1952-03-26

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: How much money has been spent in the town of Bonavista, Newfoundland, since April 1, 1949, for (a) dredging; (b) breakwater construction; (c) wharves; (d) public buildings; (e) repairs to public buildings; (f) any other works for which the Department of Public Works is responsible?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: (a) $596,450.63; (b) $132,117.44; (c) $232,589.82; (d) $106,469.33;
(e)	$397.67; (f) nil.


VEGETABLE OIL
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What quantity of vegetable oil was imported into Canada for each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
2.	How much vegetable oil was produced in Canada in the same period?
3.	What quantity of vegetable oil produced in Canada during the above period was exported?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Imports of Vegetable Oil into Canada
Pounds
1946	  71,605,700
1947	  89,954,300
1948	  82,602,400
1949 ______	 141,354,000
1950 ______	 190,697,200
1951	    158,391,500
2.
Oil produced by crushing plants in Canada Flaxseed	Soybean	OthersPounds	Pounds	Pounds
Totals
Pounds
1946	
100,157,699	18,201,473	69,163,1790)	187,522,3511947	
88,733,909	27,052,473	54,159,0400)	169,945,4221948	
122,670,596	26,863,917	73,256,4870)	222,791,0001949	
95,419,004	45,963,471	70,014,7520)	211,397,2271950	
85,238,580	56,931,185	39,704,0120)	181,873,7771951	
60,387,253	73,513,281	42,239,6190)	176,140,153
0) Includes sunflower seed, rapeseed, copra and peanut.
0) Includes sunflower seed, rapeseed, copra, peanut and mustard seed.
0) Includes sunflower seed, rapeseed, copra, mustard seed and weed seed. 0) Includes sunflower seed, rapeseed and copra.
3. Information not available. Not separately classified in export statistics.


NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Higgins:: 1. Has any department of the government of Newfoundland made application for the admission to Canada of German nationals to work in New-
2.	103 for temporary admission and 35 for permanent landing.
3.	As of January 21,	1952, temporary
admission had been granted to 79 and permanent landing to 19.
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable. See answer to No. 4.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
foundland?
2.	If so, for what number has permission been requested?
3.	How many German nationals have been so admitted?
4.	Has there been a request to admit German nationals to be employed as wood-cutters in Labrador?
5.	If so, for how many such persons has permission been requested?
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Yes, such applications were made on behalf of the government and of private industries.
ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES Mr. Charlton:
What precautionary measures were taken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration during the year 1951 with regard to the clothes and other personal effects of immigrants entering Canada from Europe?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: The prevention of introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious animal diseases comes under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and regulations established thereunder, administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Questions


DISPERSAL OF INDUSTRY-LEITZ COMPANY
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Were plans to establish in Canada a branch of the Ernest Leitz Company Limited, of Wetzlar, West Germany, negotiated through the dominion government?
2.	If so, was any attempt made to interest this industry in locating on the prairies in line with the government's announced policy of dispersing industry for defence purposes?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	No, but some discussions were held with officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Howe:: 1(a).	Exports of
Cords
Newfoundland*	
Nova Scotia	 15,095
Prince Edward Island			
New Brunswick	 571,164
Quebec	 435,328
Ontario	 947,615
Manitoba	 39,220
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	 179,216
Totals	 2,187,638
1(b).	Exports of
Cwt.
Newfoundland*	
Nova Scotia	 1,070,615
Prince Edward Island	
New Brunswick	 4,062,708
Quebec	 10,180,364
Ontario	 16,072,266
Manitoba	 1,389,058
Saskatchewan	 638,329
Alberta	
British Columbia	 2,546,624
Totals	 35,959,964
2. The Leitz Company expressed no interest in locating in the prairies provinces. Their representatives came to Canada with the definite intention of locating either in Ontario, Quebec, or the maritime provinces.


PULPWOOD AND RAW PULP
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What quantities of (a) pulpwood; (b) raw pulp, were exported from each province of Canada for each of the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
2.	Was any pulpwood or raw pulp imported into Canada during the same period? If so, how much?
3.	What was the amount of pulpwood processed
and manufactured province during the	into paper in same period?	each Canadian
pulpwood		
1949	1950	1951Cords	Cords	Cords27,370	50,71816,514	11,197	71,7681,425	10,545418,090	425,724	749,881265,644	348,111	689,350621,491	569,240	930,73024,341	12,551	72,555277	62	2,152155,657	217,307	98,4011,503,439	1,611,562	2,676,100wood pulp	1949	1950	1951Cwt.	Cwt.	Cwt.636,446	765,999	982,919992,160	842,957	1,293,1833,837,431	4,296,870	4,235,7787,536,548	9,212,343	12,335,50914,278,697	17,543,842	18,944,653316,455	460,792	666,549862,681	1,377,836	1,803,8892,513,704	2,422,225	4,603,68130,974,122	36,922,864	44,866,161
*Newfoundland included from April 1, 1949.
Note: Above figures represent shipments cleared through customs ports in each province. Province of origin of the shipments is not recorded in trade statistics.
2. Yes.
Imports of pulpwood and wood pulp, 1948-51
Pulpwood Wood pulp cords	cwt.
1948	 67,528
1949	 4,881

660,094
708,659
Pulpwood
cords
25,085
41,452
Wood pulp cwt.
731,663
728,329
1951

Questions
3. Information not available.
The amount of pulpwood processed into wood pulp was:
1948	1949	1950	1951Cords	Cords	Cords	Quebec 	
5,157,027	4,800,347	5,160,181	Ontario 	
3,052,504	2,909,154	3,163,762	Not yetBritish Columbia ...	
742,097	607,835	711,340	availableOther provincesC* 1 2 3) ..	
1,304,921	1,926,131	2,131,515	Totals 	
10,256,549	10,243,467	11,166,798	The production of	wood pulp	was:	1948	1949	1950	1951Short tons	Short tons	Short tons	Quebec 	
3,902,072	3,698,401	3,922,543	Ontario 	
2,226,124	2,138,444	2,297,518	Not yetBritish Columbia	
688,209	666,542	776,896	availableOther provincesC) ...	
858,674	1,349,611	1,476,057	Totals 	
7,675,079	7,852,998	8,473,014	The amount of wood pulp used	by the paper industryC) was:	1948	1949	1950	1951Short tons	Short tons	Short tons	Quebec 	
3,227,362	3,199,552	3,289,229	Ontario 	
1,638,655	1,611,119	1,683,108	Not yetBritish Columbia	
433,664	479,961	509,880	availableOther provincesC) ...	
553,619	1,048,375	1,109,789	Totals 	
5,853,300	6,339,007	6,592,006	
C) Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. It is necessary to group these provinces in order to avoid revealing the operations of certain companies. (Statistics Act, s. 15).
(*) These figures include a small percentage of imported wood pulp.


EXAMINATION OF WAAS HERD
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names, and employers, of all veterinarians who examined the Waas cattle?
2.	What was the date of each examination?
3.	What was the diagnosis made by each veterinarian, and to whom was each report made?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	According to reports of the health of animals division, on or about November 28, Mr. Waas telephoned Dr. Richards, a private veterinarian, Indian Head, regarding an apparent disease in his cattle; Dr. Richards was unable through illness to visit the premises, but prescribed treatment. Later Waas telephoned the provincial veterinarian, Dr. Johnson, at Regina, who advised him that
this was a matter for a practising veterinarian and undertook to obtain one on Waas' behalf. As a result, Dr. H. J. Hunter, a private veterinarian of Regina, visited the Waas farm on Saturday, December 1st. He diagnosed the case as a vesicular disease and notified Dr. N. D. Christie, district veterinarian, health of animals division, Regina. Dr. N. V. James and Dr. E. E. Carlson, veterinarians of the Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Dr. H. J. Hunter, visited the premises the next day, Sunday, December 2, and confirmed the diagnosis of vesicular stomatitis:	they reported to Dr.
Christie and through him to Dr. T. Childs, veterinary director general, and his associates in Ottawa. Advice given was to quarantine the premises and keep

Questions
them under scrutiny. Dr. James made subsequent visits to the Waas farm on December 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 15. All the above-mentioned veterinarians confirmed or accepted the original diagnosis of vesicular stomatitis.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


IMMIGRANTS
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many immigrants are being maintained by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in each of the following centres (a) Halifax, Nova Scotia: (b) Saint John, New Brunswick; (c) Quebec, Quebec; (d) Montreal, Quebec; (e) Ajax, Ontario; (f) Winnipeg, Manitoba; (g) Edmonton, Alberta; (h) Vancouver, British Columbia; (i) Victoria, British Columbia, as of March 1, 1952?
2.	How many of these immigrants in each of the above centres are (a) German; (b) from the United Kingdom; (c) all others?
3. Of these totals, how many are age groups (a) from 1 to 18 years; (b) from 18 to 35 years; (c)
over 35 years?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	(a) Halifax, N.S	
66(b)	Saint John, N.B	
23(c)	Quebec, P.Q	
228(d)	Montreal, Que.St, Antoine	
154St. Paul l'Ermite	
62*(e)	Ajax, Ont	
239*(f)	Winnipeg, Man	
58(g)	Edmonton, Alta	
95(h)	Vancouver, B.C	
83(i)	Victoria, B.C	
43Total	
1051*
*The numbers shown for St. Paul l'Ermite and Ajax, Ont., are immigration cases accommodated in labour hostels. The total does not include 554 Department of Labour cases accommodated in immigration halls.
Germans	U.K.	Others	Total2. (a) Halifax 	1	47	66(b) Saint John 	6	10	23(c) Quebec 	4	193	228(d) Montreal	St. Antoipe 	
20	1	133	154St. Paul l'Ermite	; *	62	62(e) Ajax 	29	184	239(f) Winnipeg 	7	38	58(g) Edmonton 	6	81	95(h) Vancouver 	3	39	83(i) Victoria 	-	16	43191	57	803	1051
3. Information not available.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Were orders placed during the period between July 1 and December 31, 1951, by the Department of Defence Production for any commercial marine radar equipment?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract or contracts awarded?
3.	What type and make of equipment was ordered?
4.	Was equipment manufactured in Canada? If not, where?
5.	Were tenders called? If so, on what dates, and what are the names and addresses of firms submitting tenders?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Two orders were placed for commercial fnarine radars; one order valued at $21,831, was placed on October 31, 1951, with Canadian Marconi Company, and the other, valued

at $1,019,766, was placed on December 6, 1951, with Sperry Gyroscope Company (Canada).
3.	The order with the Canadian Marconi Company was for 3 type LN27 marine radar. The order with the Sperry Gyroscope Company was for 55 Sperry Mark 2 surface warning radars.
4.	In the case of the order placed with Canadian Marconi Company, the radar equipment was manufactured by that company. The Sperry Mark 2 surface warning radars are of U.S. manufacture. Because of the urgent requirement to meet the naval ship fitting program, it was not possible to manufacture this equipment in Canada, in the time allowed.
5.	No. In each case, the orders were for types of marine radars which were definitely specified by the Department of National Defence (navy).



DRYING CAPACITY OP ELEVATORS

Mr. Wright:: 1.	What was the total drying capacity of the Canadian terminal and other elevators as at (a) July 30, 1946; (b) July 30, 1950; (c) July 30, 1951; (d) present capacity?
2.	What are locations of each of these elevators, and drying capacity of each based on 17 per cent moisture content of wheat?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Total estimated hourly capacity * for drying tough wheat of 17 per cent moisture content at licensed Canadian public and semi-public terminal elevators and eastern elevators on dates shown is as follows;
(a)	July 30, 1946
(b)	July 30, 1950
(c)	July 30, 1951
(d)	Present capacity
42,650 bushels 40,900	"
41.400	"
41.400	"
* Quantities of grain dried under actual operating conditions will vary with changes
in such factors as initial moisture content
and temperature of grain, temperature and humidity of the air, kinds of grain and number of different grades of grain to be dried,
etc.
2.	The locations of elevators and hourly drying capacities of each based on 17 per cent moisture content of wheat are as follows:
Location	Elevator	Capacity
(bushels)
Fort William, Ontario Canadian Consolidated Grain Co.
Ltd	 300
Federal Grain Limited	 1,500
Fort William Elevator Co. Ltd.
"F"	 1,000
Fort William Elevator Co. Ltd.
"E"	 1,000
National Grain Co., Ltd	 1,250
Westland Elevators Limited ....	750
Ogilvie Flour Mills Co. Ltd....	300
N. M. Paterson & Sons Limited 750 * *
Searle Grain Co. Ltd	 2,000	*	*
Sask. Pool Terminals Limited . .	250
Lakehead Terminals Limited ..	500
Port Arthur, Ontario
Federal Grain Limited (Stewart) 500 Canadian Consolidated Grain Co.
Ltd	 850
Eastern Terminal Elevator Co.
Ltd	 1,000	*	*
Manitoba Pool Elevators, No. 1	500
Manitoba Pool Elevators, No. 9	500
McCabe Grain Co. Ltd	 2,000
Manitoba Pool Elevators, No. 3	1,500
Sask. Pool Terminals Limited,
No. 4	 1,000
Questions
Location	Elevator	Capacity
(bushels)
Port Arthur, Ontario-Concluded
Manitoba Pool Elevators, No. 6 2,000 * * Sask. Pool Terminals Limited,
No. 7	 1,000	*	*
Superior Elevator Co., Ltd....	500
United Grain Growers Limited 1,000 * *
Churchill, Manitoba National Harbours Board		1,000
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Canadian Government Elevators 1,000
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canadian Government Elevators 1,000
Calgary, Alberta
Canadian Government Elevators 2,000 Edmonton, Alberta
Canadian Government Elevators 2,000
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canadian Government Elevators 1,000
New Westminster, B. C.
Searle Grain Co. Ltd	 500
Prince Rupert, B. C.
Canadian Government Elevators	500
Vancouver, B. C.
Alberta Wheat Pool, No. 1 ....	1,000
Kerr Gifford & Co., Inc., No. 2	1,000
Midland Pacific Terminal Limited	 500
Pacific Elevators Limited		1,000
Kerr Gifford & Co., Inc., No. 1	1,000
United Grain Growers Limited 1,000
Victoria, B. C.
Kerr Gifford & Co., Inc	 600
Midland, Ontario
Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. ..	200
Prescott, Ontario
National Harbours Board		500
Sarnia, Ontario
Sarnia Elevator Co., Ltd	 400
Toronto, Ontario
Toronto Elevators Ltd	 450
Walkerville, Ontario
Hiram Walker & Sons Grain
Corp., Ltd	 1,000
Montreal, Quebec
National Harbours Board, No. 2	1,000
Quebec City, Quebec National Harbours Board		800
Total	 41,400
* * Additional new units planned or under construction.
810

Questions



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many sections of land were in the area declared eligible for prairie farm assistance in 1951-52, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia?
2.	How much of the area, by provinces, was eligible for the $1.50 per acre payment, the $2.50 per acre payment?
3.	How many farmers, by provinces, were eligible for prairie farm assistance?
4.	What is the total amount of prairie farm assistance paid, or approved for payment, in each province?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Manitoba, 1,694 sections; Saskatchewan, 6,663 sections; Alberta, 3,670 sections; British Columbia, 36 sections.
2.	Manitoba, $1.50 per acre, 1,656 sections; $2.50 per acre, 36 sections.
Saskatchewan, $1.50 per acre, 6,237 sections; $2.50 per acre, 426 sections.
Alberta, $1.50 per acre, 2,230 sections; $2.50 per acre, 1,440 sections.
British Columbia, $1.50 per acre, nil; $2.50 per acre, 36 sections.
3.	Manitoba, 1,098 farmers; Saskatchewan, 4,987 farmers; Alberta, 1,851 farmers; British Columbia, 7 farmers.
4.	Manitoba, $114,065; Saskatchewan, $1,058,650; Alberta, $324,380; British Columbia, $1,400.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN PROJECT-BRIEF OF SASKATCHEWAN TO ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. Larson:: 1.	On what date was the government of the province of Saskatchewan first invited to submit a written brief to the royal commission investigating the South Saskatchewan project?
2.	Has the Saskatchewan government submitted the brief?
3.	If so, on what date was it received by the commission?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Following discussions between the government of Saskatchewan and members of the commission on September 21 and November 23, 1951, concerning the presentation of material by the province of Saskatchewan, the chairman of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river development wrote to the premier of Saskatchewan on December 19, 1951, inviting the province to make a submission in relation to the commission's terms of reference.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES


Mr. Charlton:: 1.	What was the final disposition of the herd of cattle belonging to Leonard Waas, McLean, Saskatchewan?
	f
2.	What are the particulars of the several tests made on the Waas herd, the sequence and dates on which each was conducted, and the results or reports made on each of said tests?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Slaughtered and buried March 14.
2.	On December 3, two horses of Leonard T. Waas were inoculated with material collected from diseased animals in Waas herd. Observations on December 4, 5 and 6 showed no symptoms of lesions, but on December 8 several vesicles believed to be stomatitis were found on tongues and gums. A report was made each day to Regina and in turn to Ottawa.
Blood samples were taken from the Waas cattle, and inoculations were made on these cattle on Sunday, March 9, 1952, for research and investigational studies. These studies are complementary and not complete; therefore interpretation cannot yet be made.



PERMITS FOR PURCHASE OF WILD RICE

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	Did Canadian Fish Producers Limited, Winnipeg, have the only buying permit to buy wild rice on Lone Island lake and Crowduck lake in 1951?
2.	If so, what was the cost of the permit?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	The Indian affairs branch was granted a wild rice harvesting permit for 1951 by the Manitoba provincial government for a fee of $1, and after requesting bids from interested buyers the Canadian Fish Producers Limited were granted exclusive permission by the Indian affairs branch to buy wild rice from Indians, harvested on Lone Island lake and Crowduck lake in 1951.
2.	The Canadian Fish Producers Limited did not pay any permit fee to the Indian affairs branch, but they did pay the 5 per cent (on purchase price) royalty to the provincial government and paid the Indians a 10 per cent bonus in addition to an average price of 40 cents per pound. There is no information available as to whether the provincial government impose a licence fee with respect to the purchase of wild rice.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Are engineering studies under way in respect to long range protective measures against future floods in the watershed involving and including the Red river, the Assiniboine river and the Pembina river?
2.	Do these include the possibility of diverting the Assiniboine river near Portage la Prairie into lake Manitoba?
3.	If so, by whom was this proposal first made?
4.	Is protection against periodic flooding of the Assiniboine river at Brandon being considered?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Engineering studies are under way in the watersheds of the Red river, the Assini-boine river and the Pembina river in respect, essentially, to measures designed to reduce the hazard of future floods on the Red river in the greater Winnipeg area. The studies have not yet been concluded.
2.	All reasonable possibilities of achieving the aim set forth in the above answer are being considered.
3.	Not known.
4.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


FISHING INDUSTRY


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How much money was spent by the government of Canada on research in connection with the fishing industry, scientific and economic?
2.	What proportion of the total value of production of the fishing industry does this represent?



AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How much money was spent by the government of Canada on research in the agricultural industry, both scientific and economic?
2.	What proportion of the total value of production of the agriculture industry does this represent?



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES LIMITED    ROUTE OF GAS PIPE LINE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representations from any city and municipal councils urging that steps be taken to ensure that the proposed gas pipe line of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited from Alberta to eastern Canada will follow an allCanadian route?
2.	If so, from what councils have such representations been received?
3.	Has the government given consideration to such representations?
4.	If so, what steps has the government taken to meet such representations?



NITRATE PLANT AT CALGARY

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total cost of the plant built, and any equipment installed, at Calgary, during world war II, for the purpose of manufacturing nitric acid and ammonium nitrate?
2.	How much of the above total cost was paid by the federal government?
3.	Did the government dispose of this plant, and, if so, to whom?
4.	How much did the government receive for the said plant and equipment?
5.	Was consideration given by the government to the recommendation of the war expenditures committee of 1944, that this plant should remain the property of the crown, and be operated as a government enterprise for the manufacture of products for the use of Canadian agriculture?
55704-52i
Orders for Returns
6.	If so, what reasons were given by the government for not accepting this recommendation?
7.	Who is now operating this plant, and are its facilities being fully utilized?



PURCHASE OF LIQUOR DUTY FREE

Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What categories of individuals are allowed to purchase liquor free of import and excise duties?
2.	What classes of institutions, if any, are allowed to purchase liquor free of import and excise duties?
3.	In the last year for which figures are available how much liquor was so freed of excise and import duties?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Lennard:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any department of the federal government of Canada and any provincial government in Canada; any state government in the United States or the federal government of the United States, since January 1, 1950, relative to rising water levels on the great lakes.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Subject to the usual reservation with respect to the consent of other governments concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation amending the Income Tax Act so as to permit taxpayers to deduct from their incomes, before computing the amount of income tax to be paid, the aggregate of their medical expenses, as defined in the said act, rather than only the portion in excess of 4 per cent of the taxpayer's income, as is provided by the act as it now stands.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to present this resolution to the house, may I point out that the principle which underlies it is already incorporated, at least in part, in the Income Tax Act. What this resolution asks for is that the implementation of that principle be extended, and in particular that medical expenses be put on a basis comparable to that which applies to charitable donations so far as income tax deductions are concerned.
I said that the principle underlying this resolution has already been recognized by the government. In saying that I have in mind the fact that since 1942 there has been a provision in the former Income War Tax Act and in the current Income Tax Act to the effect that under certain conditions taxpayers may deduct medical expenses from their net income before computing the amount of income tax to be paid.

Income Tax Act
I have already indicated that that right is circumscribed by certain conditions. In the main, these conditions are three. In the first place, the Income Tax Act defines what are medical expenses for the purposes of this deduction. The act, and the forms that are furnished to taxpayers, make it clear that one cannot deduct everything that he may regard as a medical expense, but rather only the specific kinds of medical expenses that are spelled out in the act.
I should point out that the definition of medical expenses has been amended from time to time since 1942. Each of those amendments has broadened the definition, but it is still true that there is a limitation; there are many expenses, medical in character, which people are called upon to pay but which are not included in the definition set out in the act.
The second limitation imposed on the right to deduct medical expenses for income tax purposes is the condition to which my resolution relates. It provides that a taxpayer may deduct from his net income, before he computes the income tax to be paid, not the aggregate of his medical expenses but only that portion of his medical expenses which is in excess of four per cent of his net income. I should point out that when this right was first written into the Income War Tax Act in 1942 the floor was five per cent rather than four per cent. It was in 1944 that the change was made to the present four per cent level, and later on in my remarks I shall have something to say about the circumstances under which that change was made.
The third condition that attaches to this right is that there is an upper ceiling, a limit on the amount that one can claim. For example, if a person has $2,000 or $3,000 of medical expenses in the course of a year he cannot enter all of that portion above four per cent of his net income, but only the portion above four per cent of his net income which is below a certain ceiling. The ceiling is $750 a year in the case of a single person and $1,000 in the case of a married person, with certain additions for dependents.
I have pointed out that there are these three conditions that limit the right to deduct medical expenses for income tax purposes. In my view each of the three should be reviewed. In my view the definition of medical expenses should be broadened. Likewise, in my view, the ceiling on the amount you can charge should be reviewed, and perhaps raised. It is my experience in this house, however, that if you ask for too many things in one resolution you do not get any

of them; so I am concentrating in this resolution on the limitation, or the condition, attached to this right, which I think is the most serious one, and I am satisfied that the taxpayers generally in this country agree with me.
I have raised this question in the house on a number of occasions in times gone by, although this is the first time I have brought it before the house in the form of a formal resolution. As I say, this matter hasi been brought before the house on other occasions, and when one does that he soon gets public reaction. I can say from letters I have had, from editorial comments I have read in various publications, that there is wide support for my contention that the four per cent floor should be wiped out and that the taxpayer should be permitted to deduct from his net income, before computing his tax, the aggregate amount of his medical expenses as defined in the act. So as not to obscure the issue, so as not to give any member from the government side who may choose to reply to this the opportunity to confuse the issue, I have accepted for purposes of my resolution medical expenses as defined in the act. In other words, the issue before us today is clear-cut and simple; it is just the one point, namely, that that four per cent floor should be wiped out, and that the taxpayer, in computing his income tax, should be permitted to add up all his medical expenses as defined in the act and deduct that total sum from his net income before he computes the income tax to be paid. I am not asking, in this resolution, for any other change.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, as I implied in something I said a few moments ago, that in asking this I am only asking in effect that the same treatment be accorded medical expenses as is accorded charitable donations. I quite approve the right that is accorded taxpayers with respect to charitable donations. May I point out that when one enters on his income tax form his charitable donations, although there is a ceiling of ten per cent of one's income-in other words, you cannot give away more than ten per cent of your total income and get credit for that higher amount-still you are permitted to charge the aggregate right from the first dollar that you give to an approved charity. Thus a person, we will say, who has $2,000 a year income and has made contributions of $200 during the course of the year can charge the whole of that $200; but a person with a $2,000 income who has $200 of medical expenses can charge only the amount of his expenses which is in excess of four per cent

of his net income. The net income being $2,000, four per cent is $80; thus he can charge as a deduction only $120.
Now, that is just one example pulled out of the air. I want to go on and give at this point in my remarks three concrete examples, comparing what happens in the case of medical expenses with what happens in the case of charitable donations. Two of these examples are the identical examples that I gave on a former occasion; the other is slightly different from what I gave before. I have still others which I can give later on if there is time.
First of all, I ask the house to consider the case of a married couple without children whose income is $2,400 a year. The income tax to be paid by that couple under the rates as they obtain at the present time, the rates set out in the Income Tax Act, plus the twenty per cent defence surtax, is $70.80. Now, if that couple in the course of the taxation year have had to pay medical bills of $200, when they come to compute their income tax they will find that by deducting only the portion above four per cent of their net income they will end up by paying an income tax of $52.80. That represents a saving of $18; in other words, they get tax relief of $18 in respect of $200 of medical expenses in the year. But suppose that same couple, instead of having $200 medical expenses during the year, give away $200 in charitable donations, that same couple will find when they compute their income tax that they have to pay only $34.80, which, against the original tax of $70.80, represents' a saving of $36. Now, $36 is twice $18; in other words, a couple which of their own free will give away $200 get tax relief for that to the extent of $36. A couple faced with uncontrollable medical expenses of $200 in the year get tax relief of only $18. I submit that that is not fair, and that we are perfectly justified in asking for the same consideration for medical expenses as now obtains with respect to charitable donations.
Let me take another example, the case of a married couple with two children. Let us assume their income is $3,600 a year. The income tax for them at the present rate, without deductions, would be $240. Let us assume that this year they have medical bills of $300. So long as the four per cent floor is there, they will be required to pay $210 income tax, which means that they will get a saving of only $30 against medical bills of $300. If that same couple, instead of being faced with uncontrollable medical expenses of $300, were to give away $300 to approved charities, their tax would be $178.80, or a saving of $61.20.
Income Tax Act
There you have it again-a tax relief of only $30 to one couple for medical expenses of $300, and a tax relief of $61.20 to that couple or to any other couple if their donations are of the same amount.
I turn now to an example in a little higher bracket. Let us look at the case of a married couple with an income of $5,000, and with two children. Their income tax at the present rate, without deductions, would be $542.40. If they have $500 worth of medical bills during the year, their tax will be reduced to $474, or a saving of $68.40. But if that same couple give away $500 during the course of the year, their taxes would be reduced to $428.40, or a saving of $114,
I put the two side by side again:	This
couple will get only $68.40 relief in respect of medical bills amounting to $500, but they would get $114 tax relief in respect of charitable contributions of the same amount. My case is so clear one wonders that it requires any argument at all. Surely people faced with these uncontrollable medical expenses should get at least the same tax relief as is afforded to those who make contributions to approved charities.
May I point out, in support of this argument, that one of the reasons we need to extend this privilege by wiping out the floor lies in the difficulty that would be faced if one tried to avoid any definition of medical expenses. I have argued already that I think the present definition is too narrow. It does not include many of the drugs some people have to purchase. But, no matter what definition is arrived at, there would have to be some definition, and it would not include all of the things people come up against at a time of illness.
For example, extra help is often required. Food bills go up if one of the members of the family is ill. There are taxi fares back and forth to hospitals, sitters to look after children-and all the rest of it. There are plenty of expenses that come into the picture that increase costs when there is illness in the family. I submit that one way of trying to cope with that situation is to wipe out the four per cent floor and to allow the aggregate of such expenses as are defined in the act.
Another point I should like to make is that there are people who have heavy medical bills but cannot afford to pay off the total amount during the course of one taxation year, or during the course of one period of twelve months. It is a fact that, under the act as it now reads, a person can charge his medical bills for any twelve-month period ending in the taxation year. But there are people who are faced with bills they simply cannot pay off in one year; and when that

Income Tax Act
happens we find that those people lose even the small amount of tax relief indicated in the examples I have given.
For example, if a couple with an income of $2,400 and with medical bills of $200 require two years to pay off those bills-$100 in each year-then, instead of getting but $18 by way of tax relief, as would happen if they paid it all in one year, paying it in two years they receive no tax relief at all.
Similarly, the couple receiving $3,600, with two children, and with medical bills of $300 in the course of the year, by paying $150 in each of two years receive no tax relief at all. The $5,000 couple with two children, and with $500 medical expenses, and paying $250 in each of two years, would receive some slight relief, amounting to only $10.80 in each of those two years. In other words they would receive relief to the extent of only $21.60 against medical bills of $500.
I could go on to place on the record many more examples; but the point I am trying to make is that, in addition to the unfairness created by the four per cent floor, other aspects of the problem aggravate the situation. I recognize the fact that a perfect solution of the problem cannot be devised, but I do suggest that the government could go a long way if it were to accept the proposal I make, namely that the four per cent floor should be wiped out.
I see that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) is working hard with his pencil over there. If he, or anyone else on that side of the house, is trying to think up some answers to my case, perhaps I had better ask if there are any objections to the suggestion which I have made.
The first objection someone might raise- that is, if he is just fishing around and trying to find something wrong with it because it comes from the opposition side of the house- would be the contention that if the floor were wiped out we would be giving greater tax relief to those in the upper brackets than to those with smaller incomes. To an extent that is true. It so happens, however, that illness is no respecter of persons or of wealth, and there is no reason why we should not be concerned about the costs of medical care for all our people, including some of those in what is sometimes described as the middle bracket-and even those in the upper middle bracket.
But the fact of the matter is that when you work out actual examples, the average relief in percentage terms which is afforded' by wiping out the four per cent floor decreases as you go up the income scale. The greatest relief to be given by wiping out this

four per cent floor is to those in the lower brackets. That is why my motion concentrates on that point.
But, just to trot this problem right out into the open, and to deal with it, may I take the case of the couple earning $3,600 and having no children, but having $200 medical expenses during the course of the year-which is the same medical bill I mentioned in respect of the first example I gave. My first example concerned the couple earning $2,400 and having medical expenses of $200. If my proposal were accepted, the couple having $2,400 and with medical bills of $200 would get a tax relief of $36, while the couple with $3,600, having the same medical bill, would get slightly more tax relief, or the sum of $40.80. The increase in relief is very slight. But may I point out as well that the couple in the higher bracket would still be paying $260.40 in income tax along with this $200 medical bill, whereas the couple in the $2,400 bracket would be paying only $34.80 along with their $200 medical bill. Thus the slightly greater relief given to those in the upper bracket comes out of the higher amount of income tax that they are paying. I do not see that that is any argument against the case at all. It simply proves that my case is completely fair, although the most effective help would be that afforded to those in the lower brackets.
Similarly I have worked out the case of a married couple with two children whose income is $10,000 a year, and have assumed the same $500 medical expenses as applied in the case of my example where the income was $5,000 a year. In the case of the couple with $5,000 a year and two children, with medical expenses of $500, if my proposal were accepted their tax relief would be $114 a year. In the case of the -couple with $10,000, with precisely the same medical expenses, if my proposal were accepted the tax relief to them would be $155 a year. That is not very much more, when you consider that the couple in the higher bracket would still be paying an income tax of $1,431.40 as compared with an income tax of $428.40 paid by the couple receiving $5,000.
In other words, the only argument that comes to my mind that anyone on the other side of the house might trot out against my claim is exploded when we consider these few examples and work them out as I have done.
However, it is also to be recalled that years ago, when this matter was under discussion it was said by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-and this was back in 1044 when he was parliamentary assistant to Mr. Ilsley- that we should not go too far with this matter, that we should not press it too far

because, after all, it was intended to be just a measure of relief in a time of high taxation. I-t was not intended to be a form of national health insurance. I would point out that we are again in a period of high taxation and it is time to consider granting relief of this kind to those who are faced with medical bills. With regard to the other phase of what the Minister of Finance said back in 1944, may I point out that if we are going to have to wait and wait for national health insurance, in the meantime some tax relief of this kind should be afforded.
Having mentioned the question of health insurance in relation to this whole question, may I take just a moment to say that I am glad to note the suggestion regarding health insurance which was made in a memorandum presented to the government today by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. Pages 17 and 18 of that memorandum contain this interesting section:
Health Insurance
The greatest blow we could deal inflation would be to improve the health of the nation. Production is a pressing and urgent need. Illness, on the other hand, frustrates production, and poor health is the cause of more lost time than any other factor. As a defence measure and as a means of directly strengthening and protecting our democratic way of life, we believe that the early inauguration of a nation-wide health insurance scheme should be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if that question should be discussed on this resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you rule that it should not be discussed, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared not to read the rest of the quotation. The reason I was reading it was-


Mr. Speaker:: I stopped the hon. gentleman because I did not think the house should discuss that question on 'this resolution. I agree with the hon. member when he says it is very important, but we now have another matter before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accept your ruling sir, and will not discuss that matter further. Might I just point out that I thought it was in order because I was seeking to answer the argument which was made against my resolution in August, 1944, by the present Minister of Finance. He said at that time that this was not to be considered as a health insurance matter. It was on that basis that I made reference to it. But I have made the reference, and I am prepared to let it go at that.
My reference back to 1944 prompts me to tell the house something of what happened on that occasion, and I do so to indicate the confidence I have that one of these days the gist of this resolution will be accepted
Income Tax Act
and incorporated into the Income Tax Act. In other words, I am bold enough to hope *that in speaking in support of this resolution and presenting it to the house, whatever may happen to it today, one of these days it will be adopted, as other measures I have fought for in this house have been adopted.
My reason for that confidence in respect of this matter, as I say, is what happened back in 1944. I pointed out earlier that the provision for medical expenses to be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes was established first in 1942. In that year the floor was five per cent of the net income and the ceiling was $400 single and $600 married. It was not long before members of the house began impressing upon the government the need of lowering the floor of five per cent and raising the ceiling. Indeed, in 1943 representations were made to the government that that be done.
In 1944, when Mr. Ilsley brought down his budget, it included two resolutions referring to the question of medical expenses in relation to income tax. I have in my hand a copy of the budget resolutions of June 26, 1944, and the two resolutions that related to this question of medical expenses were No. 4 and No. 5. I shall not take the time of the house to read them, but I would point out that those resolutions had nothing at all to say about the five per cent floor or the ceiling on the amount that could be deducted.
When those resolutions were debated in the committee of ways and means the question that I am now discussing was debated on the basis of budget resolutions No. 4 and No. 5. That debate took place on July 13, 1944, and can be found in Hansard from pages 4807 to 4816. It was a most interesting debate, in which quite a number of hon. members of the house took part. As a matter of fact it was initiated by the then member for Saskatoon, Mr. Bence. Several members of the Progressive Conservative party took part, as well as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and other members of this party, including myself.
Several Liberal members also took part in the debate. For instance, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) got into the debate, as reported on page 4808 of Hansard, and made the point that the cost of artificial limbs should be allowed as a deduction for purposes of income tax. He pressed his point strongly and was supported by other members.
Another hon. member who took part at that time was the then private member for Renfrew South, who is today the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). When the

Income Tax Act
minister was the private member for Renfrew South the chances are that he had the taxpayer's viewpoint a little more clearly than he has at the present time. At any rate, he made a claim upon the then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance, who is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), that funeral expenses should be allowed as a deduction. In that interesting debate he did not agree with everything the government was proposing, but, as I say, perhaps he was closer to the taxpayer's viewpoint than he is at the present time. He pleaded with the government to allow funeral expenses as a deduction.
As I say, that debate which took place on July 13, 1944, was quite interesting. It covers about ten pages of Hansard and was participated in by members of all parties in the house. They accepted the slight changes that the government was proposing in the budget resolutions but they called on the government to go further in connection with this matter.
During that debate I made the specific proposal that the five per cent floor which then obtained in the act should be reduced to three per cent, or preferably to two per cent. The then parliamentary assistant, now the Minister of Finance, debated the matter back and forth. He raised the question which Your Honour stopped me from discussing a moment ago as to its relation to health insurance and so on. I repeat, the discussion was quite interesting because the private members were pressing a point from the viewpoint of the taxpayer. They were urging the spokesman for the government to give consideration to the matter.
What happened? I have the evidence here. The budget resolutions in the form in which they had been brought in contained no reference to any change in the five per cent floor. However, as a result of the discussion which took place in- committee of ways and means- this is a classic example of the fact that debate in the House of Commons is worth while- when Mr. Ilsley brought down his Bill No. 180, to amend the Income War Tax Act, that bill included changes along the lines suggested, although he did not go all the way we had asked him to go in the committee of ways and means. Nevertheless, these changes were in the bill, even though they had not been in the budget resolutions which preceded the bill.
Section 4, subsection 4 of that bill provided for a lowering of the floor from five per cent to four per cent and a raising of the ceiling on the amount that could be deducted. I well remember the occasion and how the house was gratified that Mr. Ilsley had acceded to 
the suggestions made on the floor of the house, at least to the extent that he had gone. He did not go as far as we asked, but at least he recognized in principle that our claim was just and that the floor should be lowered and the ceiling raised.
As a result of that action by the government they were complimented from this side of the house. In fact, I did not hesitate to pay them a compliment myself. I find that on August 7, 1944, as recorded on page 6409 of Hansard, the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance moved the second reading of Bill No. 180, to amend the Income War Tax Act. I was given the floor immediately and I commended the government for the various changes that had been made in the bill consequent upon the disoussion in committee of ways and means. I complimented the government for its proposal to drop the floor from five per cent down to four per cent.
That was on Monday, August 7, 1944. At the close of that afternoon we reached section 4, subsection 4 of the amending bill, and I should like to quote this interesting paragraph of a statement by -the present Minister of Finance, as reported on page 6072 of Hansard:


Mr. Abbott:: The hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre has already spoken about this. This is a clause where, in spite of charges to the contrary, the government has not only listened to representations which have been made by all sides of the house but acceded to them in some respects. If the committee will bear with me for a moment- it is one minute to six o'clock-I should like to conclude this section. The government has done this in three ways.
The then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance went on to point out that the bill lowered the floor from five per cent to four per cent, increased the upper limits from $400 to $600 and from $600 to $900, and broadened the provisions with respect to medical expenses to include artificial limbs and certain other items of that kind. The result of that was, of course, that the subsection was agreed to immediately. The house was extremely pleased that the debate had been worth while, and that the government had accepted our suggestions, at least in part.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I present this motion to the house today. I am conscious of the fact that this year's budget will be brought down in less than two weeks, on Tuesday, April 8. But there is still time for the government to give consideration to this point. I do not think there is any argument against it. I believe the people of Canada wholeheartedly support this proposal, and I think they deserve it. I present it in

the name of fairness, and out of consideration to the burdens that medical expenses place upon our people. I hope that steps will be taken immediately to wipe out this four per cent floor and permit taxpayers, when they compute their income taxes, to deduct not just their medical expenses above four per cent of their net income but the whole of their medical expenses as defined in the act.


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker-
Mrs. Fairclough (rising) -


Mr. Graydon:: Ladies first.


James Sinclair: Despite the observation of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) concerning ladies first, I think a government speaker should follow an opposition speaker; and I would have thought that the member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) would regard herself as the peer of any member in this house and take her turn. I am rather anxious to speak now because I think I shall be able to save the hon. member for Hamilton West, and other members perhaps, a waste of time by prolonging a debate for which there is no necessity at this time.


Mr. Ferguson:: That is what you think every time you speak.


James Sinclair: I am delighted that the member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) is back in the house. I hope he will listen carefully, and give us all the benefit of the very apt interruptions on which he prides himself.
This resolution asks the Minister of Finance to give consideration to a certain proposal. At this time of year the minister is asked to give consideration to many proposals, and that is the proper democratic way for the people of this country, either as individuals or as groups, or acting through their members of parliament, to call the attention of the minister to changes which they believe to be desirable in our taxation system. These requests to the minister may take the form of letters, the most common way; of interviews, and many of the members of this house have participated in interviews concerning some problem in their riding; or of actual resolutions in this house such as the present one.
Now, of course, as the date of the budget draws near, is the time of year when we receive the most requests, but I think there is no time of the year when the Minister of Finance is not giving consideration to briefs, letters or interviews asking for tax changes. I believe the degree of consideration depends
Income Tax Act
upon several things. The first is the feasibility and practicability of the actual proposal made. Second, and a thing which must never be forgotten, is the effect upon revenues. After all, the purpose of taxes in this country is to raise revenues for those national projects and services which the people, and certain members of parliament, are not at all backward about putting forward.
Last night, for example, we heard a Pacific pact suggested for the second time by an opposition member. The Atlantic pact is costing us about $2 billion a year, so I imagine a Pacific pact would cost about the same amount. No mention was made, of course, of the fact that taxes would have to be greatly raised to meet that enormous extra expense.


Gordon Graydon: Is it just that that is holding you back?


James Sinclair: The next is a minor point, but it is the type of approach through which the proposal is made. We, of course, remember the minister reading a circular letter to automobile dealers in which they were urged to lobby members of parliament, not to burden or confuse the poor stupid members with too many facts or figures, and to offer free publicity over the radio or through the newspapers for the members who went along that way. That is a type of approach very different from the type of approach when members of parliament, trade groups and citizens bring forward, as they should, in direct and straight-forward fashion, the tax problems which they feel the minister should consider. This is the position in which the minister finds himself in the last two or three months before the presentation of the budget, and that activity-the considering of various proposals-is at its peak today.
This resolution asks the minister to give consideration to extending the present exemption for medical expenses. Each year when I take my part in putting through the budget resolutions I encounter this demand from members for the extension of exemptions. There are some fundamental rules so far as tax laws are concerned. Taxes should be equitable; they should be reasonable; they should be understood, and, from the administration point of view, they must be effective in that there can be effective collection from everybody. Then, the cost of collection must not be exorbitant so that too much of the revenue is lost in administration. In general I submit that special exemptions violate almost all of these principles. I believe most of us would agree that, in theory at least, a single tax based on gross income would be the easiest understood income tax and the easiest from an administrative point

Income Tax Act
of view. It would of course need different rates from those applicable under our present tax. It might not be as equitable as a system with certain basic exemptions, but once you introduce exemptions you add an element to the tax laws which gives rise to misunderstandings as far as the taxpayers are concerned.
Perhaps I can explain by referring to the United States system of personal income tax, because it has been referred to here. They have so many special exemptions that the ordinary individual almost requires a tax consultant to help fill out his personal tax form. There is always that gnawing fear in an individual that he has not included an exemption that he does not know about. I believe that is a great argument for having our tax laws as simple as possible, so all the taxpayers understand all their rights. When we come to the matter of exemptions, to try to bring an extra degree of equitability to our tax structure, we must first of all agree that we cannot give special individual exemptions in a national taxation system. Any exemption must be on a broad national basis. When we give such broad national exemptions the immediate result, of course, must be that we lose a substantial amount of revenue. Tax revenues must always be matched against the expenditures which this parliament votes, so this loss must be regained elsewhere.
This year we are faced with meeting a total bill of $4,300 million. Any tax exemption now given to any special group must therefore be compensated for by an increase in taxes elsewhere. Most of us in our municipalities are well aware of this problem. When people ask for a lower assessment and lower assessments are given, the mill rate must go up because the municipal authority must And the revenue out of taxes to operate the municipality. The other point about exemptions is that once you get into the field of exemptions, once you break that easily defined margin, then one exemption leads to another. The exemption before us today is an excellent example of the course of an exemption in our tax laws. The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants this exemption extended so that it would be more like the charitable donations exemption.
When this exemption was introduced in 1942, it was regarded as a generous and progressive step forward. Incidentally, it was not brought in at the demand of members of parliament or of any large group in this country. It was actually put forward by one of the officials of the Department of Finance. The minister at that time, Mr. Ilsley, was extremely concerned about the heavy impact of war taxes. The member for

Winnipeg North Centre mentioned that in his speech. In those days we had a thirty per cent initial tax on income above $1,500 for a married man, as against an initial tax of eighteen per cent plus old age security on income above $2,000 for a married man today. We had compulsory savings as well as the patriotic drive for the purchase of war bonds. All these measures siphoned off purchasing power, and laid an extremely heavy burden on the salary of the little man. As a consequence he was extremely vulnerable to unusual expenses, the most common of which is the hazard of sickness which can strike any family at any time. It was for that reason that this official suggested that an exemption of expenses above the average medical costs across this country should be given. This average ran to between five and six per cent. It was thought that an exemption of five per cent was on the generous side, because the lower you have these exemptions the more generous you are, and such an exemption was given in the budget of that year.
However, a ceiling was put on the amount which could be so deducted, and, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre said, it was $400 for a single man and $600 for a married man with $100 for each child up to four. This made a total exemption for a married man and family of $1,000. As I have said if you read Hansard of that day you will find that members in every part of the house welcomed this generous, progressive step. Members of parliament themselves, however, are progressive because the next year it was not good enough. Requests were made to extend this exemption to cover the cost of drugs bought direct from the drugstore. Drugs that were used in the hospital were put on the hospital bill and so were already deductible. There was resistance to this request because many of the patent medicines which people may buy may have a dubious effect, though some are of great benefit. Then, there is the problem of administration. It makes it difficult for the administrative body, the officials of the Department of National Revenue, to check an endless stream of receipts for small expenditures made at the local drugstore.
However, pressure persisted and in 1944 the first major changes were made in this exemption. The rate of exemption was reduced from five per cent to four per cent in order to cover in an easily managed way, with no necessity for receipts or check of receipts, this matter of drug costs. The house was pleased with that, and thought it a good solution. Then, the maximum amounts which could be deducted were raised to $600 and

$900 in 1944, making the maximum exemption for a family man with four dependents $1,500. We lowered the exemption from five per cent to four per cent primarily to cover local purchases in drugstores, and then raised the top limit of allowable deductions. We also extended the period in which expenses are incurred to cover not just the actual calendar year for which income tax is assessed. For example, a man might have an unusual expense extending for four months of one year and six months of another; but since our personal income tax is not carried backward and forward, he would then have it divided between two tax returns, although the bill will come to him and have to be paid at one time; so that provision was made that in a single tax return a period of twelve months bills incurred across two calendar years, could be included as a single item for that return. There could also be included the cost of an attendant who had to be in waiting on a sick person for twelve months of the year. Finally-and this was probably the major change-we agreed to include the costs of medical care and hospital care outside of Canada. That was a major step forward, not so far as the person is concerned but as far as the administration is concerned, because the Department of National Revenue obviously have great difficulty in checking the validity of receipts from foreign countries where we have no administrative staffs.
The next year we had still more changes. We allowed the charges to be made against the estate of a man who had died after illness; and later, the following year, we included certain surgical appliances and wheel chairs as deductible costs.
Then in 1949, again because of pressure by members, and because of pressure by groups -and when I say pressure, I mean perfectly proper pressure; I suppose "representations" would be a better word-the top of the exemption was raised from $750 to $1,000, with $250 for each child, so that the top exemptions for a married man is now $2,000. Then last year we made a still further step forward in allowing the deduction of specially expensive drugs on prescriptions. They are listed in section 26 of the Income Tax Act and include insulin, cortisone, and liver extract for pernicious anaemia. Hon. members will recall that at that time there was also the request that other expensive drugs be included. It was, of course, pointed out that the first drop from five per cent to four per cent was intended to cover the cost of drugs without the necessity of a detailed check of receipts by the Department of National Revenue.
Income Tax Act
Then we come to the problem today in connection with the resolution of the hon. member. The first question to be asked is this: Is the problem of unusual medical expenses incurred by wage earners increasing or diminishing. From a study of our records I would say that the problem of this hazard, caused by prolonged sickness imposing undue financial strain on the average budget, is diminishing over the years because of the introduction of hospital insurance in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, because of the extension of many company health insurance schemes to cover not only the employee but his family, because of the extension of community schemes like Blue Cross and because of the increased sale through private insurance companies of health and accident insurance. But that decrease raises a point as to why this hazard of unusual medical expenses is allowed as a deduction, while other hazards are not included, such as that of fire or flood or tornado whereby the ordinary wage earner can lose his main capital, his home, just as quickly as he can lose his income from sickness. So far we have said that a man should cover himself against unusual medical expenses is by insurance-without	saying whether that
doubtedly will come demands, as the years go by, for including these unusual expenses in the class of exemptions.
This, of course, raises the point as to whether or not we should try to do indirectly through tax relief things which are better done directly in other ways. It is a problem which arises in connection with every single tax exemption asked for in this house. The hon. member mentioned it briefly but was called to order by the Speaker, so I will not get far into that field. But I think that the logical way for a person to protect himself against unusual medical expenses is by insurance-without saying whether that insurance should be private insurance, company plan insurance or state insurance-just in the same way as most people today cover themselves against the hazard of losing their home and belongings by fire.
Since the last budget, many representations have been made to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and he has studied them. I think perhaps some measure of the necessity for tax changes in any field can be gathered by the amount of correspondence, interviews and briefs which the tax department receives during the course of the year. If that is true, then I would say that the correspondence on this matter of medical expenses received during the last year by the Minister of Finance would indicate a fairly high degree of acceptance of the present

Income Tax Act
regulations. We have received only three briefs-they were from the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Medical Association-asking in a variety of ways for improvements in the present exemptions. We have received formal letters from six government members and two Conservative members asking relief on behalf of some constituent who had had a heavy burden of medical expenses, and suggesting that further relief should be given in the next budget. I know that quite a number of members of all parties as well have spoken either to the Minister of Finance or to myself with regard to this matter.
A variety of proposals have been put forward to the Minister of Finance and to the budget committee and they have already been considered by them, are being considered today and will be considered again before the budget is brought down on April 8. I perhaps could touch on the two or three major ones.
The first suggestion is part of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: Why do we not remove the four per cent average entirely? There are two or three fairly good reasons for that. First of all, four per cent is quite a bit less than the average medical and hospital expenses across this nation, so we are giving some allowance even to average costs. Our main tax exemptions of $2,000 for a married man and $1,000 for a single man are in part to cover usual expenses, such as the usual expenses of food, clothing and transportation. This specific exemption we are now discussing was put in for unusual expenses. Once that door was opened, then of course there would be demands for exemptions of other unusual amounts in the ordinary man's budget. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) raised this proposal of removing or lowering the four per cent item, and pointed out that this would give the maximum help to the little man, the man with just enough income to place him in the income tax bracket.
A point-which I mentioned in the beginning-is the fact that this tax must not only be good in theory and good in the House of Commons but must be good in practice as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned in the collection of the tax and in the verification that there is no abuse through fraud or evasion. When you expect the department to attempt to verify and spot check the endless amount of small bills which will be turned in if all medical expenses are to be deducted, you are imposing on them a large administrative task, and a costly one by reason of the salaries of civil

servants who would have to be employed for what would be a comparatively small tax relief.
A third objection is the fact that in most of these medical schemes it has been found necessary-whether it be a state scheme, a company scheme, or a private scheme-to place some sort of check against too free use, which actually becomes abuse, of the facilities offered. For example, in British Columbia, in connection with the hospital insurance they have had to bring in coinsurance, a small initial charge in hospitals to prevent unnecessary use of hospital beds. Most of the company health insurance schemes in my riding insist that a man pay half the cost of drugs, again to prevent abuse and waste of drugs if provided free. Most of them too make the request for a small payment from the man on his first visit or on his family's first visit to a doctor to check waste of the doctor's time with trivial visits. I think perhaps this present four per cent is in that category, of a check on unnecessary expenditures.
The second proposal raised was this: Why do we not change the top limit and make it a percentage of income on the top as well as on the bottom? For example, deductions not to exceed ten per cent of the taxpayer's income. I think, if that were done, it would of course be of most benefit to those who were in the upper brackets. There is, of course, nothing against that, except that it is a complete reversal of our basic philosophy as far as income tax is concerned, according to which taxes are based on ability to pay, so the higher the income the more the tax payment.
Then the third proposal is that the time has come to raise the present ceiling again. We have raised the ceiling twice now from $400 to $500 to $750 for the single man and from $500 to $750 to $1,000 for the married man. In view of the increased medical costs and fees, increased hospital charges, and increased cost of drugs, perhaps the time has come to raise that level. Then finally there is the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to remove the present top ceiling on deductions completely. I have been discussing this tax from two points of view, namely the actual effect of the tax when levied, and second, the actual administration: Is it feasible and practical? There is certainly no objection to that proposal from the point of view of being practical and feasible, because it would require no more administration than the present collection. But then we want to find out, of course, in giving this exemption, who are

we really going to help? We can certainly And out very quickly how many this would help. We will take into consideration the man most in need, namely the man with four children. I take that example because four children give the maximum exemption allowed. The man with four children would have to earn more than $4,600 a year in order to get any benefit whatsoever from the change from our present ceiling to no ceiling. He would pay no tax at all today with his $2,000 exemption. I looked up the tax statistics of Canada and I find that 87 per cent of the taxpayers of Canada last year earned less than $4,500, a year. Actually 94 per cent of the wage and salary earners of Canada earn less than that. For them therefore this would mean no change. Let us look at the remainder. Who are the remaining people? I suppose you could call them the upper middle brackets and the rich. The upper middle brackets are not going to get much benefit. The man earning from $4,500 to $6,000 or $7,000 is not going to get much benefit because in the first tax bracket he pays only 18 per cent and in the next tax bracket he pays 21 per cent. They are not going to get much relief on such a thing. Let us look at the other end of the scale, the rich man, the man who under our present graduated income tax system, plus the 20 per cent surcharge, finds himself in the top bracket paying 96 per cent tax, if the income is earned, or 100-8 per cent if it is unearned; that is if it is solely from dividends, and interest and rents. Well, a man like that who has worked hard all these years in accumulating the money and who is now probably worrying about losing that money and is now getting on in years, will generally have plenty of real or imaginary ailments. He will have the benefit of the very best medical advice, and probably his doctors will advise him to go south, to California, to Florida, or to some European spa, to rest in expensive sanatoria. His present total exemption for these costs is $2,000, $1,000 if he has no dependent children, and at that age he is not likely to have any. Everything above that he pays himself out of his residue of income. If there is no ceiling, however, he could go on a $10,000 junket to some fine sanatorium in Arizona for five or six months, and spend $10,000 there in approved medical and hospital bills; it would actually cost him only $400 net. The remainder of $9,600 would be money which otherwise would have been collected from him by the Department of National
Income Tax Act
Revenue as income tax to go into those measures so dear to the heart of the hon. member, such as family allowances, pensions and so forth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he in all fairness say in his speech-he may have made it clear already, but I would ask him to do it at this point-that he is now discussing the effect of a change which my resolution does not call for. He dealt, I think, properly and fairly with my proposal that the four per cent floor be wiped out. But that is all my resolution asks for. My resolution does not ask for the removal of the ceiling. I suggested in my remarks that I thought the ceiling should be reviewed, and perhaps raised, but I specifically refrained from suggesting that it be wiped out for the very reason that the parliamentary assistant is now giving.


James Sinclair: Then I am unable to understand what is meant by "the aggregate of their medical expenses" in your resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The aggregate as defined in the act. The only change I ask for in my resolution is the wiping out of the four per cent floor. Surely the wording of my resolution is not open to any other construction. I think I made that clear in my remarks. I said that there were three things to be considered. Two of them I wanted reviewed; but I said very specifically that there was only one change that this resolution is asking for, and that is the removal of the four per cent floor. I do not mind the parliamentary assistant making this case against the complete removal of the ceiling, because I agree with him. I thank him for letting me make that point clear.


James Sinclair: I am so glad to hear that because actually this morning I sought advice on this point and that was the interpretation that I was given of these words "the aggregate of their medical expenses as defined in the act". Medical expenses are defined in the act, certainly, but "the aggregate of their medical expenses", as far as the authorities whom I consulted this morning are concerned, means the total of their medical expenses. If he means medical expenses up to the limits as defined in the act which, as the hon. member pointed out, does not include all expenses, then I do not need to go on much more. I think perhaps I should use the example that I was about to mention, namely, that of the idle rich, the man who is in the top income tax brackets, and whose total income is earned from dividends and interest. That man at the present time pays 100-8 per cent income tax in the top bracket. He can actually earn $80 on his tax account by going

Income Tax Act
down south and spending $10,000 in a sanatorium in Florida, the Department of National Revenue thus losing $10,080 it would otherwise have received in taxes. I itJhink the hon. member did not imply that, but I am afraid that not only I but others who have read his resolution took that interpretation from it. If that is not what the hon. member means, then I can end my remarks right now, but before I do I should like to say that the Minister of Finance accepts this resolution for consideration the way he accepts every letter or brief or interview put forward by any group in the country at this time as a proposal that he should consider in the preparation of his budget which will be delivered to this house on the evening of April 8.
It would of course be improper and wrong for me to say, if I knew, whether any changes will be made, and if so, in what direction the changes will take place. It would be equally futile, I think, to have a very long debate this afternoon on this matter in view of the fact that the minister is quite willing to consider this proposal. Once he has made his budget speech on April 8 there will be ample opportunity for hon. members either to approve or disapprove of the changes, if any, which occur in these exemptions, because we have then first of all the budget debate, then the debate on the resolutions, then second reading and committee stage of the actual income tax bill in which to debate the change or lack of change in this item. Having covered this field, which I would not have done in such detail if I had appreciated that by "aggregate medical expenses" the hon. member meant only those up to the ceilings put in by the Income Tax Act-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary assistant permit me to say that if he did place that construction on my resolution I am glad he did make his remarks because we now have that point cleared up. I can say to him now that I am in complete agreement with what he says about the complete removal of the ceiling, and I take it he would agree with my comment which was that it should be reviewed and perhaps raised-but not abolished altogether. So far as this resolution is concerned, however, all I am asking to be considered is the complete removal of the four per cent floor.


James Sinclair: The Minister of Finance will certainly give further consideration to this and other proposals that hon. members may care to put forward between now and April 7 on the matter of medical expenses.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the hon. member this question. In the course of his remarks he said that through the insurance plans

in Saskatchewan and British Columbia and through various private plans in the country the people were covered. Has he considered the plight of persons who are not living in those two provinces and who are not acceptable to private insurance companies? There are very many such people.


James Sinclair: This speech of mine is getting to be almost a rapprochement between myself and the C.C.F. members. The point I made was to the effect that in Canada on the whole the problem of unusual medical expenses is a diminishing one because of the steady growth of government hospital insurance, company plan and other schemes which directly provide coverage for this hazard, and because of the way in which private life insurance companies are promoting the sale of health and accident policies. But I do agree that there will always be a group in the nation who cannot cover themselves in such fashion-low income and unemployables-but I would point out that that group are not going to be found among the income tax payers; they are going to be found in the group who have not enough income to pay income tax and who are therefore not affected by income tax exemptions.


Mr. Fraser:: Does the assistant to the minister realize that a man or woman over 60 very seldom can get insurance because the insurance companies do not want to take them?


James Sinclair: I quite agree, but that is normal in so far as insurance companies are concerned. Certain people cannot get fire insurance on their premises. That is a factor which is part of the business of insurance, but such people would not necessarily come under this resolution unless they have incomes which put them in the taxpaying brackets.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Many men and women over 60 cannot get insurance.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all to the parliamentary assistant that any eagerness I had to participate in the discussion on this resolution had nothing to do with the order in which we should speak, but merely, judging from things which have happened in this house heretofore, I feared that possibly his remarks might terminate the debate. I should also like to say that I was very much interested in the remarks which he made on the lifting of the ceiling, particularly with regard to the amount of money which a taxpayer might expend in order to earn $80. I do not think the average taxpayer is likely to follow the example of the government and

spend $10,000 to earn $80. It is a little too expensive, and far beyond the reach of the purse of the ordinary individual, and even beyond the reach of the purse of those who have sizeable incomes.


James Sinclair: May I interrupt? The $10,000 which entered into my calculation is a saving of taxes otherwise payable by him. He saves $10,000; he gets $80 on his income tax, and he is $10,080 ahead of where he would be under our present ceiling on exemptions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, he will spend the


James Sinclair: He would pay it in income tax otherwise.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He has to spend $10,000 before he can claim it. It is money out of his pocket. Nobody else paid it for him.


Mr. Rowe:: That is nothing to these fellows.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to say that, with regard to the ceiling, while I agree to some extent with the parliamentary assistant, and also with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, nevertheless these ceilings do create in some cases great injustices. But I am forced to admit that the elimination of those ceilings would also lay the whole situation open to many abuses which the parliamentary assistant enumerated.
I must agree with the mover of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, that the present definitions in the act are too narrow. Any family with growing children is bound to have medical expenses which are a heavy drain on the family budget. These axe ordinary year to year expenses occasioned by the everyday illnesses with which unfortunately we are all afflicted. However, the matter on which I want to speak today is not in connection with these ordinary and expected expenditures. I should like to speak for a few minutes about the situation which arises when any member of a family is stricken with what amounts to a major illness, particularly if that illness results in surgery.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) discussed the tax situation as it affects the taxpayer earning $3,600. I believe he mentioned too that the example he gave would be of a taxpayer with two children. He would have a tax exemption for medical expenses of $1,500, and would be forced to deduct from that $1,500 ceiling the four per cent of net income, or $144. So that instead of having an exemption of $1,500 for medical expenses, he would have an exemption of only $1,356. He would have the exemption, too, only if he produced receipts for these amounts, and indicating
Income Tax Act
that the indebtedness had been incurred and the money paid within the twelve-month period.
The mere fact that the indebtedness was incurred does not give the right to tax exemption. The bills must be paid before the exemption can be claimed. We will suppose that the taxpayer in question incurred medical expenses to the extent of $1,500. Unless he has savings, his income of $3,600 will not permit his paying a medical bill of $1,500 in any one year. Therefore he is forced to spread the payment of the expense over a period of perhaps three years.
What happens? He can deduct in each year only the part he pays in that year. But before he can make the deduction he must take off in each year-not just the first one- four per cent of his income. In other words if he has a major expenditure of $1,500 which he is forced to pay over a period of three years, instead of losing four per cent of his income he loses 12 per cent. In other words he loses four per cent every year for three years. It is clear, then, that on the $1,500 medical expenses he is allowed to claim, not $1,356, which would be the amount if it was all paid in one year, but only $1,068.
If this taxpayer has a good job, or has any security he can put up, it is possible that he can borrow the money from the bank or from some other source. But any borrowing he does results in interest charges, and those interest charges are not deductible, but are personal expenses which he must assume, himself.
Quite apart from the position in which he finds himself in respect of the payment of medical expenses for which he can produce actual receipts, we must consider those nondeductible expenses, some of which have already been mentioned. I refer to expenses incurred by the family by way of transportation costs to and from the hospital, and other necessary expenses. If the person who is ill happens to be the mother, then the services of a housekeeper must be secured so as to take care of the family, and particularly if there are small children.
As has been pointed out, this always results in increased food costs, and increased costs of all kinds within a domestic establishment. Then, one must consider the purchase of medicines which are not included in the act as amended last year. I refer to medicines which are purchased and not, as the parliamentary assistant suggested, charged on hospital bills. No exemption can be claimed for them. Then there are such things as

Income Tax Act
ambulance fees. I have known some cases when an allowance has been made for them, but there are many others where they are not allowed. And in these days, when there is a shortage of hospital space and people are begging for beds, it has become the practice of hospitals to release patients as soon as it is felt they can be returned to their homes safely. In many cases they are returned home while still requiring constant attention.
In that event a nurse-sometimes two of them-would be required to look after the patient in the home. So long as the nurse is serving in the hospital the charge for her board is placed on the hospital bill. However, when she enters the home to care for the patient, no allowance is made for food, and this can be a fairly sizeable amount, particularly with food costs as they are today.
Hon. members who have preceded me in the debate made some comment about funeral expenses. Here again I should have liked to see the resolution broadened to include that item. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, however, when he says that by putting too much in a resolution one is more likely to have it defeated than if the scope is kept within narrow limits.
I have known cases, however, where young women receiving modest salaries have supported a parent or parents through long illnesses incurring heavy expenses, only to have the parent or parents die. Such young women are left with heavy medical expenses still to be paid. They are left with funeral expenses and, more than that, in the following years during which they will be paying off those heavy bills they find their status reduced from the married to the single state. We know that, while a young woman may be single, if she has been supporting a parent she is entitled to exemption as a married person. The result is therefore that instead of the $2,000 exemption she will have an exemption of only $1,000. The same would apply to a widow or widower.


James Sinclair: That applies in the following year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, in the following year; but when the bills are heavy they are not able to pay them in one year. Whether it be a single man or woman left with these bills, whether it be a widow or a widower, he or she is faced with a reduction of status to that of a single person, and a loss of $1,000 by way of exemption, while at the same time assuming heavy bills.
Then I would call the attention of the house to the case of the chronic sufferer, the person
TMrs. Fairclough.]
who goes through many years of life suffering from some ailment necessitating the purchase of expensive medicines. It is true that the act was amended last year to permit an exemption in respect of some expensive drugs commonly used. There are still many people however who require constant care and who use large quantities of expensive medicines which, thus far, have not been allowed as deductions under the Income Tax Act.
All these things should be considered in connection with the resolution, one which I believe should have the support of every member in the house. I do not agree with the parliamentary assistant when he suggests that the incidence of expense has anything to do with principle. The fact that there are fewer and fewer people affected has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether or not this procedure is a just and proper one.
The parliamentary assistant referred to three briefs which had been presented during the past year, and brought attention to the fact that there had been only three. I would suggest that those three briefs covered a wide field of taxpayers. They were not the briefs of individuals. I should think that the brief of the Canadian Congress of Labour would cover a huge field of taxpayers-and taxpayers in the very bracket with which we are most concerned, namely those who are hit hardest by medical bills. I urge strongly the adoption of the resolution.


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is of special interest to me. As hon. members know, a year ago last summer I sustained severe injuries resulting from a motor car accident on a highway in Ontario. Those injuries brought me nearer to death's door than at any other time in my forty years of life.
I must say it is quite an experience to lie in hospital for five months and to consider oneself lucky to be alive while, at the same time, suffering from severe injuries requiring surgery, hospitalization and extensive medical care. During that time in hospital one has time to think, and to realize that, speaking broadly, there are three classes in the community who suffer at a time like that: Firstly, the indigent may be cared for by the municipalities, so they may not be affected to a great extent. Secondly, there are those in the middle income group; quite often these people have to draw on meagre savings when illness occurs. Then thirdly, there are those in the upper income group who do not have to face the problem with which we are concerned here.
I was quite fortunate in my own case. Being a member of the legal profession I

realized the importance of obtaining a good lawyer to look after my affairs. There was insurance on the automobiles involved in the accident and I was able to recover my expenses. But I cannot help thinking that a total of $3,500 in the way of medical and hospital expenses would be a staggering amount for some people to pay. It would be almost impossible for many people in the middle income group.
I was gratified to hear the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Sinclair) speak as he did this afternoon. I think he has done well and I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has done well to give the sympathetic reception which has been given to this resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am gratified further at the indication that this resolution appears to have the unanimous approval of hon. members.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, very often I do not agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but on this occasion I do agree with him. I think he has done well to present this resolution. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) upon the point she made. Being a medical man I know that her remarks were absolutely to the point. I know what happens in cases of long or chronic illness.
Being a member of the medical profession practising in a rural area I know what people are up against. Doctors practising in rural areas are not served by drugstores and they must keep on hand supplies of drugs. When such a doctor is not paid for his services, he loses not only what he would charge for his medical services but also the cost of the drugs supplied. In allowing all medical expenses to be deducted both the people and the doctors would be benefited.
I think I speak for all members of the medical profession practising in rural districts when I say that they are not hard on their patients in enforcing payment of their bills. It is very seldom that they resort to the courts in an effort to have bills paid. As the hon. member for Hamilton West has indicated, they know there are many families who just cannot pay these bills. Once again I want to commend the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the house.
(Translation):


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker I have only a few remarks to make on the motion now before the house; I have absolutely no intention of extending them in the least.' If I rise to take part in this
Income Tax Act
debate it is mostly because of certain comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) on funeral expenses. I rather think that as far as these expenses are concerned, the same principle should apply as in the case of charitable donations.
Medical expenses can legitimately be deducted from our taxable income. I sometimes wonder why funeral expenses cannot be classed as personal exemptions, along with those that are recognized by the Department of National Revenue. It so happens that these expenses quite often follow a long illness which has entailed a great deal of expense.
I well understand that these funeral expenses can be deducted from the taxable portion of estates for succession duty purposes under the Succession Duty Act. I am thinking however of families with four or five children, where the father has only an average income. If, unfortunately, one of the children is sick and if, after an illness of some four or five months, death comes to the family, funeral expenses at that time are a heavy burden on the head of the family. In so far as his income tax is concerned, the father is protected to an extent, in that he can deduct at least part of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of his child, but he cannot follow the same principle with respect to funeral expenses.
On the basis of that same principle, perhaps I might ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to consider the advisability of amending the act so that funeral expenses could be deductible, for income tax purposes, in the same way as medical expenses.
(Text):


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr,
Speaker, this matter has been dealt with at some length and there are only one or two additional points I should like to mention briefly. I refer particularly to the scope of the so-called "medical expenses". I think that the scope is unduly narrow, both for the reasons which have been put forward in the debate this afternoon and for one or two others which I shall mention. I do not pretend that these reasons are new because I have raised them myself and I am sure that other hon. members have raised them in previous sessions.
Parliament has recognized within the definition of medical expenses in the Income Tax Act that deductions should be allowed for certain aids, such as aids to hearing. The much more common aids to sight in the form of glasses are not considered as coming within the scope of medical expenses. I say today, as I have said in previous discussions of this matter in earlier sessions, that it is not fair

Income Tax Act
that spectacles and eyeglasses should not be included within the scope of medical expenses.
This type of expense falls quite heavily on some families. There are some families which because of weaknesses in eyesight are faced with considerable expense for many members of the family, and yet in no ease does the Department of National Revenue recognize expenditures on aids to sight as falling within the scope of medical expenses. That seems to me to be most unfair.
We took a step forward when we acknowledged that aids to hearing should be included. If we admit the principle of including aids to hearing, by what logic can we exclude aids to sight? A very specious answer was given a few years ago by Mr. Ilsley when he was minister of finance to the argument I put forward. He looked up the act and ran his eye down to the marginal note which then read "unusual medical expenses", not "medical expenses", as it does now. He came up with the answer that "unusual" meant unusual in nature, and as glasses were very common, therefore they could not be included within the scope of unusual medical expenses. That was a very far-fetched attempt to answer.
We are not faced with that nonsense in the new Income Tax Act. The marginal note reads simply "medical expenses". In any event the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been much fairer on this subject. When I raised this same matter a couple of years ago he acknowledged, and quite properly so, that when the expression "unusual medical expenses" was used in the marginal note in the Income War Tax Act it meant unusual in amount, namely, in excess of the old five per cent and lately the four per cent, of income, but not unusual in nature.
In approaching this question fairly, therefore, there is no reason in logic why spectacles and eyeglasses should be excluded from the scope of medical expenses.
The second point has to do with drugs. The distinction drawn here is well known to the house. If drugs are prescribed by a physician and included by him in his account, as is the case with most physicians practising in rural localities, the cost of such drugs is admitted by the department as a medical expense. But where a prescription is filled by a druggist, as would be the case with the prescriptions of most city physicians, then the department does not recognize the cost of the drugs as being a medical expense. There is no logic or sense to that distinction. We were reminded today by the parliamentary assistant that if the drugs are supplied in hospital and put on the hospital bill, then

the cost of the drugs will be recognized just as in the case of a rural physician who does his own dispensing. But by what logic do you exclude drugs that are prescribed by a physician who does not fill his own prescription?
The only answer that has ever been put forward in this house on behalf of the government has been that it would present some administrative difficulty, apparently on the theory that druggists who would certify the account for the drugs would perhaps stretch the facts in a good many cases. I have enough confidence in the druggists of this country, and I am looking at a couple of them on the other side of the house now, to believe that, when a druggist certifies, as he would be required to do, the receipted account stating that the drugs were sold in pursuance of a physician's prescription, the certificate should be respected. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the department can justify the blanket exclusion of all such expenses. It seems to me that in a case like that the taxpayer who has incurred perhaps very substantial expenses for drugs should certainly be entitled to bring those outlays within the scope of his medical expenses.
Let no member of this house think that this may be a very small matter, because for many people, particularly those who are sufferers from chronic ailments, the cost of drugs can be very large indeed. I hope that the members in this house have not had too much personal experience in this matter. If they have had an experience of illness in their families involving the prescription of drugs, they will know very well that it does not take long for the expenditure on drugs to exceed the expenditure incurred in connection with the services of the physician.
If you recognize the principle of admitting medical expenses as a deduction, and then acknowledge within the scope of medical expenses drugs which are furnished by a physician or those which are furnished by a hospital, there is no justification for excluding them in the case of those taxpayers whose prescription has been sent to the druggist to be filled there. Those are only matters of common justice, common equity, and no amount of talk about administrative difficulties or distrust of druggists can justify the injustice in those cases.


James Sinclair: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, certainly I, and I am sure the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), never suggested there was any distrust of druggists.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nobody in this debate.


James Sinclair: What was said was that the floor exemption was reduced from five per cent to four per cent of income to cover this cost of drugs without the necessity of bills. At no time did I or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) ever suggest there was any distrust of druggists.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The parliamentary assistant did not suggest it today, but I can take him back to earlier debates in this house in which the previous minister of finance said it would be too easy for the people to bring out long accounts for drugs, in a case where the drugs are not provided by the physician, and impose upon the department.


James Sinclair: That is a very different thing from a distrust of druggists.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it was the very thing he was speaking about. On those occasions the minister of finance said he could not check these receipts. It would be too easy for people to bring along a great many accounts which could not be checked. He said that where they are put in on the doctor's account, then the department has the doctor's certificate.


James Sinclair: Does the hon. member suggest that no accounts should be checked by the Department of National Revenue? Should we take everything on blind trust from everybody in this country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know how far afield the hon. gentleman can wander. He has gone very far afield now. I would hope that there would always be a check. What I have suggested this afternoon is that if you recognize, in principle, a doctor's account containing items for drugs, and you recognize a hospital account including drugs, there is no reason why you should exclude an account for drugs where the prescription has been filled by a druggist and properly certified by a druggist.


James Sinclair: That is included in the exemption, as I have explained for the third time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not included at all. Last year the minister introduced a resolution, which eventually found its way into the statutes providing, by special enactment, that four drugs shall be admitted and recognized for all purposes as being within the scope of medical expenses. These four drugs were singled out, and we argued that the principle should be extended to include all drugs that are properly prescribed, and that are as much medical expenses in principle as any medical service. The principle being acknowledged in these four cases there is no reason in logic for not extending it. As long as the present situation continues as it is, there is unfairness.
Income Tax Act
I rose to make those two points. The other ground has been adequately covered. I hope that this matter will receive early attention on the part of the government.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: The little bit of special pleading which, quite frankly, I should like to do under this resolution, caused me some worry at the start as to whether it would be in order under the terms of the resolution. But in view of the discussion which has taken place this afternoon, I think it is.
The basic purpose of exemption, as I understand it, is to protect those of our taxpayers who may be seriously upset in their budgetary calculations by a sudden attack of sickness with its consequent expense. With that objective I do not believe there is the slightest disagreement anywhere in the house. In its effort to achieve that objective, the government has not been entirely successful. In a district such as the one I represent, those who are the most hard hit in proportion to their incomes and their circumstances are those whom, I admit quite frankly, it will be most difficult for the legislation to cover adequately. My little criticism is in connection with the definition of what is an allowable medical expense. If one were to say that it was an unusual expense caused as a direct result of sickness, then I would not have to raise my particular plea.
I am concerned with those who live in small, isolated communities, and who live many miles and sometimes many days from medical attention. When they are met with unexpected needs for medical attention, the destruction of their budgetary plans is sometimes out of all proportion to the seriousness of the illness which overtakes them. I think perhaps a classical example is one which came to my attention two or three years ago on the Queen Charlotte islands. A man suffered from an infected tooth, and it was essential that he get to a dentist. He got to the dentist and had his tooth pulled at a total cost of either $5.50 or $6; that was his medical expense. To get to the dentist and back cost him over $55, not counting anything for living expenses during the time he waited in the city between boats. This was a small case. Larger cases, and unfortunately there are many of them, are those where the victims of sudden illness or injury have to be flown to medical attention. The cost of such an aeroplane trip is of course never a small item. I realize that there is considerable difficulty in allowing as a deductible item the actual travelling costs incurred in getting medical attention. At the moment, I do not refer to hospitals, but in getting to doctors or dentists.



B28 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Act
If the purpose of this exemption is going to be carried out, I would urge the parliamentary assistant to consider once more this particular angle. I know, Mr. Speaker, that it could, under certain circumstances, lay itself open to abuse. I know that there are great difficulties from the administrative angle, but I submit respectfully to those who are responsible for preparing the budget that administrative difficulties alone is not an adequate defence.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual
experience for a private member of this house to be closing a debate on a private member's resolution in the knowledge that it is going to pass. I take it that it will pass unanimously. Naturally, I welcome that fact with real enthusiasm. I note that, in addition to the acceptance of the resolution which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) has indicated, it has had support from other members of the Liberal party and likewise from members of the Progressive Conservative party. My friends to the left in the Social Credit party, who have refrained from speaking because they did not want to talk out my resolution, have indicated to me that they support it, and every member of my group does likewise. That seems to make it unanimous.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I realize full well that the passing of this resolution does not mean the immediate legislative enactment of what it asks for. The resolution asks for all that a private member, under the rules of this house, can ask for, namely that the government give consideration to the proposal that the four per cent floor in connection with medical expenses in relation to income tax, should be wiped out. I take it that if this resolution is passed, since it has won the support of the government, the government will do what the resolution asks, namely will give consideration to that proposal. Naturally I hope the fact that this resolution is passed unanimously by this house will suggest to the government that that consideration should be favourable. I shall certainly await with interest the section of the minister's budget speech dealing with this matter, when he makes that speech on the night of April 8.
The point that this resolution asks for I think has been made crystal clear in . the debate that has taken place this afternoon. Other points have been mentioned and I hope they will be taken under review as well. I

refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) and the various points raised by others who have taken part in the debate. The particular point that the house is voting on is the request that the four per cent floor be wiped out.


James Sinclair: No, no. I must make this correction. What the house is voting on is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) should give consideration to this proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. The house is voting on the proposition that the minister should give consideration to the wiping out of the four per cent floor. All I was trying to do in what I am now saying was to pinpoint the four per cent matter as distinguished from the others which, in our speeches, hon. members have asked to be reviewed as well.
As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, as I pointed out very clearly in my opening speech, and as he suggested by quoting something the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) had said to him privately, the wiping out of the four per cent floor is the provision that will be of most direct and most immediate help to those in the lower income tax brackets so far as medical expenses are concerned-at least so far as you can deal with the matter in terms of income tax relief. I earnestly hope that the consideration to be given by the government will be favourable and that we shall see the result of that consideration when the budget comes down on April 8.
One other word and I shall close my remarks. It was interesting to me to notice that the parliamentary assistant had the same difficulty that I had in dealing with this question. He too found it impossible to avoid discussing the question of health insurance. I express once again the hope that it will not be long until we shall be getting a nation-wide plan of health insurance in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unanimously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a federal-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) accept the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and which has just been adapted unanimously by the house. I suggest that if the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) can see fit to take similar action with regard to the resolution that I am supporting at the present time, the government will be taking action that will make it easier and easier as the years go by to grant greater and greater exemptions from income tax to the lower income tax groups.
In recent years we in Canada have begun to heal, to some extent, the scars made in our land by the exploitation of our natural resources, but we have not done nearly enough. In my opinion we are proceeding far too slowly if we are going to prevent the continual drain of our renewable natural resources. Without resources of water, timber, and minerals; without dependable supplies of food from good soils; without freedom from floods, dust storms and the wasting of water, our nation cannot remain either strong or great.
It is with that conviction, Mr. Speaker, and with that belief that I present this resolution to the house and urge the government to consider the advisability of calling a federal-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
Quite recently I was reading some old political history and I came upon what I thought was a profound statement by that great statesman and philosopher of a bygone period, Edmund Burke. I found that he once said that a great unwritten compact exists between the dead, the living and the unborn; that we leave to the unborn a colossal financial debt, perhaps inescapable; and that such an inviolate compact requires that we leave to the unborn something more than debts and depleted natural resources. From that reference, Mr. Speaker, we can see that even in the 17th century period those thinkers who thought in advance of the great majority of the people realized that there was a growing depletion of natural resources in England at that time.
Strangely enough, man is the only organism known that lives by destroying the environment indispensable to his survival. In some cases parasites may tend to do this, but their effectiveness for destructive purposes is largely limited because of the
Conservation
absence of intelligence. I repeat that man is the only organism known1 that lives by destroying the environment indispensable to his survival.
Man uses his brain, in many instances, to tear down the environment that supports him. It is only rarely, historically or geographically, that he has learned to stabilize or to rebuild his environment; and only in recent years, to any extent, has he done so. The more civilized man has become, on the whole, the more destructive he has been generally speaking when dealing with the balance of nature and maintaining the balance of renewable natural resources. Wind, water, earth and vegetation have accomplished, between them, during geographic history, the complex system which we term the balance of nature, and which man throughout the years largely has destroyed in his struggle for survival.
Men of the Stone Age left very few scars on the face of nature; but with the advance of civilization, as I said before, the steady deterioration of renewable natural resources has substantially taken place. To such an extent was this so even in the early days of man's history that we find that the prophet Jeremiah, in 550 B.C., said:
Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyards . . . they have made my present lot a desolate waste. . . the whole land is made desolate because no man layeth it to heart.
What the prophet was speaking of in this instance was the destruction of the pastures of the Holy Land through over-grazing by goats and sheep. By this time-in the time of the prophet Jeremiah-the process by which many later civilizations have been weakened, or overthrown, or have disappeared, was fully illustrated.
North China itself, although agricultural since two thousand years before Christ, must originally have been pasture land since ancient manuscripts give indication of that fact. Without a doubt, all China was once well forested.
If you read history carefully, you will find that Greece might have retained her vitality if the original 68 per cent to 70 per cent of mountain forest land had not been drastically reduced to build the great long ships that were used by the Greeks in the Mediterranean. Today less than one-twentieth of Greece is tree covered, and a great deal of the rest of it is almost incapable of cultivation. Poor land usage in every province of the Roman empire contributed to its decline and fall. Owing to deforestation and erosion, not one of the Mediterranean harbours of Asia Minor is any longer commercially useful.
The Libyan and Tunisian deserts, where in 1942 the desert armies fought for water holes

Conservation
100 miles apart, was once the African granary of the old Roman empire. The peasants of India had more food per person three hundred years ago than they have today. In Europe during the middle ages forests were denuded and great erosion commenced as a result of over-pasturing. In fact, in reading history, I find that there are two factors, two actions that have caused a great deal of erosion and loss of soil for agricultural purposes. First is the over-cutting of timber and second is overpasturing.
In Great Britain by 1600 an historian feared that the English woods must disappear within a century because the iron smelters were using so much oak charcoal. In Spain the establishment of the wood industry and the building of huge fleets, such as those that fought the armada, ruined great areas of land and started the Spanish empire on its decline.
Coming to our own continent, North America, we find that when new lands were settled in the 16th century the colonists practised careless destruction of renewable natural resources by the destruction of forests and by poor agricultural practices. By the time railways and cities had been built across the western plains of the United States, much of northern Wisconsin and Michigan was reduced to sandy stump lands. In the old south, persistent cotton cropping wore out and washed away the best soil areas of the coastal states.
Destructive practices in agriculture, lumbering and mining in the United States were I think graphically illustrated and climaxed about the year 1934 when in a single huge sand storm in the great plains of the United States 300 million tons of soil were lifted and moved in less than twenty-four hours.
Canadian experience has been very similar. Destructive lumbering practices in the early days denuded much of eastern Canada of the best forest resources. Unplanned and unscientific development of the prairies laid millions of acres waste and until recent years in British Columbia the forest resources were being rapidly depleted without any consideration for the future. Modern industry depends upon raw materials which are found at or near the earth's surface, the product of unknown ages, and for the most part they are not being reproduced by any natural processes, owing to man's carelessness and man's neglect. Anyone willing to study the literature on this subject, and it is a most interesting literature, will learn many tragic facts from these authorities about formerly fertile hillsides now turned into barren rock, about once irrigated plains now desert, and flourishing civilizations now buried beneath the sands. They will learn that this process,

which devastated Asia and North Africa centuries ago, still continues at the present day in many parts of the western hemisphere, including Canada.
The history of mankind, so far as natural resources are concerned, up to recent years has largely been one of destruction, of waste and consequent desolation. Even as early as 1887 this matter was beginning to concern thoughtful people in Canada. The drifting of prairie soil was the cause of concern to some farsighted Canadians, and in that year a committee of the Senate was established to give consideration to this problem, and the use of the natural resources of Canada. I find on looking over the records of this house that a similar committee of the Senate examined this subject in 1907.
The history of the conservation movement in North America is comparatively brief. It may be said to have been commenced when the late Theodore Roosevelt summoned a conference at the White House in 1908, of the representatives of the states, cabinet members, members of the congress, justices of the supreme court, and many other distinguished men from across the United States. At that conference a declaration of principles was adopted and steps were taken to promote joint action by the federal and state governments, because at that time it was thought effective action could only come as a result of co-operation between the federal government of the United States and the various states of that country.
Following this the late President Roosevelt, recognizing that the principles of conservation of resources are international in scope, invited the representatives of Mexico and Canada to meet at Washington in a joint North American conference, and I understand Canada sent observers to that conference. The conference further endorsed the declaration of principles of the first-called conference, and because I think they are worth placing on the record, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read them to the house. They are as follows:
We recognize as natural resources all materials available for the use of man as means of life and welfare, including those on the surface of the earth, like the soil and the waters; those below the surface, like the minerals; and those above the surface, like the forests. We agree that these resources should be developed, used and conserved for the future, in the interests of mankind, whose rights and duties to guard and control the natural sources of life and welfare are inherent, perpetual and indefeasible. We agree that those resources which are necessaries of life should be regarded as public utilities, that their ownership entails specific duties to the public and that, as far as possible, effective measures should be adopted to guard against monopoly.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that anyone reading this declaration of principles would think

it was written by members of the C.C.F. We in this group agree wholeheartedly with this declaration of principles. It is outlined in terms that we can support fully. I would say that in fact it is a declaration of sound principles. It was not given effect but its purpose was defeated over and over again because in the United States throughout the years, vested interests have been more concerned with profits than with the development of natural resources according to the terms and principles of this declaration. There is improvement in recent years.
As a result of the conference called by the president of the United States, and as a result of proceeding erosion, soil drifting and flooding of various rivers in Canada, the question of conservation became of greater and greater concern to many Canadians, to a number of organizations, and also to various Canadian governments, so that this parliament gave consideration to the whole question in 1909 and passed an act to establish a commission for the conservation of natural resources which received royal assent on May 19, 1909, and by an order in council on the following September 3, 1909, appointed the commission. That was the first major step in Canada with respect to an over-all approach to the question of the conservation of natural resources in this country.
It might be of some interest to the hon. members at this time to know that the father of the present hon. member for Kamloops, the Hon. Frederick John Fulton of Victoria, who was at that time chief commissioner of lands for the province of British Columbia, was appointed as one of the members of the commission established as a result of the act of this parliament. However, owing to the fact that Mr. Fulton could not agree with the railway policy of the British Columbia government of the day, of which he was a member, to guarantee bonds to the tune of $40,000 per mile for the construction of a railway through British Columbia, now the present Canadian National railway to Prince Rupert, he resigned from the government of British Columbia at that time and later as a consequence resigned from the commission on conservation established by an act of this parliament.
As a long-time resident of British Columbia, I remember very clearly the vigorous debate concerning the railway policies of the late Sir Richard McBride's government. While Mr. Fulton felt bound on principle to resign from the government, I must say in fairness to him that he blazed a trail for the development of conservation policies in British Columbia, which has not been
Conservation
recognized by many people outside that province, and is not known to a good many people who reside in the province.
Under Mr. Fulton's stewardship was established the first commission in British Columbia to give consideration to the conservation of forest resources, and for the first time in British Columbia history consideration was given to the conservation of other natural resources. He was responsible for first recommending to a government of British Columbia a system of forest management licences in that province. It is only in recent years that a system of forest management licences has been established as a result of the very excellent report made by Mr. Justice Sloan, who was the royal commissioner on forest conservation a few years ago.
I think this long delay in giving effect to policies that were advocated by a farseeing man in 1906, 1907 and 1908 indicates how long it takes to build up public support for policies that are necessary and that are advocated first by men of vision and of pioneer thought.
The conservation commission functioned from 1909 to 1921. In 1921 it was abolished by an act of parliament. I read a good many of the reports of this commission. I think they did a magnificent job. It is evident from the reports, which are well worth studying, that they made a comprehensive review of the whole situation so far as renewable natural resources are concerned in Canada. Various dominion government agencies have been giving consideration to conservation throughout the years. They include the international joint commission. At this point I want to say I think we are most fortunate in having as the head of that commission the present General McNaughton, who is a first-class scientist, a first-class administrator and a gentleman who is paying strict attention to making certain Canadian interests are protected in every respect.
We have the fisheries research board of Canada, the international fisheries commission, the international Pacific salmon commission. In fairness one should mention that the former member for New Westminster, the present Senator Reid, has done very good work as a member of that commission for Canada.
The royal commission on dominion-provincial relations gave some thought to this question, to a limited extent, although it did not make any lengthy recommendations on the subject. Then, we have had various branches of the old department of mines and resources that did some work along these

Conservation
lines. Within the scope of legislation under its control, the Department of Agriculture is practising conservation of waters under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
The Department of Resources and Development is doing very good work at the moment. The national film board has played a very capable and useful part in developing an understanding and appreciation of the necessity for the use of conservation principles in the development of our natural resources.
In addition, there have been various provincial government agencies and various departments of provincial governments, including provincial game commissions, working on various problems, as well as the work carried on by all the universities across Canada. A great deal of publicity is being given, particularly by certain weekly newspapers that appeal to the farming population. In this connection I would refer, too, to magazines published for farmers, the forestry industry, sportsman and other magazines of that type that, throughout the years, have given a great deal of publicity to the need for a policy of conservation in this country.
In addition to government agencies there has been a great deal of interest on the part of organizations of the people, the type of interest which always produces excellent results. When the people interest themselves in their own problems they usually get something done. The Canadian forestry association, which has had a long life, planned the first forestry congress in 1906, which was called at the instigation of the prime minister of Canada. This organization has done a vast amount of work for the development of policies that would result in the conservation of our forest resources, the discussion of forestry problems across the country, and an understanding of those problems.
The agricultural institute of Canada has taken a great interest in the conservation of soil and water resources, and the proper utilization of farm lands, and has suggested a national policy on soil and water conservation, and land use.
I might point out that first we had the Canadian forestry association suggesting a national congress. We had the agricultural institute of Canada suggesting a national policy on soil and water conservation and land use. Then in 1941 we had a further development as a result of public interest in this important matter. In that year the Canadian conservation association was organized, and representatives from most of the provinces were in attendance. This organization has

done some very effective work in this connection. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture throughout the years has taken a vital interest in these problems. The professional forest engineers association, the game and fish organizations in all the provinces, the rod and gun clubs, Ducks Unlimited, the men of trees organization, the women's institutes- all these have done good work. Then, the work of Jack Miner is known internationally, in connection with the habits of migratory birds.
The Canadian Congress of Labour has been interested in this subject throughout the years, and has passed resolutions indicating concern of the workingman in industry in respect of conservation policies. Only today representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada met representatives of the government, and included in their representations one for the development and conservation of our natural resources. The report of the congress had this to say in part:
We also hold it imperative that our natural resources be conserved in order that the most efficient use may be made of them now and in the future. We especially urge your government to protect the salmon fishing grounds in the west coast areas, as well as our resources of iron, oil, and forests. We request full protection of all Canadian fishermen, and fishing rights in all waters.
Canadian chambers of commerce, industry and many other organizations have been interested in this matter throughout the years. And so we have in Canada the groundwork laid for a great movement that will be concerned about greater development, so far as conservation in this country is concerned.
Realizing the work done by governments, by industry, by organizations, and by individuals in Canada, I was a bit shocked when, taking up the issue of September 13 of the Family Herald and Weekly Star, I saw the following news item:
Dr. Taggart, Not Pessimistic
"I am not one who takes too seriously the pessimistic view that we are in danger of exhausting our soil resources or that we may face hunger," said Dr. J. G. Taggart, Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Canada, when he addresed the directors' luncheon on agriculture day at the Canadian National Exhibition. He added that we must have conservation measures but that we "do not need to radically change our farm practices to save our soil and ourselves."
This is so contrary to much popular thinking that Dr. Taggart proceeded to buttress his proposition that the Canadian farmer is doing at least as good a job as any other class in our economy. He pointed out that the history of agricultural development in any new region starts with the exploitation of the soil. As population increases, practices change to conserve the soil and increase productivity. He instanced western Europe where crop yields reached a low ebb but. in the past 100

years, have almost doubled, largely due to good soil practices and the large use of commercial fertilizer.
I was greatly surprised when I read that article because, as I read it, it means that the deputy minister is not over-concerned about the depletion of our soil resources. It would seem that the condition according to him would be permitted to develop to a certain point, and then we would spend much greater sums to bring those resources back to fertility and to their former condition. To my mind that is a somewhat unusual position for a gentleman like the deputy minister of agriculture to take, in view of the representations made by agricultural institute of Canada, which has had a committee dealing with this subject for two or three years. That committee is composed of some of the best agricultural scientists in this country, who are highly qualified to deal with the problem.
I wish now to make a few suggestions as to how conservation can be made more effective by government action. The conservation of renewable natural resources covers a vast field and many diverse problems which in my opinion require co-operative efforts for success. Conservation, which means simply wise management and the wisest utilization of our natural resources in perpetuity, will become effective only when its principles become a part of the thinking of every person working on the land and in the woods, or with the products thereof. In my opinion, to accomplish this purpose the government has a basic responsibility. And when I say "government" in this connection I include dominion, provincial and municipal governments, because all human activity as expressed by government organizations affects either the management or the utilization of one or more of our renewable natural resources.
Therefore if we are going to have effective action, it requires now-not years from now -that the federal government should give effective leadership, so that there will be co-ordination, direction and guidance. I believe the federal government should give leadership in establishing standards. There are several things the government can do. Because of its central authority, it could give leadership by calling in other governments with a view to stimulating interest in national conservation.
I shall deal with only a few of the actions it could take. First of all, it should establish standards for the conservation of our natural resources. The time has arrived for co-operative action by dominion and provincial governments to establish those standards. It 55704-53
Conservation
is the obvious responsibility of this government to establish sound standards of management and utilization of natural resources, as a result of scientific advice and investigation. It should establish those standards for the proper cropping and protection of our forest resources, for the establishment of soil management and soil use standards, for sound grazing policies, and so as to have co-ordinated plans for irrigation, flood control, navigation and power development, as well as a policy for preventing the erosion along the banks of our rivers and streams. That is the first essential. What are we aiming at? What are our standards in respect of these aspects of conservation? Government must set the target.
Then the next important matter is that of research. Another obvious responsibility of governments, both federal and provincial, is to encourage and to finance research work in the conservation field, and to co-ordinate these activities with the work of public organizations and individuals.
At this point I wish to say that I think we are most fortunate in having, in our Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), a man with the advantages of youth, energy and scientific training, as well as having at heart the interests of the people. He has all the attributes required to take effective action along the lines I am suggesting.
I think we are also fortunate in our deputy minister of resources and development. Major General Young is a gentleman with a first-class mind and possessing great administrative and organizing capacity that has been proven. I am sure that if he were given the opportunity through action taken by this government we would see our conservation policy move at a faster pace and develop at a greater rate.
I was glad to note from a communication I received from the deputy minister that the department already has concluded agreements with four of the provinces for the sharing of the costs of taking a forest inventory. That is an excellent first step. When you consider the action that has been taken since the present forestry act came into effect I think you will agree that the minister deserves credit for giving effect to this legislation at a little faster rate than some other ministers have done and a lot faster than some of the ministers have done who have had control of natural resources in the days gone by.
I think the governments, both federal and provincial, should give some guidance in the way of education. The government should develop a co-ordinated educational program

Conservation
aimed at developing the interest and co-operation of all Canadians from early school days on. Every Canadian hoy and girl should be engrained with an appreciation of the value of the natural resources of this country. I think the government could do a lo't in obtaining the co-operation of the departments of education across Canada as well as of the universities. There should be a wider measure of co-operation among the universities, the departments of education and all government agencies directly responsible for the application of natural resources policies.
I think more publicity should be given to the work of the Department of Resources and Development. This is a most important department of government under present conditions. When we think of the work of the minister's officials and scientists, the highly trained men working in the engineering and water resources branch, in the administration of lands division, in the parks division, in the forestry branch, in the forestry research division, in the forest operations division, in the forest products laboratory and so on, we realize how little people know of the good sound work being done throughout the years.
I am reminded of a poem which I memorized about 1906 when I was a boy. I think of two lines of Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard," when I think of the work done by these scientists and highly trained men which goes unnoticed and unsung. The lines I remember are:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
More should be done to give publicity to the work of the department. I think much could be done by the national film board to popularize this matter. The co-operation of the press could be obtained to a greater extent. Then finally is the question of law enforcement. I think there would be great advantage in dominion-provincial co-operation in the establishment of uniform law enforcement. This uniform law enforcement could apply also to the shooting of game and other wildlife, the catching of fish, and trapping.
There is great need at this time for the co-ordination of all the activities of government at all levels along with public organizations, various provincial departments and other organizations such as I have mentioned already. We should get the farmers, the labour organizations, industry, the women, the technical organizations and the youth of this country working together with understanding to support a co-ordinated national conservation policy.

In conclusion I would suggest that the estimates of the Department of Resources and Development should be submitted to the committee on mines, forests and waters, not from a critical standpoint but so that the members of that committee would have an opportunity to call in the officials of the department and learn more about the excellent work being done. I think it would be of value to hon. members to hear from the minister and his officials of the work that has been done, that is being undertaken and that is being proposed.
In my opinion members of this house and the Canadian people generally are insufficiently informed of the importance of the work being done by this department. I believe in the urgency and importance of this matter and therefore I have spoken at some length. May I close with an earnest plea for recognition by the members of this house of the great need for some action at this time. There have been centuries of universal waste and the time has come in Canada to set up a national policy for the conservation of our natural resources based on the principle of co-operation between the dominion and the provincial governments and all the people of Canada.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) urges the government to consider the advisability of calling a federal-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest, and water conservation and land use for Canada. This is perhaps one of the most important subjects that this house could deal with. At the outset I wish to thank the hon. member for the kind things he has said about the officials of the Department of Resources and Development. I am sure they will be grateful to him for that encouragement.
In reply to his suggestion that the people of Canada should be given a greater opportunity to know what the department is doing, perhaps I should take this opportunity to review some of the fields in which this department and other departments of government have been working in an effort to bring about a greater conservation of Canada's renewable resources.
I doubt if there is any difference of opinion throughout the country as to what this policy should be. There has been a sequence of conferences, both between federal and provincial governments and among other groups concerned with this problem, stretching back for many years, and there have been many

speeches and statements by leaders of all political parties and by representatives of industry, forestry associations, farmers and many others on this matter. Running through all these has been unanimity that our policy in regard to forest, soil and water resources- all of which are renewable resources-must be to encourage their best utilization consistent with maintaining them on a sustained yield basis. That is, we must see to it that the annual depletion of these resources, whether by cropping or by wastage through fire, flood or disease, is not greater than their replenishment, either by natural process or by human assistance, such as reforestation, fertilization, etc.
There is a wide general knowledge, too, of the interrelation of our various natural resources with each other. I think it is generally understood that the degree of forest cover affects the speed of the water run-off and the level of the water table in areas far distant. A fast run-off can cause floods that will wash away thousands of acres of fertile soil and will result in a disastrous shortage of water at other times of the year. Falling water tables make it harder and harder to get water needed for cattle, agricultural irrigation, and household and industrial uses.
I do not think there is any lack of public understanding of the urgency for a conservation policy or of the necessity for achieving such a policy. The problem is a complex one. It stems in part from the fact that the development of resources on sound conservation standards is not always compatible with the optimum and immediate realization of profit. It is probably true that conservation does over the long run produce the maximum profit from resources, but as Lord Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead". It may be difficult, therefore, for even the most public-spirited board of directors or individual operator to adopt, beyond a point, costly measures of development merely for the purpose of preserving our natural resources for the use of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They are apt to point out that these higher costs, if carried by the industry, must ultimately be borne either by the consumers of the product through higher prices or by the owners or operators of the resources through lower profits. But it is more comforting to face a future with even high-priced resources rather than no resources at all.
There is, I believe, pretty wide public acceptance of this general principle that some of the costs of conservation should be borne by the taxpayers generally, but there is room for considerable discussion on two points concerning its application. The first is the extent to which it should be applied, the 55704-531
Conservation
degree to which the taxpayer should carry the burden of conservation. The second is the determination of what proportion of the burden should be borne by private enterprise, and what should be carried by the taxpayers of the province on the one hand and by the taxpayers of the whole country on the other. In other words, how much of the government contribution to conservation costs should be made by the provincial and municipal governments concerned, and how much by the federal government. Problems such as these are usually best solved by dealing with each case on its own merits, rather than by trying to lay down general principles because the surrounding conditions tend to vary so widely from case to case.
As hon. members realize, the federal government has assisted, and does on many occasions assist, the provincial governments in conservation projects. It may be helpful if I refer to some of the more important recent occasions, and the principles on which the federal government participated. I shall deal only with those projects concerning forestry and flood prevention, because the matter of soil conservation is more appropriately a matter for my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I need only mention the valuable service to Canada rendered by the minister and his department through the medium of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. The latter has already paid dividends in my own part of the country.
First I should mention what has been done under the Canada Forestry Act. This act was passed in 1949 and provides, among other things, for the federal government to enter into agreements with any province for the protection, development or utilization of forest resources. Of course defence expenditures must be given priority, but the importance the government attaches to this matter of conservation was indicated when on May 2, 1951, I was able to announce in this house that the federal government was prepared to enter into agreements with the provincial governments for completing reliable forest inventories and in encouraging reforestation. I pointed out at that time that a forest inventory is essential before a sustained yield policy can be successfully planned. It is impossible to determine whether your stock position is improving or worsening unless you know what your inventory is from time to time. I stated then *that reforestation is badly needed in certain areas which will not regenerate themselves naturally, and where forest cover is necessary

Conservation
not only for the development of forest products but also in the interest of floor control, soil conservation, et cetera.
Forest inventory agreements have been signed during the fiscal year 1951-52 to date with six provinces

New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia. They are five-year agreements, under which the federal government agrees to pay to the provinces 50 per cent of the cost of completing inventories of the provincial resources, and 50 per cent of the cost of maintaining the inventories when completed. Three of the six agreements-those with Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia-include agreements for undertaking reforestation. In addition, a reforestation agreement has been signed with Prince Edward Island.
These agreements provide that the annual federal contribution to each province for reforestation will be equal to either 20 per cent of the province's expenditure for this purpose or the amount by which the provincial expenditure for the current year exceeds the average for the past three years, whichever is the lesser; and in addition the federal government will pay 20 per cent of the cost of the establishment of any new provincial forest nursery.
When planning these agreements a federal-provincial conference was held in May, 1951, and was attended by forestry officials from each of the ten provinces and from the federal government. It is expected that a similar conference will be held in the not too distant future to consider future programs.
Other fields in which the federal government has made valuable contributions to forest conservation are forestry research and forest products research. Forestry research is carried on in Ottawa and through five district offices and five forest experimental stations situated in different regions throughout the country. It covers silviculture and forest management, forest inventories, and fire protection research. Such research is essential toward providing solutions to many problems encountered in improving forest management.
Forest products research is undertaken in two forest products laboratories, one in Ottawa and one in Vancouver. It covers such fields as wood utilization, wood preservation, timber mechanics and wood chemistry. There is in addition an experimental sawmill in Ottawa. The importance of forest products research should not be overlooked, because if conservation is to be thorough it must not

be limited to the growing forest, but must cover the utilization of all parts of the tree, the preservation of wood and wood products, the substitution as far as possible of more common woods for those less common, and so on.
I would also like to mention the work of the eastern Rockies forest conservation board. This board was established in 1947 by agreements between the government of Canada and the province of Alberta. It has jurisdiction over an area of more than 8,600 square miles covering the upper portions of the South Saskatchewan river and its tributaries. Briefly stated, the purpose of the board is to protect and develop these lands so as to maintain the most desirable conditions for watershed management. It is hoped thereby to reduce the peak of flood waters in the spring and maintain the maximum flow during the summer. The agreement covers a period of twenty-five years and provides among other things for the expenditure of $6,300,000 voted by the parliament of Canada for capital improvements during the first six years. The agreement also provides for an annual appropriation, not exceeding $300,000, for maintenance and other current expenditures.
In this connection, too, we must not forget the value of the national parks, particularly those in the Rocky mountains, in conserving the forest cover which protects the watersheds of some of Canada's most important rivers.
I am sure that hon. members will expect me to say a word about the valuable role being played in the field of conservation by private enterprise. Many of our leading manufacturers of pulp and paper today, as well as the enlightened operators of sawmills, have already achieved sustained yields in their forestry operations. Because of large timber limits required, sustained yield is not always possible, but the spirit of progress and enlightenment is certainly permeating the field. Private enterprise now forms one member of the team with governments in the over-all field of conservation for the benefit of our generations as yet unborn. I would like to say more about what is being done to develop and conserve Canada's resources, but, since it is six o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: As announced last
night, tomorrow we shall proceed with the motion of the Minister of Finance for the

house to resolve itself into committee of supply, and the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). If this debate is concluded, we shall call the three departments I announced before, and ask unanimous consent of the house to proceed with interim supply and the further supplementary estimates which were tabled yesterday.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to proceed
Business of the House
with interim supply and the further supplementary estimates on Friday if they are not concluded on Thursday?


Alphonse Fournier: We had discussed
having those on Friday if we do not complete this debate on external affairs tomorrow. If that is the case, on Friday we would ask leave to proceed with interim supply and the further supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 27, 1952