Imagine what will be the unemployment situation if we have only 2 per cent of the people working, but it will be an unemployment which will be a pleasant condition of life. The hon. member continues:
So that really the people who are getting the $50 a month are getting it from the work of the machines, which have so tremendously increased the productive power of our people that it is almost as though we had these 100 people in a lovely valley where all the fruits, all the fishes and everything of that kind were produced in abundance. We know such conditions could exist. We have virtually made this world into such a valley now where we can produce plenty; for we have learned to produce more of every kind of food, clothing, shelter and amusement, than we can use. But we cannot use the labour of all the people; we use machines instead. The question is, shall we let the machines work and let the people have the results of that work, much as one would allow people to pick fruit from the hillsides and catch fish in the streams; or shall we deny all the people who cannot get at the machines the privilege of enjoying any of the benefits derived from the machines which put them out of work? That is the vital question confronting us.
Then I said:
I was dealing with a world population of 100. My hon. friend said that at the rate the machine age was progressing, in the more or less distant future, only 2 per cent of the population would have work.


John Horne Blackmore: Probably, I just supposed that.
I asked Mr. Maynard if he would approve of that fine suggestion, of that marvellous machine which has not yet been exactly described to us, but he was really reluctant to answer definitely. This took place in the banking and commerce committee, as reported on pages 1220 and 1221 of the proceedings. I mentioned the quotation from Hansard of

Family Allowances Act March 3, 1939. The hon. member for Lethbridge said this, as recorded at page 1541 of Hansard:
That is where the state comes in. Ii the machines operated by two men are producing enough shoes, food, and every other kind of goods-
It is a marvellous machine. The hon. member goes on:
-to feed all of the 100, then it will be the state's task to turn the goods into money; for while goods ought to be purchasing power, today they are not purchasing power unless they can be sold. The goods must be changed into money before they become genuine purchasing power. The state, using goods, creates purchasing power, tickets, and distributes them to the men, and then the men are able to take part of that supply of goods.
That machine does not make only fish, shoes and fruit but it makes tickets. This famous slot machine which has not been made yet works in this way. With the tickets, one can return to the machine and get fish, fruit, candy, anything.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there anything wrong with that?


Jean-François Pouliot: I find it splendid.


Mr. Campbell:: I thought this was a debate on family allowances.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; I explained how family allowances will be paid without taxation.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that the quotations which the hon. member has put on the record will finally have to do with family allowances, but let us not institute a debate within a debate. I think the hon. member is now launching an attack upon Social Credit doctrines, and we shall have on a resolution which has as its objective asking the government to consider the advisability of increasing family allowances, a debate on Social Credit theory. The hon. member knows very well that he is entitled to speak for 40 minutes on this resolution, and if he goes around attacking Social Credit theories generally for 39 minutes and speaks on family allowances for one minute, he will finally come to the point, but he will have been out of order for too long a time. I would ask him to consider discussing the increase in family allowances which is the objective of the resolution now before the house, and it is to that particular aspect of the matter that he must address his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, with due deference I cannot do otherwise than explain how it can be done without taxation. That is how it is said in the province of Quebec. It is not said by the same party, but it is the same question. I tried to treat it objectively, in

the same manner as I would answer the Social Credit group if they were sponsoring the resolution. But at the present time, by pure chance, it is not a member of the Social Credit party, it is a member of the C.C.F. group who comes up with it. It is the same question. I have this opportunity to explain it to the house, and I presume that the house knows about the machine without knowing what it is. I hope that some day the hon. member for Lethbridge will explain better to us the working of the machine so that we shall be better satisfied.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be happy to, at the first opportunity.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman did it in a debate it would be much better. I wonder whether it is the same thing in my own constituency? I cannot complain that a large number of people write to me about this matter of family allowances. In my county, the people are sound-minded and they know the difference between what is sensible and what is not. They are very much satisfied with what the government does for them in a particular and in a general way and they are much more grateful than the C.C.F. group may ever be. They tell me often to convey their thanks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They have good manners. They are ladies and gentlemen. They have very good manners and they appreciate very highly what is done for them. I should like to make a revelation to you. I discovered by pure chance that instructions are sent out from the Montreal offices of l'union des electeurs to those who are called conquerors. These are sillier fellows who go around getting subscriptions to the organ. I don't mean a musical organ, a harmonious organ, I mean the organ of the group.


An hon. Member:: Mouth organ.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had the pleasure of putting one of these out of my office, one of these canvassers, conquerors. I suppose they call them conquerors because they conquer subscriptions. It is a very funny thing. One must have a sense of humour to appreciate it. I am sorry that my hon. friends of the Social Credit group who defend the Quebec group have no sense of humour at all, otherwise they would laugh very heartily.


John Horne Blackmore: That surely is too bad.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is quite genial, but he does not have enough sense of humour to savour the whole thing.
Here is what they wrote to the conquerors at large. The name is erased on this bulletin which I was fortunate enough to get. They say that he spoke to Mr. Pouliot, the member

for Temiscouata, who was enraged because he had been disturbed at his work. I am supposed to have said that all my constituents who send petitions are people who pay no taxes. The Social Crediters are quite wrong in that because I never said that those who write to me pay no taxes. Most of my correspondence is made up of sensible letters that I get from my constituents. Do you see the idea of these people in Montreal who send false reports to all these conquerors throughout the province in order that they might become a nuisance to members of parliament?


Mr. Hahn:: What are you concerned about? What are you worried about in connection with Social Crediters?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not worrying at all. I am just exposing their silliness to the house and to the country. I am not concerned about it. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) is a very genial colleague and I have great regard for him. He is very different from these people; he is not the same type. If one of these canvassers comes to my office again I will take him by the hand and introduce him to the hon. gentleman. I am not concerned about it. I see through their silliness. I do not want people of good faith to be taken advantage of by these cranks and that is why I am exposing their tactics to the house.
We have work to do, first for our constituents and then for the Canadian people at large. I do not see why a crank should be able to come to my office to disturb me in the work I am doing as a member of parliament for my constituents and for the Canadian people at large. That is the first point. What is worse is that some gullible fellows take for granted what is written in these circulars. I pity them; I have compassion for them.
I want to summarize, as I do not intend to take up all the time this afternoon. I want to tell you, as you know, that the Liberal government has done more than any other government in enacting social legislation. I want to tell you that the Canadian people at large are satisfied with what has been done. They realize the prudence and care exercised by the government and they know it would be impossible to increase family allowances without increasing taxation. That is why they are so careful about it.
During the last election I was in a position to state authoritatively that the amount paid for family allowances and old age pensions in my constituency amounted to $2 million a year. That is some amount. Depending upon population, the same is probably true of the
Family Allowances Act constituency of Assiniboia, of the constituency of Lethbridge, and of the constituency of Bow River and many other constituencies. The result is that over $300 million is paid out each year for that purpose. This should receive recognition from the Canadian people and I am sure they will pay no attention to speeches such as the one that has been made here this afternoon.
(Translation):


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I should also like to echo the numerous petitions which have reached me from various parts of my constituency, urging the government to increase family allowances.
Taking into account the present cost of living, which has more than doubled since 1945, the rate of family allowances is no longer such as to answer the original purpose of that legislation. It therefore follows that what we are asking the government to do today is primarily to raise the value of family allowances to the level which had been set by the government itself, back in 1945.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss the validity of the reasons advanced by those who might ask for allowances in the province of Quebec. Rather I wish to stick to the point, that is, to determine whether or not they are in the interests of the Canadian nation and family.
The depreciation of the value of our currency as a result of the steadily rising cost of living since 1945 has caused the $5 family allowance to be worth, at this time, no more than $3.22. It will therefore be seen that, by granting this request, the government would only be consistent with the principle it had laid down itself in 1945 when the family allowance rate was originally set at $5. I therefore hope this legitimate request will not be ignored too long by the government.
I am not personally in favour of too many social security measures, because they would lead us to socialism. Still, there are some which are indispensable to the balance of our Canadian standard of living. Industry pays wages which take no account of the family status of the worker. No account is taken of the fact that he may be either a married man with heavy obligations or only a bachelor. Wages are paid on the basis of services rendered, and it would be very hard to do otherwise. Therefore, only the govern-
1436	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act ment could correct this situation and restore the balance of the family budget by granting higher family allowances. The increase in family allowances is not requested because of unemployment, as it is obvious that family allowances were not intended to replace employment. Besides, even if they were doubled, everyone knows what it costs to raise a family, and it is obvious that everybody would still have to work to provide for the needs of the children.
On various occasions, there has been talk of the need1 for increased immigration to this country, in order to raise the population to 30 million people within a few years. However, Canadian families are denied proper family allowances, geared to the present cost of living, which would allow them to take care in a much more normal way than immigration of the need for increased population, through family growth. All sociologists deplore the falling birth rate and yet the best support that could be given to the large family is unquestionably an increase in the amount of family allowances.
Of course, every time this question is raised in this house, the budget argument is put forward, "Where shall we find the money?"
When, for reasons of security, it was considered necessary to devote close to 40 per cent of the budget to defence, no one asked: "Where shall we find the money?" It was said: "It is essential to the security of the country, it has to be done". And it was done.
Yet, when it comes to the family, the very basis of society, the most valuable asset that we as lawmakers should protect, the question is asked: "Where shall we find the money?" True, it is the duty of the representatives of the country to distribute public moneys according to needs, but they should also distribute them according to the scale of values. And in that scale of values what social asset can have precedence over the family? It therefore means that, of all the financial problems that we have to settle, we should deal first with the one concerning the welfare of the family. And at the moment there is no better way of doing it than by increasing the rate of family allowances.
Besides, what is given families by increasing family allowances is perhaps the best investment that the nation could make for its future. There is not one member in the house who has not, at one time or another, paid tribute to the great Canadian family, talked about the future of our children, of those young people who will succeed us. And
IMr. Girard.]

when the government is given an exceptional opportunity of helping them directly, we hear the same old story, the same excuse: "Where shall we find the money?"
Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, not because it has been drafted by the union des electeurs of Quebec or by other groups of the house, but because it is logical and necessary to the family, and because it affords the government a great opportunity to do something worth while for the welfare of the family.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, I again intend to speak in French, because the resolution before the house has been moved by a member of the C.C.F. party and because I believe we should remind the members of that party that we have the right to speak French in this house.
Since my speech of January 19 last, I have received numerous letters from members of the Quebec Social Credit party, the union des electeurs. I am happy to say that I have not received one letter from the people of my constituency, although I have received several from outside, accusing me of having opposed family allowances and an increase in their rates.
There was even an article blaming me in the February 15 issue of the publication Vers Demain.
I think it is my duty, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to define my exact position with regard to family allowances. I am not against family allowances: on the contrary, I am in favour of such sound social legislation. I am in favour of increasing family allowances, as can be gathered from page 357 of Hansard. This is what I said on January 19 last:
I say to the people of my county that when the time comes to increase family allowances the Liberal party will increase them. The Liberal party was the party that introduced family allowances in the first place, and it can be counted upon to increase them when the revenues and wealth of the country permit us to do so.
In case there should be any doubt on the subject, I categorically state that I am in favour of increasing family allowances as soon as practicable.
On page 357, when I was speaking in English I used the words "silly petitions". I used the word "silly" in the sense of "naive", which is, anyhow, the translation given by Cassell's dictionary, which says that "silly"

may be translated by "naif" in French. I think the people who would like to double family allowances, which are now costing this country $350 million a year, are naive indeed. To double these allowances, an additional $350 million would be necessary. And these people want this to be done without any increase in taxation.
The petitions I received were not prepared by people from my county, they were written by members of the Social Credit party and printed in the publication Vers Demain, which has been distributed in my riding. Now when I said that these petitions were silly, I was in no way referring to the people of my county, but to those who had written those petitions.
Those petitions claim that we could take the $350 million in question from the national defence budget. If we did that we would be unable to fulfil our obligations towards NATO; that would serve the purpose of the communists.
I knew that those petitions had been prepared outside my riding; therefore I was in no way thinking of my constituents when I said that the petitions were silly. One must be silly to believe that family allowances would be maintained if communists overran our country, for lack of adequate defence.
I want to point out once more that I was not directing my remarks to my constituents but rather to those who drafted the petitions. In fact, in my riding, family allowances have a greater importance than elsewhere; indeed my constituents being fishermen who do not work during the winter need the family allowances all the more as they do not collect unemployment insurance, which benefits, I hope, they will soon get.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this government, under the guidance of the Liberal party, which instituted family allowances in Canada, will raise them in due time. For that reason, I intend to vote against the motion introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) since I believe that if we wait for the C.C.F. party to gain power and raise family allowances, we will have to wait a very long time. I think that the chances are greater that they will be raised by the party now in power and, once more, I say that we can count upon the government to raise family allowances when it is advisable to do so.
(Text):


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I feel obliged to comment on this
Family Allowances Act motion. If a vote should come I feel I must vote against the proposal, even though it was introduced by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia. I should like to make it crystal clear that I support the principle of family allowances, and I am convinced that family allowances are making a real contribution to the well-being of the nation. I hope, moreover, the day will come when we can increase the level of these allowances. However, in my opinion such a proposition is neither realistic nor practicable today.
As I read the estimates, the government is planning to pay out $384 million in family allowances this year, if the rates remain exactly as they are at the present time. That is a lot of money. The resolution which my good friend has proposed today is framed in general language. However, the one he moved some two years ago suggested that the level of allowances should be increased to a point where it would take care of the cost of living increase which has transpired since the original legislation was introduced. If such a proposition were accepted, I believe it would cost the taxpayers of Canada roughly $200 million.
In view of the already very heavy commitments we have for national defence, and in view of the very heavy commitments we have for existing social welfare measures, I think it would be most difficult to find another $200 million at this time. I have read in the newspapers statements by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that he was going to find it difficult this year to balance his budget. I have seen reports to the effect that he could well have a deficit of about $100 million. It is one thing to propose expenditures of this kind but it is usually quite another to find the money to pay for them.
Perhaps I am wrong, but as I see it before you can give a dollar to one person you first of all have to take that dollar away from someone else. If we have to find another $200 million for family allowances it must come from taxation. What taxes are going to be increased? I listened to my good friend and colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia, but frankly I could not understand his economic reasoning. Perhaps I am not as bright as I should be, but I still could not comprehend his arguments.
I would remind the house that our budget this year is approaching the $5 billion mark. Governments at the three levels are already taking from Canadians 33 cents out of every dollar in the form of taxation. I do not think he wants to see that 33 cents increased. It is easy to say that you can get the revenue needed for a proposition such as this by taxing the rich more severely. But if you study

Family Allowances Act the statistics published by the Department of National Revenue you will find that there are not enough rich people in Canada to yield such revenue.
I would refer hon. members to page 8 of the taxation statistics for 1954. There you will find that the total income of all Canadians who earned $10,000 or more was only slightly over $1 billion. If you confiscated that whole amount you would still only have about 20 per cent of the federal budget. Therefore I submit to the house that we cannot finance measures of this kind simply by taking more money from the rich. I say that if legislation of this kind is passed it should be clearly realized that it is the average Canadian, the labouring man, the farmer, the small businessman and so on, who is going to have to pay for it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Mr. Trainor:: Why not?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is my opinion, rightly or wrongly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Never.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: As far as family allowances are concerned, I think we have gone quite a way. As a matter of fact the United States, which is a much richer country than Canada, has not gone nearly as far as we have. It seems to me that sooner or later we will be able to finance an increase in family allowances, but I do think that day must await the time when Canada is not spending so many dollars for national defence.
I am not going to say any more. If this matter comes to a vote I feel that I must oppose it, and I want to make clear my reasons for such action.


Mr. Elmore Philpoti (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this resolution. Last year, when there seemed to be some difference of opinion among my hon. friends opposite, I cannot remember ever finding myself on the same side as the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) as opposed to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), but on this occasion I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is speaking plain common sense, and I am sorry to say that I cannot even find diplomatic words to describe the practicability of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Sluder:: He knows it.


Elmore Philpott: If the hon. member for Assiniboia is just trying to carry on general propaganda in favour of higher family allowances at some time in the future, then I can assure him that we on this side of the


house are constantly keeping before the government the advantage of having higher benefits for the people who draw family allowances as well as higher benefits for all the other people who draw any kind of benefits under the welfare state set-up that we have in Canada.
When I heard my hon. friend suggest that at this time and as of this very moment it is a practical proposition to increase family allowances without having either an increase in taxation or an increase in the public debt, then I can only say that he knows better. He is too hard-headed a man for that; otherwise he never would have got first-class honours for writing that thesis on wheat about which we heard the other day. I think the hon. member had better stick to theses on wheat and not this thesis on family allowances in the year 1955.
I am compelled to say that while I hardly ever agree with my hon. friends to the extreme right, I do believe that the campaign being carried on for higher family allowances by the Quebec section of the Social Credit movement is more honest, because at least the Quebec wing of the Social Credit movement have a proposal attached to their demand for higher family allowances which would purport to show how the government could get the money. The Quebec wing not only say there should be higher family allowances-I think they want to double them-but they advocate doing that by writing direct credits in a cheque book, and of course they say it is just as easy as that.
Perhaps my hon. friends opposite may be able to facilitate the writing in a cheque book process a bit in view of the fact that the de facto minister of finance of British Columbia has now become a director of one of the great chartered banks of Canada. Perhaps they will be able to speed up the process a little bit. If the hon. member for Assiniboia was suggesting as a serious proposition that we could have an increase in family allowances in 1955, when he knows quite well that this parliament is facing a deficit in the present year's budget, then I think he is just not talking common sense.
I see that over in France, at the very time when it has taken about three weeks to find a man who is even willing to try to form a new government in that country which has such great difficulty in keeping its governments for more than two or three months, the man who is drawing the largest crowds is not a very great speaker. He is drawing crowds of about 20,000 people, and has a very popular and very simple program. It can all be summed up in four words: Down with all taxes. He does not believe in paying taxes

of any kind. But I must say that my hon. friend seems to be even more ingenious than this gentleman who is causing such a stir in some parts of France, because the hon. member for Assiniboia says:	Up with family
allowances and down with all taxes.
When I listened to his rather ingenious suggestion as to how we could pay for this increase in family allowances this year without any increase in taxation or without any increase in public debt, it seemed to me he was saying that we could pay for this increase by somehow, in reverse or in retrospect, bringing into being all the production and distribution we did not have. It seems to me something like finding the little man who is not there. It seems to me something like a proposal to give every family drawing family allowances a free bonus of a Ford car by giving them one of those Ford cars that was not produced during the long months of the strike. There is about that much reality in the proposal he is making to bring into being production that was never there.
My hon. friend talks about inflation in this country. I might point out that while I think inflation is serious business, the definition of inflation that I read in the textbooks is too much money chasing too few goods. I do not know that anyone has convinced this house we have too few goods in Canada today. I have heard some criticism here and there to the effect that food prices are too high. I have sometimes heard criticism of the expenditures this country makes, for instance, in putting a floor under butter to hold up the price. I have even heard criticisms at times of the various kinds of subsidies and bonuses that go out for this and that. I am not saying that in an unkind way, because I am in favour of these things.
I am pointing out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that when we talk about family allowances shrinking, one reason for it is that food costs have remained pretty high. They have remained pretty high because it has been the fixed policy of this government to see that the great primary producers of this country get a fair deal on the same basis as other primary producers, such as the gold miners to whom my hon. friend referred the other day.
I should like to mention another point before I come to my conclusion. I feel that the hon. member for Assiniboia was in serious error when he quoted the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) as referring to family allowances being in the category of transfer payments. I might not have heard the Minister of Fisheries on all occasions that the hon. member for Assiniboia has heard him, but on the numerous occasions I have heard him 50433-92J
Family Allowances Act he has pointed out that the things to which there was a prior contribution, such as a contributory scheme of unemployment insurance, a contributory scheme for old age security, were transfer payments. Family allowances, of course, are of an entirely different character.
Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that in my opinion old age security should never be considered as just a welfare scheme. It really is compulsory national saving for old age on a systematic basis, and that clearly could be described as a transfer payment system. Family allowances are surely not in that category.
I want to say that while I yield to no man, and certainly not to the hon. member for Assiniboia, in my desire to see higher family allowances when the exchequer of this country is in a position to pay those higher allowances, I feel it would be the height of folly, the height of irresponsibility, to vote for higher family allowances now. We just cannot get higher family allowances. If the hon. member for Assiniboia would like the best short answer to why we cannot afford higher family allowances now, it was given by his colleague the premier of Saskatchewan when the provincial civil servants asked for a pay increase. He gave the quick, short answer that you cannot get more pieces out of a smaller pile, and that is still the best answer right now.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what R. B. Bennett said.


Elmore Philpott: While I yield to no man, and certainly not to the hon. member for Assiniboia, in my desire to see higher family allowances, I believe we will have higher family allowances and higher welfare benefits of all kinds at the earliest moment it is possible for the production of this country to make higher benefits feasible.
Just in closing I should like to say that in my opinion a higher priority than the payment of family allowances should be given to the people who are living on old age assistance, that meagre, miserable $40 a month.


Hazen Robert Argue: A good definition of your government.


Elmore Philpott: In all the provinces of
Canada-


Hazen Robert Argue: A good description of your government.


Elmore Philpott: The hon. member does not need to argue with me, because I have pressed this matter on the government for a long time. In the Minister of National Health and

Family Allowances Act Welfare (Mr. Martin) we have a man who knows the need for higher welfare benefits better than anyone on the opposite side because he has all the facts and figures. When we are able to afford anything more for welfare benefits, after the very substantial increase we are making this year in war veterans allowances for which some of us on both sides of this house have fought so hard, in my opinion the first priority should go to that minority of Canadians who are living on old age assistance. Two of the western provinces, and a third on a somewhat more modest scale, have increased the old age assistance payment; and how the provinces in eastern Canada can get away with paying their people as little as they do for old age assistance, I do not know.
I want to close by saying that in my opinion this resolution, if it was moved as a serious proposition, should be withdrawn. It cannot do any good, and all it can do is cruelly deceive people who might think it is a practical proposition at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, every year now, for four years, the hon. member for Assiniboia has brought forward a resolution asking that consideration be given to an increase in family allowances. Certainly one advantage of this practice is that it affords members of the government an opportunity to make a report on one of the major social measures in our country. I think that is essential, because while some hon. members may feel that from time to time there should be improvements in various social measures, including this one, there is a considerable body of opinion in the country, as I well know, which feels that the expenditures by the government of Canada on health and welfare at this time are beyond the capacity of the nation.
Therefore I welcome this opportunity of dealing with this question in its broadest aspects. The hon. member today, as on other occasions, has said that this government was to be congratulated upon bringing in family allowances. I want to say to him that when 'die next provincial election takes place in Saskatchewan I hope he will be among the first to deny suggestions by certain individuals in the provincial government who take credit for this legislation, as though it were a provincial enactment.


Hazen Robert Argue: To whom are you referring?


Murdo William Martin: The same is true in other provinces, particularly in Quebec.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister permit a question? To whom are you referring?


Murdo William Martin: To the premier of Saskatchewan.
The experience of the last 10 years- and we have now had family allowances for 10 years-according to a number of special surveys, reports and studies carried out by universities and other disinterested observers, indicates that family allowances have succeeded in accomplishing the objectives for which they were established.
We find that school authorities in the various provinces, especially in Ontario and Nova Scotia, report consistently that family allowances have improved school attendance and reduced truancy and illegal absence from school. Reports from at least a dozen universities and other surveys show the following order of priority in the use of family allowance funds: 1, clothing; 2, food; 3, savings and insurance; 4, education; 5, health and medical care and 6, recreation. And of course authorities dealing with Canada's Indian and Eskimo populations report a notable improvement in the economic health and social status of these families, attributable in a significant degree to this particular measure.
I have here the firsthand opinion of a distinguished senator in the United States, the junior senator for Oregon, who is proposing to urge in the congress of the United States that a measure of this kind be adopted. The senator has spoken in the highest terms of the Canadian family allowances program.
I know of no social measure more responsibly administered and within the concept of our desire to preserve freedom that brings as much social benefit as family allowances. It does not deny the character of a free country, but it does provide, as I say, in a responsible and effective way for those in need of assistance more than any other social measure that I know of to be found in any jurisdiction in any country of the world. *
And so we may feel that the achievements of this measure, introduced as my hon. friend has said by a government of Liberal persuasion, and adopted by practically all members of the house, and now by all parties, indicate that it is a measure, despite criticism from certain quarters, of which we have every reason to be proud.
Now I think we should give careful examination to the resolution before the house. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide an increase in the family allowance.
Last year my hon. friend had a resolution in more precise terms; and likewise the resolutions of the previous two years were

in more precise terms. In one of those resolutions my hon. friend suggested a 60 per cent increase in family allowance payments. In another resolution he suggested that the family allowance payments should be linked with the uncertain fluctuations of the cost of living index.


Hazen Robert Argue: I never did either one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says he never did either one. I would be happy to be shown where I am wrong; but I have done him the justice of paying a good deal of attention to what he has said on previous occasions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister read the resolution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I have finished I shall be glad to be shown where I am wrong; but I am quite satisfied, of course, that I am not wrong. This year there is no suggestion that the proposed increase should be tied to the cost of living index.


Hazen Robert Argue: I never said that at any time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If one looks at my hon. friend's motion he will find that it makes no proposal whatsoever.


Hazen Robert Argue: Wrong again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend wishes to interrupt-


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am making an argument. When my hon. friend spoke I listened to him carefully. I do not agree with practically anything he said, but I kept my seat and kept quiet. I would ask him to allow the minister in charge of this important measure to make his argument. Then when I have finished my hon. friend may ask any questions he wishes. I can only conclude that his impatience when he interrupts anyone on this side of the house indicates that he resents anyone taking issue with some of his arguments.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just stick to the facts, and don't misquote me.


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it seems to me that the more we argue about the "Argue" resolution, the hazier Hazen becomes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Poor Paul. Poor Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So I say the resolution is vague, it is anaemic. It is not only anaemic; it is weak in character, in that it offers no proposal at all. It is against sin, yes; but it does not tell you, Mr. Speaker, or members on this side of the house or on the treasury benches how we are going to overcome the evil effects of a sinful life.
Family Allowances Act


Hazen Robert Argue: Would you let it come to a vote?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, would I let it come to a vote? Of course; why should we not let this question come to a vote? But I am certainly going to give other hon. members besides my hon. friend the opportunity to say something on this measure. Otherwise what will my hon. friend do? He will go out in his constituency and say, "Here is my speech-"


Hazen Robert Argue: The Liberals will talk it out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you not want me to go on?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Liberals will talk it out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason my hon. friend is where he is, and will never be on this side of the house, is that he cannot listen to the other side of an argument.
I was about to say that the reason I think other hon. members should be allowed to speak is that otherwise my hon. friend will go around the country, hold up what he said in the House of Commons, and say, "Look; there are a hundred Liberals in the House of Commons and only a handful of us, the pioneers in social welfare, who spoke on this measure. Yes, we are the only ones who spoke." That is why I think others should be given the opportunity as well as my hon. friend.
What are the facts? The house would want to weigh this motion carefully. As my hon. friend from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, whose courage we all admired this afternoon, has pointed out, we have to consider the total obligations of government at this time in respect to any proposal. For, whatever may be our differences, surely we all agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), who reminded us a number of years ago that all social measures have to be paid for out of the hard work of the people of this country. Any failure to recognize that elementary fact is not, I think, acting in a responsible way.


Irvin William Studer: Socialists would not understand that.


Murdo William Martin: Our 1953-54 federal budgetary expenditures on all functions of government totalled $4,847 million, and of this amount $1,208,460,000 was devoted to social security, health and welfare. I am now speaking only of the federal share in the field of health and welfare. The total national expenditures of the provinces and dominion were $1,600 million, but of this $4,847 million of total governmental expenditures our share for social welfare and health was some $1,200 million.
1442	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act In other words, Mr. Speaker, health and welfare expenditures accounted for nearly 25 cents out of every dollar spent by the federal government last year, and of every dollar spent on health and welfare, family allowances accounted for 29 cents. Therefore anyone who rises in his place and uses the word "callous" in respect of the government, under these circumstances, I am sure either has not had drilled into his mind the importance of these figures or-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Turn around.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -he has failed to use the kind of language which in the context of a debate like this every hon. member should be prepared to employ. No one in this house is callous to human misery and suffering. Every hon. member in this house is as interested as any other hon. member in doing what should be done to improve the lot of fellow Canadians in the field of health and welfare. It was for that reason that I did not take strong exception to, but I did resent, the suggestion that the government was callous in this and in other similar measures.
I venture to offer the advice that the use of that adjective has not furthered my hon. friend's argument one iota. Last year family allowances accounted for 7.2 per cent of the entire federal budget. My hon. friend said that we are callous, or that we are not interested in the children of this country. Although he said in the first instance, of course, that we were the authors of this plan, he failed to point out that Canada devotes a higher percentage of its social security budget to family allowances than it does to any other program.
Four and a half months from now, namely on July 1, 1955, we shall mark the completion of 10 years of family allowances in this country. When cheques go out for June to families all across the country we shall have passed the $3 billion mark in family allowance payments since the inception of this program. That is hardly a form of callousness on the part of the government or on the part of the people of Canada who make this program possible; for we must not forget that it is out of the hard-earned money of the people of this country that everything we spend in this house is provided.
These payments will reach 2,200,000 Canadian homes every month. They will be paid for the benefit of 5,100,000 children every month. They cost the Canadian taxpayers $1 million a day. By the time a child reaches 16 in Canada, under our plan he has received an amount of $1,188 in family allowances. That is a significant contribution. It is the kind of fact that my hon. friend could have mentioned when he was trying to make a case
IMr. Martin.]

for our acceptance, or our consideration, of the vague proposal that is before you at this time, Mr. Speaker.
In reaching out to parents and children in Canada this program alone benefits at least 50 per cent of the total population of every constituency in Canada. I can say that no program in all our history compares with it in the universal scope of its provisions. No program touches so many of the homes, the families and the children of this nation. It is only because we want to continue this measure and other measures that we have to weigh every proposal for an increase in expenditure with the greatest of care in this house.
My hon. friend could possibly have supported his argument, or strengthened it, by telling us about family allowances in other countries. He could have told us what they were paying in family allowances in New Zealand and Australia. But no; he just made a wide-and I may say an irresponsible assertion without giving any argument-and I say this in the kindliest way-that could be characterized as having much substance, as one would expect from the mature gentleman I know the hon. member really to be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Smile, Paul, smile.


Murdo William Martin: Let us examine the situation in other countries. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is howling now. He rises in his place here day after day criticizing and endeavouring to pull me to pieces. But when I tell him that others are as interested as he is he cannot stand it, and his quality of impatience bursts forth to interrupt even the speech of a mild-mannered gentleman like the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want you to prove it.


Murdo William Martin: Let us examine what the annual average payments are in other countries. The average annual payment per child in Canada is $72.48 a year. The next highest is New Zealand, at $70.98; Australia, $57.20; the United Kingdom, $56.44; Sweden, $54.89; and Norway, $32.88. I mention these countries because they are comparable.
Another method of comparison is to take the total expenditure on these programs in relation to net national income. By using that test it will be found that in terms of net national income Canada's contribution to family allowances is almost two and a half times that of Great Britain and well ahead of Australia. Therefore when my hon. friends talk about the callousness of the government, why do they not remind the house and the country that this country, this government,

and this parliament have taken a step which no other country in the world has emulated?
I would remind my hon. friend that at the present time all political parties in this house support this measure. There has been only one note of criticism about the measure in the past five years, and that came from a member of my hon. friend's own party, who arrived at his view based on his concept of what his responsibility and judgment in the matter should be. But I do not want my hon. friend to suggest that anyone on this side, or in any other part of the house, except the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred, is not as fervent in advocacy of family allowances as my hon. friend. As a matter of fact I want to tell my hon. friend that there was much truth in what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said today.


An hon. Member:: All true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everything he said was true. To my mind my hon. friend more than any other hon. member of this house comes close to supporting the attitude of Turnon des electeurs. The leader of the Social Credit party has dissociated himself from l'union des electeurs, and so have the other members of that party in this house. I am sure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) does not regard the proposal, if it can be so called, of the hon. member as one really worthy of consideration at this time, in the light of expanding social measures and the other obligations facing this country. I am sure that if he had the opportunity the hon. member for Peace River would be the first to agree with what I am saying now.
My hon. friend the hon. member for Assiniboia, the author of this new splinter group in the C.C.F. party, has really in one particular allied himself with Turnon des electeurs. I think it is important that this house should know what that group is advocating. I heard a delegation of l'union des electeurs this morning, and they urged me to recommend to this house that we double family allowances. I told them that it could not be done. I gave them the same reasons I am giving now to the house, and other reasons I shall give before I sit down.
They have been circulating many petitions around the country. Here is one addressed to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), and I shall read it in French:
(Translation):
I cannot believe that the members of parliament will resist the great pressure of the whole of the population and will not prevail upon the government to double at this session the rate of family allowances.
Family Allowances Act
(Text):
And listen to this:
(Translation):
One must be very much blinded by war propaganda to sincerely believe that a country needs so much money for war production, when not at war, and can be so stingy toward families raising children. Our ancestors did not do so much for war.
(Text):
Why should we spend money in preparation for defence when there is no war? That is what this petition says. Let us not spend any money fighting communism, for the preservation of decency and freedom; instead let us double family allowances. Here is another one:
(Translation):
The government could very well take the money for these allowances out of its large war budget. There would be no need for an increase in taxation of even one cent for allowances. Families are more in need of bread than of guns to raise children.
(Text):
They say the people of Canada do not need a large budget for the purpose of carrying on war or defence preparations. My hon. friend and everybody in this house knows, and it is our duty to tell these people in every corner of our constituencies, that the only reason we are spending so much money in the building up of our defences is that this is the only way of preserving this country for the children who benefit by family allowances. So my hon. friend is in company with these people, I do not say on all counts, but he is advocating a measure that they support.


Hazen Robert Argue: Quit smearing me; that is what that is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not smear anybody; I can argue without smearing anyone.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what you are doing right now.


Murdo William Martin: If my hon. friend thinks I have smeared him I wish he would rise in his place and say wherein I have done so.


Hazen Robert Argue: My point of order is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has deliberately tried to associate me with l'union des electeurs, and then quoted their attitude toward the defence budget to continue the suggestion that that is my attitude. The minister knows that is not my attitude or the attitude of any member of this group. The attempt to associate me with the attitude of l'union des electeurs was the reason I made the interjection I did.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shake hands under the table.

Family Allowances Act


Murdo William Martin: I was going to add that my hon. friend has some justification. I did not seek to say that he was implying that there should be no defence expenditure and I thought I had indicated that. If I did not, I indicate it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister had better straighten it out.


Murdo William Martin: What did my hon. friend say? I really want to know what my hon. friend said.


An hon. Member:: You implied that.


Murdo William Martin: If I implied that my hon. friend was in favour of an increase in family allowances at the expense of our defence budget I withdraw that fully, because he said nothing of that character. But what he did was support a measure which would have the result of forcing me to say that we cannot do this. We could not double family allowances when we had a defence budget of $2 billion. That is what I am saying.
That is not the only argument in this connection. I think it is my duty to indicate that we do not really know what my hon. friend is proposing. He has not said whether he wants family allowances increased by 50 cents, by one dollar, by two dollars or doubled. I do not know, but I am assuming that he wants them increased in some way. There is surely an obligation on him, or on any hon. member who makes a proposal in this house, to indicate whether he wants family allowances doubled or simply increased by 60 per cent as he proposed a number of years ago. I cannot read my hon. friend's mind. I shall have to assume that he has something definite in mind.
In December, 1954, the average family allowance in Canada worked out at $6.04 per child. On that basis the annual cost of family allowances is $369,986,000, which is a great deal of money. If the average family allowance were increased by $1, that is, increased to $7.04, the annual cost would be $431,244,000. If the increase were $2 the total payment would reach almost $500,000,000. If the allowance were doubled, which is the proposal of the organization known as Tunion des electeurs, to an average of $12.08 per child, the total cost of family allowances would be nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars-precisely $738,968,000.
Is there any hon. gentleman in this house who will rise in his place and say he agrees that this is a responsible proposal at a time when we are engaged heavily in the building up of our defences, when we are engaged in a responsible expansion of social measures? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal

a number of years ago does any hon. member think it would have been possible to have an old age security program that is costing Canada over $350,000,000 a year? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal last year would we have been able to bring in the disability allowances program last year? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal would we have been able to bring in legislation to help the blind, or to bring in a national health program? My hon. friend nods yes. I say we could never have done these things if four years ago-


Mr. Noseworthy:: If war came tomorrow you would do 10 times as much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend says if war came we would do 10 times as much. My hon. friend is right. If our freedom and our way of life were in jeopardy this nation and all the free peoples of the world, including my hon. friend, would want us to resist to the last.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The welfare of the people is in jeopardy now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that these things must be viewed in their proper context.
My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I do not quarrel with this because I am generally able to handle myself when he puts a question to me-asks me about the possibilities of health insurance. He has an interest, as have all other hon. members, in doing something in co-operation with the provinces to provide a responsible system of care for the sick through a proper system of hospital and medical insurance. Assuming that the provinces take the initiative, as under our constitution they must, does he think for one minute that if we were to load up the family allowance program beyond all proportion having regard to other social measures, there would be any opportunity in the foreseeable future of doing those important things in the field of health? Of course not. What I have said applies not only to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but to all other hon. members.
When my hon. friend today pointed out the desire of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to bring in a balanced budget this year, he might have mentioned the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare was one of a minority group of departments of government whose expenditures this year were higher than they were last year. He did not tell the house that our family allowance payments this year will be $17J million

higher than they were last year. No. According to him this government is callous; some of the membership of this house are not interested in the children of this country. Mr. Speaker, I think every hon. member in this house recognizes the value of the family allowance and realizes its relationship to other obligations and other social measures, both those now existing and others we might from time to time have in mind.
I close what I have to say with this further observation. My hon. friend has taken his position today vaguely. As I said at the outset, there are many people in this country who take the opposite position, namely that Canada is spending too much money in the field of health and welfare. I have answered my hon. friend. I should like now to answer this latter group. We are not irresponsible in the expenditures we are making on federal account in the field of health and welfare. Our expenditures, which now are over $1,200 million, represent only one-half of 1 per cent more than we spent in these fields in 1938, in relation to the net national income or the national product. There has been no irresponsible administration of health and welfare measures in this country.
I do not say that we have done everything perfectly, but I do not like the suggestions made in certain newspapers in this country, especially certain financial journals, to the effect that the government has become irresponsible through its Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to these expenditures in these important fields. I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that while at present there is no course open to the free world but to build up our defences so we can be strong enough to resist force if it should ever be used in wanton aggression from any quarter, I am satisfied that in the long run the kind of social and health measures we have introduced in this country in the last decade and a half, setting a pattern for what we will do in the future, will be one of our best bulwarks against dialectical materialism or communism as practised by those ruthless men in the Kremlin. I am sure of that.
We are not the authors of a welfare state. I deprecate the use of that word. It is used often by editorial writers in criticizing me and other members of the government. I even find that sinister phrase creeping into the recent book on Lloyd George written by Frank Owen. During the British prime minister's time no one in the United Kingdom or anywhere else ever used the words "welfare state". It is a term of recent vintage. If by welfare state you mean emphasis on welfare, then this government believes in the welfare state. But if the term welfare state means creating greater powers for the state
Family Allowances Act and curtailing the liberties of the ordinary human being, then this government does not believe in that kind of welfare state.
Mr. Speaker, this family allowance measure about which I have made a report today is a monument to the vision and the humanitarian qualities of the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. It is a measure that has now received the support of every political party in this country. As the minister responsible for the administration of this measure I can say that this country need not be ashamed of having adopted the Family Allowances Act.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of what has been said this afternoon in connection with this resolution introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I feel that I must take a few minutes of the time of the house in order to make a few things clear. My name was mentioned on one occasion and I felt that it was something of a challenge to me to say something and perhaps speak on this measure for the group I represent.
I should like to start by saying that we were glad when the family allowance scheme was introduced back in 1944, because for a good long time we had been promoting some such idea. I am not going to take the time of the house today to enter into any quarrel about where the idea originated. I will say in passing, however, that there must have been some relationship between the $25 a month proposal of Mr. Aberhart in Alberta, a gift of purchasing power to the people of the country, and the family allowances that were introduced as a gift of purchasing power by the late Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King. He could not quite match the $25, but he came close to it.
The fact is that this scheme was introduced for two purposes. The first was to give a certain measure of stability to the economy. I distinctly remember Mr. Mackenzie King saying so. He said that when the war was over and we had to absorb back into our economy the two million young people who were engaged in military operations, we would have to find some way of keeping the level of purchasing power high so as to provide a market for the greater production that would be brought into being as a consequence of taking those young people back into civil life. We agreed with him because for a long time that was exactly what we had argued.
The second reason Mr. Mackenzie King gave at the time was exactly the reason that was cited here this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with all it implied; it was to help our families have a decent standard of nutrition, schooling, medi-

Family Allowances Act cal care and all that sort of thing. Those things cannot be denied. We were glad, as I say, when we saw this form of national dividend introduced in this country.
I use that term advisedly. It is exactly a national dividend, because it is nothing but a gift of purchasing power every month to the children between certain ages in this country. I do not care what you call it. The point is that it is a gift of purchasing power. We felt that the two purposes cited by Mr. Mackenzie King were sound and good, and we therefore supported the idea and support it today. I wish to say, too, that over the 10 years during which family allowances have been operative in this country they have done a tremendous amount of good, and I commend the Liberal government for having introduced them. I do not want to take away from them any glory that is coming their way for having done so and having stood by their guns. I think we are all grateful for the fact that family allowances have, without any question, achieved the purposes for which they were introduced.
Having said that, I should like to pay a bit of attention to some of the things that have been said by some of the other speakers. I refer for the moment to my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). My genial friend always has a good time. I enjoy him. He keeps his good humour, and I like that. When he is speaking he never seems to exhibit any rancour; and, while his thrusts sometimes are pointed and they go home, at the same time I enjoy him very much. But this afternoon I think he did not make clear in his speech on family allowances the difference between the policies put forward by the Social Credit Association of Canada and the union of electors of Quebec. He said it is Social Credit policy that family allowances can be doubled, tripled, etc., without taxation. I have never made such a statement as that without making a qualification, and I do not think any member of the Social Credit Association of Canada has ever done so.
Let me make the matter clear. I am in thorough agreement with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre when he says that under present financial policy the only way that you can increase family allowances is either to increase taxation or to pare down some of the other services, take the money saved and pay it in family allowances.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me, he is more honest than l'union des electeurs. I hope he will disassociate himself from them.


Solon Earl Low: I want to make it very clear where we stand because it is important, when Social Credit and its policies are dis-

cussed in the house, that it be understood what it is that the Social Credit Association of Canada really does put forward. The Social Credit Association of Canada is a political action movement. Therefore we are in a responsible position where we must take a good, thorough look at everything we propose so we will not be bringing upon the Canadian people additional burdens of taxation which they cannot bear. That is the thing I want understood today.
I should like to see an increase in family allowances, certainly; and I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South when he says he is certain the day will come when there will be an increase. I think that time will come. I hasten to say right here that I can show one way whereby the allowances can be increased without increasing taxation or taking away from any other service. Perhaps I can show another later. If we concentrate our attention on putting cents back into the Canadian dollar to bring its purchasing value to what it formerly was in those days when we had a dollar that would buy a dollar's worth, then by that measure family allowances will certainly be increased.
Let me give some idea of what that would amount to. The Minister of National Health and Welfare cited some very interesting figures this afternoon. If I remember his figures correctly, he said that last year the average payment per child under family allowances was $72.88. That would pretty nearly agree with the figures I have compiled for the years since 1945. I think that is what last year's payment would indicate this year's would be. The $72.88 per child per year is in terms of 1954 dollars, but let me hasten to point out what has happened over the years. The real purchasing power of the $72.88 average per child per year would only be $39.60 when you realize that there has been an increase in the cost of living index to approximately 184 on the basis of the old index. Apply the index of 184 to the $72.88 and you get the real purchasing value today of $39.60.
That would indicate that there has been a confiscation of the purchasing power of the family allowances of the difference between $72.88 and $39.60, which amounts to $33.28 per child in a year. In other words, by allowing the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar to decline to its present position we have actually taken away from each child, based on this year's payments, $33.28 of purchasing power. When you translate that into terms of some commodity like milk, for example, which today has an average price throughout Canada of approximately 21-2 cents per quart, it means that we have denied every child in this country 157 quarts of milk in the year.

I think that was the basis of the argument used by the hon. member for Assiniboia. On the basis of that argument he is quite right. We have not kept the purchasing power of our dollar at or near the original level, and as a consequence the present level of family allowances is not adequate to do what it was originally designed to do. But there that argument has to stop. If we are going to increase family allowance payments, under present financial policy we have to do it either by taxation or by taking away from some of the other services.
Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that at no time has the Social Credit Association of Canada ever proposed that we should decrease the appropriations for defence purposes for the purpose of paying social security. I think under present circumstances that would be a most irresponsible proposal to make, and we do not make it because we realize that we are living in days of danger, when it is essential that we be as strong as we possibly can. If we are going to negotiate for peaceful settlement of the world's problems we have to negotiate from strength, and we have to be in a position to defend ourselves against the dangers that beset us on ev*ry hand. Consequently we feel that the responsible position to take is to continue to make ourselves strong, and let us not reduce our appropriations for defence except to the extent that we possibly can reduce them by greater efficiency. Certainly I would never say that under present circumstances we should take the money for defence and pay it out in family allowances.
I am dissociating myself and my group from that proposal. I hope that is understood. Therefore when the hon. member for Temis-coUata says that we suggest increasing family allowances, or doubling or tripling them, without increased taxation, it is not this group that is making the suggestion. The hon. member for Temiscouata also took the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) to task for having said-


John Horne Blackmore: He thought he did.


Solon Earl Low: Well, of course I suppose we are all subject to that limitation-in a speech in the House of Commons some months or years ago that it could be that machine production in this country would throw a great many men out of work. That of course has happened. My hon. friend knows it has happened. Let us take a look at the figures. He must know that largely through technical advances in machinery and better methods of production through machine use, hours of labour have been greatly reduced in the past few years. For instance, it was not very long
Family Allowances Act ago, and quite within my experience, when the work week was 60 hours. Today what is it? In most places it is 40 hours or 48 hours, not more than 48. In most places it is 40 hours, and I suppose the average would be somewhere around 44. What has made the difference? The introduction of machines, and certainly an increase in technology.
My hon. friend must also admit that even though that is the case we have not solved the problem of employment, because today what have we? There are 600,000 people out of work, even with the 40 or 44-hour week. He must admit that the hon. member for Lethbridge was on the right track when he said that the continued use of machines and advanced methods of production would inevitably throw a lot of people out of work. The question my hon. friend poses is, where is the increased purchasing power to come from to purchase all the goods which we are capable of producing in this country? That is what he was pointing out. My hon. friend, in his inimitable way, ridiculed it; but I am sure that is all the hon. member was trying to do.


John Horne Blackmore: He ridiculed himself,
really.


Solon Earl Low: I think the hon. member for
Lethbridge was certainly on the right track.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me to interject, I referred to the description of that machine, not exactly of that machine but what that machine could do by way of making fruits, fish, shoes and so on available, in the first place. In the second place, I quoted the hon. member for Lethbridge as stating that two men could operate that famous machine and make a living for 98 per cent of mankind. That was what I did not understand.


Solon Earl Low: I shall have to let the hon.
member for Temiscouata and the hon. member for Lethbridge get together on that matter. Each can tell me what he had in mind, and then I shall try to understand it.


Elmore Philpott: Let us all hear it.


John Horne Blackmore: All the hon. member
needed to do was look down the street at the snow-clearing machinery, and he would understand what is happening.


Solon Earl Low: If I may continue, I would say that certainly under the present financial policy it would be impossible and impracticable to attempt to load the Canadian people with an extra burden of taxation to increase family allowances at this time. I believe that is true; but that does not mean there is no way by which it could be accomplished. I believe there is. I feel that it may have its

Family Allowances Act limitations, but I am going to put it forward just the same. I feel it would be possible, if a new financial policy were introduced throughout the country, to increase family allowances without increasing taxation or paring down defence or any other necessary appropriations for the government.
I am quite certain it is possible, but I am not going to take the time of the house to put the proposal forward in detail. I will say this. If we discover this year 500,000 or 600,000 unemployed in our country who are unable to earn because they cannot find work, that must be very largely because of the accumulation of unsold goods, goods that cannot find a market. If the financial policy of the government were to make available to the consumers of this country, by means of a national dividend, the purchasing power with which they could buy the surplus goods and take them off the market, we could very soon increase employment and in fact do away with the problem of unemployment.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be done very responsibly and very carefully. If the Bank of Canada were to advance to the government sufficient purchasing power to make up the deficiency that exists between the total price of goods available for sale and the effective purchasing power in the pockets of the consumers with which to buy the goods, then that amount could be distributed in the form of national dividends or family allowances, I do not care what you call it. This amount of purchasing power would then balance our economy and make it possible for us to quit worrying very much about unemployment.
If we were to do that under present circumstances, however, the Bank of Canada would have to declare an increase in the cash reserve requirements of the chartered banks in order to prevent inflation. We realize that. But under the revised act they have the right to declare an increase in the cash reserve requirement. By that method they could prevent inflation. The amount of new purchasing power issued may not be sufficient to take care of the kind of increase in family allowances that the hon. member for Assini-boia had in mind. It may not be anything like the amount required to do what l'union des electeurs of Quebec suggest. We would have to limit the amount which could be issued to the exact deficiency of purchasing power between the price of goods offered for sale and the effective purchasing power in the pockets of the people with which to buy those goods. If that were one dollar, then that is all that could be safely issued without creating inflationary trends. If it were $2 million, that would be the limit. If it were $10 million, that would be the limit.
(Mr. Low.]
I certainly hold no brief for those people who take the view that you can go on issuing purchasing power indiscriminately, unrelated entirely to our production increases; not by any means. I hold the position, and I am speaking for my movement, that as the production of the country increases the purchasing power of the country will have to increase to keep pace with it, otherwise we will not be able to distribute the goods. If there were a 1 per cent increase in production, then you could safely increase the total purchasing power of your country by 1 per cent. It would have to be limited to that. I hope that makes the position clear.
Let me say in conclusion that we feel it would be possible, under a changed financial policy, to increase family allowances. We feel that a good case can be made for increasing family allowances without taxation. We do feel, however, that we must take into account the position of our taxpayers in this land, and not heap upon them any further burdens of taxation. At the same time we must be very careful to see to it that every policy we introduce in this country will have the effect of putting cents back into the Canadian dollar, by increasing the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar. When we do that certainly we are, by that means, increasing family allowances in proportion. Those are the things that we feel should be done.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia, for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. He made a good speech and he showed outstanding imagination. The result of his speech was to bring forth one of the finest deliveries we have heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has shown to us the foundation on which family allowances are built. I congratulate both hon. members on what one called forth and what the other measured up to, just in the usual way.
There are three reasons why I cannot yet support this resolution. I believe I know the homes in Fort William better than any man in this house, and almost as well as most people in that city. I have never yet heard the mother of a family say she is dissatisfied with family allowances; never once have I heard one say that she wanted more. But I have heard many of them say that it has been a great boon to them to get that cheque once a month.
Therefore I say that is one reason there is no call for an increase. Then, second, sometimes I visit the public schools and see how the children are dressed. I see the children not only in the public schools but in the high schools and technical schools, Protestant and

Roman Catholic. I see the school yards crowded with bicycles; and at this season of the year hundreds of the school children have been able to purchase their own skates. So why should more cash be paid to those homes by the dominion government? Surely that is a sound argument.
Then, when a young man has made up his mind to choose a partner for life, what does he do? If he is a real Canadian he will provide a nest. He will have more than a room in a rented suite. He will have something more than a cigarette lighter. That man will have a nest for her. Then when a wise Providence comes with a happy bundle from heaven, what does the father do? He goes to his young wife and he says, "Now we will have to measure up to our responsibility. I shall cut out cigarettes; I shall cut out light refreshments. I shall spend less money on myself." He does not say "Oh, we will get $5 for this child, and we will have more to spend." That is not the type of young Canadian I know.
Then let us suppose that his companion is a bachelor. He says, "I am not going to have a home of my own." He denies himself the great privilege and happiness of a home, but when the happy little bundle comes to the other house he is supposed to help his friend pay the cost.
Another reason I am not in favour of this resolution just now is that there are greater needs in Canada. As I have said before, veterans of the first war should have pensions at the age of 60 years, without a means test. Just the other day I met a friend of mine who said that his company was ordered into the trenches and told they would be there for only three or four days. However, they were there for 31 days, and the trench was never without a foot of water in it. The shells were coming over constantly. The lives of men in that position would be shortened by at least 10 years. This is an outstanding need; and I am going to fight for it, and it will have my support before I would be prepared to support an increase in family allowances.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows perfectly well that I have supported national health insurance, and we are going to see it in this country before we close our eyes in the long sleep. We are going to have a national health insurance scheme. We are not going to have it this year, but I expect it will come-and it will come before we have an increase in family allowances.
I am convinced there is no need at the present time for this increase because mothers
Family Allowances Act and fathers are not seeking it. The need is not pressing. There are other things far more urgent.
I thank hon. members for their courtesy in having listened to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, despite the attack made by the minister of national welfare upon my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia, and against this party as a whole, and despite what I shall say before taking my seat a few minutes from now, I wish in my first words to take the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in one respect, and I assure him it will be in one respect only.
I noted his complaint that certain newspapers in this country have referred to him as an irresponsible minister because he is spending so much money on health and welfare. and because he is trying to get more money for expenditure in that field. Far from any suggestion that the minister's efforts or those of any other person in that connection are irresponsible, I suggest they are highly responsible. I go further than that and say that in this time of uncertainty and tension in the world at large it is important not only that we look to our material and military defences, but that we concern ourselves with the strength of our people in every way; and not the least important of our concerns should be in the field of health and welfare. The minister is perfectly right in every effort he makes in this field. I suggest the same applies to others who likewise may be seeking to strengthen our position in the matter of health and welfare.
I said I was taking the part of the minister in only one respect. As for the rest of his speech, I certainly do not agree with the description applied to it by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). Once again the minister was trying to have it both ways. He wanted all the credit he could gather to himself and his party for family allowances and other social legislation, but he also wanted to take the position that at this time nothing more could be done. He wants to build a monument to Mackenzie King for family allowances, but he does not want to do anything to stop the crumbling of that monument that is taking place because of the effects of inflation on the value of family allowance cheques.
I suggest that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to boast either justifiably or erroneously of what the Liberal party has done in the field of social welfare it would be far better to implement that boast by doing something to preserve the
1450	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act value of such social legislation as we now have, and by doing something to extend its provisions.
This afternoon the minister suggested that anyone who asked for an increase in family allowances was blocking the way to health insurance. He suggested that this gets in the way of doing something more in the field of old age pensions. The hon. member for Fort William suggested that it gets in the way of improving the position of the veterans. They all ask the question: If you spend the money on this, where will you get the money for other things? The first reply is that the government is not making any serious attempt to find money for these other things. The second reply is that if the government had done something about unemployment in the past two or three years we would have had in this country during that period of time more than sufficient extra wealth to take care of all the things we are asking with respect to health insurance, old age pensions and increased family allowances.
Far from the proposal by my seatmate, the hon. member for Assiniboia, being irresponsible, I suggest his proposal, along with our other proposals regarding old age pensions and health insurance, is highly responsible. Indeed these things are related to the need for increased strength on the part of the people of this country at this very time.
In part of his speech with which I shall not deal in detail now, the Minister of National Health and Welfare this afternoon tried to link my seatmate with another organization. That matter was straightened out, I believe, when my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia rose on a question of privilege. I suggest that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wanted to find out what other organizations might be advancing, along the lines of the proposal before us this afternoon, he should have looked at the proposal of the Canadian Congress of Labour, than which there is no more responsible body in Canada, which has proposed that there should be an increase in family allowances to the extent of $2 in each category.


Mr, Martin:: The hon. member recommended doubling the family allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Instead, the minister tried to make that association between my hon. friend and a group with which none of us in this house has any connection. The minister is also using the phrase about the doubling of family allowances. That is one of his complaints. On the other hand, he complains that my colleague's motion is vague in that it asks just for an increase in the amount, without specifying the extent to


which he wants that increase to be made. Which way does the minister want it? A few days ago another motion was before the house asking for the doubling of a certain payment because of the increased cost of living, or the decrease in the value of the dollar. In a speech the other night, which was very much like the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Agriculture-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He made a much better speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are right there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall let the ministers fight that out between themselves. The Minister of Agriculture suggested that if, instead of asking that the amount be doubled, the motion had just asked for an increase, he could have considered it. Now this afternoon we get a motion which avoids what the Minister of Agriculture did not like. It just asks for an increase, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare says he cannot consider it because it does not specify precisely what my hon. friend wants. There you have it; the government wants things both ways. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any undue time because I would like to see this resolution come to a vote, but I do feel there are just one or two other things I should say while I am on my feet. First of all, this is something I have intended to do every year when this debate has been up, because inevitably this house seems to get to the question of who started the campaign for family allowances in this country. Last year, as a matter of fact, after the debate was over I had a letter from a friend of many of us in this house, the late A. A. Heaps, written just before he died, who reminded me that 40 years ago he was a member of a delegation that waited on the provincial government of Manitoba, requesting legislation of this kind. Hon. members know, too, of the speeches that were made by various members in this house, particularly the late Mr. Heaps, and the late J. S. Woodsworth, supported by some others on the other side, back in the 1920's, calling for legislation of this kind.
However, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a document which was the first of its kind in this country. This was the first time that a national political party in Canada wrote family allowances specifically into its national platform. This is the platform of the C.C.F., as adopted at the national convention held in Toronto in 1942. This document was issued under date of July 29 of that year. 1 find in this document a paragraph entitled "Social Justice". I read one or two sentences:
The first need, in war as in peace, is to safeguard the welfare of the Canadian family.

Under that, the C.C.F. proposed at that time that we should have the following measures: a floor below which no person's income should be allowed to fall; increased old age pensions starting at 60; and pensions for unemployables. In other words we asked then for the disability pension that we finally have achieved. I read on: national health insurance and family allowances. I suggest, therefore, that until some other national political party can produce a document earlier than 1942, with a specific proposal for family allowances in it, that is the record as to where the parties of this country stand on this question.
The next year, 1943, the Marsh report, which was produced under the direction of the late Prime Minister King, proposed family allowances, and in 1944 the legislation was introduced in this house and became law in 1945.


Irvin William Studer: You are not a national party; you are a splinter party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unfortunately a slight bit of evidence has been given today of what the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek says, namely that we sometimes have a slight splinter, in that one member of this party has expressed his opposition to the resolution that is now before the house. I feel it is only fair to this party, and to all who are interested in keeping the record straight, that it should be made clear to this house that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, who has exercised the privilege that is his of speaking for himself, was doing just that, and that he was speaking only for himself when he said he was against this proposal.
My colleague the hon. member for Assini-boia placed this resolution on the order paper not only on his own behalf but on behalf of this C.C.F. group. But I go further. I wish to place on the record another statement from a C.C.F. national convention. At this time I hold in my hand a copy of the record of our twelfth national convention which was held in 1952, also in the city of Toronto, at which time we passed a rather lengthy resolution on all phases of social security. I shall not read it all, but under the heading "Social Security" I quote this:
(e) an Increase in family allowances to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since they were first established, and the continuance of family allowance payments for children from 16 to 21, as long as they remain at school or college.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, what everyone knows is quite clear. The resolution that is before the house at the present time in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia
Family Allowances Act clearly represents the position of this C.C.F. party.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the resolution. Since my colleague the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) also wishes to say something, I shall give him the opportunity shortly.
First of all I should like to agree with the hon. member for Fort William, who wants a health insurance plan. He thinks that is more important at the present time than an increase in family allowances, but I shall deal with that in just a moment.
At the outset I should like to say that I believe the success of this government is due to the balance they hold between private and public enterprise. That is fundamental, because a government which believes in private enterprise has to take into consideration the public interest. In that regard it is paramount that certain public enterprises should be encouraged, and that has been the case. Because of this we have a very comprehensive social security plan in this country. We have unemployment insurance; we have family allowances; we have old age pensions, and we have other kinds of social legislation.
In my own riding I find that most of the people are interested in health insurance. I have had no requests that family allowances should be increased, but I have had several inquiries as to when we were going to get a national health plan. I feel that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be warmly congratulated on the fine program he has instituted in this country in the interests of the people.
I submit that at the present time there are many reasons why family allowances cannot be increased substantially. For example, we must remember that many new expenditures are being made this year in the field of social security. We have an increase in the war veterans allowance. Last night the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated that this government was increasing the allowance to single pensioners from $50 to $60 and for married pensioners from $90 to $108, and that the permissible ceilings are also being raised. Again, we have legislation having to do with disabled persons, and an increase in unemployment insurance. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are continual increases in social security benefits in this country.
It seems to me that if we are to have these increases we cannot also increase the family allowances at the present time. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall support vigorously any social security measure in this country, but the hon. member for Assini-
1452	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act boia always gives me the impression that he represents the repository of all wisdom. If we are to have increased expenditures on social security I should like to see more money spent on bringing in a national health insurance plan and on bursaries for needy university students in conformity with the resolution that I have on the order paper at the present time. Second, I would be forced to vote against this resolution moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to say that I will always support family allowances and that I think it is the Liberal government who will set the example in reform in this country.
(Text):


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, some of the arguments advanced in opposing this resolution remind me a great deal of the arguments we had during the thirties. It was assumed then that there really was not very much we could do about having poverty in the midst of plenty. Last night I was reading a book by Robert Sherwood dealing with Roosevelt and Hopkins. While this book dealt primarily with the war period, I think more people should read about the imaginative way in which Roosevelt and his associates dealt with a very real economic problem in the United States 20 years ago. In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) the minister readily admitted that if war should break out Canada would have no trouble in raising 10 times the amount proposed to increase family allowances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say we would have no trouble; I said that Canadians generally would do everything possible to preserve their way of life.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If we should have the misfortune to have a third world war, and assuming that it could go on for four years, I am sure events would prove that Canada could raise enormous sums.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) raised two relevant questions. He mentioned the responsibility to old age pensioners and to those who are getting war veterans allowances. I think we cannot at this time justify our shabby treatment of the people getting war veterans allowances and of our old age pensioners by the argument that the present scale of payments for family allowances is stretching our economy.
The hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out that if people now unemployed were given a chance to do productive work, a very


large amount of new wealth would be created. Yesterday someone mentioned that there are 600,000 in the ranks of the unemployed at the moment. It is estimated that on the average every person who works creates at least $8 worth of new wealth in return for a day's work. That is a total of $4,800,000 a day that the people of Canada are losing by condemning 600,000 of our fellow Canadians to continued unemployment, or a total of $1,440 million a year of new wealth which would be available if we gave these unemployed a chance to work. That is seven times the increase of $200 million mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare over the present amount of $384 million.
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare made his unfortunate reference to the premier of Saskatchewan. If he would like to have the unanimous consent of the house to have that section expunged from the record I am sure we would give it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you asking me a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, but I am suggesting that if at six o'clock the minister asks for unanimous consent we should give it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the premier of Saskatchewan came here together in 1935 as bright young men.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are still bright young men.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure that while the premier of Saskatchewan was minister of health the Minister of National Health and Welfare found there was no other minister of health in Canada who gave more complete co-operation. I think on reflection he will ask that that reference be withdrawn.
When the debate started I was reading the New York Times, and I noticed that they are proposing in Washington to increase the pay of members of congress from $15,000 to $25,000 a year. The judges are having their salaries increased from $25,000 to $35,000, and the salaries of the vice-president and the Speaker are being increased from $40,000 to $45,000. Is it not strange that increases of this sort never place any strain on the national economy? When we considered increases for the members of this house and of the Senate a year ago, very few, if any, hon. members raised any question about what those increases would do to the economy of Canada.
I submit that the proposal of the hon. member for Assiniboia is sound. Every political party is for family allowances. If it was a sound principle in 1944 or 1945 to earmark 2 per cent of our gross national product for family allowances, I submit that it is a sound policy in 1954. The proposal made by the

hon. member for Assiniboia to increase this amount would really have a beneficial effect upon our economy. Those people who are unfortunate in that they do not receive enough to have to pay income tax are placed in a most difficult position in that their incomes are not sufficient to provide enough food, clothing and shelter for their families. Here is one simple step that can be taken by the federal parliament to make it possible for every Canadian family to have additional purchasing power.
I agree with those who have stated that in the final analysis the wealth of Canada is produced by all the people of Canada and that there is a limit to the amounts that can be spent by the provincial, federal and municipal authorities. But I submit that the people in the lower income brackets are not receiving a sufficient share of the national income. If we will take steps to see that the unemployment problem is solved and that our agricultural producers are given a fair share of the national income, then the federal government will have no problem in meeting the commitment suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker, the humorous reference of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to the wonderful Social Credit machine is perhaps not as far wide of the mark as it might at first appear to be, because the government have their own version of this wonderful machine, and its name is inflation. It may be necessary in order to have a social security program to have a policy of inflation, but I suggest that the government should tell the people this quite frankly. It is perfectly obvious that a large portion of the funds necessary to finance the social security program of the government are obtained in this way, and my suggestion is that the public of this country be informed of that fact.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that it would be nice to adopt the role of a big spender whenever we are faced with resolutions of this nature, but since the institution of the family allowance scheme we have increased our spending on social security by a tremendous amount. Over the years we have instituted an unemployment insurance program; a very generous program for veterans of the second world war by means of war veterans allowances; we have our vocational training and health grants. It is very pleasant to be the author, to be in power and to have an opportunity to put into effect these most popular measures. However, fortunately, the principle on which the financial
Family Allowances Act measures of our form of government are based is that the person who spends the money is the one who is responsible for raising it. I thought the house might be interested in an article which appeared in the Financial Post which highlights this point. It is dated February 13, 1954 and is entitled "It All Depends Where They Sit", and reads in part as follows:
Practical experience is a wonderful teacher. Out in Saskatchewan the other day provincial treasurer Fines of the C.C.F. government in that province offered this advice in a provincial hook-up:-
I presume it was a radio hook-up.
-"We must not increase our social services, health services and education services to a level beyond which we cannot maintain them."
It is too bad that federal members of the same party at Ottawa do not heed that very sound advice. Apparently they were not listening. Instead they have been suggesting that the senior government should step up its family allowances by 60 per cent, which would have added close to $200 million a year to the tax bill of Canada. As the Regina Leader-Post observes:
"It probably is too much to ask Ottawa C.C.F.'ers to heed the sound and admirable words of their own Mr. Fines so that they would desist from absurd and extravagant demands which patently are beyond the ability or willingness of the people of Canada to carry along with present defence expenditures. The Ottawa C.C.F.'ers know as well as anyone that their proposals are impractical. They are advanced for the sole purpose of winning friends and votes from among those who may favour family allowance increases, and extensions of the other social welfare and health services, without stopping to count up the cost."
It would appear that there is no great degree of unanimity among people of socialist thought on the soundness of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The government is in the position, therefore, of having to take the responsibility of collecting the money it pays out in such social services.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did you write his speech?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Frank A. Enfield: I should perhaps mention to the hon. member for Assiniboia that I do not have anyone write my speeches for me. Like some other hon. members, I found his discussion extremely thought-provoking. Along with the hon. member for Fort William I wish to thank him for instigating such an excellent discourse on social measures by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have three minutes to go.


Frank A. Enfield: I think we all learned a great deal from it. I must say also that I found of interest the speech made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). It has been stated that raising money is a good thing. We are forced at all times to remember that the money we collect represents trust funds in
1454	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act our hands held on behalf of the people, and that we must take great care of it. We are forced to extract from the public the money that we spend which is never a popular thing to do. On both counts our position demands extreme caution. We could tax beyond the productive capacity of the country or the nation. We could hence ruin incentive and cripple enterprise. On the other hand we could expand beyond the limit of our resources, go into debt and thus ruin confidence in our financial position and in the Canadian dollar.
I mention this consideration because I feel that we must examine measures such as the one introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia in this context. I think the public have a tendency to examine social welfare measures purely from the humanitarian aspect. When they see something that is going to help families they say, "That is fine; it will help families". Then if there is something to help the veterans they say, "That is fine; it is good for the veterans". But I do not think the tendency is to look at the general effect of such measures on the economics of the country, or at the general effect in the realm of the fiscal policy of the government with which we are so greatly concerned in connection with every resolution of this nature with which we are faced concerning the spending of money or the raising of money.
It is natural for the public to look at the matter in that way. In so far as we have money to distribute, the humanitarian view decides to whom we are going to give it and in what manner. However, I respectfully submit that the humanitarian view is always subordinate to the economic consideration.
The hon. member for Assiniboia gave lip service to this argument when he argued that increasing the allowance might have the effect of increasing business activity and hence increasing government revenues. But if we are going to look at that argument-and I submit it is a good argument to look at-it opens up a whole new field of speculation.


Hazen Robert Argue: There are 58 seconds left.


Frank A. Enfield: I thank the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thirty seconds.


Frank A. Enfield: Suppose we were in a position to increase government expenditures. We must ask ourselves the question, is the increase in family allowance the best way of producing the desired effect, or perhaps the effect that the hon. member for Assiniboia wants? Frankly, I can think of many alternative courses that we should at least study before we blindly commit ourselves to the course suggested by the hon. member. For example, perhaps the public would rather spend their own money. By that I mean if we wish to distribute further wealth over a wide cross-section of the public, we should consider leaving more spending power in their hands perhaps by means of reduction in the income tax at the lower level, rather than collecting more money by a scheme such as this, redistributing it, setting up all the complicated machinery to do so and then charging further income tax on the money so distributed.
I leave these matters for the consideration of the house. As it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Enfield the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on Bill No. 3, with respect to river improvements. Then we shall take the following resolutions: No. 16, having to do with the Northwest Territories Act; No. 15, having to do with the Yukon Act; No. 23, having to do with the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; No. 18, with respect to the salary of the Auditor General; No. 32, with respect to double taxation in Canada and Ireland, and No. 33 with respect to the same. Then we shall take any other resolutions that may be arranged to be taken.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 24, 1955