Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

If they refuse treatment they are not eligible; if they take treatment and still have a disability, they are eligible.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

May an applicant

have his premium payments deducted from his pension?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Yes. .

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I think the application for the payment of insurance should be simplified. We have had several cases in the branch of the Legion to which I belong where widows have almost had to have the deceased fingerprinted and photographed before they could get the insurance. I am not exaggerating, because I still have the correspondence. Surely this procedure could be simplified. It is all right if the widow has some money, but where she has no money to pay for the funeral or feed her children it is a different matter. I know of cases where it has taken five months before the widow could get the insurance. That is altogether too long.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I

am informed by the officers of the Canadian pension commission that that is being attended to. I may tell my hon. friend that his observations will be carefully followed out.

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

Did I understand the

minister to say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that premiums could be deducted from pensions?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Yes.

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

Without the consent

of the insured?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

No, with his consent.

Mr. GILLIS:

The department will take the necessary steps to advertise and publicize this legislation?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I think the suggestion is a most excellent one. If this legislation is under my jurisdiction I shall see that it is carried out. If not, I shall see that it is recommended to the particular department.

Bill reported.

At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock.

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to deal, I hope in a dispassionate and non-partisan way, with certain phases of the subject of family allowances and the bill which has been introduced; for I believe that no more tremendous or important issue can come before this parliament for the post-war period than the one we are now discussing.

With the objective provided for in this bill there can be no disagreement; for if I understand it aright it means that through this measure an endeavour will be made to achieve equal opportunity, particularly for those in the lower income brackets, and to give many who to-day are denied freedom from fear and freedom from want the hope of something better in the future than this world and this country have seen before. I realize that to achieve these objectives planning must be done now, and with the objectives in mind I agree and in the aim and the purposes that it has, I concur. I realize that plans such as this require a great deal of organization now. If we are to have a dynamic and a workable plan the cooperation of hon. members of all sides is necessary. I repeat that I agree with the objectives of this bill, while criticizing it in some particulars-which I shall deal with in committee-and also raising a question as to the constitutional issue which was dealt with the other day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent).

The challenge of adventure into new fields of social welfare must not find us discouraged

by the difficulties inherent in the British North America Act. We must go forth into new horizons of social justice. To-day the opportunity comes to us as it has come to few men in few generations to take part in the forward march of the common man. I believe that my views and those of most hon. members are to be found in the idealism reflected in a passage of the National Resources Development report for 1943 which was placed before the President of the United States in January of that year. In the words of that report; there must be-

-the fullest possible development of the human personality, in relation to the common good, in a framework of freedoms and rights, of justice, liberty, equality and the consent of the governed.

As a means of protecting justice, freedom and democracy:

The three factors-democracy, dynamic economy and peace-never in the history of mankind have been united in a political system.

Changes are taking place and tremendous changes are about to take place. We in the parliaments of the empire to-day must recognize that. The state must guarantee and underwrite equal access to security, to education, to nutrition and to health for all. That assurance is inexorable through the awakening of the spiritual being of man everywhere and the recognition of all men of their responsibilities for the welfare of all other men, not only within their own state but beyond its confines. Too often some of us are afraid to approach new horizons because there has been no experience to guide us. I think it is a significant fact that in 1944 there is not in the governments of Great Britain, of Australia and of Canada and in the cabinet of the United States any man who was bom in the present century. In other words there are far too many men in positions of authority without having along with their experience the idealism, the drive, the forcefulness, the initiative and the appreciation of present day conditions which potentially men of the present generation should be able to give to government. My philosophy is that, though I ask no man to follow me in this view, I believe in welcoming change, provided it will be made effective. Too often in this country the dead hand of the past as it is written in the British North America Act has destroyed reforms which ought to have been brought into being for the benefit of the future. The party to which I belong has no reason not to have the reforming dynamic of that of any other party in this house. It was this party which brought in women's suffrage, which coordinated the various railroads under the Canadian National Railways, which brought in the Wheat Board Act of 1935 and the Bank of Canada Act in

Family Allowances

its inception, and the other legislation of 1935 much of which the government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) placed before the courts with a view to determining its constitutionality and much of which was declared to be beyond the powers of parliament.

In that connection let me mention that the party led by the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett had the reforming zeal. It brought in the Weekly Day of Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Limitations of Hours of Work Act, the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, the Employment and Social Insurance Act, The Natural Products Marketing Act, and various other measures to which reference need not be made at this time, but many of these acts when submitted to the courts were found to be unconstitutional.

While I have no hesitation in saying that I am going to support the principle of this bill and get behind the carrying into effect of any bill, brought in by any party in this house, which I believe is for the welfare of the people, I reserve to myself the right to place before this house and the people of Canada as a whole my views with respect to this legislation as it is presently constituted.

* It was said in 1935 by the Prime Minister , himself that Mr. Bennett was introducing the legislation that was then brought in for the purpose of getting votes. No one tfas more persistent in his demand that those acts then brought in should be constitutional than was the Prime Minister of this day. No one spoke in more fulsome tones of the necessity of upholding the constitution of the land than did he. Over and over again, he called upon the government of that day to secure the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of that legislation.^ I am not going to read the provision in question; it is set out in section 55 of the supreme court act, chapter 35, and gives to the government the right to submit questions of law or of fact touching the interpretation of the British North America Act as may be referred by the governor in council to the supreme court for hearing and consideration.

I am going to deal with that phase a little later on because I believe that the Prime Minister, having stated that the operation of the act is not to come in until the 1st of July, 1945, and having denied that there is any ulterior purpose in postponing the date when these payments are to be made, must have some of the fears of the constitutionality of this bill that he expressed in 1935 as to the constitutionality of the measures then introduced. This bill is little different in its operation and effect from and is analogous with

the old age pension act. The old age pension act provides for payments to persons of seventy years of age under certain circumstances. This act provides for payments to parents or others having the custody of certain children; the matter of age being of very little importance in the principle at issue. Over and over again the Prime Minister reiterated in this house in 1935, in 1931 and in 1926 that this parliament did not have the power to bring into effect a national old age pension act whereby the dominion would pay total pension without securing an amendment to the British North America Act. My submission is that if the Prime Minister was right then, like principles apply in the interpretation of the present measure.

But before I go on to deal with the constitutional issue, let me refer to one other matter.

I want to see this legislation made effective and operative. I want to see brought into parliament legislation that will banish the sense of fear and insecurity among the poor of the country. I want to see legislation when it is introduced which will not only promise a hope on July 1, 1945 but which in 1944 will assure its fulfilment before the election and which will be known to be constitutional and within the powers of parliament.

I do not believe that, because members happen to sit on different sides of the house there is any one of us, regardless of his lifetime of service, who can claim a monopoly of love and affection for the common people. I can look back on my own youth and say that in my opinion most of us can claim to belong to that group honoured by the Prime Minister the other day as the humble poor. We want to see that the standards are elevated. Suggestions have been made by labour that this legislation will be taken advantage of by unfair employers to freeze the level of wages at a low figure by reason of the extra income . that will come should this act be put into effect. I believe the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister said that was not the case in Australia and New Zealand. But the situation there is different from ours. In one case the state is unitary and in the other there is a joint control body over the question of minimum wages. In this country we have nine different minimum boards or controls, wages in one province being lower than in others.

I have read a great deal on this subject, and the experience in some countries has been that wages tend to be set at a low level by reason of the fact that a family bonus is in existence. The evidence before the price spreads commission indicated that in this country there is not a fair level of wages from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Nor can there be until the Depart-

Family Allowances

ment of Labour in the federal arena arranges with the provincial departments of labour and cooperates with them to elevate the level right across Canada. My suggestion to the Prime Minister would be that when this conference comes between the government of Canada and the provincial premiers one of the things he should ask for in order to make this act protective of labour is that a common level of wages for like work ibe established in every province. This matter has -been dealt with at considerable length in the province of Quebec where in 1933 a social service commission met and produced one of the best reports on family allowances and the like that can be found anywhere. The findings of the Quebec committee of 1933 indicate that the adoption of family allowances might result in wages being kept down, and it asks in general terms for the adoption of family allowances. Instead of raising the level of wages in that province, which would not permit of competition in industry by that province with other provinces, family allowances, it was suggested, might be the solution. It is a very fair report. What we must insist upon is that while giving an allowance to the individual we must assure him that he receives the same level of wages as others in the dominion who are doing the same type of work, so that he may be enabled to partake of the better things of life.

This report, and I refer particularly to one paragraph, deals clearly with the situation and indicates the reason why various labour leaders have asked for the assurance from the government that family allowances shall not affect wage levels. I am not going to quote what Mr. Buckley or Mr. Millard said, or what Mr. Bengough of the trades and labour congress said, but they indicated the danger that until wages were equalizfed these bonuses may have the unfair result of freezing wages at a level that would not be sufficient to enable the individual to secure the better things of life. I have no observations to make on this paragraph-it requires none. It places before the country in summarized form the attitude generally by many of the labour leaders of the dominion.

We may recollect too, that the province of Quebec has an economic system dependent on that of the other provinces, and that an exaggerated rise in salaries would bring local industries into a disadvantageous situation when compared with rival industries in other provinces. The present economic depression has also taught us that the prosperity of nations cannot he contained in watertight compartments and that there is a real interdependence between the economic systems of different countries. If, therefore, on the one hand, the desire is entertained of affording a large family an opportunity of developing according to the will of providence, and if, on the other, it is agreed

that our national economic system cannot adjust salaries to fit the needs of a large family the only other choice is to have recourse to the family allowance.

I think that the country as a whole is entitled to have from the Prime Minister the assurance that there will be the establishment of a level of minimum wages across this dominion through cooperation with the provinces to the end that all, regardless of the province from which they come, shall have equal access to that freedom from want which all of us are endeavouring to bring about. I shall deal with that matter later in committee.

I now come to the question of the constitutionality of this measure. Far be it from me to indulge in any argument with so eminent a counsel as the Minister of Justice, but I think it was some years ago that either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition said that if lawyers did not disagree it would be a strange country in which we live. I am not going to place my humble opinion against that of the Minister of Justice, but I am going to call as my witness the parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Claxton) who in 1939 dealt with this problem when he prepared a brief for the dominion government for presentation before the Sirois commission. The question comes up: is this constitutional? I do not think the Prime Minister indicated his view when he introduced the bill; but the mere introduction of the bill suggests his belief in its constitutionality. My leader contended that it was not constitutional, or was doubtful as to whether it was constitutional. I have already referred to the reports regarding old age pensions. Before a committee of parliament in 1925 the whole question of old age pensions was discussed, and the view was expressed following an opinion given by the deputy minister of justice, that old age pensions could not be brought in on a national scale without agreement with the provinces or an amendment to the British -North America Act. Then came the case referred to by the Minister of Justice the other evening, the Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Ontario, 1937 Appeal Cases, at page 355. I am going to read one paragraph that the Minister of Justice did not read in its entirety when referring to this case which had to do with the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935. Lord Atkin said:

That the dominion may impose taxation for the purpose of creating a fund for special purposes and may apply that fund for making contributions in the public interest to individuals, corporations or public authorities could not as a general proposition be denied. . . .

But, assuming that the dominion has collected

Family Allowances

by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows (that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within dominion competence^

It may still be legislation affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92, and, if so, would be ultra vires. In other words, dominion legislation, even though it deals with dominion property, may yet be so framed as to invade civil rights within the province: or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved *to provincial competence.

I am sure that hon. members will respect the opinion of Mr. Cahan, former secretary of state, who gave these ideas on this case on March 1, 1937:

I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether his department, in association with the officials of the Department of Justice, have considered the full bearing of a recent opinion of the judicial committe of the privy council, with regard to a matter such as this. As I read that opinion the privy council have declared it illegal for this parliament to make any appropriation of funds derived from taxation for subject matters over which parliament has not legislative jurisdiction under section 91 of the British North America Act.

All of the matters legislated for in this bill or imposed by it deal with the matter of child welfare, on matters of social service organization andl within the competence of the provinces. Then Mr. Cahan says:

That is a wide and sweeping declaration of the judicial committe of the privy council which I believe applies not only to pensions for old age but also to pensions for the blind, and a number of other appropriations aggregating tens of millions of dollars which are annually voted by parliament. In view- of that opinion I think the government should take into serious consideration the question whether in voting these tens of millions we are not committing illegal acts which are ultra vires of the parliament of Canada.

That is one opinion. I quote now an opinion from Mr. Brooke Claxton, as he then was, and Mr. L. M. Gouin, as he- then was, now a member of the other place. I read from page 20 of the report entitled "Legislative Expedients and Devices Adopted by the Dominion and the Provinces, 1939" I see my time is rapidly coming to an end; therefore I cannot read this quotation at any length. Let me read one portion of it in which Mr. Claxton and Mr. Gouin, dealing with the question of old age pensions, which is analogous to the payment of allowances to children, the only-difference being the matter of age, said this:

It can hardly be doubted that the subject of old age pensions falls under the provincial jurisdiction to legislate respecting property and civil rights. That was the opinion given by the Department of Justice and it does not seem to have been challenged.

After quoting from the speech of Lord Atkin before the privy council, they added:

If this is a correct statement of the law, the dominion old age pensions act will be invalid

if -that act is in itself legislation "affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92" or if the act is "so framed as to invade civil rights "within the province; or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence."

Then after dealing with this and others, he said:

For this reason, the holding in the reference justifies Mr. Cahan's apprehension with respect to this act at least, and the act and any similar legislation might be held ultra vires if the question is ever raised.

I cannot go into the various house references of the Prime Minister during the years, particularly in 1926, 1935 and 1936, except to say that on January 21, 1935, at page 49 of Hansard, the right hon. gentleman was explaining why much of the reform legislation which had been referred to in the book "Industry and Humanity" had not been brought in, and1 went on to use these significant words:

In that view of things will be seen the foundation of Liberal policy on social legislation as well as much else; and if the Liberal party in the federal field, during the time I had the honour to be Prime Minister, did not introduce more in the way of so-called social legislation than it did, it was in the main for two reasons, one of which I have already indicated, namely, that up to the present time, until within the last few weeks, it has been understood that practically all legislation of a social character came exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, the other reason being that we did not know where we should obtain the wherewithal to carry out these policies until we got rid of the cumulative deficits which we had inherited when we assumed office.

The only altered opinion in connection with the legislative competence of parliament was expressed by Mr. Bennett, who said parliament had that power under the treaty obligations of this country.

I should like to give one other reference to support my contention that this legislation should be placed before the supreme court, under the power contained in the Supreme Court Act, before the coming election, so that no one in this country may be deluded by false hopes. In 1935 the Prime Minister made a similar request to mine to-day. He asked that the legislation then introduced be taken before that court, pointing out his reasons for this request; and those reasons apply to-day just as they did then. In stating his reasons for submitting an amendment providing that the question of the validity of the legislation should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, at page 10S6 of Hansard for 1935 the right hon. gentleman said:

My reason for submitting the amendment is this: While the Prime Minister has; intimated

Family Allowances

that in his own mind he is quite confident the measure is intra vires of this parliament, nevertheless he has come to that opinion only within the last few months. I believe I am right when I state that for years past he has held a different opinion. It is not surprising therefore if many of us are in grave doubt as to the competence of parliament's jurisdiction in the matter, and if we have doubts people throughout the country will have equal doubts. ... If I thought the suggested amendment would occasion any delay in bringing the legislation into effect, in the event of its being intra vires, I would not suggest the amendment. I am convinced however that my suggestion should not occasion any delay, and I do believe, assuming the legislation to ibe intra vires, very serious prejudice of its provisions would be thereby prevented. Unquestionably in the minds of the people throughout the. country when the measure is assented to there will remain a grave doubt as to its validity. The provinces will have doubts, employers and employees will have doubts and when my right hon. friend proceeds to provide the necessary machinery a critical situation may arise.

I think it is generally conceded that sooner or later this measure will come before the courts for a decision respecting its validity.

The Prime Minister must have had in mind that fine legislation which he drafted in 1907, the. Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which did a tremendous lot of good but which, when it finally came before the courts in 1925, was found to be beyond the power of parliament to enact. Then he went on to say:

Should it be declared ultra vires, and the machinery meanwhile were set up with appointments of four or five thousand people made, and all were on a sudden to find themselves without a position, the results would be to say the least unfortunate. It would have, too, a bad effect upon the beneficiaries, the people paying into the fund, and upon the position of industry generally. In these unsettled times, if any further note of uncertainty is thrown into the situation existing between employers and employees, and if any further difficulty is added by way of ascertaining where they stand and what _ will be expected of them by way of additional taxation and additional burdens to the industries with which they are connected the situation will be made very serious indeed. It is to avoid the possibility of anything of that nature that I offer the amendment in the hope that my right hon. friend will see his way clear to accept it.

I am supporting this legislation because I believe half a loaf is better than no bread; but willing as I am to stand on principle I am asking that he submit this matter to the courts so that sooner or later our people may not find that they have been deceived, if this legislation should be declared to be beyond the powers of parliament. There is nothing unfair in this submission. The supreme court sits here in Ottawa; it is ready to be convened. The Supreme Court Act provides machinery to cover such a contingency. I ask the Prime .Minister when he replies to tell us

what reason, except the fear that this legislation is unconstitutional, prevents him from submitting this matter at once to the courts of this country. It will not mean holding up the effective date of the legislation, since it does not become effective until July 1, 1945. If the Prime Minister does not do that and this act is found ultra vires after it becomes effective, the reaction throughout this country against those of us who belong to the parties that have existed since confederation will be such as I do not care to envisage. They will contend that when we placed this legislation upon the statute book we knew it was not within the competence of parliament. I ask the Prime Minister what has happened since 1931 to change the opinion he expressed in the House of Commons at that time, which appears at page 750 of Hansard:

I say the British North America Act should be amended so as to make it possible for the federal government to undertake the administration of that scheme. . . .

He was referring to the old age pension scheme. The other day, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice referred to the decision of the privy council, to which I have already made reference. The hon. gentleman was counsel for the Dominion of Canada in connection with that matter, along with the present chief justice of the province of Ontario. And, Mr. Speaker, as I read that judgment, what the Minister of Justice said to the house the other day as to competence of parliament to pass this and like legislation was what he unsuccessfully advocated when he appeared before the privy council.

I am going to support this bill; I care not what others do. I support it because I believe we are living in a changing world. But, with all the sincerity that I can command I am asking the Prime Minister not to deceive these children and parents by allowing parliament to pass an act of which its legislative competence has not been determined.

And I ask this, too: why wait until July 1, 1945? So far as our men in the armed services are concerned, let us immediately, by the necessary amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act, give to those who have served the additional amount that is promised to them if the act becomes effective on July 1, 1945. We believe that we are approaching the end of this struggle. This bill recognizes that it is necessary that'the dependents of service men should receive this extra allowance. Why not now, while they serve? Why a promise of a date so far removed, when we hope, under Providence, that this war will be over?

Supporting the principle of giving aid to those in lower categories, and opportunities

Family Allowances

which so many of them are denied, I ask that parliament bring into effect-and parliament has the power-a system of scholarships to be effective throughout this whole dominion. Let it be by way of grant, so as to allow young boys and girls of merit and ability to climb the difficult heights so often denied them because of poverty. There are men in this house who came up that way. They are on the government side of the house, and they are on the opposition side of the house. This parliament has an opportunity to do something practical now. Ask for the cooperation of the provinces. Why was this not submitted to the provinces? Why w'ere they not given an opportunity to look into it?-and I speak for no province or no area. All I have said comes as a result of my own personal research. Why the postponement of the conference from week to week and from month to month? Convene it now. Let the provinces see the picture, so that they will realize that unless we lay a foundation now for that new world about which we speak so often, we are going to reap as we have sown, because of our indifference to the problems facing us.

I believe $250,000,000 in all is to be expended. That is $100,000,000 more than is being spent annually throughout the dominion for education, high, intermediate and1 low. Let nobody say that this bill is something dangled in front of the people, something to be made effective only after an election and in the light of certain eventualities. Make it constitutionally effective now. And if it is not, find out if it is within the competence of this parliament.

We have a terrible responsibility for the post-war period, sir. This parliament should make available moneys by grants to the provinces-and it has the power-to establish health units, hospital units, to set up libraries, to provide for better schools and to establish a system of scholarships. These are things recommended by the committee in Quebec in 1933, a committee with vision. Make it possible to establish low-cost housing. Make it possible, by the expenditure of not much more than this amount, to bring into the' homes all across Canada electrical power. Make it possible to establish a new health, educational and general welfare, national and provincial set-up.

That, Mr. Speaker, is all I have to say, with the exception of one concluding quotation from the National Resources Development report, which seems to sum up the whole thing. This report speaks of the change in public opinion during the war. Many social solutions could not have been provided for

a few years ago, because people would not have permitted the anticipated expenditures.

. It is different now.

This upsurging human personality, even in the terrible grip of war, looks for the new heaven and the new earth within its sight and grasp for the first time. If men of good will cannot unite to find a direction and show the way, men of bad will appear; they will loot the ships of state wrecked by the false lights on the shore.

As a man of good will I appeal to the government to let us know whether or not this measure is constitutional; let us know that it can be carried out and will be carried out. And if it is found ultra vires by the supreme court, then let us by cooperation with the provinces bring in legislation that will elevate the position of the common man.

Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance may I congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon a portion of his speech. I was impressed, surprised and delighted to hear the commendation which fell from his lips, directed toward the principle and purport of the bill under discussion. In its aims, purpose and objectives the hon. member says he concurs. He agrees that it will open up new horizons of social justice, and that the state must underwrite equal access to nutrition for the people. This and many other statements of the kind are commendation of a kind that is welcomed, both because of its substance, accuracy and truth, and because it reflects the independent stand of the hon. member as compared with that of his leader-at-large and of his leader in the house.

Mr. GRAYDON:

There is no variance in our opinions.

Mr. REID:

They are 'for it and against it.

Mr. ROEBUCK:

I will take that up a little later.