February 13, 1956

LIB

Elmore Philpott

Liberal

Mr. Philpoit:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; are we taking motion No. 3 in conjunction with motion No. 10, according to the precedent of least year? No. 10 is practically a duplicate of No. 3.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

For the information of the hon. member I may say that now that we have considered this resolution the other one will have to wait and be dealt with when we get to it.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
CCF

Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
CCF

Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

No; this motion was allowed to stand the other day.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I am sorry. I thought this was a resumption of the debate. I understand we are taking it now for the first time, and the hon. member is moving the motion. Perhaps what got me into difficulty was the fact that the other day we thought we were on this motion when we were not.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
CCF

Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

I am pleased to have the opportunity of once again moving a motion requesting an increase in the family allowance. I believe the family allowance legislation, enacted back in 1944, is one of the most important acts ever placed on the statute books of this country. It is an important part of our social security legislation. Because I believe family allowances are a good thing, because I believe the legislation is worth while, I view with alarm the gradual deterioration in the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque. It is not sufficient at any time for a government to merely provide legislation which is good. In my opinion the government should be prepared to protect the value of that legislation. Year by year almost consistently since 1945, inflation has been allowed to eat away a good part of the value of the family allowance cheque.

There is only three-quarters of an hour left for this debate, and because time is limited and I should like to see other members take part in the debate I shall endeavour to make my remarks rather brief. The latest

Family Allowances

report of the Department of National Health and Welfare shows that more than 2 million families are in receipt of family allowance cheques on behalf of almost 5 million children. A little later on I am going to give some income statistics which I believe will demonstrate that family allowance cheques are absolutely essential to the welfare of the family. Moreover, I believe I can demonstrate that the incomes of the vast majority of Canadian families are at a level which makes it necessary to consider an increase in the amount of the allowance at this time.

In some quarters it is being advocated that family allowances be doubled. Another suggestion is that the payment of the family allowance should be extended on behalf of children beyond the age of 16, probably up to 21, as long as those children remain in school. I think that suggestion is a valuable one. I feel it is one that the government and the house might consider. It seems to me that the importance of education and the high cost of it in this technological age should cause the government to consider encouraging young Canadians to stay in school as long as they can profitably do so. I believe, therefore, there is real [DOT] merit in the suggestion that the age up to which family allowances may be paid should be extended.

The family allowance is just one aspect of the Canadian social security program. It is one instance where the government has provided a very important piece of legislation, and year by year has stood idly by while inflation has taken away a substantial part of the original program. This is not the only field in which the government, by standing idly by in an inflationary period, has allowed the value of social security legislation to deteriorate. I refer now to the old age pension cheque. The last increase in the amount paid old age pensioners was in April, 1949. It is true that since then the means test has been removed, and therefore the number of Canadians who are receiving old age pension cheques has been greatly increased. Nevertheless, since April, 1949, inflation has caused a very serious deterioration in the purchasing power of the old age pension cheque.

I have made some calculations, and on the basis of the consumer index for 1955 the old age pension cheque which was worth $40 in 1949 is today worth only $34.29 in terms of 1949 purchasing power, a deterioration of $5.71 since that time. I do not think anyone will say $40 a month for an old age pensioner in April, 1949, was too high. Certainly $34.29 in terms of 1949 purchasing power is today far too low. Not only in the field of family allowances, therefore, but in the field

of old age pensions the value of the social security legislation has been allowed to deteriorate.

I have in my hand a table which shows the increase in the consumer price index each year since 1945, and the resultant decrease in the value of the family allowance. The consumer price index for 1945 stood at 75 and the initial family allowance cheque for the youngest child was $5. The next year the consumer price index was 77-5 and the value of the $5 cheque was reduced by 10 cents, to $4.90. The next year the consumer price index was again higher and the value of the $5 family allowance cheque had deteriorated an additional 50 cents to become worth only $4.40. The following year there was a further large increase in the cost of living and the value of the family allowance cheque went down another 50 cents to $3.90. Year by year, with the exception of 1953, inflation has caused a decrease in the value of the family allowance cheques until in terms of 1945 dollars, the year in which family allowances were first paid, the 1955 family allowance cheque of $5 became worth only $3.20. In 1955 the $6 family allowance cheque had deteriorated in value to $3.84; the $8 cheque had deteriorated in value to $5.93.

To show the position of our family allowance legislation, on the assumption that inflation continues in the next 10 or 20 years at the same rate as in the last 10 years, and the government does nothing in the next 10 or 20 years in regard to increasing the family allowance, we shall find 10 years from now that the $5 family allowance cheque will be worth just $2.05, and that 20 years from now a cheque worth $5 in 1945 will be worth $1.41.

I do not believe this government, or any other government that may be in office during the next 10 or 20 years, if inflation should continue at the same rate, will stand idly by and allow the value of family allowances to deteriorate from $5 to $1.41. I do not believe the people of Canada will stand for that being done. They will not stand for this drastic drop in the value of family allowances, which I have estimated to be 36 per cent. Now is the time for the government to consider restoring the value of the family allowance.

If nothing is done about it, 10 years from now the $6 cheque will be worth just $2.46, and 20 years from now, $1.69. The $8 cheque, the largest that is payable, 10 years from now will be worth $3.28, and 20 years from now, $2.26.

There is another way to demonstrate the deterioration in the value of family allowances. The family allowances legislation was

enacted and had its first full year of operation in 1946. At that time the gross national product in Canada was just over $12 billion. The amount paid out in family allowances was almost 2 per cent of the gross national product, or $245 million. Since 1946 the gross national product has increased from $12 billion to $26 billion. If the family allowances today were the same percentage of the gross national product as they were in 1946, we should be spending this year on family allowances the sum of $539 million. As a matter of fact in the coming fiscal year the estimate for family allowances is $399 million. Therefore, assuming that next year the gross national product does not increase-and we all know it should; it should go up about 5 per cent each and every year-the family allowances will be $140 million short of 2 per cent of the gross national product, that percentage of the gross national product which they constituted back in 1946.

I believe that 2 per cent is a very small part of the gross national product to have allocated for family allowances. I should like to see it even higher; but certainly I believe that the part of the gross national product used for family allowances in 1946 should be retained, and we should not be content to allow it to fall, as I have said, by $140 million.

The government brought in family allowances in 1944, and the legislation was passed. Family allowances became operative in 1945. The Liberal party, year after year, election after election, point out to the people of Canada the value of family allowances and take, if not 100 per cent of the credit, at least 99 per cent of the credit for having placed them on the statute books.

What has been happening since? The value of family allowances has deteriorated; the value of the old age pension has deteriorated. At this time, instead of restoring the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque, the government is talking of extending the field of social security legislation. I am all for the extension of social security legislation; I am in complete support of a program of health insurance, and better old age pensions. But unlike the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), I do not believe that the amount of wealth represented by the deterioration in the value of family allowances should be used or an extension of social security measures in other fields.

I believe the family allowance legislation should be protected and any new legislation should be added to it. In speaking in the debate on February 23, a year ago, as

Family Allowances

recorded at page 1444 of Hansard the Minister of National Health and Welfare had this to say:

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 million 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?

The most I have ever advocated in proposing an increase in family allowances was that the value of the family allowance cheque be restored; yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare says that had the value of the family allowance cheque been restored the government would not have been able to bring in the disability allowance, the blind pension or to provide $350 million for an old age security program. In other words the government is attacking its own legislation. It is taking a good part of the value of the family allowance legislation and, in the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is using that sum of money to provide social security legislation in other ways.

Are the people of Canada really in need of family allowance legislation? Should there be an increase in family allowances? Is the average working person in need of an improvement in family allowance legislation? I hold in my hand some excerpts from taxation statistics, 1955, based on the 1953 taxation year. It shows that 39 per cent of income earners obtained less than $2,000 in 1953; that 51-4 per cent obtained less than $2,500; that 64-4 per cent, or almost two-thirds of the income earners in Canada, obtained less than $3,000; that 79-9 per cent obtained less than $3,500.

When you add to that table the statement that has often been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that 19 per cent of the working population of this country are responsible for the upbringing of 84 per cent of the -children, you see that the average Canadian family obtains a very modest income, and must be able to balance the budget with the greatest difficulty. If almost half the working men obtained $200 a month, and if they obtained housing accommodation at a rental of $75, which would not be excessive, they would have $125 a month to buy food for the table, to buy clothing for the family, to provide for medical expenses, and all of the costs of raising a family, because the statistics of the Department of National Revenue point out that 51-4 per cent of income earners obtain less than $2,500 a year.

Family Allowances

The united automobile workers put out a publication entitled The Guardian. In that publication they have figures showing the estimated cost of modest living for a year for a city family as at January 31, 1954. They have statistics for a working man who is a tenant, who has a car, who is a home owner, or who is a home purchaser. They estimate that the highest cost for a modest living is $4,600 for a home purchaser with a car, and the lowest modest living cost is for a home owner, someone who owns his home and has no car. In that case the estimate is $3,628.

In other words, according to this publication the average family needs at least $300 a month for a modest living and to balance the budget. Yet according to the taxation statistics three-quarters of the income earners in this country obtain less than $300 a month.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that family allowances are essential, that an increase should be made at this time, and that the very least the government should do is to restore the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque so that it may be of greater assistance to the vast majority of families who now find it almost impossible to balance the family budget.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Elmore Philpott

Liberal

Mr. Elmore Philpoti (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, before I speak on this particular item I think I should perhaps apologize for having started to speak on it a week ago last Friday. My only excuse is that I was listening to the page boys who were bringing us the Olympic hockey game scores, and I was not paying attention to the clerk when he read the item in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia. So I started to speak on the wrong subject.

I am also a bit sorry that I did not speak last Friday as I should have, because I think I could have given a wide measure of moral support to the measure introduced by the hon. member at that time. I am afraid, however, that I can give him no moral support with respect to the resolution we are discussing tonight.

I think if hon. members had it within their power to say whether or not they would grant an increase in family allowances, old age assistance, old age security or any other welfare measure that we have in this country, not a single member of any of the four parties would hesitate if we were able to do that. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite irresponsible to suggest that regardless of the taxation we levy, regardless of the necessity to balance the budget, we can increase our welfare allowances from year to year just out of good intentions.

I say to the hon. member, without any intention of being out of order, that it is not

so many days ago that we heard a warning in this chamber about the terrible things that would happen if the price of beef should go down or if the floor price under butter were removed. I submit that all of these things have a connection with the increase in the cost of living and therefore with the justification for or argument in favour of higher family allowances.

In this country we are about to embark on the most comprehensive step that has ever been taken in the history of our nation in the form of the great national-provincial, coast to coast health care scheme.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Hospital care.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Elmore Philpott

Liberal

Mr. Philpoti:

Hospital care scheme. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has clearly laid down the terms on which the government is willing to proceed with the plan, and we all know that it is going to cost the treasury of the federal government real money. By coincidence it is going to cost the treasury almost exactly the same amount in millions of dollars as the amount by which the hon. member for Assiniboia suggests that family allowances should be increased to bring them up to the level of the increase in the cost of living since 1947.

Maybe I am wrong, but I have the impression that if all the citizens of Canada could have their choice between an increase in the family allowance to bring it up to an amount that would compensate for the increase in the cost of living since 1947 or a plan whereby the national government in co-operation with the provinces will go ahead with a national health insurance scheme they would, in my opinion, vote by an overwhelming majority, probably by 99 per cent, to go ahead with the national health insurance scheme.

I had the great privilege this summer of travelling quite extensively in several of the countries which are most often held up in the house as being the ideal welfare state countries in all the world, namely the Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway and so on. I spent some time in each of those countries, and on some other occasion this session I hope to have the privilege of saying something about civil defence in that wonderful country, Sweden, where I had the privilege of examining their system.

However, tonight I want to talk for a minute or two about how the welfare state schemes in these countries compare with our own. These countries are often portrayed by the hon. gentlemen immediately opposite me as being the most advanced in all the world in this regard. Not one of these countries has a family allowance scheme that compares in any way with what we have right here in our own

Dominion of Canada. For instance, in Finland the family allowance payment is 1,200 markkas per year, very much less than Canada. In Norway the family allowance payment is 240 kroner per year, and the first child gets nothing. In Sweden the amount is 290 kronor per year. In that country it is allinclusive. You do get a grant even for the first child. In Denmark the amount is roughly the same as in Sweden.

But in all these countries, Mr. Speaker, quite a rigid means test is applied in the case of all their welfare measures, not only with respect to unemployment insurance but also old age pensions. To date they have nothing comparable with what we have here under our old age security system payable to everybody right across the board.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
CCF

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Nicholson:

I wonder whether the hon. member has those figures in terms of dollars and in terms of the food which the children may have.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Elmore Philpott

Liberal

Mr. Philpoll:

I can give them to you or you can figure them out yourself. The kroner is worth somewhere between 20 and 25 cents, so that in terms of dollars the Norwegian family allowance would amount to about $60 per year. In France the first child is excluded but the second child receives the allowance. On paper France has the most generous of all the European schemes. In the case of a city worker the allowance for the second child is based on 20 per cent of the worker's wages, which would really be a fabulous allowance if that system were applied in Canada.

However, if you examine the actual situation in France you will find that the scheme is full of jokers. It is not only true that a great many people do not pay taxes; it is also true that a great many people who are theoretically entitled to some of these welfare allowances do not draw them. It is also true that in the richest country in the world, the great United States of America, there is as yet no family allowance scheme of any kind whatsoever.

Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that before we talk too readily about extending these payments, desirable as all of us might consider that to be, we should sit down with pencil and paper and figure out exactly where the taxes are going to come from to pay these allowances, or where we are going to put the extra debt to pay for them if we are going into debt. It seems to me that the whole welfare scheme of Canada must be considered as an entity.

If I for one had to express my preference as to priority I would say that before there is any substantial increase in family allowances,

Family. Allowances

consideration should be given to the old age pensioners. They certainly have a higher claim to prior consideration, because I can show you from my own files in my office in this building, literally hundreds of letters in which people have actually sent me their budgets, proving quite plainly that one simply cannot live on $40 a month.

I would say in all kindliness to the hon. member for Assiniboia, do not go M. Poujade one better. In France M. Poujade only comes out with the slogan, "Down with all faxes" but as far as I can see the hon. member for Assiniboia is in favour of "Down with all taxes but up with all welfare benefits."

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):

Mr. Speaker, the time remaining for the debate on this motion is not very long and I hope I will not take up all of it. I am really surprised, probably astonished would be a better word, after being among so many university graduates, that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) should be in such a hurry to oppose this measure that he had to speak on it before it came before the house at all. It is simply amazing, and I am quite sure it is not what the people of British Columbia expect of the hon. gentleman.

He told us of his experiences during a trip to the Scandinavian countries, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, this year. Surely the ability of those countries to provide for their people should not be compared with that of a rich country like Canada. Finland has not yet finished paying heavy reparations to the country which conquered her a few years ago. It is not so much the size of family allowances paid in those countries as it is the relationship of family allowances to the standards of living of the various classes in the country.

The hon. member says that if something has to be done in connection with social security there is a greater need in connection with old age pensioners. I am not going to dispute that the condition of old age pensioners in Canada, those who have to live practically or altogether on old age security or old age assistance, is deplorable; but I insist that if there is to be a choice between doing something for a child who has not yet developed into a man and doing something for an old person whose days are over, if we cannot do something for both, we should do it first for the child who is a future citizen of Canada.

There is another point I wish to mention in that regard. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman who preceded me would say

Family Allowances

and has said that this country should do more toward feeding the underprivileged people in other parts of the world. Many people say that if we are going to save the world from the dangers of communism that is something that should be done. But I suggest to you that if we want to feed hungry people we do not have to go outside of of Canada to find them. Our first duty as representatives of the people of Canada is to see that the national income is so distributed that all will have bread before some have bread and cake as well. That is what we are suggesting when we suggest that family allowances should be raised.

I have in my hand a bulletin prepared by the Vancouver housing association, which is a recognized organization in Vancouver coming under the red feather scheme. This bulletin contains a brief which was prepared for the Minister of Public Works in regard to housing. The association had a study made of housing conditions among social assistance families. Those were not old age pensioners; they were fathers and mothers, in most cases mothers, with growing children. The study was made by a man by the name of W. A. Wilson, and I should like to read some extracts from the study he made which appear in this brief. The first is as follows:

A family dependent on assistance has only about a 50-50 chance of finding shelter which will not jeopardize its physical and emotional well-being.

What does that mean? It means that in Vancouver, the city which the hon. gentleman and myself represent, families with children on social assistance are forced to give up proper food and clothing and other things that the ordinary child should expect in order to be able to obtain adequate shelter. Family allowances are one way of adding to the income of those children. The next extract is as follows:

It is a decidedly bleak outlook for the family attempting to find adequate shelter within the rental grant. A family without outside help is literally torn between two choices; paying an exorbitant proportion of their income in attempting to find satisfactory housing, or living in poor housing and having more of their income available for daily necessities.

We talk about juvenile delinquency, but what can be expected of children who are brought up hungry, who are brought up in homes that we would not want to live in? If we are going to combat juvenile delinquency successfully we must begin by improving the lives of young people in the community, not only with better food and clothing but with more of the social amenities and educational and recreational opportunities. Here again increased family allowances would help a great deal.

[Mr. Maclnnis.l

I have before me an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 6 which

was written for several papers by James S. Duncan, C.M.G., describing his experiences on a recent visit to Russia. Referring to the condition of the Russian people he says:

The small luxuries, the Important non-essentials, the minor niceties which lend grace and charm to life are conspicuous by their absence from the Russian scene; and yet the great masses of the people who have no points of comparison with the way other peoples live, apparently accept their drab lives without complaint or unhappiness.

I read all of it because there was no period. I could have read the first half and left it at that, pointing out that Russia is not the only country where the small luxuries, the important non-essentials and the minor niceties which lend grace and charm to life are conspicuous by their absence. I can take my hon. friend to hundreds of homes in the city of Vancouver where these minor niceties which lend grace and charm to life are lacking and where there is a continual daily struggle to provide the essentials of bare living.

Yet my hon. friend says in this house that we cannot afford this. How quickly people become satisfied. Let us first look after the many people in every city, in every town, in every hamlet in this land who are not getting enough food to eat, who are not getting proper clothes to wear, who are not getting the proper educational opportunities. Let us look after these people first, even before we extend our bounty to the more unfortunate people in other parts of the world.

My hon. friend, as I have said, is now one of the satisfied people. He is continually drawing attention to what this government is doing. I remember the day when he did not think this government was doing so much. I have here a quotation from a speech made by someone:

Both parties are absolutely in the grip of financial interests. The real government of Canada is not at Ottawa but in St. James street, and the old parties are as closely linked as the Siamese twins.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Who was that?

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
LIB

Irvin William Studer

Liberal

Mr. Sluder:

What have the socialists got to offer?

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Maclnnis:

The speaker on that occasion was Captain Elmore Philpott at a meeting in Edmonton. I am just suggesting to this house that there is room for an increase in family allowances, and if some of the increase were to go to people who already have incomes you can take that away as it is taken away now. But we should make our family allowances such that every family in this country can be assured of a family income that will give it at least good physical health and good emotional health, and also allow the parents,

in their struggle for existence, to take advantage of the educational opportunities that this country provides.

(Translation):

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink
IND

Fernand Girard

Independent

Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words in support of the resolution under consideration at this time, consisting in a request to the government for an increase in family allowances.

There can be no denying the fact that the sum of $5, which the government had assumed to be an indispensable minimum for our families, in 1945, has gradually decreased in real value and that the family allowance cheque has lost 35 per cent of its worth, now being equal to a mere $3.20.

In other words, if the government was of the opinion, in 1945, that Canadian families deserved a minimum of $5, it should at this time, to be logical, be prepared to adjust the amount of this allowance to the present cost of living in this country.

Every time members in this house have asked for an increase in family allowances, there was always eagerness on the side of government benches to protest and to say: "Let's be serious, gentlemen. The government can only give money that it collects. Where are we to find the revenue to do this?"

It is unbelievable to see how often this argument is used by members of the government, and equally unbelievable to see how readily the government brushes it aside when it finds it convenient to do so.

When, for instance, we asked on behalf of the provinces for an increase in the field of income tax, the government said: "We can hardly grant more than 5 per cent, because that would make the situation unbearable for us". Some time later, the Prime Minister offered 10 per cent and, through some unbelievable and unaccountable miracle, the government had seen its way out of an unbearable situation.

Last year, when there was talk of increasing the rate of family allowances, the government was faced with the same problem: no money. It was not unwilling, but where could it find the money necessary for this purpose? Yet this same government, this

Hansard-Current Index year, is ready to spend $180 million on health insurance. I am not opposed to this plan, but if it is considered practicable, why can't the money be found to boost family allowances?

In the last analysis, the government must realize that if the $5 family allowance is now worth not much more than $3.20, the worker's income has also been affected so that he is proportionately less able to provide for the security of his children. Everyone will also recognize that, since children are our greatest asset, they deserve the largest share of our national income. If we can spend two billion dollars on defence, which may be an important thing, why could we not afford more than one-hundredth of that amount for the welfare of our children? Why could we not do more for an asset that is so important to our country?

(Text) :

On motion of Mr. Girard the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL TO AMEND LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AMOUNTS PAID
Permalink

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLICATION OF CUMULATIVE INDEX TO "HANSARD"

LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Before the adjournment, may I point out to hon. members that, if they look in their files of Hansard, they will find that there is a green sheet of heavy paper immediately preceding an index which covers the period from January 10 to January 31. This is a current index which it is proposed to make cumulative and have published for every 15 days during the course of this session. It may be that when we reach the committee of supply sittings or the sittings of the committee of ways and means, the Hansard index branch may find it difficult, because of the multiplicity of subjects dealt with in the committee of supply and of ways and means, to issue an index on this current basis. However, in any event it is felt certain that, except for that time toward the end of the session when there is a great multiplicity of subjects being dealt with, a cumulative index can be issued. I hope this improvement will help hon. members to find what they look for in the daily Hansard.

Topic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLICATION OF CUMULATIVE INDEX TO "HANSARD"
Permalink

At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. 67509-73J


February 13, 1956