1954-01-18

PRIVILEGE


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday at a time when debate was taking place on a motion presented by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) certain discussion took place in connection with references to a report which had been made to that department. I raise this question of privilege because of the interpretation which has been placed upon the statement made by the Postmaster General by different newspapers and which might reflect in some way upon the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) and the manner in which this information came into his possession.
I might say that the comment made by the minister would appear to fully justify the interpretation placed upon it; but I see, for instance, a report in the Ottawa Journal under the heading "Postmaster Plays Host Unawares". Merely to indicate that that was the general impression, the other newspapers picked it up. I see in the Hamilton Spectator of Saturday, January 16, this heading, "Postmaster Cote Pained, Surprised..."
That refers to a statement made by the Postmaster General on Friday after the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace had made certain references to the contents of a report made to the department by J. D. Woods and Gordon. These are the words of the Postmaster General appearing on page 1175 of Hansard of January 15 and referring to the statements which had been made by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace:
I think my hon. friend is a little unfair. After all, I opened the door of my office and he spent the whole day there.
Half humorously and half seriously one of the newspaper reports I read created the impression that a new member in his innocence had almost stumbled on information which had not previously been available. Certainly the information was not previously available but there was no question of his 83276-76
stumbling on it. Certainly there was no question of his using information that had not been available in any manner that did not justify its use. I think it would be most unfortunate if public impressions were left or taken from the Hansard record that there was the slightest impropriety or unfairness on the part of the hon. member.
I think that this is of sufficient importance that I should refer exactly to what took place. On Thursday, January 14, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, in an earlier discussion of this motion, said, and I quote from page 1119 of Hansard of that day:
I would suggest that if the minister feels so inclined he might be brave enough to let us have access to the Woods, Gordon report to which he has referred. As I understand it, that was a study of certain aspects of the operation of the post office, and I believe it has never been tabled in the house.


Mr. Cote:: It was a managerial report. We only have a few copies, but if my hon. friend will come to my office I will be glad to let him see it.


Mr. Hamilton:: I think we might get a great deal of interesting information from it and I shall be delighted to see it. Thank you for the offer.
I would point out that the word "we" appears twice. I suggest that it was not to be supposed that the hon. member was referring merely to a period of entertaining reading to divert himself for a while. It was quite clear that he had a definite purpose in mind and it was information in connection with the motion that he sought.
As the result of that offer by the Postmaster General he visited the office of the Postmaster General. He was not able to complete his investigation on his first visit and he sent a note to the Postmaster General, the original of which I have in my possession. It was written by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace; he asked for an answer and the answer was placed on the original note. It is on House of Commons paper and reads:


Alcide Côté: I would like to work on the Woods Gordon report again this afternoon. Would you be again good enough to have it made available for my use in your office in the Langevin building this afternoon, starting immediately.
Thanks a lot.
Bill Hamilton
P.S. Would you please confirm this is O.K. to me.



H. HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Privilege-Mr. Drew
It was returned with the word "Yes" written on it and the initials of the Postmaster General. Pursuant to that, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) visited the offices of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) with a stenographer and in the presence of the secretary of the Postmaster General proceeded to dictate further notations from that report, all of which was known to the secretary of the Postmaster General and to the office staff. It was from these dictated memoranda, taken from this report with its various recommendations, that the hon. member made his statement, and I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is more than just perhaps taking exception to an implication of unfairness. I suggest it goes a great deal further. Far from the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace having stumbled on something, this new member has demonstrated his very great efficiency as a member of parliament and has obtained information that should have been here all along.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is only one way to end any suggestion of unfairness and that is for the Postmaster General to table the report. I regret being called upon to bring this up in his absence this afternoon but I believed it was necessary that I should do so, because I did not feel it was appropriate that this impression be conveyed any further through the press, quite properly as far as the press is concerned, in the light of the words that have been used. But to the assistant to the Postmaster General or the minister who may be acting for him I would direct the request that they should table the report which covers the administration of the many things that should be done to save money, and that this be tabled so that, before we have second reading of this measure, we may know something of what the situation really is in the Post Office Department and be able to find out exactly what has been done to meet the recommendations which have been made for substantial savings in the Post Office Department, before we are called upon to approve of this increase in the postage rates of this country.
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has correctly described what took place. Here was a confidential report made to the minister in respect to the administration of his department. A member expressed some interest in it and the Postmaster General allowed him to see it. I think that most of us who have been here for some time do find it rather surprising that a confidential document having been made available to the hon. member in that way was then used, or

extracts from it cited textually in this house, without there being any indication to the minister that there was any intention to make such use of that confidential document.
As to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the document be tabled, that would be contrary to the general practice. It has always been the practice of governments to get all the information and advice they find it appropriate to secure for the better administration of the departments for which they have responsibility, and it has never been the practice to table those documents. They are not prepared for the purpose of being a subject for discussion in the house. The minister is responsible for the administration of his department and he is entitled to get expert advice as to how the administration can be improved. But it is not the report that can be the subject of debate in the house, it is the way in which the department is administered; and I do not think there is anything unfair in the suggestion of the Postmaster General that he was surprised that a confidential document, having been communicated in that way, should have been made the object of textual citation in a debate in this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since the discussions on a matter of this kind become part of the record of the house, I think I should point out that this is not a confidential document in the sense of a document that is under restriction on the ground of security or something of that kind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: And I would point out that I am unable to see any difference between this document and the Currie report, which was voluntarily tabled by the Department of National Defence last year. I recognize it has been contrary to the practice of this government to table these reports unless they are forced to do so in some way, but I think that practice should be changed and that report should be tabled and tabled forthwith.


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a comment on this because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the first place, If I may be allowed to say so, this question should have been raised by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. That should have been his question, but the Leader of the Opposition chose to raise it himself and I saw that the house was interested in his remarks and therefore allowed him to proceed. I figured that it did not make so much difference at this point since it was raised by the leader of the party to which the

hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace belongs. But, in correcting an impression left by a newspaper, one should not-it being a so-called question of privilege-do more than is necessary to make the correction. But the Leader of the Opposition suggested the report be tabled and in the very last moment of the debate we were not talking about the matter in which the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace was involved. The matter which was being debated was whether or not the report should be tabled. I think that is a question which could be raised at a later stage. I do not think we should interrupt our proceedings any longer for the purpose of discussing whether the report referred to should be tabled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Just one moment. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this observation, not to debate in any way the point you have made, but since this will become part of the permanent record of the house I would point out that what I am referring to is a question of procedure which affects all members, and my own submission is that it was an appropriate course for me or any other member to rise on the question of principle in regard to the propriety of using information obtained in the way the information was obtained on this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a point on which the Leader of the Opposition and I disagree at this time. Does the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) wish to speak?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to a question of privilege which I suggest is important since it affects the possible course of action of members in dealing with information of this type. It is in that connection that I think the position should be clarified, if not now, certainly at some future time, because my own connection with this matter is that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace came to me on the same day he went to the Postmaster General's office, and we discussed together the question whether or not it was proper for the hon. member to use in the house extracts which he might obtain from that report.
It is that aspect of the matter which I think is of importance to every hon. member. In the course of our discussion it was my suggestion that I certainly would follow this course myself unless some ruling or authority was laid before us which indicated that it was not proper. I suggested to him that unless the Postmaster General laid down some conditions under which he would permit the hon. member to see the report, or 83276-76 J
Privilege-Mr. Zaplitny unless the report itself were marked confidential, I felt that any hon. member who says in the house "I want to see a report", and is given access to that report, is entitled to repeat in the house what he finds in that report.
In view of what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said about some surprise being felt that a report made available under these conditions should be quoted from, I think this is a matter that hon. members are entitled to have threshed out. My own view is, as I have said, that unless there is a condition clearly laid down as to the terms on which the report will be made available, or unless the report itself is marked confidential, then an hon. member should be free to quote from it once he has seen it.



MR. ZAPLITNY  REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT CONCERNING AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE

Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Winnipeg Free Press of January 15 issue carried a news item attributed to the Canadian Press.
The item refers to the government's proposal with regard to the indemnities of the members of this house and the salaries of the cabinet ministers and the leader of the official opposition. In referring to the indemnities of members of parliament, this news item states that the members, in addition to the indemnity of $4,000 and the expense allowance of $2,000, also receive an automobile allowance of $2,000 annually. This statement, of course, is obviously incorrect. Only members of the cabinet and the Leader of the Opposition receive the automobile allowance.
I raise this question in order that the public may have the correct facts in view of the lively interest in this question now being displayed in newspapers across Canada.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Patterson:: 1.	Has the government, in previous years, made any grant or grants to the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society?
2.	If not, is the government considering the advisability of making any such grant, or grants this year?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Yes. In 1948-49 a grant of $60,238 was made under the national health grants program to the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society to assist it in getting organized.

Questions
The provincial branches of the society also received grants funds, as follows: 1948-49, $19,029; 1949-50, $14,126; 1950-51, $54,807; 1951-52, $47,644; 1952-53, $49,983; 1953-54, $135,926, (estimated).	.
2.	See answer to No. 1 above.



ARMED FORCES ENLISTMENTS

Mr. Harkness:: How many men enlisted in each of the years 1951, 1932 and 1953. into the (a) Royal Canadian Navy; (b) active forces Canadian army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force, had prior service with sea cadets, army cadets services and air cadets?


Mr. Blanchette:: Figures for 1951 are not available. The following number of men enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army active force and the Royal Canadian Air Force with service in the sea cadets, army cadet services and air cadets:
	1952	19531
R.C.N	
391	184Army 	
734	421R.C.A.F	
715	5321,840	1,137
^Figures for 1953 are for the period January 1 to September 30.



TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL GRANT

Mr. Proudfoot:: 1.	What effect, if any, has the federal tuberculosis control grant had on the lowering of the tuberculosis death rate in Canada?
2.	What factors, if any, may have contributed to this decline?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	The moneys made available by the federal government under the tuberculosis control grant have made it possible for the provinces to expand more rapidly their existing services and to establish new services of various kinds where these are deemed desirable.
The death rate from tuberculosis has dropped from 37-3 per 100,000 population in 1948 to 17-1 per 100,000 population in 1952.
2.	(a) Early diagnosis through increased mass X-ray surveys, widespread hospital admission chest X-ray examinations, and increased use of B.C.G. vaccine.
(b) More and better treatment facilities such as provision of extra hospital beds, the free distribution of streptomycin and other

related drugs supplied to sanatoria, and the increased use of newer surgical methods of treatment.
All these factors have been assisted by the use of moneys made available to the provinces under the national health grants program.



PRIVATE FREDERICK JOSEPH BURKE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the report of the inquest into the death at Fetawawa of the late Private Frederick Joseph Burke, been studied by officials of the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	Have any reports of such studies been made? If so, what is contained in such reports?
4.	Have any orders been issued as the result of such studies? If so, what are such orders?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By senior officials responsible for personnel, disciplinary and medical matters.
3.	Yes. The contents of reports made by officials within the department for departmental use are confidential and privileged.
4.	Yes. Assault courses as a form of exercise and training for personnel in detention barracks have been discontinued.



PAUL RICKEY

Mr. Diefenbaker:: Has the government given consideration to recommending to Her Majesty the Queen that she confer an appropriate honour or decoration on Paul Rickey of Winnipeg, Manitoba, for his courageous conduct during the month of December?


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer this question orally. Following news of the precautionary landing north of Winnipeg on December 21 of pilot Paul Theodore Rickey, and his subsequent gallant behaviour in protecting his passengers, I proceeded to recommend to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that consideration be given to an appropriate award being made to pilot Rickey in recognition of his courage and resourcefulness under extremely difficult conditions. The Secretary of State has agreed to refer the recommendation to the awards co-ordination committee for consideration.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, ORDERS IN COUNCIL

John George Diefenbaker: How many orders in council have been passed under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, since the 1st day of April, 1953?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: One.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL, 1952 AND 1953 Mr. Diefenbaker:
How many orders in council have been passed in each of the years 1952 and 1953?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 1952 1953
Orders of the governor in council 4578 2033 Minutes of the treasury board approved by the governor in council	 4974 2045
Questions



NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN


Mr. Cavers:: 1.	Have any major cities in Canada received assistance under the national health program towards the operation of city health services?
2.	If so, what were the grants and services for each city?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The health departments of the following cities have been assisted as follows:
City	Total grants	During period	ServicesHalifax	$ 601	1952-54	Health education19,276	1951-52	Poliomyelitis programQuebec	127,906	1950-54	Child and maternal healthToronto	95,789	1949-54	Mental health20,216	1949-54	Tuberculosis ease-finding53,101	1949-54	Preventive orthodontic service32,815	1949-54	School audiometric service41,092	1951-54	Pilot demonstration in public healthWinnipeg	105,215	1949-54	Mental health49,709	1949-54	Chest X-ray surveys126,293	1949-54	Sanitation, food and dairy inspection34,306	1951-54	Public health nursing9,589	1948-53	Nutrition6,546	1950-54	School healthSaskatoon	49,679	1948-54	Public health nursing2,442	1948-54	Infant hygiene32,213	1948-54	School healthRegina	32,953	1949-54	Public health nursing3,968	1952-54	Sanitation16,525	1949-54	Mental health3,947	1953-54	Child healthCalgary	37,337	1949-54	Public health nursing15,082	1949-54	Preventive dental service14,751	1950-54	School health1,763	1953-54	SanitationEdmonton	28,662	1950-54	Public health nursing10,602	1950-54	Sanitation2,569	1952-54	Preventive dental service18,160	1952-54	School health servicesVancouver	28,811	1948-54	Health statistics75,633	1948-54	Mental hygiene76,657	1948-53	Tuberculosis rehabilitation103,262	1948-54	Dental hygiene131,483	1948-54	Public health nursing15,099	1948-54	Child health1,751	1948-52	Public health education6,063	1948-52	School health services90,166	1948-54	Environmental sanitation25,591	1948-54	Nutrition



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.-EQUIPMENT AND COST

Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with the government telegraph and telephone system in British Columbia and the
Yukon:
1.	How many telephones are there in use on the whole system?
2.	How many exchanges, with how many switchboards respectively, and where is each located?
3.	How many poles?
4.	How many miles of wire?
5.	How many miles of copper wire?

Questions
6.	What is the net cost (installed) of the above totals of telephones, exchange switchboards, poles (with insulators and pole hardware) and wire respectively?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this question and the one following have heretofore been on the order paper and I have answered them by writing to the hon. member at some length. I now have with me the answers which I should like to table but I should like to say that the answers do not contain all of the information included in the letter which I wrote to my hon. friend. However, they are an attempt to answer the questions to the best of the ability of my officers. My understanding with the hon. member was that if I would proceed to answer these questions in that manner, he would then withdraw the notice of motion which appears on the next page. Subject to that understanding I now table the answers to these two questions.
1.	4,720 as of 30 October 1953.
2.	Exchanges are located at the following points (where multiple switchboard positions are in operation the actual number is indicated after the place name): Alert Bay, Alexis Creek, Alice Arm, Ashcroft, Bamfield, Bella Coola, Burns Lake, Clinton (2), Fort St. James, Gibson's Landing, Hazelton, Kelsey Bay, Kildonan, Lillooet, Lytton, Massett, 100-Mile House, Port Alberni, Port Clements, Port Hardy, Port Renfrew, Queen Charlotte city, Quesnel (2), Sechelt, Smithers (3), Terrace (2), Tofino, Ucluelet, Vanderhoof, Wells, Williams Lake (2).
3.	There are 3,150 miles of pole line at approximately 35 poles per mile-110,250.
4.	17,661.
5.	11,354.
6.	Separate net cost of telephone plant not available.



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.-REPEATER STATIONS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Are the repeater stations on the northern British Columbia and Yukon lines of the government telegraph and telephone system included in the sale of the said system to the British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian National Telegraph Company?
2.	If so, to which company will they be sold?
3.	By whom will they be operated?
4.	How many such stations are there, where are they located, and when were they built, respectively?
5.	What was the total cost of construction?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian National Telegraphs, 4; British Columbia Telephone Company, 3.
3.	Canadian National Telegraphs, 4; British Columbia Telephone Company, 1.

4.	7; One each at 150-Mile House, Bella Coola, Kleena Kleene, Prince George, Burns Lake, Woodcock and Prince Rupert; the stations were completed in 1943 and 1944 except for two new staff houses built in 1953 at 150-Mile House.
5.	Approximately 685,500 including latest available figures on the two new staff houses at 150-Mile House and excluding repeater equipment originally installed at Bella Coola and Kleena Kleene.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Ellis:: 1.	How many Canadian citizens have been convicted for failure to pay Income tax, during each of the past ten years?
2.	What was the total amount of fines imposed as a result of the said convictions, in each of the last ten years?
3.	How many convictions resulted in jail sentences, in each of the last ten years?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and memoranda exchanged between the government, the department or Minister of Transport, or any other official or agent of the government on the one hand, and (a) the British Columbia Telephone Company; (b) the Canadian National Telegraph Company, on the other hand, regarding the sale to the telephone company and the telegraph company respectively of the government telegraph and telephone system in British Columbia and the Yukon.
He said: By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, may I withdraw this motion pursuant to the arrangement to which the minister has referred.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



MACHINERY AND SUPPLIES-REMISSION OF TAXES

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all orders in council and treasury orders issued since April 1, 1950, whereby customs duties or sales tax or both were remitted in excess of $1,000 in each case on supplies or machinery imported into Canada for (a) construction purposes generally; (b) oil and/or gas line construction; (c) the use of public utility distribution systems.



VANCOUVER


Mr. Goode:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government of British Columbia and

any department of the federal government from January 1, 1952 to date, regarding a request from the government of British Columbia for federal aid in the construction of a bridge between Vancouver and Sea Island.


Mr. Winters:: Subject to the usual reservation about permission from the province with regard to their correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to this reservation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX ACT


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 remove the 3 per cent limitation from the section which makes provision for the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion is one which is familiar to all members of this House of Commons. Indeed, I am sure that its terms are familiar not only to those who were here in the last parliament but also to the new members of the house, for it is a subject that is quite familiar to the people of this country from one coast to the other.
As hon. members know, in the Income Tax Act there is a provision which permits income taxpayers, under certain conditions, to make a deduction from their taxable income in respect of medical expenses. However, it is important to note the conditions under which that right is extended. In the main, those conditions are three in number. In the first place, only those medical expenses can be deducted which meet the definition of "medical expenses" set out in the Income Tax Act. In the second place, there is a ceiling as to the total amount of medical expenses that any one taxpayer can enter when filling out his income tax form. In the third place there is the condition that an income taxpayer can deduct only that portion of his authorized medical expenses which is in excess of 3 per cent of his gross income.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made clear that, although hon. members may have views on each of these three conditions that attach to the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes, the resolution before the house this afternoon asks for
Income Tax Act
a change in only one of these three conditions. For my own part, I have no serious objection to the condition in the act having to do with the ceiling as to the total amount of expenses that one can claim as a deduction. That ceiling was raised in the budget of 1952 to the figures that are now in the act, and although there may be some members of the house who think the ceiling should be higher, I for one feel that that part of the provision respecting medical expenses is reasonable, and I do not suggest that the ceiling should be raised.
However, with regard to the definition of medical expenses I think that there is room for improvement, and despite the fact that I do not include suggestions respecting the definition of medical expenses in the motion before the house this afternoon I think the definition of medical expenses should be amended. At the present time that definition is such that it restricts a taxpayer mainly to amounts paid to doctors, dentists, nurses and hospitals, together with the right to include expenses for certain specified drugs. There are one or two other items that are included in the definition but there are many things that are not included. For example, at a time of illness many a family is faced with other expenses that can be quite substantial. The need for extra help in the home can be a very real medical expense occasioned by illness. The food budget can go out of line because 'of illness in the home. These matters are not taken into consideration at all when it comes to medical expenses for purposes of the Income Tax Act.
Likewise, spectacles and hearing aids are not allowed as medical expenses although a dentist's bill is allowed as a medical expense even though that bill may include the cost of dentures which it seems to me are comparable to spectacles or a hearing aid. I mention these shortcomings in the definition in passing so that I can point out that there is a field there in which something should also be done, and also so as to draw a line and make it clear that, so far as the motion before the house this afternoon is concerned, it asks for just one change in this section of the Income Tax Act. My motion asks that what is now known as the 3 per cent floor be abolished and that all medical expenses right from the first dollar up to the ceiling in the act be allowed as medical expenses for one computing his income tax at the end of the year.
Hon. members are, I am sure, quite aware of the history of this very important provision. The right to deduct certain medical expenses was first put on the statute books

Income Tax Act
in time to be effective for the calendar year 1943. At that time Mr. Ilsley, who brought it in, provided that only those medical expenses could be claimed which were in excess of 5 per cent of one's gross income. It was an acceptable provision to have, but we on the floor of the house soon began contending either that the 5 per cent floor should be lowered or that the floor should be wiped out altogether. As I have indicated before, we had a very interesting experience in connection with this matter in 1944. That year there was no proposal in Mr. Ilsley's budget speech or in his budget resolutions to do anything about the 5 per cent floor, but when we were in committee on the budget resolutions there were many requests from the floor of the house asking that the 5 per cent floor be either abolished altogether or at least reduced.
On that occasion we had support from all quarters of the house including very interesting and significant support from the present member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), and on one point from the hon. member who is now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). At any rate, despite the fact that there had been no proposal to do anything about this point in Mr. Ilsley's budget speech or budget resolutions, he did respond to the representations made during the course of the debate and brought in a resolution later in the 1944 session which reduced the floor from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. It was one of those occasions few and far between when the government right during the course of the session made some concession to the arguments put forward on the floor of the house.
The 4 per cent floor remained at that level until last year. In the meantime some of us kept on arguing that just as 5 per cent was too high so 4 per cent was too high. We kept on arguing that the nature of medical expenses is such that they should be on the same basis as charitable donations and that they should be allowed deductibility right from the first dollar up to whatever limits are set in the act. For a number of years it was a case of a few voices crying in the wilderness until 1950 and 1951 when considerable support developed in the house for our contention that the 4 per cent floor should be wiped out. The high point in the support for the contention that the 4 per cent floor should be wiped out was of course reached on March 26, 1952, when my private member's motion, worded similarly to the one before the house today, was passed unanimously by the house.
I do not intend to take any time arguing about technicalities on which we have spent

time before. I recognize that my motion merely asked the house to express the view that the government should consider the advisability of removing the 4 per cent floor. I make the point, however, that that is all that a private member's motion can ask when money is involved, and I make the point that usually when the government allows a motion of that kind to pass it means that the government is favourably disposed to the substance behind that motion. Despite the unanimous support that the house gave to my motion on March 26, 1952, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who was Minister of Finance on that occasion, ignored that idea when he brought down the budget a short time later. As a matter of fact, not only did he ignore the express wish of the house that something be done about the removal of the 4 per cent floor, but he left the floor as it was and raised the ceiling. In other words, he did nothing to help the little fellow but did something to help the big fellow by raising the ceiling.
I pause, having referred to what happened on March 26, 1952, to remind the house that, in addition to the support we got away back in 1944 from the hon. member for Ottawa West and the present Minister of National Revenue, in 1952 we had the spoken support on the floor of the house of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) as well, of course, as the support of the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who was then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. It is interesting to note that all those members who openly supported this important resolution are back in the House of Commons once again. I hope that their support for this proposition will be evident today as it was in 1952.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, despite the stand taken by the house on March 26, 1952, to the effect that the government should give consideration to removing the 4 per cent floor, nothing was done about it by the Minister of Finance when he introduced his budget a few days later. Of course, that did not mean the end of this campaign so far as I was concerned. I put the same motion on the order paper the next year, in 1953, and it was again debated. On that occasion however, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) will recall, the debate was rather short-lived. It occurred on January 12, 1953, and Hansard records that I made my speech arguing that the 4 per cent floor should be removed. Then the Minister of

Finance made a reply, at the end of which he simply moved the adjournment of the debate. I mentioned the hon. member for Greenwood because he was one of those who were rather shocked at the procedure being followed.
We objected to the action of the minister in moving the adjournment of the debate because that prevented others from speaking on this important question and prevented the house from taking a vote on the motion itself. We did our best to show our justifiable dislike for that procedure by forcing a vote on the minister's motion to adjourn the debate. The minister being on the other side, we lost that vote. I hope that course will not be followed today, but that the government will permit this debate to continue and will let the house make up its mind whether or not this motion should be passed. I hope we can count on the consistency of those members who supported the motion in 1952, and that they will support it again today. I hope all those members who helped make it a unanimous expression in 1952 will agree that this motion should be passed today.
I keep referring to the motion before us today as though it were exactly the same as the motion in 1953 or 1952. There is one significant difference. Despite the fact the Minister of Finance gave this debate a short life in 1953 by moving the adjournment of the debate, he paid some slight attention to the motion when he brought down the budget on February 19 of last year. As hon. members will recall, that was the occasion when cyclical budgeting brought the minister around to the idea of making certain tax reductions and certain concessions, for the election was not far off. He introduced a resolution lowering that 4 per cent floor to the figure of 3 per cent. It is the 3 per cent figure which will apply for the tax year 1953. In other words, when the taxpayers, in a month or so, start making out their income tax returns they will be able to deduct medical expenses in excess of 3 per cent of their gross income.
Well, that is good, Mr. Speaker. We are making progress. We started out with 5 per cent, then it was made 4 per cent and how we have it down to 3 per cent. It does seem strange that so many bites have to be taken to implement what, in my view, is unquestionably a matter of correct principle. I hope we will not have to wait for two or three more elections to get three more bites in order to remove the 3 per cent floor. Surely, it is time to face up to the principle in this matter and completely wipe out the floor.
Income Tax Act
One of the arguments that the minister keeps using against this proposal to remove the floor is that there is a certain average of medical expenses which people have to pay. In his view, income tax deductibility should be allowed only when medical expenses get above that average. I dislike referring again to a story I told once before. However, it is the minister's own story, and I think it is a good one. I think it drives home the point better than half an hour of argument. It is the story of the occasion when the Minister of Finance was in conversation with the late deputy minister of finance, Dr. Clark. Apparently Dr. Clark was saying something about averages, and the minister asked him if he had heard about the man six feet tall who had drowned in a body of water the average depth of which was only five feet. I think the minister's own story makes the point very well. These averages are no help to a person who has even the average expenses, let alone the person who has expenses far above them.
In addition to that, I suggest to the minister and to the government that they cannot continue using this idea about averages because as time goes on people are spending more on medical expenses than in years gone by. The manner in which we live may be responsible for that, or perhaps it is that medical science is developing and there are more ailments known with which doctors and hospitals can deal. Whatever the reasons, we are spending more. I suggest that the average portion of our expenses that Canadians are spending on health is going up all the time. Health is important, and it is a good thing that we should devote an ever larger portion of our income to the maintenance of good health. At the same time we are spending more, the minister is prepared to lower the exemption from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and then down to 3 per cent.
If the 3 per cent floor is based on average expenses, according to his reasoning he should be consistent and raise the floor instead of lowering it. I am mighty glad he has not thought of it, and I hope I have not put the idea in his head. The fact is that the argument really carries no further validity, in view of the fact the government has not given any figures to which to tie this reduction from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments against this proposal, which were never valid, are disappearing one by one. I hope that in this session, even though it is three or four years before an election and the time when tax concessions are made, we will have recognition of this principle and that something will be done about the matter.

Income Tax Act
I have done this perhaps several times when I have raised this question, but I think I shall have to do it again. I have given a few examples to show what happens to a taxpayer, on the one hand, if he makes a certain contribution to charity, and on the other hand, what happens if he incurs that same amount of medical expenses during the course of a year. In both cases there are ceilings as to the amounts one can claim by way of income tax deductibility. But in the case of charitable donations, one is allowed, as a deduction, the first dollar one gives away, provided a proper receipt is obtained for it. In the case of medical expenses, however, one does not get the first dollar or the first ten dollars, in fact one does not get any dollars allowed until one gets above 3 per cent of the gross income.
Let us take the case of a married man without any children. Let us suppose it is a case where the Income is $200 a month or $2,400 a year. If that man has no exemption other than the statutory one, the total amount of tax he would pay for the year 1953 would be $72. That includes the old age security tax. I might add that throughout these examples I am using the rates which people will have to pay by April 30 of this year when they file their income tax returns for last year's income. Now, if that taxpayer has medical expenses during the course of the year amounting to $200 the tax saving he will receive against that $72 is $23.04. One arrives at that by taking 3 per cent of his gross income of $2,400, and then giving him a deduction on the portion in excess of that.
However, if this same taxpayer who would receive a saving of $23.04 in lieu of $200 medical expenses were to give away $200 to approved charities, the tax concession he would get for that in the year would be $36. I have no objection to the tax concession made in respect of charitable donations. But it does seem to me that the treatment accorded in respect of charitable donations made voluntarily should be the same treatment accorded to medical expenses made involuntarily.
Let me take the case of a married man with a wife and two children, having a total income of $300 a month or $3,600 a year. Let us assume in this case medical expenses of $300. If this couple did not have medical expenses or any other allowable deduction they would pay on their 1953 income at the end of April the sum of $240. For medical expenses of $300 they will get a tax concession of $38.40. But if they gave away to approved charities the same amount of $300 their tax concession would be $60. This couple is given $60 by

way of tax relief for giving away $300, but a concession of only $38.40 by way of tax relief if they have to pay $300 in medical expenses.
Bear in mind that no question is raised as to the average amount people give away to charities; that deductibility is allowed right from the first dollar. But in the matter of medical expenses the question of the so-called average is raised.
Let me go on and take another example. In this instance I shall work it out for a married couple with two children, and an income of $5,000 a year. In that case the gross tax is $537.50. If they had medical expenses of $500 in the year they would get tax relief of $78.75, but if instead of medical expenses of $500 in that year they had made charitable donations of the same amount they would have tax relief of $112.50. Let me repeat those figures: $112.50 tax relief if they give away $500 but only $78.75 if they are faced with the necessity of paying medical expenses to the same amount.
Then let me go down the scale again to the married couple with two children and an income of $200 a month or $2,400 a year. In that instance their gross tax, without any special deductions, would be just $18 a year. Let us suppose that they have medical bills in that year amounting to $100. The tax saving given on that $100 is only $5.04; but if they gave away $100 in the year the tax saving would be $18.
Again let me take the case of a married couple with two children and an income of $3,000 a year. In that instance the gross tax would be $126. If they have medical expenses of $100 a year their tax saving because of this 3 per cent floor would be only $1.80. But if they gave away $100 in the year their tax saving would be $18, ten times as much.
Depending upon the examples, the relationships differ. However, I draw particular attention to this example, using figures which I suggest are not uncommon. I refer to the couple with two children and an income of $3,000 a year, with $100 to be paid either as medical expenses or by way of charitable donations. Yet, because of that 3 per cent floor, this family would get ten times the tax relief for the contribution of $100 that it would get for the same expenditure by way of medical expenses. It is only $1.80 in one case but $18 in the other.
Without going into detail, the married couple with a salary of $3,000 a year and with four children, spending the same amount of $100, would be treated in exactly the same

way-$1.80 tax relief for $100 of medical exenses but $18 tax relief for $100 charitable donations.
It seems to me that the unfairness of this floor, and what it does to the taxpayer with medical expenses, as compared with what it does to the taxpayer who makes church and charitable contributions must surely be obvious to everyone. It has been obvious to members in the past. It was obvious in the debates prior to 1952. I know many members spoke to me in those days and suggested that this was a case that surely should be met by the government. It was obvious to members in 1952 when they supported the motion calling upon the government to consider the removal of the floor, and certainly it was obvious to the people of Canada that this change should be made, because it was a matter of considerable interest in the press-and particularly in that year when the house expressed its view, and when the government flew in the face of that view.
I urge the house on this occasion to give its approval once again to the motion. And this time I hope when that has been done the government will take that expression of opinion on the part of the house much more seriously than it did in 1952. In fact, I think it should be taken more seriously than it was in 1953 because, although the minister did something in that year when he reduced the floor from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, it must be remembered that that action was taken on the eve of an election. And, even so, it was not good enough.
Not only do I contend for the resolution on the ground of its essential fairness, which I think is borne out by the comparative treatment I have indicated as between medical expenses and charitable donations, but for the other reason I have already indicated, namely that medical expenses as defined in the act do not cover all the bills that hit a family when there is illness in the home. I could refer to some of the other things that are not covered, and make special mention of glasses and hearing aids. I have referred also to the extra cost of help when illness strikes in a home. I would be the first to recognize that it would be pretty hard to work out a definition that would really cover everything, and I recognize in particular the problem with respect to extra help. I understand it might be argued that in some cases such help was really necessary while in others it was not, but that a person of some means might want to spend money in that way.
Income Tax Act
As I say, I will be the first to recognize these points. But the very fact that you cannot work out a definition that will cover all medical expenses makes it all the more urgent that the medical expenses that are defined, including payments to doctors and hospitals, and the like, should be allowed right from the first dollar. I know of few issues which come before the house in connection with which justice and fairness indicate so clearly what should be done.
Another example of the failure of the present provision to fill the bill has to do with drugs such as insulin. A few years ago when the minister broadened the definition of medical expenses allowable under the act he included insulin and made a great to-do about it as well. I could bring to this house a good many letters from users of insulin who wondered at all the fuss. The fact of the matter is that although they are faced with a heavy cost for insulin during the course of the year, because of what was the 4 per cent floor and is now the 3 per cent floor they find they do not get to that floor or they do not get very far over it, so in many, if not in most cases, that provision for that particular drug is just so many words in the act. It does not mean anything to the persons who are really affected.
The same applies to some other drugs that are mentioned in the act, not to mention the fact that in my view there are still other drugs that have not been included in that definition and which as I see it certainly should be.
Another reason why I contend that this motion should be passed by the house and its substance acted upon by the government is that it moves in the direction in which society is thinking these days. I for one want to make it perfectly clear-perhaps I do not need to as this house knows me well enough-that even if this motion were passed it would not be the last word from me or from this group on matters of health. This is just a drop in the bucket; this is just a small step in the right direction. There is no doubt about it that we want to go on to a program of adequate health insurance and health coverage for the people of this country. It is because it is a step in that direction that I feel the government should at least move that way.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has got to the point where he not only dislikes my questions about health insurance, he will not give me an answer in substance, or he has even forgotten the number of times he has said that. The fact of the matter is that no less a person than the Conservative minister of health in

Income Tax Act
the province of Ontario thinks that within five years we will have health insurance or at least hospital insurance covering every person in Canada.
I commend that to my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor), who does not share my views on this question, who thinks that this party has too much to say about health insurance. In fact I will pass this clipping over to him right away which shows what the Ontario minister of health thinks on that question. The hon. member for Winnipeg South says that Dr. Phillips does not say how he is going to bring it about. It is true there are problems to be worked out, but I give that as an example from the extreme right in this country of the way Canadians are thinking. The fact is accepted that the care of the health of the people of this country is something of extreme importance and that more and more we have to make the necessary changes in our economy to take care of the health of the people of this country.
This move that I am proposing is just a little drop in the bucket. But because it is a step in the right direction, because the people of the country have become aware of the unfairness of the 3 per cent floor, I urge that the government delay no longer in taking action on this important question.
As I say, the arguments against it have in my view been pretty well set aside. The argument about allowing only those expenses which are above the normal or above the average is, as I have suggested already, really quite fallacious. I think the minister's story to the late Dr. Clark really sets that aside. So far as any individual person is concerned, if he is hit with heavy medical expenses it is no comfort to tell him that that is just the average, that that is just normal. It is certainly no comfort to tell him that if he had- not been hit with that expense and had given that amount away to charity he would have received better treatment from the income tax people.
Another argument that the government has used from time to time is that it would cost a certain amount. Certainly a -cut in taxes costs money just -as the imposition of a tax raises money. The whole point of any income tax structure is that it should be fair. To say that there is $30 million or $40 million which the government would not get if the floor were wiped out is no excuse for keeping on the floor. That $30 million or $40 million should be made a challenge to the government to find some fair way in which to raise that amount of money.
There was one occasion when the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) suggested,
iMr. Knowles.]
although I think we cleared the ground between us at least-I mention this in case anyone else wants to use the argument- that we should not go too far with this idea lest we provide too much help for wealthy people. It is always interesting to note the way in which that argument is used. I simply point out that the possibility of wealthy people gaining tremendously or gaining substantially as a result of the removal of this floor is nullified by the ceilings that are in the act. I have no objection to those ceilings. It is not going to be possible when you take away the 3 per -cent floor for the rich man to get his doctor to prescribe a trip to Florida and charge it as medical expenses. I suggest that that argument does not apply at all.
This request that I am making is, in the words of the hon. member of Spadina (Mr. Croll) in one of the debates on this matter on a previous occasion, a measure to help the little fellow. In view of the wide support that this measure has had across the years in the country; in view of the wide support it has had in this house, particularly the unanimous support that was given to it in 1952, I urge the house to pass the motion on this occasion.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate my support for the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have supported the same or a similar resolution on occasions before this and have indicated personally my reasons for so doing. The case submitted by the hon. member who has just spoken is pretty complete and does not need too much argument to support it. I think the hon. member has shown quite clearly that there are good and sufficient reasons why the government should listen to the members of the house and remove the 3 per cent floor on medical expenses forthwith. The reasons given by the hon. member, as I recall, were the following.
In the first place, we are doing something for the little man. I agree with that. I do not know of any better way of doing it in connection with budgetary matters than to relieve him of the necessity of paying income tax on medical expenses. I have every respect for the claim of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that he is charged with the responsibility of distributing the tax burden fairly. That is quite true, but my own feeling is that he is not distributing the tax burden fairly if he imposes upon the little man the necessity of paying income tax on expenses in connection with medical expenditures within his own family.

The second reason given by the hon. member was that the removal of the 3 per cent floor on medical expenses would then be placing deductible medical expenses on exactly the same basis as contributions to charitable institutions. I see no reason why that should not be done. If we are going to be fair about it a person should receive the same consideration for medical expenses as he receives for contributions to charitable institutions. I believe that that is a good, sound argument.
The third reason given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that there is widespread support for it throughout the country and that the principle is fair and just. Certainly I can say that there is widespread support for the removal of this 3 per cent floor on medical expenses in my constituency.
My people have asked me to repeat that this is so, and during the last tour I made of the Peace river country people conveyed to me their desire that I speak in support of the removal of the 3 per cent floor, as we have done on other occasions. I think that since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made such a good case for the removal, I should take time perhaps to supplement that by dealing with some of the arguments used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on January 12 last. The hon. member has, I think, dealt with these to some extent but there are two or three comments I would like to make in addition. I do not want to amplify my comments on this resolution because I think it is important that we keep our speeches as short as possible so as to make it possible for a vote to be taken in the house today.
The minister, speaking I think on the same subject at a time when the Income Tax Act adjustments were before the house, on January 12 last, had this to say as reported at page 900 of Hansard for 1952-1953:
It is all right to pass resolutions couched in these terms, relating to budget matters, if it is understood that they do indicate what they say, in the terms indicated, namely, that the government should give consideration to certain matters. But the ultimate responsibility as to the fairness and the desirability of making these budget changes must rest with the government.
Now, the minister by these words was complaining against the impression that had got across the country in the minds of the people that this house having unanimously passed a resolution in 1952 to the effect that the 4 per cent floor as it then existed should be removed, it was incumbent on the government to take action and remove the 4 per cent in the budget. The people rightly got the impression that that was what should be done, and the people of Canada took it for
Income Tax Act
granted that when there was unanimous approval of a resolution in this house the government would pay attention to it.


Mr. Benidickson:: It was a motion to consider.


Solon Earl Low: I understand, but that is not what was in the minds of all the members who were debating the problem on the floor of this house. What was in the minds of the members when they debated the resolution was that the government ought to remove the 4 per cent floor. It is all very well to sit back and say that all you agreed to was that consideration would be given to it, and that consideration was given to it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this very important point. It is the attitude of the government that I do not like, as expressed in these very words. It is the same attitude that Mr. Ilsley, the former minister of finance, gave expression to in this house on a certain occasion when he was confronted with the fact that while the house was in session certain orders in council had been passed, and when we took him to task for it I well recall with what indignation and heat the minister pounded his desk and said, "I want hon. members to know the executive council does not get its power from this house. It gets it from the crown." It is that attitude carried over into a resolution of this kind that we take exception to. I suggest that when members of this house, representatives of the people, unanimously pass a resolution to do a certain thing, then the government ought to take that into consideration and see that something is done. They should not sit back and say: "It is our duty to give consideration all right, but we are the ones who will say whether action shall be taken".
If we are going to have real democracy in this country, then that means there must be government according to the will of the people. If we are not competent, as members representing the people, to express their will, and only members of the cabinet are competent to express will, then I would ask what kind of government that is. It certainly is not a democratic government and I think it is about time we began to pay some attention to the expressed views of the people of this country and particularly of the members of this house who represent the people when they unanimously vote for a certain thing or a certain objective. I think it is high time the government paid strict attention to a vote of that kind and proceeded to carry out its intentions instead of complaining that that sort of resolution should not be passed.

Income Tax Act
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the government will not take the same view this year and put a block in the way of a vote on this resolution; or, on the other hand, rally the support of the members good and true of the Liberal party, the boys who at the crack of the whip vote the way they are told to vote and see to it that the resolution is voted down. There was a unanimous vote in this house in 1952 on this matter when the floor was 4 per cent, not 3 per cent. The minister last year brought in a budget that reduced the floor to 3 per cent and to that extent it was a move in the right direction. But it certainly did not do what the house gave the minister instructions to do by that unanimous vote. I suggest that the minister's argument is pretty weak. At any rate he is simply repeating what Mr. Ilsley repeated, that the executive council does not get its instructions from the House of Commons but takes them from the crown. Where is the crown in this case?


Mr. Gillis:: The governor general.


Solon Earl Low: Well, of course, that is out of the question. I want to deal just a moment with another matter in this connection. The minister bolstered his argument for failing to remove the 4 per cent floor by using these words, that the philosophy behind this, that is retaining the floor, is that it is quite within the capacity of the ordinary individual to pay the normal expenses incurred for normal medical care or attention, but when this is beyond what can be considered as a normal amount, then and then only should there be special relief.
That is a specious argument and it certainly must have occurred to the minister in his calmer moments that it was so, because he already recognizes the principle of granting exemptions from the very first dollar on for certain living expenses. He gives exemption to single taxpayers in this country of an amount up to $1,000 on income and for married people up to $2,000 of income. Why? Because he figures it requires $1,000 to pay the normal living expenses of a single man and $2,000 to pay the living expenses of a married person. He recognizes the principle and then turns around and says that he has to recognize that there are certain normal expenses which everyone should be asked to pay and therefore it will be only the amount above this normal expense that he could recognize as being deductible for income tax purposes. His argument does not hold in any way whatsoever, and I suggest he is on much sounder ground when he resorts to a third argument, that if he should abolish the 3 per cent floor on medical expenses he will lose a certain amount of revenue. I

think he is on pretty sound ground there because I think it is fairly well established that the removal of the 3 per cent might mean a loss of as much as $40 million in revenue. I think perhaps it could be shown the amount would run to that figure. That may not be, but at any rate there will be a fairly substantial loss. But, Mr. Speaker, if it can be shown-and I suggest that it can and already has been shown-that it is fair and just for the government to remove the 3 per cent floor, then I say that the Minister of Finance should go ahead and remove it; and if it requires the sacrifice of $30 million or $40 million of his revenue, I suggest that he make it up by increasing the rates of taxation on those incomes over $5,000. Then he would be covered. He would be far better justified in doing that than he would be to leave this S per cent floor as it is. I suggest that there is every good reason why this is the time to remove the floor and to put the taxpayers of this country on the same basis with respect to medical expenses as they are on with respect to contributions to charitable institutions.
I think I have probably said enough about the matter at the moment, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that I am in complete support of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); and I will just let the matter rest at that.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have not very much to add to what has been said. I should like to say a few words about the history of this resolution which is somewhat more interesting than that of most resolutions that come before us. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made the argument very fully, as he always does. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has done full justice to the argument that the government entirely disregarded a unanimous vote of this house. It is only fair to say that at the time that was done the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), in his usual breezy way outlined what was being done and what was not being done by the resolution. This is what he said as reported at page 822 of Hansard of 1952, and I would ask the hon. member for Peace River to listen to this carefully because it has to do with what he has just said. These are the words of the Minister of Fisheries:
... 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.

Later on I shall have occasion to point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agreed with this situation. Of course it is extremely unflattering to the members of this house to realize that a unanimous vote of this house is given just the same consideration-neither more nor less-as any letter or brief or interview put forward by any group in the country. That is not very flattering to us. Let us take, for instance, the chamber of commerce of Aklavik which, as I understand, is now on the move and possibly their deliberations would not be as careful as they might otherwise be. But at any rate, we have the satisfaction of knowing that our representation was to receive-and I have no doubt it did receive-the same consideration as do all the others which have been mentioned. How much or how little that was, we do not know. I spoke briefly of what happened just as the vote was being taken because it was made very clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, as reported at page 828, said:
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I realize lull well that the passing oi this resolution does not mean the immediate legislative enactment of what it asks for.
That certainly was an understatement. I continue to quote:
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 4 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 . . .
Later on the same page the Minister of Fisheries says this:
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.
And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre added "That is right".
In looking at this situation, notwithstanding that the impression I think we carried away and the expectations that we naturally entertained were disappointed, nevertheless I think we must realize that technically the situation at the moment was made clear.
I refer next to what happened on January 12, 1953. Looking back I suppose we can say now that in 1952 the government probably let the discussion go a little bit further than perhaps it intended to or a little bit further than it felt, in retrospect, was wise. But in 1953 they took no chance like that because, as I shall point out in a moment, we had what I at that time called the closure. As I read my few words at that time, I have a great deal of contempt for myself, Mr. Income Tax Act
Speaker, because I did not make my reference to the closure with all the vehemence with which I should have made it. It was much too mild to do any good. There are other members in this house who have what has been well described as natural animosity and they can do that. I think the Minister of Fisheries himself would have done it infinitely better than I did it. It was a poor performance.


Mr. Sinclair:: No animosity at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I used the word "closure" and I have been wondering this afternoon whether we might have closure again, and I feel that I am rather lucky to be on my feet and speaking as I am now speaking. At any rate, what the minister said then-and I am sure he said this with great sincerity-was this. This was almost a year after the unanimous passing of the first resolution. As reported at page 900 of Hansard of 1953 he said:
-I gave my parliamentary assistant instructions that I did not oppose the motion, and my reason for not opposing it was based upon the terms of the motion itself.
Then he read the motion and I now continue to quote later from the minister's speech:
Now, in the light of subsequent events, I think I was wrong in taking the course I did take, in indicating to my parliamentary assistant that there should be no objection to the passing of the motion. I did it because I felt that it would be wrong and illogical for a minister of finance, at the time budget matters were under consideration, to refuse to given consideration to any proposal.
There again the minister makes it perfectly clear that we are given certain consideration. Our views carry certain weight. They carry the same weight as that of any ordinary unintelligent or semi-intelligent person.


James Sinclair: I know the hon. member wants to be fair to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Would he just give the quotation where the minister says he gives exactly the same weight of consideration to these other groups as to the committees of the house?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am going to read that.


James Sinclair: He said "consideration", but he did not say he was going to give the same weight of consideration, which is the point the hon. member is endeavouring to make.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was using his word "consideration" which is the word the Minister of Fisheries has used. I continue with the quotation:
Every day I am receiving proposals from taxpayers as to how tax laws should be amended: and on that occasion I felt that, in the terms of the

Income Tax Act
resolution as framed, it should be allowed to pass. I must confess that, in my innocence, I did not realize that it would be represented to the country as being the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons that this should be done.
I am sure the minister said that in all sincerity, but I think it is equally true that, having happened as it did, it was the most natural thing in the world for members of the house to expect that it would carry considerably more weight than it did. The minister's attitude at that time in saying that he thought he had made a mistake the year before and in moving the adjournment of the debate at that time or, in other words, applying closure, showed that he did not want to let himself get into that position again. Having already said that he would consider it further, the minister said finally:
With the assurance which I have just given, that the matter will be considered again this year, I think perhaps it might be appropriate if I were to move the adjournment of the debate.
It was at that time that my protest and the protest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were made; but the vote, surprising as it may appear, did not support our contention. Those who had voted with us the year before to pass the resolution unfortunately voted for the motion to adjourn, in other words, for what I call closure. Since then, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister has made a one per cent reduction of the exemption figure. From figures that he gave elsewhere I understand that that one per cent cost about $10 million. I am assuming therefore that 3 per cent more would cost $30 million. I do not know whether that is actually accurate but I take it that it is roughly so.
I would point out that $30 million would be -0015, if my arithmetic is correct, or about one sixty-fifth of the expenditure on defence during the current year. In other words, if we could get one sixty-fifth more economy in the defence department we would be able to find the money. Therefore I hope the minister will reconsider the matter. I hope he will not allow his heart to harden because of the fact that an election is two or three years away, and I hope that if he feels he cannot do anything else he will at least do something for the people in the very low income brackets.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) made what I thought was a very shrewd observation when she said that medical expenses usually mean other additional expenses. I thought that was a very valid point and I venture to bring it forward again. There is another thing I should like to say.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his customary frankness, has said that if he gets this it will merely whet his appetite for more, and his appetite really does not need much whetting; but if we can give this measure of relief it will at least do something to relieve the pressure at this point, and by one small thing and another perhaps we can relieve the pressure to the point that we shall not be forced into some of the extravagant and unworkable demands which some of us think our socialist friends would like to plant on us.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, this being private members' day I intend to exercise my prerogative as a private member to speak on this resolution, and I am glad to join my Conservative friend who has just taken his seat in supporting this silk hat socialist legislation. The subject matter is not a new one, and I often wonder why members sitting on the government side of the house allow so much time to be wasted on a matter that is so small. In my opinion the removal of the 3 per cent floor on medical expenses is a very small matter. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in presenting his last budget, pointed out to us that in the lower income brackets there were more than
136,000	families in this country who did not pay taxes. Therefore the number in the lower brackets who would benefit from this proposal is not as great as we might think.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the other members who have just spoken have gone into that side of the question rather fully, and I am not going to repeat what they said. I agree with their arguments. But it is not the 3 per cent floor that worries me so much as the definitions in the act. The amount that one spends on medicine is not deductible and that is something that affects everybody. The angle with which I am going to deal is that moneys paid for health insurance to doctor and hospital schemes are not allowed as deductions for income tax purposes. I am going to take an example close to home, but it applies generally. I want to refer to the contributions that mine and steel workers make to doctor and hospital plans in the part of the country in which I live. The individual contribution amounts to $117 per year and covers complete hospital and medical service.
But the only reason that any of the present schemes are able to function at all is by virtue of the large number contributing to such insurance plans who never receive any benefits from them. Otherwise such schemes could not work. I have made payments to one for about 45 years. It is very seldom

that I have ever consulted a doctor, and I have never occupied a bed in a hospital. There are thousands more like me. If there is a charitable contribution made by anyone in this country it is the contributions made to these insurance plans by those who do not receive anything from them which enable the provision of the services of hospital and doctor for those who need them. On that basis it is certainly a charitable contribution.
On former occasions I have asked the Minister of Finance to consider allowing as deductible for income tax purposes the money paid into recognized doctor and hospital plans in any part of the country. I have no hope that this resolution will pass, but it does provide a chance for members to get up and analyse the problem, and I hope that the minister will give consideration to the different views presented when he is again preparing his budget. The allowing of such payments as a deduction is one thing I want him to think about.
Another point to which I think some consideration must be given has to do with the large amount of money paid by families to drug stores year by year. It is a direct medical expense. In many cases there is a prescription ordered by a doctor. Drugs cost a great deal. Take aureomycin, for example. A man goes to a doctor, is examined by him, and the doctor says that he needs some of these pills. They cost $1 each. The man pays for them but because he purchases that medicine from a drug store he is not permitted to deduct the cost. I am safe in saying that the greatest expenditure that the average low income group family makes in the course of a year so far as health is concerned is the amount of money it spends for drugs in the corner drug store. I think people should be permitted to keep track of such expenditures and allowed to deduct them as a medical expense.
There is also the question of hearing aids which may seem very simple. But the man who has a hearing aid really needs it or he would not buy it. There is not only the initial expense of buying the hearing aid. It must be kept in repair month by month. When it is brought in from the United States in the first place it is taxed. It is quite costly. Then the person has to purchase batteries for it month by month and other little odds and ends in order to keep the equipment operating. In the course of a year a person who has to use a hearing aid will spend quite a little bit of money in keeping it running. I think the minister should give consideration to allowing such expenses as an offset against income tax.
Income Tax Act
Then there is the question of the man with an artificial leg. He has to buy it, and over the years a great deal of repairs enters into the maintenance of an artificial leg. If he lives in my part of the country, and I suppose the same is true of the western provinces, he has to ship the leg to a regular orthopedic centre in Toronto to be repaired, and such repairs are costly. That is another consideration for a man who is already handicapped by having to wear an artificial limb and provide for its maintenance year by year. Certainly, such a medical expense should be allowable as a deduction from income tax.


William Moore Benidickson: It is.


Clarence Gillis: Repairs to an artificial limb? I am very glad to know it. Some people do not know about it. I have had letters about it.


William Moore Benidickson: It is spelled out in the
act.


Clarence Gillis: The purchase is, but are the repairs?


William Moore Benidickson: I think so.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think so. However, I mention it again and when the parliamentary assistant and the minister are looking over the budget they can recheck that point. If it is not covered, perhaps they can write it in.
There is another type of expenditure that has been increasing year by year, to which some consideration should be given. A person is allowed to deduct a doctor's bill if it runs beyond 3 per cent of taxable income. The same applies to the hospital bill and the dentist's. There is another expenditure, however, which in my opinion is becoming quite heavy. Perhaps you have a member of the family sick for a year. You pay the doctor bill and the hospital bill. Medical science, however, is not able to do anything for that person and the person ultimately passes away. Then there is another bill you have to face and that is the funeral bill. Anyone who has had to contend with it in the last few years knows that is a very heavy bill.
Hon. members may say that a person should have insurance for that. Consider the 130,000 people in the lower income tax brackets or the persons on the borderline of the income tax bracket. They cannot carry any insurance. Insurance premiums are not deductible for income tax purposes, and today there are many people who cannot afford to carry insurance because it is too costly. I feel that funeral costs have risen beyond reason. They are a heavy burden. It is the final climax to a whole series of hospital and

Income Tax Act
medical bills. I feel some consideration should be given to the proposition of allowing funeral expenses under some circumstances to be worked out by the department.
As I said before, I have not any idea-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit an interjection at this point? I am sure he would like to put on the record what he probably knows, that the same idea was urged by no less a person than the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) when he was a private member back in 1944.


Clarence Gillis: That is quite right. There has been some thought on the matter by Liberal members. I stress it again because I think the matter is important. It is a big handicap to the average person in the lower income brackets who may run into a hospital bill. I should like to urge upon the minister and the parliamentary assistant that in particular they look at the money paid into recognized medical schemes across this country, to see if such payments cannot be allowed as deductions from income tax. There is a lot of agitation about it, and I have received some correspondence on it. As I said in the beginning, if there is a charitable contribution made in this country it is that payment. Hundreds of people keep up that type of insurance for those who need it and never receive anything from it. There are many people who pay that $117 per year into these medical schemes, not because it is protecting them or because they get any benefit from it, but to help maintain these institutions that provide medical care for those who are in a less fortunate position.
I think that if members will consider the matter they will be able to think up new angles. I should like to see a vote on this matter to ascertain how the house feels about it. The resolution only asks for consideration.


Mr. Harris:: Do not try that again.


Clarence Gillis: The fact that members voted for the resolution would be some encouragement to the minister. I know that if I were minister I would not like to change these acts without an expression of opinion by the members. If the matter were voted upon, the minister would be able to go to the Governor General and say, the members have voted upon this so I am asking Her Majesty's permission to implement the changes in the act. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would "O.K." it if it came back to the cabinet after the Governor General had looked at it, and the members had voted upon it.
IMr. Gillis.]


William Moore Benidickson: It is
true, as hon. members have pointed out, that this is at least the third session at which the house has had an opportunity to debate this motion. Last year the views of the government were presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who is unavoidably absent at the moment. He informs me, however, that the views he expressed in Hansard for January 1953 are those that he has today.
Something has been said about the phrase in the resolution that the government "give consideration" to this problem. If, under our rules, that were all that could be read into the resolution, or if the conduct of the members of the opposition on other occasions had been different, probably the course which was adopted in 1952 could be followed today. We have approximately 70 new members in this first session of this parliament, and I think that they would probably be anxious to have some information as to the significance of a motion of this kind.
Before referring to events that took place in 1952, in a rather different way from some of the members of the opposition so far, I should like to have something to say concerning the history of this particular section of the Income Tax Act. As has been stated, it was introduced as a new form of deduction in 1942. There was a very good reason for this which has not been fully stated. In looking up the record, hon. members will find that this particular form of deduction was not introduced as a result of any pressure or in fact any suggestion from members of parliament, let alone the opposition members. In 1942 the administration realized that, in consequence of the very high rates of taxation existing at that time, certain taxpayers, faced with unusual and extraordinary medical expenses, would not have remaining with them funds adequate to take care of them and also their normal living expenses and their taxes.
I think that would be fairly evident if I were to remind members of the rates of taxation existing at that time and give some idea as to how 1942 taxes compare with the income taxes applying in 1954. In 1942 a taxpayer with single status had an exemption of only $660 as compared with an exemption in 1954 of $1,000. In the case of a married taxpayer the exemption in 1942 was only $1,200, whereas today it is $2,000. In the intervening years another new form of exemption has been introduced. This has particular significance when we are considering the problem of medical expenses.

An extra exemption has been given to the elderly in our community. Taxpayers over 65 years of age are now provided with an exemption of $500 in addition to the normal exemptions which I have indicated. To an extent this was provided because it is recognized that people of that age probably have unusual expenses, for example medical care, beyond those of younger people.
I would also like to give some comparisons to the house of what income remains in the hands of taxpayers now after paying their taxes in comparison with taxes and the compulsory savings called for in the war year of 1942. A married taxpayer with no dependents in 1942 with an income of $2,500 paid a tax, including compulsory savings, of $651. That same taxpayer today with an income of $2,500 pays only $75 plus $10 for his old age security tax.
A taxpayer married but without dependents in 1942, on a salary of $3,000 was required to pay in tax and compulsory savings the sum of $884. That taxpayer today is required to pay $150 plus $20 to provide for old age security. 1 am sure some members in the opposition would immediately raise the point that there has been a certain decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar in those intervening years. They might say that the take-home or the left-over pay after taxes in 1954 has not the purchasing power it had in 1942. Let us admit that, and then look at the consumer price index projected back to 1942. Doing this we find that the cost of living since 1942 has increased 59J per cent. But, looking also at the average weekly wage in 1942, we find that those average weekly wages have risen 100 per cent. Therefore when one compares the left-over income after paying taxes in 1942 as compared with 1954, on an income of $2,500 of a married man without dependents we find that in 1942 it was $1,849 while in 1954 it is $2,415.
Then, despite the warning of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about using averages, if we can assume that the married man with no dependents and an income of $2,500 in 1942, by reason of the doubling in the average weekly wage is today enjoying an income of $5,000, he has left over in 1954 on his $5,000 income after 1954 taxes the sum of $4,430.
The point I wish to emphasize is that while this was introduced to our income tax structure in 1942 to relieve hardship, it was not intended to be a universal deduction for everyone. Indeed, as I say, it was designed to relieve hardship, and was not intended to create benefit, unless there was more than average medical expense.
Income Tax Act
This I think was enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) last year when he spoke on a similar motion. I should like to quote from page 901 of Hansard for January 12, 1953, where the Minister of Finance expressed views on the principle of the measure. He said:
I think it is unsound, in principle, that normal living expenses of the individual should be paid out of income before tax.
Then he said:
If one taxpayer gets a concession or a deduction, then some other taxpayer must provide those moneys.
And again:
The philosophy behind this actually is that it is quite within the capacity of the ordinary individual to pay the normal expenses incurred for medical care or attention, but when those exceed what can be considered as a normal amount then, and then only, should there be special relief. That is the principle which lies behind the law as it stands now.
And he said further at that time, prior to the introduction some weeks later of very substantial tax relief in his budget speech:
It certainly can be argued that more equitable and widespread tax relief can be afforded in other ways.
When we are considering the equity of the floor of 3 per cent I think it is of interest to consider the similar provisions in other countries, notably in the United States. In that country the floor with respect to medical expenses still remains at 5 per cent, although hon. members are aware that while our floor was 5 per cent in 1942 it has been subject to two reductions, first to 4 per cent in 1944 and now to 3 per cent. That, I think, is an interesting development. While this was introduced in 1942 without any pressure from the opposition, or any suggestions from them, the provision has been steadily liberalized in the manner I have indicated, through reductions in the floor from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and then to 3 per cent.
Also the eligible list of medical expenses allowable under the act has been widened, and now includes insulin, ACTH, liver extract, wheel chairs, hearing aids, artificial limbs, as mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and some other items.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Also cortisone.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, cortisone. Then, in addition to that, there was a very important measure a couple of years ago which provided that bills that would be considered for income tax deductions could be those paid any time within a period of 24 months less one

Income Tax Act
day. That of course is a very important advantage to the taxpayer in the matter of the consolidation of his medical accounts during that time.
In addition to that there have been very substantial increases in the ceiling referred to by the sponsor of the motion. In 1942 the maximum amount that could be claimed by a single man as a deduction for medical expenses was $400, and for a married man $600, plus $100 for each child up to a maximum of four children. Today, with two or three revisions and greater generosity in the matter of those ceilings, these deductions stand at $1,000 for a single man or $2,000 for a married taxpayer plus $500 for each child, to a maximum of four children.
One can thus see the improvements made here. In another year subsequent to the original statute it has been made possible for a crippled or blind person to claim the expense of an attendant, to the extent of $500 or, alternatively, a blind or crippled person is given a special allowance of $500.
Other forms of concessions to taxpayers have also been provided in this relatively short space of time. Claims against an estate can now be allowed. Medical expenses incurred outside of Canada can be allowed.
Some reference has been made in the debate this afternoon by both the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) to "the little man", what the hon. member for Greenwood called the man in the low income group. I think an examination of the actual dollars and cents involved as far as the taxpayer in the low income group is concerned will show that newspaper comment concerning the advantage of this proposal has been rather exaggerated. I should like to give a few illustrations of just what it means to people in the low income groups if this motion is carried.
A single taxpayer with no dependents with an income of $1,100 would pay a tax of $17 on the 1954 tax rates. The maximum amount of saving obtained for that individual by the removal of this 3 per cent floor would be $5.61. While I am quite positive that this amount would not be without consequence to that particular taxpayer-I am not minimizing that-I think I could emphasize that that surely would not be the difference to that taxpayer between hardship and well-being.
As another example let me take a married taxpayer with no dependents who is just on the borderline of paying taxes with an income of $2,100. The maximum tax saving obtained by that taxpayer through the

proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would be $10.71. A married taxpayer with no dependents having an income of $10,000 would pay an ineome tax of $1,660 on the 1954 tax rates. With the 3 per cent floor in existence only medical expenses in excess of $300 could be deductible by that taxpayer and the result would be that $78 would be the maximum tax saved by removing the floor. I question whether in any of those instances the removal of the floor would be, as I said before, the difference between hardship and well-being.
We will look at it another way and consider the situation of a married taxpayer with two dependent children under 16 years of age who are in receipt of the family allowance. Supposing this taxpayer has an income of $3,000. The maximum saving provided by this motion would be $15.31. Let us translate that as a percentage of his total income and we find it is just about one-half of one per cent.
I do not want to overemphasize some of the problems that would be faced were this proposal accepted, but one problem is that of administration. All hon. members will realize that any deductions from gross income have to be certificated and carefully examined by officials of the Department of National Revenue. I think hon. members will readily appreciate the almost endless stream of small accounts that would be submitted for examination were all expenses allowed as deductions from income as has been proposed this afternoon.
I think hon. members could easily translate that into administrative cost and appreciate the heavy additional salary costs that would follow compared to the relatively small financial relief which I have indicated would be possible, particularly in the case of the low income group.
Let me illustrate that. As is known, a great number of persons, in the low income tax group particularly, pay their taxes by means of deductions at the source. An employer cannot anticipate what a man's medical expenses are going to be for the year and the tax deduction at the source is therefore made according to the gross income and the normal personal exemptions. It can be imagined, particularly in the case of the low income tax group which several hon. members have been emphasizing this afternoon, what administrative work would be required. Vouchers would have to be submitted and a complete check would be required because almost everybody would be putting in a claim for some rather small medical or drug expenses.

Something has been said about the revenue implications. I have had discussions with officials of the department as to what might be the loss of revenue were this proposal to be accepted. Having had some knowledge of the extensive debates that have taken place in previous years on this question I was quite prepared to give some explanation of how the officials of the department arrived at their estimate, but I do not think that is necessary this afternoon because practically all hon. members of the opposition who have referred to the loss of revenue have come quite close to the figures that our officials indicated to me would be the probable revenue lost, namely something in the neighbourhood of $35 million as a minimum. If we were to think that every taxpayer would be claiming the 3 per cent, on the basis of income subject to taxation last year that would raise the figure to probably $75 million. As I say, hon. members of the opposition more or less all admitted a revenue loss of some $35 million would be involved.
It goes without saying that if there is a loss of revenue it has to be made up in some other way. I remind the house that $35 million is greater than the surplus shown in the public accounts which were tabled here last week for the year ending March, 1953. This is given as some $23 million.
Some reference was made, particularly by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), to insurance against the hazard of medical expense, hospitalization and so on. It is true that in recent years there has been a most conspicuous growth in the number of persons who have availed themselves of the opportunity of insurance in these various forms. Hon. members will recognize that as insurance coverage increases the risk of extraordinary hazard and hardship is more or less eliminated for the insured, and thus the problem is a diminishing one.
I need only remind hon. members of the great growth of such schemes as the Blue Cross and the provision for fringe benefits in union contracts, sometimes provided by the employer and sometimes by the union. These were referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. We know also that in British Columbia and Saskatchewan there is a form of state health insurance. Then there are a great number of people who are the responsibility of the state. I refer to those in the welfare class who either through the municipality or the provinces have their medical expenses borne by the state because of lack of income.
I should like to indicate how rapid this trend has been toward insuring against the hazards of medical expenses. My source of
Income Tax Act
information is an article in the Financial Post in November 1953. This article states that the benefits paid by private accident and sickness companies in 1940 amounted to $4-3 million, and that in the short period up to 1952 those benefits had risen to $50-3 million. I am told that the benefits paid in 1945 by the Ontario Blue Cross were $1-9 million. Seven years later they were $18-8 million. One can therefore see that this problem is diminishing as people insure themselves against any extraordinary financial embarrassment as a result of sickness.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South complained that the premiums paid to insure against this form of risk were not deductible under our Income Tax Act law. That is true. But on the other hand the actual amounts paid by that individual, even though insured, if in excess of 3 per cent of his income can be submitted for income tax deduction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the hon. member
means the actual amount paid by the association on behalf of the individual.


William Moore Benidickson: The taxpayer can get
back the bills which he has submitted to his insurance company and submit these bills to the income tax department if the total paid in twelve months ending in the taxation year exceeds 3 per cent of income. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot deduct the premium and also deduct the expenses.
I would also like to point out that in certain countries where they have health insurance, such as Great Britain and New Zealand, regardless of the way you pay your tax into the treasury to support that kind of a scheme, there is no such thing as a deduction for medical expenses. In Australia I think the maximum that can be claimed is slightly more than $200. This would not be too significant in this country in relation to the resolution.
I want to come to this question of whether or not a motion of this kind can be "considered" by the government. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in a previous debate referred to this as an "abstract motion". A member might estimate from that that it is a fairly innocent motion, and one that all members of the house could probably adopt without much hesitation. It is true that in 1952 that attitude was adopted by the Minister of Finance through his instructions to the then parliamentary assistant, the present Minister of Fisheries. He said the finance minister certainly would "give consideration" to this proposal because the budget was only some two weeks off. It is true the 1952 debate on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

Income Tax Act
placed emphasis upon the words "give consideration" and his motion at that time received the unanimous endorsation of the house. But I want to indicate, particularly to new members unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, just what developed as a result of the course followed at that time. The hon. member for Greenwood has made it very clear that the then parliamentary assistant, the present Minister of Fisheries, was watching the debate, as we knew he would, very attentively. Indeed he said he was watching the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre "like a hawk" and with good reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: So there will be no misunderstanding as to the extent of the commitment made by the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance I will read an extract from the debate, found at page 828 of Hansard dated March 26, 1952. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was summing up the debate that took place and said:
The particular point that the house is voting on is the request that the 4 per cent floor be wiped out.
It was at this point that the parliamentary assistant rose and said:
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.
Mr. Knowles replied:
That is right. The house is voting on the proposition that the minister should give consideration to the wiping out of the 4 per cent floor.
Now, what happened was that the Minister of Finance, I am sure, did give very careful and respectful attention to the resolution. But the budget that was announced some two weeks later failed to meet the wishes of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Of the house?


An hon. Member:: You said it.


William Moore Benidickson: The 1952 budget did not make any change in the 4 per cent floor but then what happened? The matter of the emphasis on the words "give consideration", acknowledged on March 26, was abandoned, and on April 22, 1952, in the ensuing budget debate the leader of the C.C.F. party introduced nothing less than a vote of want of confidence by an amendment to the budget in these words to be found at page 1489 of Hansard:
This house further regrets that the government has ignored the wish of this house, as expressed by 
a unanimous vote on March 26, that the 4 per cent floor under medical expenses deductible for income tax purposes should be abolished.
Some rather strong and even nasty things were said about this rather innocent development in March. I would like to quote some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on April 23, in the same budget debate, as will be found at page 1537 of Hansard:
* . . the failure of the government to carry out the unanimous wish of the house as expressed on March 26, X can tell him that the people of this country feel that they were tricked.
On page 1539 of Hansard for the same date, he said this:
People outside this house . . . simply understand that the 262 of us, the entire house, expressed a view but then one member in the cabinet rejected that view. The man in the street simply cannot understand such defiance of parliament.
Then he went on to quote a headline from one of four prominent newspapers, and the headline was "Parliament be Blowed". Then on page 1542 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had this to say:
... the government allowed the motion to pass, and to pass unanimously. We had every right to believe that that meant approval of the proposal contained in that resolution.
That is the implication when more emphasis than "give consideration" is expected by the opposition in moving what they describe as an "abstract motion".
I suggest to members of the house that all of us have a great admiration for our British form of government. I think some of us are not envious at all of some other constitutions. Some of these as we know do not make for very stable government. Under some other forms of government close by, as we know, there seems to be a constant tug of war between the executive and legislature. Someone said this afternoon that it is a poor indication of true democracy if we were not free at this stage to vote on a principle of this kind because it involves some $35 million.
The Minister of Finance said last year he was not satisfied that, if he had $35 million of tax revenue to forsake, this was the fairest and most equitable manner of distributing that $35 million. I know he would continue to make that assertion. I think you will agree that he would do so properly, having just concluded, prior to Christmas, an examination of expenditure proposals of the various departments and now being faced with responsibility to raise revenues to meet their total. It is not the proper constitutional procedure for the legislature to tie the hands of the Minister of Finance at this stage by saying that in any form of tax relief or any other budgetary policy he must give prior

consideration to tax relief amounting to some $35 million, a sum which exceeds the actual surplus of last year.
I simply conclude by emphasizing that contrary to what seemed to be the case, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not really arguing for relief of hardship for any taxpayer. That has been taken care of by the actual provision of relief for the unusually heavy medical expenses of a taxpayer in excess of 3 per cent of income. I repeat, while the amounts involved are by no means inconsequential, I suggest that a saving of $15.30 for the man with the $3,000 income is not the difference between hardship and well-being.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker,
I am not going to detain the house for long, because I am one of those who believe this motion should be settled by a vote of the house so that every hon. member may have an opportunity to express his individual opinion upon it. I am not going to repeat the arguments used by my colleagues who,
I think, have stated their case very well. I should like to make one comparison which has been mentioned in this debate, namely the difference in the way deductions are permitted for donations to charitable institutions and the way this deductible part of medical expenses is handled.
It has been pointed out that the deduction for donations to charitable institutions has no floor-it has a ceiling-whereas in this case there is a floor. I think it has been the experience of most hon. members who have had anything to do with checking income tax forms or filling them out, that most business firms allow, in their own private budget, for such things as donations for charity. In other words, it becomes part of the expense of operating their business. In that way it is actually carried on and provided for in the price of the goods or services for which they charge, and thus it is actually passed on to the consumer. That is standard practice. I do not think there is any dispute about that fact.
However, in the case of an individual it is not possible to handle that matter in that way. The individual has to make his donations and contributions and those amounts are taken out of his actual income and out of his purchasing power. There is therefore less justification, as a matter of fact, for permitting the full deduction of donations than there is in the case of medical expenses which may, in some cases, result in a hardship. However, I am not going to go into the details of that matter because it has already been covered.
Income Tax Act
I should like to devote just a few minutes to the arguments we have just heard from the parliamentary assistant to the minister. It was extremely interesting to me because of the philosophy from which it seemed to flow. In a sense I was rather amazed that, after the hon. member had stated his admiration for our form of government, as he called it-the democratic system, and so on; an admiration which I am sure is shared by all of us, because I personally have nothing but the highest praise for our form of government-he then went on to make a most astounding statement. I do not see how it can be connected with his previous statement. He said it is not the proper procedure or function of a legislature to tie the hands of-
I think that is the term he used-or give instructions to the Minister of Finance in the preparation of his budget.
If that is what he meant to say, then it is certainly a denial of the function of parliament as most of us understand it. If it is not the function of parliament or of a legislature to pass on and to make decisions as to what shall be done about the taxpayers' money, either that which the government already has in its possession or which it intends to get, then I do not know what the function of parliament is.


Mr. Maclnnis:: They should send us home.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As is suggested by my hon. friend, they might as well dissolve parliament, send us home, and run the country by order in council. That may be the new philosophy that is creeping into the ranks of the government. If it is, it is a most vicious one. May I just point out that from a famous statesman who is no longer with us we have heard a famous phrase about the supremacy of parliament. In fact one of the first things that got me interested in public affairs was reading some of the debates of the house wherein the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King spoke in glowing terms about the supremacy of parliament and used the famous phrase which he was so fond of using, namely "parliament shall decide." I was greatly interested in that type of approach because I agree with it so thoroughly. If we are going to accept the philosophy that parliament shall decide and that parliament is supreme-


William Moore Benidickson: Shall decide at the proper time.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: At the proper time, says the parliamentary assistant. I am greatly surprised that it should be left to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance to decide when is the proper time. It seems

Income Tax Act
to me it is up to the members of this house to decide when they should make their decision, and not have it handed down to them. However, the most serious aspect of the whole thing to me-and I am sure to others outside of this house who read its proceedings

is the position in which the private members of this house are placed. Even to a greater extent than with respect to the position of hon. members who are referred to as members of the opposition, the serious aspect is with respect to the position in which private members on the government side of the house are placed.
I think this philosophy poses to them a challenge which should be met immediately and decisively. In effect, what the parliamentary assistant is now laying down as a philosophy of the government is that the Minister of Finance and in effect the government as a whole-because if it holds good for one department it holds good for them all- shall not accept the advice of the private members of this house nor even, as he stated, seek the advice of the members of this house in making these decisions so far as the budget is concerned. As a matter of fact he also made the statement that in providing for the reduction of the floor from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, it was not done as a result of the advice of this house or of the members of this house, he even went so far as to say, on either side. That statement indicates that even the members who support the government, the private members of the Liberal party, were not consulted; their advice was not asked for or heeded.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the hon. member has misunderstood me. When I said that a certain decision was made without benefit of the advice of the house, I was referring to the introduction in 1942 of this principle for the first time.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That makes it that much worse, Mr. Speaker; because not only were the members not heeded in changing the floor that was established but even in establishing the floor in the first place the members of this house, on either side, were not heeded or even asked for advice.


William Moore Benidickson: Of course they were. They had the opportunity to discuss it at the time the budget resolutions were brought to the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is the point I am getting at. I am glad the parliamentary assistant is coming to my aid. He is really an assistant for both sides of the house because he has helped me to point out exactly the situation, namely that the only time at which
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
they are permitted to discuss the matter- and I point out the words "permitted", which is a fine word for a free parliament-is when the budget has already been laid on the table or has been announced in the house and it is a matter that has already been decided upon by the government. The members are then permitted to lift the corners of the budget, to take a peek at its contents and to make some comments, but they have nothing to say as to what shall be in the budget.
If that is the attitude the hon. member wishes to take, of course it is not anything that anyone individually can do anything about. But we are still in control of this house as private members, I hope; and it is a fact that there is a majority of members on the government side of the house, members of the Liberal party. I think they should pay some attention to the opinions expressed in the press across this country.
In recent months there has been a great deal of speculation as to what is the usefulness or, shall 1 say, the function of the private member of the House of Commons. As a matter of fact some very critical words have been used in editorials in newspapers which normally support the government with respect to how private members have acted. They have been criticized for not taking a stand on matters of this kind even though the stand be different from that taken by the members of the cabinet. I am going to plead their case now for a moment, to point out that mathematically it is an impossibility and I think they can be excused. I have worked it out mathematically and I should like to state briefly how it works out.
It appears that it is simply impossible for private members on the government side of the house to express any opposition or take an independent stand. If we start with the figure of 168, which I believe is the present Liberal membership, and deduct 20, the number of ministers in the cabinet, we find that there are 148 left.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too many.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Then of course there are
the -parliamentary assistants, one of whom has just finished speaking. Naturally we would not expect them to vote against government measures because they are expected to support them. There are 13 at the present time, and if we deduct that figure there are 135 left.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Still too many.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think it is a conservative estimate to say that for every member now

holding the position of parliamentary assistant there are two more who would like to hold it. That makes 26 and subtracting that figure we are left with 109.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Still too many.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: On the same basis, and I
think it is a conservative estimate, there should be another 13 vacancies in the other place; and using the two to one formula again we have to deduct another 26. That leaves 83. There are also certain judgeships that will need to be filled, and if we take a conservative estimate of 13 we come down to 70. This computation of course is done on a mathematical basis, and I want to be fair. I have referred to recent divisions in the house, and I find that when votes have been taken an average of 57 members of the Liberal party have been absent. I am not critical of the fact that they have been absent; I am simply stating the figure which is taken from the record.


Donald MacInnis: Mathematically subtracting it again.


Mr. Philpoll:: What is the average for the C.C.F.?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Then it also appears-


Elmore Philpott: What is the percentage for
the C.C.F.?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -that on the average there have been 12 members of the Liberal party who have refrained from voting even though they were here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing a resolution in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think the present discussion is a little far afield.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with you. I had got to the point where there were only 13 left. I proceeded to take away 12 and that of course left only one. This one member, who might have been willing to take an impartial, independent and courageous stand on this question, of course had to be given the position of deputy speaker. Therefore we are left in the position where, if an independent and impartial stand is going to be taken by any members of the house, it will have to be by the opposition. I am not saying this in any critical mood. Personally 1 like my colleagues on the other side of the house very much, and I hope they will prove I am wrong in what I am saying by getting on their feet and voting for the motion.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything at this time, but I am not sure whether the 83276-77
Income Tax Act
implication of the hon. member who has just taken his seat was that we on this side of the house are rubber stamps. I should like to tell him that we on this side of the house are just as sincere as anybody on his side of the house. I am going to state now why I am opposed to this resolution. I stated in the house last year that I would support no social legislation until pensions were granted for the handicapped and helpless. I took the same stand all over my constituency and in the result it was quite evident that the people agree with me. I am honest in my statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will conclude the debate.


An hon. Member:: Let him go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have listened with interest to the remarks, made by the only member, except the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who has spoken for the government on this resolution. I refer to the attempt made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance to persuade the house to turn down this motion. I gather, in view of the stand he has taken, and in view of the fact that apparently the government has decided not to move the adjournment of the debate as it did last year but rather to let the matter come to a vote, that it will be a bit of a surprise if we are as successful today as we were in 1952.
Before I proceed to reply to some of the remarks made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, I wish to express my thanks to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and to my colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), for the vocal support they have given to this resolution. I was sorry that the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), who spoke in support of this resolution when it had government favour two years ago, did not get to their feet today.
The arguments put forward by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance are to a large extent the same arguments that have been put forward upon previous occasions, and I suppose someone over there

Income Tax Act
will say that my replies will be the same replies. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in view of the kind of arguments that are being advanced against the fairness of my proposal I feel that I should say a word about some of these arguments.
One of the first arguments put forward by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance was that the exemption levels in relation to the income tax were a lot lower in 1942 when this medical expense deduction provision was first written into the Income Tax Act than are the corresponding income tax exemption levels now. In my view the parliamentary assistant answered his own argument when he admitted that there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living as well as in the rates of incomes of our people since 1942. Actually in my view, if we are going to be fair, the exemption levels should have been raised a great deal more than they have been raised, bearing in mind what they were in 1942 and what they are now.
In any event, whether or not we agree on the point to which these exemption levels were raised, I suggest that they are related to the general cost of living and that they have no bearing whatsoever on other principles of income tax legislation. The fact that these exemption levels have changed has not altered the provision with respect to the deductibility of charitable donations. Why should that change have any bearing on the question of medical expenses? It has not altered the provision with respect to all the various deductible items that are allowed to business. They are still carried along despite the fact that there have been these increases in the exemption levels.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, in another part of his argument, also referred to the tremendous difference in the rates of taxation in 1942 as compared with today. There was quite a difference in the cost of government in 1942 as compared with today, particularly because of the fact that we were in the midst of a very real war, back in 1942. The rates of taxation were much higher for that reason, and the country accepted those higher rates because they were necessary for the purposes of the war.
The parliamentary assistant makes a great deal out of the fact that Mr. Ilsley described his introduction of this proposal as being made on the basis of medical expenses being a hardship to the ordinary taxpayer, a hardship in view of the larger amount of the taxpayer's income that was being siphoned off by the income tax. Again I do not want to

put a silly idea into the head of the parliamentary assistant or the minister, but if he is going to use the argument that this provision was only put in because of the hardship of excessive medical expenses in the light of excessive wartime taxation, then you would think he would remove the deductible aspect of medical expenses altogether once that so-called element of hardship has been removed. The reason he has not done so, I think, is that society has moved along and there has been substituted for that reason Mr. Ilsley gave in 1942 the recognition by society today of the importance of income tax legislation giving some recognition to medical expenses.
Another argument used by the parliamentary assistant was that the amount that would be saved by the ordinary taxpayers, particularly those in the lower brackets, would not be very great. I was a little surprised at the manner in which he put those figures forward. He seemed to act as though he were giving the house something that would be strange, figures that would make me uncomfortable from my point of view. He used illustrations in the very brackets I used in my earlier speech. As a matter of fact he came out with figures not greatly different from some of the figures about which I was complaining.
Following that line of argument the parliamentary assistant said that in the case of a couple with two children whose income was $3,000, the maximum possible saving as a result of removing the 3 per cent floor would be only $15.30 per year. I believe that is a mark of the attitude of this government. They do not seem to realize what $15.30 means to a family man with two children and $250 per month when that family is faced with heavy medical expenses. To the parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Finance or the government, $15.30 may be just peanuts, but every nickel is a help to a family faced with medical expenses. Similarly, he suggested that a single person with an income of $1,100 would be faced with a maximum saving of $5.61 per year as a result of passing my motion. The implication the parliamentary assistant put forward was that it was not worth passing this resolution for such a small saving per year.
The other day a bill was presented which was supposed to be all right because it would take only a few cents or a few dollars from the people in the course of a year. I cannot mention the bill because it is not before us now, but everybody knows what I mean. I suggest that here again you have a mark

of the attitude of this government. They do not realize what every dollar means to a person who is hit by medical expenses.


Mr. Martin:: Why does the hon. member say that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because of what the parliamentary assistant said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the hon. member says is that no member of the government or on this side of the house appreciates the economic plight of certain groups of people. I say to him that he is wrong when he makes that statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) feels that way about it, I suggest he take the parliamentary assistant behind the curtains and rebuke him for having put forward this argument, presumably in the name of the government.


William Moore Benidickson: I said those sums were not inconsequential to the taxpayer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the parliamentary
assistant also questioned whether it was worth while, in view of those amounts, to remove the 3 per cent floor for the so-called little fellow, on behalf of whom I was talking.
In a brief reference he suggested that the wealthy man would be making a greater saving. I was making notes as the parliamentary assistant was speaking, but I did not get down the figures he put forward for the wealthier person. May I point out that any sum a wealthy person is likely to be able to deduct if he spends a great deal of money on medical expenses is not likely to be changed by the 3 per cent floor, because if he spends a great deal of money he is caught at the other end as well, namely by the ceiling. So far as I am concerned, the removal of the floor would not alter his position but would be of real help to the little fellow. I remind hon. members again of what the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) said in an earlier debate, that the removal of the floor would help the fellow who is just over the line. It is on behalf of that group in our society that I urge this resolution be passed by this house.
Another of the arguments put forward by the parliamentary assistant was that the removal of the floor would mean additional administrative tasks for the Department of National Revenue. He says, for example, that the 3 per cent floor means that a great many people do not make deductions for medical expenses. They do not put in the receipts 83276-771
Income Tax Act
they get from doctors and hospitals because the amounts do not add up to a figure equal to 3 per cent of their gross income. Surely that is no argument against doing something that is fair in principle. The government permits deductions for charitable donations from the first dollar, which encourages the taxpayer with a receipt for even one donation to charity to claim that deduction. I suggest that the argument on an administrative basis hardly holds water.
As I am going along it occurs to me that it should be clear in all of this discussion that the 3 per cent floor does not relate to the taxable income of the taxpayer. It does not relate to his income after he has deducted the $1,000 in the case of a single person or the $2,000 in the case of a married person. For all practical purposes the 3 per cent floor is related to his gross income. There are one or two things like trade union dues or donations to approved pension plans that can be deducted before applying the 3 per cent floor, but that is all. For all practical purposes this 3 per cent floor relates to the gross income, not to the taxable income. This point has been recognized by no less a body than the chamber of commerce in the city from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes, the Windsor chamber of commerce. I am sure he must be interested in what they have to say.
The Windsor chamber of commerce argues that if the government cannot go all the way in what we are asking for, at least they should relate the floor to the taxable income of the taxpayer rather than to his gross income. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will give some consideration to that compromise point of view suggested by the chamber of commerce of his own city.
The next point to which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance referred -and he did it quickly; I gathered that he had figures he was ready to use if we challenged the amount seriously-was in respect to the amount that would be lost by reason of taking off this floor of 3 per cent. But since, at least for the purposes of the debate, we accepted the government's figure that the loss might be of the order of $30 million, he did not go into the matter extensively.
I was interested, however, in his comments at that point. They were so typical of government comment, and they were made right in the face of an alternative suggestion made in this debate by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Maedonnell). The hon. member for Greenwood pointed out that this $30 million would be only one sixty-fifth of the

Income Tax Act
amount we are spending on defence, and that conceivably it might be made up by economies in that department of government to the extent of one sixty-fifth.
But no; so far as the government is concerned, whenever we suggest tax relief that might mean a slight reduction in revenue, it never seems to think this might be made up by some form of economy. No; they always say that the only way to make it up is by getting revenue from some other source.
I said in my earlier remarks that if it had to be obtained from some source, well and good. In our view it could be obtained in a fairer way. But I challenge the government not only to think in terms of turning to another source, but rather to think in terms of the possibility of economies to make possible this very fair proposal of removing the 3 per cent floor.
I have only a little more to say, and then we can have the vote on the question. I followed, or at least I tried to follow, the remarks of the parliamentary assistant in his effort to explain to new members in the house what had happened as a result of the way in which my motion was allowed to pass back in 1952. Incidentally, since both the hon. member for Greenwood and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance have quoted from what I said on that occasion, I should) like to draw to the attention of both hon. members one sentence they seem to have overlooked. I do not suggest it was done deliberately, but in picking out sentences they overlooked the one I have in mind.
In the reply I made on March 26, 1952, when I was recognizing that we were simply voting on a motion asking the government to give consideration to the matter, I made it very clear of course that the reason that was all my motion asked was that that was all a private member's motion could ask, when a matter of money was involved. Having made that clear I said, as reported at page 828 of Hansard:
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.
The present Minister of Fisheries did not interrupt at that point.


William Moore Benidickson: He did later on. He gave the words I quoted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was later on-it is all on the record-when I was dealing with another point. I have stated clearly the view I held at that time and the impression that was left

with the house. I made it very clear that it was just a motion, all that a private member could ask for under the rules of the house, asking that the government give consideration to this matter. But in view of the atmosphere in the house, and in view of the unanimous support of the proposal, I said that naturally I hoped the fact that the resolution was passed unanimously by the house would suggest to the government that its consideration should be favourable.
I knew it did not bind the government. But I certainly thought that with the treatment it had accorded the resolution the government was prepared to give favourable consideration to that proposal.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance says today that we cannot now say that this motion is just abstract or innocent. I will accept "abstract" as my word, but I do not think "innocent" was mine. He says we cannot now say that it is just an innocent or abstract motion because-and he turns to address himself to the new members in the house-it would have an effect which he deplores, namely of binding the government, when the minister is trying to work out a budget in the light of increased estimates he has before him, to giving prior consideration to this proposal involving a loss of $35 million in tax revenue.
Let us look at that. The parliamentary assistant says it is not an innocent motion. He says it has the effect of binding the minister-who has been wrestling with the estimates and will have to wrestle with the budget-to give prior consideration to this proposal. But when we said in 1952 that, morally at any rate, it had that effect, a technicality was thrown back at us and we were told that it did not have that effect.


William Moore Benidickson: You admitted that it did not have that effect in 1952, before you took your seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I admitted before I took my seat on that occasion has been put on the record today. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance knows very well that this motion is worded to the full extent that a private member's motion can go. He knows also that almost never-in fact I have not been able to find any instance of it-does this government allow a private member's motion asking for consideration of something to pass unless it is prepared to go along with the substance behind the matter consideration of which is requested.
The government has been going around in circles with regard to this matter. However, I think the high point was reached in the

suggestion by the parliamentary assistant that the government is not this time prepared to vote for the motion. And the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) says he will vote against it. I am a little surprised at his reasoning, and we will probably remember his words at a later point in the session. His argument is that he has stated, and committed himself to the effect, that he will not support any other measure of social security until there are pensions for the disabled. Well, does he doubt the word of his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has already assured us that there will be legislation at this session with respect to pensions for disabled persons?
I do not see the force of the argument of the hon. member for Fort William.
At any rate the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Fort William, the only two spokesmen we have heard from the government side, suggest to us that by and large government members are going to vote against this motion. Well, if the parliamentary assistant has come around now to the idea that the motion only asks for consideration-and he says now that is what I admitted before I sat down in 1952-


William Moore Benidickson: But you did not stick to that position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did stick to my position. It is perfectly clear that there was no chance of departing from it. It is the government that has made the great departure.


Mr. Harrison:: He thought he was innocent in 1952.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for
Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) or whoever is interjecting will have an opportunity to vote on this in a moment or two. If the government now takes the position that this is a resolution simply asking for consideration of the matter and calls upon Liberals to vote against it, look at what this country is being told. This country is being told that this government will not even consider the proposal.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This government is asking its supporters to say that they are opposed even to the request that consideration be given to removing this 3 per cent floor. I say to this government that too often they have relied on the hope that the memories of the Canadian people are short. Over and over again they are doing things like this. In the early part of a parliament they go against
Income Tax Act
the wishes of the people and then try to make up for it just before an election. They have gotten away with it a number of times, but I suggest that they have gotten away with it for the last time.
The next election may be three or four years away, but this is not the last this parliament will hear of this motion for abolishing the 3 per cent floor. If the majority of this house reverse their decision of two years ago, when they supported it, and vote against it today, they will have an opportunity to deal with it next year and the year after until the election comes. I do not think the memory of the Canadian people will be as short this time as it has been. Even if the people do not remember what happened in 1954, they will have a chance in 1955 and in 1956 to see where the Liberal members of this house stand.
In 1952 the Liberal members of this house were in favour of the government considering the removal of what was then the 4 per cent floor. Those on the Liberal side who spoke to it made it clear from their remarks that they were in favour not just of having the matter considered but of having the floor removed.


James Sinclair: Just on one point of order, I spoke for 40 minutes at that time giving reasons why the government did not think it should be removed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. On that occasion he spoke at length and gave the arguments on both sides of the question. It was not a 40-minute speech on why it should not be removed; the minister gave arguments on both sides of the question. The minister was on one side of the question only in relation to the removal of the ceiling, but he ended up by saying that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was prepared to give consideration to the motion for the removal of the floor and was willing to have the house pass it.
But the other members who spoke on that occasion did not get involved in that technicality; they were happy that the government had given a lead suggesting that the motion should be passed, and they spoke in those terms. Certainly it was interpreted in that way by the country. If the Liberal members of this house now want to reverse their position and vote against this motion, be it on their own heads.

Income Tax Act


Tom Goode: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

John Hornby Harrison: 
Mr. Campbell:: Will the hon. member say what the amount of the fund is now?


John Hornby Harrison: I understand that it is something in excess of $2 million. I might say that a similar resolution was moved by the predecessor of the hon. member who has just interjected. It is not my brain child in the first instance. I think it is something that should commend itself to hon. members and I should like to see some discussion of the matter because, as I said at the outset, various organizations interested in western farmers and the grain industry in particular have different ideas on what is the best use that can be made of this money.
I hope hon. members who follow me will put on record their ideas as to what they think is the best use to be made of it. I think the provision of scholarships as I have suggested would be an admirable use. There are not too many scholarships available to the children of western farmers, and it would not hurt to provide more scholarships in this manner.
Wheat Board-Scholarships


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this motion is one that, to say the least, is innocuous in its import as I see it. Although there is no reason whatever for any strong opposition to it, it does not meet the problem faced by the wheat board with respect to undistributed amounts on hand. I have here the wheat board report for 1950-51. It shows that for the year ended July 31, 1951, the amount due to producers on wheat, in so far as final payments were concerned, was over $9 million and on coarse grains $146,000, and that there was a balance in adjustment payments on wheat and coarse grains of approximately $2,600,000, or a total of $11,792,000. For the year 1952 the amount shown as being due to producers is approximately $5,417,000.
While on the face of it this motion can cause no serious objection to be raised, it does not really meet the problem that faces the wheat board in connection with the amount held to the credit of producers. I realize, as the hon. member has said, that many of the amounts that are held are held to the credit of estates and have not been claimed. While I feel that this resolution, if carried, will have a favourable result in so far as it purports to establish scholarships, it does not meet the problem of the disposal of the amounts on hand.
I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that it must be a serious problem for the wheat board to have such large amounts on hand to the credit of producers whose addresses are not known and for which no claims have been made. Therefore I pass on to him a suggestion I have heard made on occasion, and no doubt it has been made to him before on many occasions, namely that the wheat board might follow a similar system to that followed by the chartered banks and from time to time advertise a list of those names to whose credit moneys are held by the wheat board. While the cost of such advertising might be considerable, I am sure many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, now unclaimed would go into the hands of the proper claimants.
One finds frequently in the practice of law, and particularly in the administration of estates, that those to whom moneys have been credited having passed away without leaving any record of having moneys to their credit, such claims are overlooked.
I feel that whether or not this motion is carried the hon. member has performed a fine function in bringing this subject before the house, because it does enable a discussion to take place as to the disposition of those funds, to the end that millions of dollars may
121G

Wheat Board-Scholarships be distributed among the proper claimants. I do not know what the latest figures are because the 1953 annual report is not available.
Some might say that there is negligence on the part of the individuals for whom these moneys are held. That is not my view at all. The position of these people is much the same as those who, having credit balances in the banks, leave the locality, pass away or somehow cease to realize that the credit is there for them. It is only through advertising that these credits become known. Certainly I got a surprise on one occasion when one of the chartered banks showed I had a balance of $10.50 on hand in one of its branches. I know I would not have realized it if publicity had not been given to the fact. I know many who have had large amounts and who have had the same experience.
So far as the disposal of the moneys is concerned, the hon. member has suggested that they be set aside to establish a scholarship fund to be awarded to the sons and daughters of prairie farmers attending universities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Generally speaking that is a very fine objective, and no one could take any serious objection to it. I do not know whether the farm organizations made the suggestion that is now placed before the house by the hon. member, or whether in making this suggestion he represents a considerable group of farmers within Saskatchewan. Certainly as a general principle there can be no objection, but if it is accepted I can see tremendous difficulties in the way of extending these benefits. I can see no reason for casting a vote against it, for at least it envisages providing some benefit from the moneys so held by the wheat board, but who is to be entitled to it? How is it to be disbursed and on what basis? All those things are merely matters of detail.
I rise to say that the motion has in it no serious objection that I can see. I feel it would be favourably received by people in general, having the objective in mind. I believe that a more serious problem faces the wheat board, and that is the need for an out and out advertising campaign setting out the moneys held for a period of at least three years in order to clear up this large amount of money that is today apparently unclaimed from the wheat board.


Mr, W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, there are several observations I should make in connection with this resolution. The first relates to the amount of money in the fund, and where the money would come from in the first place. I think

it is interesting to go through the Canadian wheat board report for the crop year 1951-52, which gives the history of the payments which were outstanding, beginning with the 1940 crop account.
For the 1940 crop account the present total of outstanding certificates and cheques is $86,672.01; in the 1941 crop account, $38,444.99; in the 1942 crop account, $44,447.05. Now we come to the 1943 crop account, in which there is a significant increase to $178,481.11; in the 1944 crop account another increase to $209,246.14; in the 1945-49 pool account, the total amounted to $2,013,355.52; while in the 1950-51 pool account it amounted to $683,169.99, the total for that period being $3,253,816.81. During the period from August 1, 1952 to November 30, 1952, the board paid $1,115,531.94 in respect to its liability of $3,388,375.58, leaving a total outstanding at that period of $2,272,843.64. As the hon. member has pointed out, the figure would stand now at just about $2-5 million.
Now, going back to show where the funds would come from, we see that they may be from cheques for participation payments made out to farmers who are perhaps deceased. I think the board has a responsibility to try to find those who would inherit the estate and who would have a rightful claim against those funds. There are those who have moved out of the locality. There may be retired farmers who have moved to some of the larger centres or perhaps out to the balmy breezes of British Columbia. As I understand it, these cheques are sent out by mail. If the individual to whom the cheque is directed is not available in the locality, and the postmaster does not know where he is, I presume the cheque would be returned to the Canadian wheat board. The board would assume the cheque was undeliverable. I presume the board would make several attempts to deliver it to make certain that the individual was not just absent at that particular time.
One difficult point is that an individual may be entitled to a payment, and may be living at an adjacent point. He may have delivered grain during an open quota to a point some 15 miles distant from his residence, and the postmaster at that point would not be personally acquainted with him.
I think we are safe in saying that in all cases the individuals are unaware that there is a credit standing in their name. As the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has pointed out, there should be an active campaign to inform the public

about those who are entitled to these funds. During the years I have farmed in my district not once have I seen a list of such individuals who were entitled to payments from the Canadian wheat board. I do not say that such lists do not exist, but I have never seen them. I would suggest to the minister, then, that an extensive advertising program be carried out in the newspapers in these areas, setting out the names of individuals who have credits with the Canadian wheat board.
I do not think it should be left to the individual to write to the Canadian wheat board and inquire if there is a credit there.
I notice the hon. member for Meadow Lake has put an arbitrary period of six years in his resolution, after which the funds would become available for a trust fund. It is pointed out also that further claims may be made at any time during that period. I would just question the six-year period. I think it would be more advisable to put it on a ten-year basis, since going back ten years would bring us to the 1942 crop year, where we still have a little more than $150,000 as a beginning, and we could carry on the program from there.
Assuming every possible effort has been made to locate the owners, I think the suggestion that funds be used for educational purposes is very commendable. They should be used to assist those who created them. One method suggested is that of a scholarship fund. I believe it might be well to say here that a relatively small number of the sons and daughters of farmers are able to take advantage of higher education. When I refer to "higher education" I might include high schools. Their services may be required on the farms, or they may be in isolated locations where they are unable to take advantage of high school education.
Therefore I would question the value of confining the assistance to university scholarships, which would afford an advantage to only a small segment of our agricultural population. Only a small proportion of farm personnel, or farm boys and girls, attend university. I think it is equally significant that a very small percentage of them return to the farms to impart the advantage of their knowledge to the local communities. In many instances the students follow non-agricultural lines of study. They may study to become doctors, dentists or lawyers, in which case their studies are of value to them as well as to agriculture, but not directly to the communities from which they have come. I say they are of value to agriculture because we must face the fact that, because of the 83276-78
18, 1954	1217
Wheat Board-Scholarships increase in technology, fewer people are able to farm the same amount of land. Therefore some will be forced off the farms into other lines of endeavour. Anything we can do by way of assistance for them is certainly valuable.
I think a more direct method of spending these funds would be desirable. This could take the form of direct assistance to the communities, through farm organizations. It could provide funds for educational work. I think we are all aware of the significance and value of adult education and the effect it has upon the cultural practices of the farming communities. In my view if funds were made available for local organizations so that, for example, they could organize tours to experimental farms, where the farmers could see the most up-to-date farming techniques and where they could see the development of new varieties, we would do more for agriculture than by awarding scholarships in universities.
In my constituency we are very close to two first-class experimental farms. I refer to those at Swift Current and at Scott. On more than one occasion farmers in that area have organized themselves to tour these experimental stations, and they are very enthusiastic about what they see. Upon returning to their farms they try to put into practice some of the policies they have seen demonstrated. If various farm organizations had funds available to charter buses and organize tours so the farmers in the district would have the opportunity of seeing these demonstrations which otherwise would be denied to them, it would be to their advantage.
In the field of adult education we cannot be negligent of a simple matter such as weed control. It would be advantageous if the farmers could acquaint themselves with weeds and the techniques required for their eradication. In this way the productivity of the farms would be increased.
Just as an example I would point out that some years back an individual in Kindersley received a plant known as toad flax. It looks a good deal like snapdragon. He brought it home with him and planted it in his garden, thinking it to be a pretty flower. I have no doubt many hon. members from northern Saskatchewan will be familiar with toad flax and the damage it can do to land. I might say that today there is a small patch of this weed growing on the fair grounds at Kindersley, and I am sure if the farmers in the community were aware of the dangers from this weed they would be out there tomorrow morning shovelling off the snow

Wheat Board-Scholarships and chopping out all they could find. If one goes about 150 miles north of there he can see the devastation that can be caused by such an innocent looking plant as toad flax.
Another aspect in connection with education in the rural areas with which we must concern ourselves is the desirability of encouraging boys' and girls' club work. If a local farm organization had the funds with which to sponsor such a club it would instil in the minds of boys and girls knowledge of good farming practices. They would be taught individual responsibilities, the value of good seed, the value of education and of companionship. The other 4-H clubs are of equal value; I am thinking of calf clubs, tractor clubs and others suited to the locality.
These are some aspects we must consider when the disposition of funds from the wheat board is before us. I agree with the underlying principle of the bill, that the funds should be utilized after every effort has been made to locate the owners. They should be used to provide assistance through scholarships and assistance to the local community. However, as the resolution is now worded it does not allow for assistance to the community, and I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That the resolution be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "earnings thereon" in the third last line, the following:
" (a) partly";
and by adding at the end of the said resolution the following:
"and (b) partly as a fund to be paid to bona fide farm organizations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the British Columbia block, for use in educational work among their own membership and other primary producers in those areas."
With this amendment the resolution would read;
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide that, where producers of any grain sold or delivered during a pool period have been for six years or more entitled to receive from the board payments in respect thereof under certificates issued pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, or out of an equalization fund, and there is an undistributed balance remaining in the accounts of the board in respect of that grain, such undistributed balances be paid over to trustees who shall be instructed to pay claims as they are submitted, to invest the remainder in appropriate government securities, and to set aside the interest earnings thereon (a) partly as a scholarship fund to be awarded to the sons and daughters of prairie farmers attending the universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and (b) partly as a fund to be paid to bona fide farm organizations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the British Columbia block, for use in educational work among their own membership and other primary producers in those areas.
These funds should be more widely advertised so that farmers would become aware
[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) .1
of them and would have an opportunity to make their claims. I should like to see the resolution carried in the form I have suggested, so that something would be done to provide financial assistance to bona fide farm organizations to provide for adult education and assistance for boys' and girls' club work.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit frankly that I have not given this matter a great deal of thought, but on the face of it I would support the general principle contained in the resolution, that after a certain period of time unclaimed balances held by the wheat board should be turned over to a board of trustees. This board would meet any claims made by farmers who were eligible to receive payment and the balance would be invested, the interest thereon being used for the purpose of providing scholarships for daughters and sons of farmers.
The first question that comes to my mind is whether this matter has been discussed with the various farm organizations, and what is their reaction to the suggestion. Surely if we are going to go ahead with a proposal of this kind farm organizations in the west should be consulted. They might be able to offer many suggestions with regard to this matter. It seems strange to me that we should go ahead with a motion of this kind without first getting their advice. If I remember rightly they did make some suggestions regarding the utilization of these funds in the past, but I forget just what it was. I do know that at the time I was not quite in accord with the suggestions they did make.
Another point that comes to my mind is in connection with the suggested period of six years. In view of the fact that the vast majority of payments are completed in about three years I wonder if it would be necessary to wait six years. The hon. member who preceded me suggested ten years, but I would go in the opposite direction and suggest that if at the end of three years every effort to find the owners of unclaimed moneys had been without success, then it should be paid over to the board of trustees. Those trustees would still be able to pay any claims that were made, and in the meantime the money could be invested and put to useful purposes.
When I say "useful purposes" I do not suppose that the money is actually lying idle. Perhaps the wheat board borrows it to pay operating expenses. I am not certain as to that, but I suppose there is nothing to stop the wheat board borrowing the money and using it to pay operating expenses and thus saving the interest they would have

to pay if the money were borrowed from a chartered bank. Perhaps that is a point the hon. member would clarify if he replies.
I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) that greater efforts should be made to locate the owners of this money by advertising. I have never seen printed in a newspaper any list of names of people to whom balances are owing. If the names of farmers in each of the provinces were printed in some of the principal papers, even though the actual farmer who was entitled to receive payment did not see it some of his friends might, and perhaps they would know where the farmer was living and notify him that he had money coming to him. In that way it might be possible to get more of these unpaid balances paid directly to the farmers.
The amendment suggests that a certain amount of this money should be paid to farm organizations to be utilized for a number of community purposes. The danger in that suggestion is that the money might be spread too far and too thin, with the result that not much could be done for anybody. No doubt there is enough money at the present time to provide scholarships on quite a substantial scale if it were invested, but if you tried to use the money for many different purposes you might find you were unable to accomplish anything worth while.
Another point is what farm organizations would be eligible to receive this money. I imagine that the minute you start talking about making money available you will have requests from many bodies. There would be the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; there would be the three western farm unions, the wheat pools, the western livestock growers' association, the grain growers' association. I do not know just where you would stop making contributions to various organizations.
Personally if action of this kind is going to be taken I would prefer to support the resolution as it stands, with perhaps a change in the period of six years to three years. I do not see why we should hold the money for that length of time. The three-year period would permit the wheat board to try to get in touch with farmers by means of advertising.
On those conditions we will be quite prepared to support the resolution.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution is one on which I think it would be helpful to have the views of a number of hon. members. The resolution 83276-78J
Wheat Board-Scholarships suggests an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I would point out that a similar resolution appeared on the order paper last session, moved by the then hon. member for Mackenzie, Mr. Ferrie. If I am not mistaken the wording was identical. The resolution was not reached or discussed as a resolution during that session, but I looked on it with a good deal of favour. As a matter of fact I helped Mr. Ferrie draft it, or at least suggested the wording.
During that session we did amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and in doing so we made provision for an arrangement somewhat similar to that suggested by this resolution. We provided that after funds had been outstanding for six years they would be segregated in a separate account which could be used as determined by the governor in council on the recommendation of the wheat board. The first intention had been to be more specific and carry out the terms of the resolution in full. However, on consulting the farm organizations it was found that there were as many different ideas about how the fund should be used as there were farm organizations.
Since we could not at that time determine a policy which would be satisfactory to the representatives of the farmers, we decided that we would simply allocate the money in a fund and allow some time for the wheat board to work out a solution that would be reasonably satisfactory to those who speak with some authority for the western producers.
I think the amount of money involved is being somewhat exaggerated. After setting aside all outstanding balances that were six years old, that is six years from the date on which the payment was due, the amount that accrued to the fund totalled $458,344.37. Perhaps I should read this paragraph from what I said at that time, and I quote from page 3425 of Hansard of March 30, 1953:
Every effort has been made to locate the persons to whom this money is due. Advertisements have been used. Letters have been sent. The help of the wheat pool organizations has been requisitioned to try to trace them down. The balances that it is proposed to set aside at the moment are those from the 1940 crop wheat account, the 1941 crop, the 1942 crop and the 1943 crop. The total of these four accounts is $247,289.78; and from the other operations, the 1942 crop oats and barley equalization fund, $58,905.57; and the 1943 crop oats equalization fund, $98,717.59 and the 1944 crop barley equalization fund, $52,431.63.
That all adds up to the amount I have given.


Mr. Nicholson:: Has the minister the total amount?

Wheat Board-Scholarships


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount set aside was $458,344.37.


Mr. Argue:: Has the minister the figures in the 1945-49 wheat account? It seems to me a substantial amount is involved.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will be given as they become due, and they will be put into this fund. I am speaking of the amount already in the fund; that is the payments that are six years or more overdue. The reason for the six-year period is that debts of this kind become outlawed after that time under the ordinary civil law. However, debts owed by the wheat board are never outlawed. Someone spoke to me recently about a very old account-I hesitate to say how old it was but they came across it going through the papers of an estate- which indicated there was something payable by the wheat board. The account was rendered and paid without question. Under the provisions of this fund there is no suggestion of outlawing accounts that are more than six years old. If valid accounts are sent in, no matter how old, they will be paid.
As I said before, the action required by this resolution has already been taken. I think it is section 29 (a) of the wheat board act which was enacted at the last session of this house, which is the relevant section so far as the setting up of the fund is concerned. The subject matter for discussion, and the only subject matter for discussion, is who will benefit from the fund. Obviously the money belongs to no one in particular, except that it came from the producers of western Canada and it should be used for some project that will benefit as many producers of western Canada as possible.
One solution was that as the funds accrue they should be distributed as part of the current wheat pool, in other words that the amount accruing to the fund should be included in the receipts of the current wheat pool and distributed in that way. That did not seem to be equitable. The producers who were contributing to that particular pool had no individual claim on this money, and it seemed quite wrong to distribute the money in that manner, although that was the suggestion made by one pool organization.
I rather like the suggestion made in this resolution. I have never seen a better proposal, namely that it be used to produce a better generation of farmers by sending the young people of western Canada from the farms of western Canada to the agricultural schools of western Canada. That I believe is a very desirable way of using these funds. 1 hope general agreement can be obtained to

that end, and I hope the wheat board will in time suggest that the funds be used in that manner.
I must say that I intensely dislike the method suggested by the amendment, that we try to devote this money to farm organizations. Farm organizations are already legion, and I think if we attempted to use these funds to support them we would have many more to support. I think that would be the worst possible and certainly the most contentious way the fund could be used, because the share of each organization would, I think, always be in dispute.
However, since this resolution is to amend the wheat board act, and since the amendment has already been moved, I hope this discussion will not be brought to a vote. We have a resolution to amend the wheat board act, and an amendment to the resolution. We are not going to amend the wheat board act, because it has already been amended. I hope we can have a discussion on the sole remaining issue, that is as to how the money shall be used. When the discussion is finished I think perhaps a very good way to end the evening would be to withdraw both the resolution and the amendment and send Hansard out to the wheat board as a basis for their examination of the proper way to use the funds in this account.


John Hornby Harrison: After hearing the explanation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the necessary amendment to the wheat board act was passed at the last session of the house I am quite amenable to his suggestion that I withdraw the resolution. Before doing so, however, I think it might be well if I discuss for a moment the amendment that has been made and the main reasons for-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the house should be told that if my hon. friend speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking to the amendment, not the main motion.


John Hornby Harrison: I am speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I must say I am not much more amenable to it than was the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Several objections came to my mind when the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) was making his suggestion. The fact is that most farm organizations have ways of raising funds and most of them have funds at the present time. But the position of the daughter or son of a farmer who may not have ways of raising funds is quite different, and it is

important that if they want to go to college they should have some means of raising funds so they can do so, as many of them otherwise would not have the opportunity. A group organization of farmers, on the other hand, who wanted to go to an experimental farm would have no difficulty in doing so because there are few of them who do not have some means of transportation, or their neighbours have some, whereby they can join in these excursions. Also, farm organizations generally have fairly adequate means of raising funds, and they are in a far better position to do so than the individual child of a farmer.
That is the main objection I see to the proposal. Speaking on the amendment, the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said there were so many farm organizations that the fund would be spread a little bit thin. On the other hand, the fund could provide fairly good scholarships for children, and provide much more benefit than it would to any of these farm organizations.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) for placing this resolution on the order paper, and I am sure all members appreciate the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with his great variety of interests, has been able to give constructive thought to this problem. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce was on strong ground when he suggested that this money should be spent in western Canada in the interests of agriculture in that area.
To support the general proposal advanced by my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) I should like to say that I believe that adult education will require a good deal of financial assistance. The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) cannot hope to suggest this proposal as a substitute for federal aid for education. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out, the sum is not going to be large. The balance he mentioned, namely $458,000 invested at 3 per cent, would give something less than $14,000 per year. If that amount were to be divided among the three prairie provinces, none would get a large amount.
I would suggest that the amount spent on university education should be earmarked for research for specific work. I think no useful purpose would be served if a student went to university and later went to California, New York city or Washington. I suggest that for every year of tuition a student accepted from the fund, one year at
Wheat Board-Scholarships least should be spent on research work in. the area where he lives or where he studies, with a view to solving some of the problems that I should like to submit for the consideration of the house.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for example, in its December bulletin sets out the position of the farmer in August, 1953, as compared with the position in August, 1949. It shows the position to be as follows:
Taxes, increase 16-4 per cent; Farm wages, increase 22-6 per cent; Farm machinery, increase 25 per cent; Building materials, increase 31 per cent; Gas, oil, etc., increase 10 per cent; Feed, decrease -6 per cent; Fertilizer, increase 28-8 per cent; Seed, decrease 5 per cent; Farm family living costs, increase 17 per cent.
With those drastic increases in farm operating costs, on the next page we find this statement:
Figuring 1949 as a basis of 100, the purchasing power of net farm income in 1953 works out at 90.
While everyone dealing in farm machinery, building materials, fertilizer and feed is able to pass on the increase to the consumer, the farmer is in the unfortunate position that his net position is worse in 1953 than it was in 1949.
In one of the other federation bulletins it is indicated that a great deal of educational work should be done in all parts of Canada in order to help people to get a little bit better sense of values. Here is what is stated:
Let's take the year 1950. In this year the people of Canada spent a total of $1 billion on tobacco and alcoholic beverages. We could compare this with the total value of the wheat crop of that year at $712 million, or the total value of all cereal crops of 1950, including wheat, oats, barley, rye, at $1-2 billion. Or we could compare it with the total value of milk production at $432 million.
That is in contrast with a thousand millions of dollars spent on tobacco and alcoholic beverages. I submit that here would be a field for a university student to do graduate work, with a view to helping the people of Canada get a better sense of values, so that agriculture might get a larger share of the consumers' dollars. In 1952 our people spent $1,243 million on tobacco and alcoholic beverages, and on milk they spent $360 million. We find our expenditure on milk going down and our expenditure on alcoholic beverages and tobacco going up. I think all the people in the prairie provinces who have contributed to this fund that we are discussing tonight would agree that here is a field for some work by some students in some of the universities in western Canada.
The editor of the Western Producer had something to say in an editorial entitled

Wheat Board-Scholarships "Danger Signals". In it he pointed out that in the United States for 1954 the program for agriculture calls for reducing drastically the level of support prices, thus discouraging production and also enforcing a substantial cut in acreage sown to crops in surplus. The comment is this:
Here we have a situation which should give pause not only to the Americans but to the whole free world. For surely it affords the most disturbing and distressing proof of the complete bankruptcy of our economic system.
It points out that the crying need of the world is for food, and goes on to say:
It would be wearisome repetition to quote the pronouncements of the food and agriculture organization and other authorities, showing that more than half of the people on the outside of the iron curtain are always hungry-never get a decent meal. On the radio every day our hearts are wrung by appeals for donations of scraps of food to feed the starving. At the same time the farmers of the United States have demonstrated what they and farmers elsewhere can do when given adequate stimulus. They can produce food in such abundance that it becomes a problem to find storage space for it. Then what happens? Well, we see it actually happening right now in the United States. Instead of welcoming the abundance as a God-given respite for the starving multitudes, a frantic effort is made to cut back production. We have the food and there is more where it came from but how to get it to those who need it-that's the problem that stumps the experts. So, may God forgive us, we are proposing to solve the problem of abundance by reducing production, thus creating an artificial scarcity. What more devastating indictment of our economic system could even its most fanatical critic conceive?
That is in the United States. But in Canada not so long ago we took our part in keeping down production. The editorial continues:
It would be a tragic mistake to run away with the idea that these matters interest only one country or affect only the farmers, that the problem is not of major proportions, and, anyway, is only temporary. In plain truth it is one of the principal symptoms of the disease that is killing civilization. For if civilization should perish and freedom die it will be because of the rot within it. The average man does not take fire from eloquent exhortations that it is his duty to defend "our way of life" with his own life if necessary. Wrongly, no doubt, having enjoyed free institutions all his life he takes them for granted like the air he breathes. He judges the value of "our way of life" by its economic performance and because he has himself, in so many instances, experienced the corroding effects of poverty in the midst of plenty, he judges that it has been a miserable failure.
In support of the proposal made by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson), the educational work that would be done by the farm organizations might be the bringing of a man like Dr. Keenleyside to the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as was done in Victoria last year. Dr. Keenleyside opened his remarks with this comment:
Why is it, for example, that although the most famous philosophers, statesmen and poets have praised farming as the ideal mode of life, and the farmer as the most virtuous of men, history proves by endless repetition that the farmer is almost always the last member of the community to receive political and economic recognition? It is a tradition that farmers should have soft words and hard knocks; flattery but seldom a fair deal.
In commenting on some of the problems about which farmers are thinking and to which we all have to give consideration he has this to say on page 7:
Over half the people in the world are illiterate, thus providing fertile soil for the weeds and tares of superstition, prejudice and fanaticism. Over half the people of the world are ill, though most of them could be cured and many of the most prevalent diseases could be permanently eradicated . . . Most of the people in the world are hungry most of the time, yet by applying even our present knowledge to the problems of production and distribution we could ensure reasonable standards of nutrition for all.
Therefore bringing men from the food and agriculture organization, the world health organization, UNESCO and other international and national organizations would no doubt create a desire and interest among all our people to face up to these problems and solve them.
I believe these problems can be solved. I do not think it is to be expected that the farmers of this country should live for all time in a position where roughly 20 people out of 100 get 12 per cent of the wealth produced by all the people. Therefore I submit that some of our young people from the west should be encouraged to do post-graduate work in our universities. I would not limit it to our own, but I would suggest that one of the terms of accepting a scholarship should be that an equal amount of time would be spent in trying to evolve solutions for these problems.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the In our province we have a new medical problem of having so much food in some college that has been completed and is now parts of the world and so many people going operating. In ten years time I think we hungry is a matter to which it would be well will certainly have the best medical college in worth while having a few young western Canada. But it is going to cost the people Canadians devote some post-graduate work, of our province at least $50,000 for every in order to see if in the next generation a medical doctor turned out. We do not better job can be done than has been done begrudge that, but I do not think it can be in the past.	expected that the people of Saskatchewan

should turn out the best qualified young medical doctors merely to have them go to the United States or even to eastern or far western Canada, when the shortage of doctors is so acute in our own province. I think it is a fair rider to attach to the granting of scholarships-and we all seem to agree on the question-that those who accept funds should be required to devote some time and thought to trying to make a contribution toward the solving of the agricultural problems I have mentioned.
Finally, I should like to suggest that for quite some time education, health, transportation and markets will be the four major problems of the prairie provinces. With respect to the field of education, inasmuch as the federal authority has the power to tax all the people of the country I think it must participate in that field in order to see that every Canadian has the best available education. As I pointed out with respect to health,
I think it is unfair to the people of Saskatchewan to have to pay to train doctors at the very high expense I have mentioned, when there is nothing to prevent these doctors from practising anywhere in Canada or the world. If these doctors are going to be citizens of the world I think at least all the people of Canada should participate in the cost of training them.
The same goes for transportation. The federal government is in a position where it takes the cream of automotive taxation money. People on the prairies wear out cars and help to channel funds into the federal treasury through corporation taxes. I think negotiations between the federal and provincial authorities would be quite justified for the purpose of bringing about federal government participation in those fields of activity which in the past, in the horse and buggy age, were thought to be fields for which the provinces were entirely responsible. Therefore I hope some of these funds can be devoted to research work, with a view to finding a solution for some of the problems that are perplexing the prairie provinces.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that the real purpose of this resolution can be served by hearing from hon. members as to ways in which this money might be spent. I suggest to the minister that there is another purpose in the resolution which is quite important, too. In section 5 of the act amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act passed last year we find the following:
Any balance transferred to the separate account pursuant to subparagraph (it) of paragraph (a) of
Wheat Board-Scholarships subsection 1 shall be used for such purposes as the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the board, may deem to be for the benefit of producers.
In other words the governor in council has to appropriate the money on the recommendation of the wheat board. I suggest for the consideration of the minister that the wheat board is very busy with the problems involved in the marketing of wheat, and that it is going outside its own field when you ask it to try to decide in what way this money could be spent in the best interests of producers. It might have to decide between competing claims for this money, and the board might not want to do that in view of the fact that it is supposed to serve producers with respect to marketing their grain. It might not want to adjudicate between conflicting claims.
I suggest that the resolution should be considered by the government from the standpoint of the proposed setting up of a board to advise the governor in council as to the use of this money, and that in view of the fact it is going to spend money which belongs essentially to the producers of western Canada such a board should be very closely in touch with what might be considered in the best interests of the producers of western Canada. The personnel of such a board might consist, for example, of the presidents of western universities or the deans of agriculture of the western universities. If such a board were constituted it would doubtless come forward in a very short time with some suggestion to the government as to how this money might be used to the best advantage of the producers of western Canada.
The difficulty with the present legislation is that the wheat board is so busy with its normal work that it does not have the time, is not set up to investigate and would not want to weigh competing claims. I suggest, whether this resolution carries or is withdrawn, that the government should consider amending the legislation to put the matter of recommendation as to how this money should be used in the hands of a board of trustees constituted perhaps of the heads of the western universities or the deans of agriculture of the western universities. If the matter is placed in their hands there are so many worth-while matters that would be helpful to western agriculture about which they would know that there would be no delay in coming forward with suggestions as to ways in which this money might be used.

Wheat Board-Scholarships
I think that is what the mover of the motion had in mind when he spoke about using this money for scholarships to be awarded to the sons and daughters of prairie farmers attending the universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I fancy that not only would he have in mind assisting the children of prairie farmers as such, but in addition that the work they might do would also be furthering the best interests of the farmers of western Canada. It is for that reason I suggest that this board should be composed of the deans of agriculture of the western universities, because in awarding these scholarships they would have in mind the people who would be likely to carry on for western agriculture. The proposed scholarships probably would be postgraduate research scholarships to enable research to be carried on in some field that needed work done in it, and for which there was not the necessary money.
I do, therefore, heartily commend the hon. member for Meadow Lake for moving this resolution. If we are going to have steps taken without delay to make use of these moneys, we need to put the matter into the hands of a special board set up for the purpose, and leave that board to deal with the way in which this money might be used. I would think the wheat board would be pleased to be relieved of this duty that is placed upon it by last year's amendment. I suggest that the government give consideration to further amending the wheat board act to provide for advice by this board, to be set up somewhat along the line I have mentioned. It seems to me that a board such as that would be better able to decide how best to use this money than we sitting here and making decisions more or less offhand.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, the only reason that prompts me to take part in this discussion is a fact which has been mentioned by many of the people who have spoken, that the subject is of interest to western farmers. Therefore I should like to say a few words in support of the principle involved. I heartily agree with the proposed disposition of this money.
Someone suggested that possibly it could be used to better advantage by educating the rest of the people of Canada as to the farmers' problems. I feel, however, that possibly the resolution does not go quite far enough. I have thought that possibly we could go a little farther with it. In view of the remarks by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few minutes ago in that regard, that does not seem to be the case. I should like to read the resolution as proposed by the farm union

of Alberta; the British Columbia bloc; the Saskatchewan farmers' union; the Manitoba farmers' union, and the Ontario farmers' union in their submission to the Canadian wheat board. They say:
We would recommend, after moneys have been unclaimed In the Canadian wheat board funds for a period of six years that a special trust account be set up under a board of trustees approved by the farmers, that a portion of these moneys and the annual interest accrued thereon be made available to the three farm unions periodically on a basis of and in proportion to the amount of deliveries of grain during these years from each province.
This again brings up the fact that there are a great many farm organizations in western Canada which would undoubtedly lay claim to this money. I was a little disappointed on learning that the amount involved was not as great as some of us had been led to believe. I believe there are some 14 different farm organizations in western Canada which undoubtedly would lay claim to a part of this money. Nevertheless the idea is good, and it is something that has been proposed by other branches of agriculture. For instance, the stock organizations have been proposing that the horned cattle fund be turned over to the universities to carry on work in connection with livestock.
A year ago I had an opportunity of discussing this subject with Dr. Bell of the University of Saskatchewan who, incidentally, is Canada's outstanding man in the field of animal nutrition. He was deploring the fact that trained personnel were not available in the field of animal nutrition to carry out very important work which needed to be done. He also deplored the fact that facilities for carrying out the work were inadequate, and much time had to be consumed in carrying out particular research. It was felt that this did not apply only to universities in Saskatchewan but to many universities with which Dr. Bell had been acquainted. I know it can be argued that the money is being used to the advantage of farmers now. However, I feel that it could be used to even greater advantage. I had hoped that possibly we would have access to some of the principal in the hands of the wheat board, but as I said a moment ago the minister indicated that was not to be had.
I am sorry I cannot go along with the hon. member for Kindersley and support what he said about the lists of names of men who had money in this fund in order to locate them. I know that at my grain delivery point in Tisdale I have often seen lists of names of men who had money in this particular fund. When I heard the hon. member for Kindersley I thought possibly what I

had seen was not a directive from the wheat board, but the minister said a moment ago that the board had received co-operation in posting these names. I presume, therefore, there is some neglect on the part of local elevator agencies when these names are not posted.
However, I should like to add that possibly these names should be listed once a year in the local farm newspapers in order to do everything possible to see that these men are notified they have money in the fund. I believe there are a great many retired farmers who would be quite anxious to give that money to a scholarship that might further the aims of the agriculturists in western Canada. I believe that is a possibility that has some merit.
A moment ago I mentioned that no decision has yet been made about what to do with the horned cattle fund. I imagine that it will be turned over to this work, regardless of how small the fund may be. As the hon. member for Mackenzie stated, a fund of $14,000 or $15,000 would help. We are in hopes that it will be more than that, but even that amount could be used to great advantage.
I should like to mention just one phase of research work which is carried on in the University of Saskatchewan which could use money if it were made available in this way. I am thinking of the work done in connection with rhinitis, a disease of swine. I was out to the experimental farm in Ottawa recently in connection with research that is going on at the farm at Lacombe. Today there is absolutely no clue to a possible solution to this problem. In talking to Dr. Bell I was convinced that the solution will not be found until they have more trained personnel who are prepared to take on some of the more technical work.
I must go along with the hon. member for Kindersley, who has said that practical farm problems could be attacked if some of this money were made available. I might point out that a royal commission has been set up in Saskatchewan to deal with rural life. I am sure that before many months we are going to see that the position of the farmers in western Canada will have to be studied. It will require a great deal more study than can be given to it by one royal commission. Perhaps some of this money could be spent along those lines.
I think the idea in the resolution is sound, and I support the principle of it. Some move along this line has been long overdue, and I was happy to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce speak as he did in support of this
Wheat Board-Scholarships plan. I do not think I can add anything more at the moment. I think all hon. members are agreed that the principle is sound. In spite of what has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by the hon. member for Meadow Lake who sponsors the resolution, I still feel the amendment has merit, and I shall support it.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, no one I am sure will disagree with this resolution, dealing as it does with the problem of education in the rural parts of the prairies. It does make a small contribution to the subject of education in those areas. In our prairie provinces we are faced with many educational problems, the most important of which is the fact that only a small percentage of the rural young people take advantage of the opportunities offered in higher education.
The resolution would seem to offer some assistance in this direction, in giving encouragement by way of scholarships to the group of young people eligible to take advantage of higher education. Before coming to the house it was my opportunity to be in touch annually with most of the high schools in the western part of Manitoba, as well as southeastern Saskatchewan. I found that notwithstanding the increased enrolments in our universities and colleges since the war, it is still true that there are some rural communities that never send any of their high school graduates to institutions of higher learning, chiefly because the tradition of the pursuit of higher learning has not yet been generally established in the rural parts of the prairies.
I do not know the statistics for the provinces outside Manitoba, but I do know that some two years ago statistics for registrations at the University of Manitoba, as between rural and urban students, stood at a ratio of something like 75 per cent urban and 25 per cent rural. I am sure the same pattern would be established in the other prairie provinces.
Going a little further in this matter the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that the key problem in connection with the resolution was to decide how the money could best be disbursed for educational purposes. I would suggest that two critical problems in the rural west are those of entrance scholarships and the great need for encouraging research activities.
In connection with entrance scholarships, I am sure there are many eligible young people, so far as academic standards are concerned, who would carry on their studies in our institutions of higher learning, if the necessary financial stimulus was provided to

Wheat Board-Scholarships
get them over the initial hurdle. Even though on the prairies tuition fees and general living expenses at our colleges and universities may not be as high as they are in the eastern part of Canada, it is still true, unfortunately, that the expense of higher education is sufficiently great to discourage many students who have demonstrated high academic ability in their high school education.
I am one who believes that any student who fits into that rare category of exceptional academic ability should have the opportunity to carry on his or her educational interests in a chosen field. There are many scholarship schemes already available in our prairie universities and colleges, but I do not think the demand could ever be exhausted. When we consider the relatively small sum that would be available from the fund mentioned in the resolution-I believe it amounts to $14,000 a year-I am sure there would be no difficulty whatsoever in apportioning the amount equitably among the three prairie provinces.
Therefore I would strongly recommend that in addition to setting aside part of this fund for research purposes, consideration be given to making some of it available for entrance scholarships. I would not leave the matter at the entrance level, because I know from personal experience that we have students who succeed in meeting the necessary costs in the first year of higher education, only to find it necessary at that time to withdraw. I suggest that any student who in his first year at university has demonstrated exceptional ability should be permitted to draw on the fund to assist in the continuation of his studies, if financial need demands such action.
I do not need to stress the great necessity for research. That has already been dealt with by several hon. members. In view of the relatively small amount involved, however, I suggest it might be wise to restrict the use of these moneys to agricultural research. The surplus funds result from wheat-producing activities, and it seems only reasonable to me that such money should be used, so far as research work is concerned, to deal with problems most closely related to the agricultural field.
Since world war II many veterans from western Canada have used their re-establishment credits to train for specialized agricultural research. I have friends who otherwise would not have gone beyond high school, who have taken their doctorates in agricultural research. Many of them are now becoming active in this important field. But these funds are drying up, and it might

well be that as money becomes available through the surplus wheat board fund it could be used to fill the gap left with the completion of the D.V.A. rehabilitation program.
Turning now to the amendment, I have noticed that many hon. members who have spoken for the group that has brought forward this amendment, discovering the relative smallness of the sum involved, have begun to doubt the value of the amendment, providing that the money should be distributed among the various farm organizations. If the interest from this fund would not be more than $14,000 a year, there would be little merit in such a recommendation.
As far as general educational facilities are concerned I should like to point out that the extension departments of the three prairie universities are making an extremely valuable contribution to these activities. I refer particularly to the University of Manitoba because I have a most intimate knowledge of the activities being carried on there. The University of Manitoba has within the past few years reorganized its extension activities and appointed a full-time director of adult education. During the past two or three years its activities in connection with education among the adult population have increased at an impressive rate.
I know this work has only begun. It is hoped that regional directors of adult education will be appointed and scattered throughout the province of Manitoba to make the contribution that is so necessary in all phases of adult education, which of course would include subjects of agricultural interest. In addition to all this we have our agricultural representatives who make an excellent contribution in the field of popular adult education.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate that the necessary amendment making it possible to implement this motion had already been made to the wheat board act. In the strongest way possible I would suggest that something be done at the earliest moment to implement the recommendations being made here this evening as provided for in the wheat board act.
I believe it was the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Tucker) who suggested that an advisory board be established immediately to deal with the details involved in a program of this kind. I agree heartily with that suggestion. It seems logical to me that the deans of agriculture of the respective prairie universities would be the men best qualified to deal with specific recommendations.

I have one further suggestion to make. If it ever becomes difficult to decide who should be eligible for assistance from this fund I am sure the farm organizations, especially the 4-H clubs, could assist in the process of selecting the young people who would benefit most under this worthy program.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, if I were offering any objection to this resolution I think perhaps it would be that no reference to British Columbia is made in it. If I were offering an amendment I would suggest that the last two lines should read:
-the sons and daughters of prairie farmers attending the universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
While many hon. members may not have forgotten, perhaps they have overlooked the fact that quite a substantial amount of wheat is grown in the Peace river district of British Columbia, and to no small extent in the Creston valley district in my own riding.
There is perhaps an even more important point that has been overlooked in connection with this resolution. Where are the farmers who originally were entitled to this money which is now with the wheat board? I think it is inconceivable that the majority of them are still farming, because they have been alert to the fact that money was available and perhaps would be to their credit in the records of the wheat board. It is my opinion that a large number of the producers, either young or old, have migrated to British Columbia and retired. No doubt if advertisements were run in the British Columbia papers it would be found that a large number of claims would come from that province. If they did not come from the farmers themselves, undoubtedly there would be children of those producers who should be in a position, just as much as the children of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers, to benefit from the terms of this proposed resolution.
This debate has pointed out one thing that we have always feared in connection with federal domination in the field of education. In the various resolutions that have been brought forward in this house requesting federal aid for education it has been pointed out that it is impossible to give substantial aid without there being some direction. As the hon. member for Mackenzie has indicated already, the C.C.F. party would wish, if these funds were set aside and controlled by federal legislation, to have strings attached. They are going to designate where the students should go, that they should not go
Wheat Board-Scholarships to the United States or from province to province. It is just another indication of where we are going to head when we get into this particular field.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of the resolution I should like to point out that apparently the amendment is the only part that is of much value, since what is proposed by the resolution has already been provided for by an amendment to the act. All that can be done now is to have the wheat board recommend to the governor in council what should be done with the money available. The governor general in council can then be influenced by recommendations from the board and it is up to us, I suppose, to let the board know what we as members of the house feel, and the board can pass on these recommendations to the governor in council. Since the minister himself is head of the wheat board I suppose the thing is pretty well cut and dried in any event.
Our amendment asks that a portion of the money which became available through this fund should be distributed to farm organizations throughout western Canada so they can carry on educational programs within their own organizations and among their own membership to the benefit of the people generally in their area, and I do not think we can use it for a much better purpose.
The educational program outlined here is quite good, and I would support the request of the hon. member who spoke last, that some benefits be made available to those people in that part of British Columbia who made contributions to this 'fund. Certainly they should be included in the whole set-up.
With regard to farm organizations and their educational work, anyone who has followed what has been done in the west among farmers who in the past have contributed this money and to whom it really belongs would know that ever since the inception of the old united farmers of Canada and ever since the organization of the Saskatchewan wheat pool they have set aside certain funds for carrying on educational work among farmers in the rank and file of their organizations. I do not think you will find a better informed rank and file among the agricultural population in any part of Canada than among the people of the west who constantly have these matters before them and who constantly study them. These organizations can speak with one voice, can agree on matters of principle and obtain agreement on what action should be taken and then strive toward their objective.

Wheat Board-Scholarships
At the present time you have growing in western Canada one of the finest farm organizations that was ever developed, and that is the farmers' union. The Saskatchewan branch of the farmers' union held a convention in the city of Regina in December last, and they had 1,400 delegates from all parts of that province. At that convention they threshed out the problems facing western farmers and obtained the facts with regard to present and future markets, and in relation to the present Canadian surplus. They carry on research work, but they are hampered to a large extent because there are not sufficient funds available in order to study the various forms of farm organization and development; the marketing of livestock; the future needs of the world in agriculture; and what they can do to adjust their production under existing circumstances so they can meet what the world needs.
I do not think there could be a better use made of the funds that become available than in this fashion, so these organizations can be assisted in carrying on that kind of research. I am sure these groups would heartily endorse a proposal that money of this kind should be made available to them on a membership basis to carry on educational programs. After all, the welfare of Canada depends on the welfare of its people and its producers, and if these people know what the world's needs are and can adjust their production to meet the world's needs then agricultural problems and problems of surplus can be taken care of. It would ease the way for the future. You would have a better informed population, and the rank and file would know what was required.
I hope the minister will change his opinion with regard to the value of farm organizations. I do not think this money would be spread too thinly. I believe farm organizations would get together and decide where the money could be spent on the kind of research work that would be of value to them all. I think the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Saskatchewan farmers' union, the Canadian farmers' union and the farmers' union of Manitoba are all working together and making a splendid contribution to the future welfare of their people. I do not believe these people, whose money this really is, would want anything better than that a large portion of it should be used to carry on the work of research and education among the farm organizations in the west.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope in the short time left to make a contribution that would be of any value

in this debate. I did intend to ask the hon. member from Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) a question. Perhaps I may be permitted to ask that question through you, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member advocated the inclusion of British Columbia, did he mean that this fund should be spent for the benefit of the province or the people in the province in proportion to the amount of contributions by the province? Was that his idea and is it his intention that British Columbia should have its share on that basis?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that there are a large number of retired prairie farmers both young and old who have contributed a large amount to this fund, and I think they should share in the fund in proportion to their contribution. That is, if there are farmers who have retired and are living in British Columbia they should not be overlooked. If that would be difficult to work out, then let it be on the basis that British Columbia farmers who have made very great contributions would be paid on a per capita basis.


Mr. R. J. Wood (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a brief word on this motion and on the amendment. I think the setting up of a fund as suggested by the hon. member for Meadow Lake is a very good idea, and I want to congratulate him for having proposed this motion. I think it should be borne in mind that this is a fund that has accumulated with the wheat board and is the result entirely of the efforts of the grain producers of the three prairie provinces; that this fund by which it is suggested we create scholarships would be set up on interest accumulated on securities to be bought by the board that would be appointed to look after the fund. That fund would provide scholarships for boys and girls of farmers of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to enable them to study in the colleges of these three provinces.
Very important research work has been done in plant and cereal fields in years gone by and through that research, particularly in regard to the problem of rust, farmers in the west have saved millions of dollars. I know a young man from my constituency by the name of Leonard Shebeske who took up research work before the war and followed it up afer the war under a similar scholarship which he obtained, and through hard work he is now a professor at the Manitoba college and head of the cereal and plant research work there. If a fund such as that

suggested in this motion were set up to encourage other young farm boys and girls to follow this type of work I think it would prove to be very desirable.
Just recently we had in this house an announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we have now what is known as Selkirk 15B rust-resistant wheat available in small quantities to farmers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan at $5 a bushel. In the Winnipeg Free Press a couple of days ago I noticed a report to the effect that there is a big demand for this same wheat across the border in the United States at $100 a bushel, and that it is not available there. This gives a little idea of the value of research work of this kind.
The losses from rust in the western prairie provinces have been very great in the past. Back in 1935 I think the losses amounted to over $30 million; but, through research, losses last year amounted to approximately $8 million. As I say, through research these losses are becoming less year by year. Now with the introduction of this Selkirk 15B rust-resistant wheat the losses will be still smaller.
I think it is commendable that a fund of this kind should be set up to permit research work on plants and cereals in the universities. In view of the fact that this money has accumulated from the grain producers of the prairie provinces, I think it is proper that it should be spent to the benefit of the grain producers of those provinces. I believe the suggestion in the amendment to divide the money among the farm unions of the prairie provinces would just create a lot of trouble.


Hazen Robert Argue: In what way?


Robert James Wood: The idea might be commendable, but we have many farm organizations in western Canada; and I would not want to be a member of any board which had to decide how that money should be divided. If that money could be divided without any trouble the idea might be commendable. I believe the idea of setting up a fund to give to boys and girls from the farms of the prairie provinces scholarships in the colleges of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in order to follow this class of work of research and the like, is highly commendable. Therefore I consider that this motion deserves the support of the members of this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Question.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: I have followed this debate, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: Do not talk it out.
Wheat Board-Scholarships


John Horace Dickey: -with a great deal of interest, as have the other members of the house. It has certainly served very well the purpose indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in that it has resulted in a number of members expressing fully and frankly the views they hold in connection with this matter, which is one of some concern.
My interest in the problem is not a practical one in the sense of my representing a constituency in which live and operate a number of producers who have a direct interest in this fund. My connection with it started when it became my duty some time ago to look through the files and see what had been done about this particular problem in the past. I must say that it was a highly interesting study.
In his remarks the hon. member for Ros-thern suggested that the wheat board, being extremely busy with their business of selling wheat, should not be asked to give consideration to a problem of this kind. To the hon. member and to the house I should like to say that from the files it is evident that the wheat board have taken a real interest in this particular matter and that they have found time to give it considerable study and careful consideration. I believe they have agreed in principle with the suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the interest from these funds should perhaps be used for purposes of education.
However, there is one thing that I think should be made clear, and it is this. Up to the present time the principal consideration has been in connection with the employment of the funds that are realized by way of interest on the principal amounts that have been and are still held for the persons actually entitled to them, namely the producers who are entitled to these participation payments but who, for one reason or another, have not received them.
The system is that the board keep a record of the participation-the deliveries-of the various producers, and they do not consider any of these funds as undistributed until the final payment of the pool has been made. Then the funds are considered as undistributed but are held for six years in the general funds of the board and, of course, are available to the producer whenever he comes forward and -asks for payment.
Then as a result of the amendment to the wheat board act passed by this house at the last session, the act now authorizes the wheat board to pay into a special separate account the amounts which are regarded as undistributed. These funds are still held with the

Wheat Board-Scholarships idea and the hope that some day the person or persons really entitled to those funds, as owners, will come forward and collect them. For that reason no serious consideration has been given to disturbing the principal amount of these funds. However, it is recognized that it would be valuable to find some practical means of employing the moneys that accrue by way of interest to the benefit of producers of western Canada. That is really the problem that has to be solved.
Mr. Speaker, as it is ten o'clock-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did it. It is ten o'clock. Mr. Dickey:	-may I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Dickey the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall consider
first the amendment to the Northwest Territories acts, and then the Criminal Code. Should we complete that business, we shall proceed with consideration of the bills standing in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), with respect to the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, and with respect to the Explosives Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 19, 1954