1956-02-13

[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1956
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 13, 1956


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When discussing the cost of the present butter policy on Friday, February 10, I pointed out the plan under which institutions had been allowed a discount of 21 cents a pound may cost $1,500,000. Then I went on to say this:
The important thing about the matter is we started out to prove to our satisfaction one of two things: Either that people or institutions use more butter when they are getting it cheaper or that they may use more butter and less margarine when they get it-
Meaning butter.
-cheaper. The statistics do not indicate that they have done so in this case. They are using just about the same proportion of butter-maybe a little bit more in some places and a little bit less in others-at 40 cents a pound as they used previously at 61 cents and they are using about the same amount of margarine now as they used previously.
At this point the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) asked a question:


Mr. Dufresne:: Has the minister the figures for eafh province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Can he say whether, in the province of Quebec, this arrangement of giving butter to institutions at 40 cents a pound has increased the consumption of butter?
The effective part of my answer was as follows:
As of March 4 ... in Quebec the number of institutions there was 236 . . . They used 154,000 pounds of butter that month . . . 6,000 pounds of margarine. Then they had other fats, neither margarine nor butter, amounting to 53,000 pounds.
I stated that for the last month:
. . . there are 777 institutions in Quebec now which is about three times as many, and in the last month they used 297,000 pounds of butter, 13,591 pounds of margarine and 103,146 pounds of other fats.
About an hour later, following my address, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) said, as recorded at page 1064 of Hansard for February 10, 1956:
Could I ask one question about the figures for margarine in Quebec? Some of us were under the impression that the sale of margarine in Quebec was illegal.
I did not answer, but as soon as I could leave the house I attempted to get full information to give to the members, but because the staff had gone I was unable to receive full information. I, therefore, interviewed the Hansard editor who informed me the report had already gone to the press. He suggested I should see the Speaker, which I did. I suggested that I be permitted to withhold a small part of the information used in answering the question. I suggested this would necessitate my stating to the members full information regarding the matter, and stated I would make a complete statement to the house when the house opened on Monday. That is what I intend to do at the moment.
I understand the Speaker complied with my suggestion and arranged to have the statistics relating to Quebec and margarine left out of Friday's Hansard on the understanding I would replace them on Monday with full particulars.
I saw the Canadian Press and was told that the report had already gone out to the Toronto office. It was suggested later that I might make a statement which would be published along with any report which they put out. I have read the Canadian Press report as it appeared on Saturday morning in the Montreal Gazette. In it is a statement which I made to the reporter who saw me in the dining room while I was eating dinner. I stated this to him: "I just read the answer from a record that was placed in my hands, and I would not like it to be considered authentic until I have an opportunity of checking it." They put that in their report, just as I said it, and used the reference to it in the lead to the article. Then, they went on to cover what happened in the house in connection with it.
At this point, I want to thank the Canadian Press for the manner in which they dealt with the whole matter, and the way it was reported, particularly in the only paper in which I read the report. It was probably in all the papers that they supply with reports in much the same language, but they gave a perfectly correct report of what I had said to them and what I said in the house. They added something of their own, which I presume they got in Quebec. They added a statement which was not mine, and I assume

Hansard-Altering of Report therefore they took the trouble to find out what the facts were. The last sentence of the article is this:
Quebec law prohibits manufacture and sale of spreads manufactured from vegetable oils. It does not apply to spreads made from animal or fish oils or fats.
Well, that does correspond with the facts as we know them, but I have no comment to make upon that; that was not my suggestion when the article was written.
I have checked the records and wish to put the following statement on Hansard. After the plan to provide butter at a price reduced by 21 cents a pound to institutions was first set up on January 20, 1955 and an institution made application to be supplied at the reduced price, a printed form was sent to that institution asking for, first, the quantity of butter used monthly-that was, used monthly before they made the application-the quantity of margarine used monthly, again before they made the application, and the quantity of other fats used monthly before they made the application. Then, there are two lines left for remarks at the end of that. I have no record of any remarks that were made; but the record for the last month before the officials of each institution made application shown in the statistics from which I quoted the amount of butter, margarine and other fats used in Quebec at the time the institution first came under the plan.
I should say at this point there is no difference between the province of Quebec and any other province in that regard. Exactly the same forms went to all the provinces, and the returns came in from those provinces, giving the position which existed when the institution came under the plan. From the time the institution came under the plan the record of butter used is the actual amount for which we made the 21 cents deduction. Hon. members will see that there is no difficulty about that because month by month we had to pay 21 cents a pound on all- the butter that was used by the institutions, so we make our own records with regard to that. It is not necessary to get the facts from the institutions.
The total of the number of institutions and the amounts of margarine and other fats for the province of Quebec are listed on the first return on the file, which would be at the beginning of February of 1955: Number of institutions, 199; butter, 133,166 pounds; margarine, 5,408 pounds; and other fats, 46,680 pounds.
Then, as new institutions came under the plan the amount of margarine and other fats they were using at the time they came

in was added to the total of those already in. That is the figure which is shown for each succeeding month. I should like to point out that does not mean that those institutions are still using margarine in any quantity; it does not mean that after they came into the plan they used margarine, and we have no record as to what they did do after they came under the plan. It only indicates that before they came under the plan at all they were using margarine in some form. Again, I would remind hon. members of the distinction made in the Gazette report as to the two different types of margarine. Their contention is that margarine which is made from anything other than vegetable oils is not illegal in the province of Quebec. That is something that will have to be determined by others. I am not offering an opinion on it.
The last statement which I had on my desk when the quotation was asked for was that of January 27, 1956, and it reads as follows:	Institutions, 777; butter, 297,313
pounds; margarine, 13,591 pounds. Again I repeat, that does not mean that those institutions are using that much margarine or any margarine since they came under the plan. That is the total amount that was used by all institutions before they came under the plan from February 1 last year down to January 27 this year.
I now have a report for February 10, 1956, which is two weeks later, which illustrates the practice followed. It shows: institutions, 788; butter, 299,135 pounds; margarine, 13,666 pounds; other fats, 103,346 pounds.
This shows that in the two weeks preceding that report there were 11 new institutions came in. The increase in the report with respect to margarine is 75 pounds and the increase in the report with respect to other fats is 200 pounds. This record does not show what they continued to use after they came in. It is only a record of what they were using, and the record of each new institution is added to the records of all other institutions previously recorded to give the total figure.
Our record shows that in all institutions in Quebec there were 1,822 more pounds of butter used in the two weeks ending February 10, 1956 than in the week ending January 27, 1956. As a matter of fact, that was the question asked me by the hon. member for Quebec West. He wanted to know what was the difference with respect to butter. That is the question as it appears in Hansard. The records have been given the same way in all provinces. It will therefore be necessary to obtain further information from all institutions before being able to determine the

answer as to exactly what the effect of the application of the plan has been on the consumption of butter.
I only say that because in my speech the offier day it will be found that I said, when discussing the matter here, that one of our objectives was to find that out, and these records which I am reviewing now do not make it possible to find that out. I do not know whether members are interested in hearing the law as it is in Quebec. I have the sections of the act here. It is probably not necessary to read them to the house. Maybe I should read them. I think it would be just as well to read them. It is not our law, it is the law of the province of Quebec, and it is not our responsibility to enforce the law.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister of Agriculture that neither the figures he gave last Friday nor the law of Quebec are in question in the house at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: They may not be in question in the. house-


Major James William Coldwell: Or in the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: -But I gave an absolute undertaking both to the Speaker and to the press that I would give the figures today and give an explanation of what they mean.


An hon. Member:: Why?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, if no one wants to have the right information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may comment at this time, the minister is quite right in raising a question of privilege in order to deal with the particular matter at issue, namely the alteration of Hansard. I was waiting to see if hon. members would raise a point with respect to the additional matter the minister has been dealing with in the last few minutes. If the point is raised at this moment the minister should not go any further than necessary in order to explain his question of privilege. Whatever else has to be done with respect to the matter of butter and margarine will have to be dealt with when we resume the discussion in committee of supply.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is quite all right. That is why I asked the question whether the house wanted to hear it, and that is the answer. Finally, all I have to say is that the government has nothing to do with the distribution of margarine, spreads or other fats in the province of Quebec and only seeks information there as well as in other provinces for the purpose of being able to determine whether the policy is having any effect upon the consumption of butter, and, if so,
67509-70J
Hansard-Altering of Report how much. There is nothing in our records to indicate anything being done by any institutions in Quebec or elsewhere which is illegal, nothing whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: As another person who is involved in the circumstances surrounding this case I should make my position clear. The right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) came to me last Friday a few minutes prior to six o'clock with respect to an alteration which he wanted to have made in Hansard. As hon. members know, at that moment I had as guests in my chamber two members of parliament from New Zealand whom several hon. members had met between five and six o'clock.
When the minister came to me I understood, and I am sure the minister, who has not perhaps put the emphasis on that particular phase of our conversation but rather on the other, which is the inference that whatever he had said might have indicated that the institutions in Quebec were violating the law. I want to say that I was not so much concerned with that, because having said that, that was not the main reason I thought his request was reasonable.
He was dealing with figures and in front of the two guests who were there he indicated that there was very little time left and for the purpose of accuracy certain figures had to be changed and others taken out of the record. I took it as a minor essential alteration; that is the way it struck me. We were in committee of supply where more latitude is allowed than when the Speaker is in the chair for the revision of questions asked and answers given.
I want to say too that I was further impressed, although that was not the motive of my decision, by the fact that something had been said which might create considerable implications with respect to institutions in my province. As I say, that was not the main reason why I made the decision I thought I was perfectly within what I considered to be the guiding rule with respect to alterations made in Hansard, and I shall deal with this later.
There is another thing which was in my mind. These were the very last minutes before six o'clock on Friday and I was fortified by the fact that if by any chance I was erring the possibility of redressing the situation could always be found. The daily edition of Hansard is the unrevised edition. We all know that within eight days from the moment speeches are made there is a revised edition prepared. Therefore we can always check whatever has been said and reinsert whatever has been taken out if it
noo

Hansard-Altering of Report is considered by the house that what has been taken out should not have been taken out.
I want hon. members to realize this position. In the first place, what is Hansardl Hon. members think it is the official report of debates, and so it is. But in what sense is it the official report of debates? I want to say this to hon. members for their consideration because now that I have an opportunity to deal with this matter I should like to deal with it as thoroughly as I can.
The editor of Hansard and myself, and I presume the Clerk, are in a difficult position because of a custom which has been established over the years of members going to the Hansard office to revise their typescript. Some make very few revisions but others make numerous revisions and it is sometimes difficult for the editor and myself to decide just where we should stop in accepting revisions that are being made.
According to the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Hansard is a report as accurate as possible of the debates, but it is official only in the sense that it is published, not by an outside contractor but by persons who are employees of the House of Commons. I find the Speaker's remarks in Parliamentary Affairs, page 218, volume 2, 1948-49. In reply to a question in which a member was talking about an amendment which had not been referred to in Hansard, Mr. Speaker said:
I can assure the right hon. and gallant gentleman that the mere fact that he has raised that point will automatically put the matter right. I think the right hon. and gallant gentleman said that it was a mistake in the official report. Hansard is not an official report. It is, I hope, as accurate an account of our proceedings as possible. The official report is one which it is my duty, the house remembers, by resolution passed at the beginning of every session, to peruse daily. I did peruse the official report, which is the accurate one, and it says "Another amendment made", which is the correct wording. Therefore, officially the amendment is correct and in order, and I hope that what I have said, and what the right hon. and gallant gentleman has said, will ensure that the matter is put right in Hansard.
In other words, there is a distinction between Hansard and Votes and Proceedings. Votes and Proceedings is the only volume that' is official in the sense that evidence of it has to be accepted by the courts. Now, if hon. members will permit me, I want to ask, what is the authority of the Speaker with respect to Hansard? Some may think that, because there is a standing committee which is appointed at the beginning of every session, the standing committee is the one that should be the supreme authority with respect to anything that goes into Hansard. I wish to submit that it is not exactly so.
IMr. Speaker.]
In the first place, the standing committee is not an administrative body and does not deal with anything unless something is referred to it by the house. As a matter of fact, once our standing committees are appointed there is always a motion that follows to indicate that they be empowered to do such and such, namely to deal with anything that may be referred to them from time to time. Hon. members will find that in their Votes and Proceedings at the beginning of every session.
Therefore, the standing committee on debates does not deal with current matters such as the one with which we are concerned at the moment. The position here is similar to that in the United Kingdom, and it is as follows. I quote from Parliamentary Affairs, volume 5, 1951-52, which states the position in the United Kingdom:
The official report began in 1909 and the committee, whose terms of reference were extended to enable them "to assist Mr. Speaker" in the arrangements for it, became the "Pub. and Deb.
. which still exists to this day. "Assistance" is the most they can give, as responsibility for the production of the official report rests solely upon the Speaker.
In our own house, the situation is the same, because we had sessional committees until 1906, and on July 10, 1906, the committee on debates was made a standing committee. As I said a moment ago, it is not an administrative committee; it is one which is not called upon to sit unless some matters are referred to it by the house.
Having stated what my responsibility is in the matter, I should like to tell hon. members as briefly as I can what I consider to be the guiding principles which I think the editor of debates should follow in accepting revisions which are suggested, and the guiding principles which I follow myself.
I wish to interject here that during the last recess I had a long conversation with the associate editor of debates, and we talked about this problem of hon. members revising the transcripts of their notes. "I pointed out to him that he would receive my full co-oper-r-'ation in trying to maintain as closely as possible the original text as the speeches were pronounced in this house and to accept revisions only when they were minor alterations or when they were merely corrections for the purpose of improving the vocabulary or correcting grammatical errors.
I told him that I had looked at the authorities in the United Kingdom, that they were specific on the point, and that I thought it would be the wish of our house that the same rules that exist over there should exist here.

What are those rules? I have here a little volume entitled "Our Hansard" which is published by Mr. William Law. In it I find this:
A third revision-
He is talking about the revisions by members that have taken place in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.
-is given to some of the speeches. A few members of parliament come up to the sub-editors' room and look through the transcripts. They have no right to do so, but the practice of allowing members to make corrections has its beneficial side, and . has been allowed to grow up because it can con-[DOT] tribute to the accuracy of the report. The member is not allowed to make alterations in meaning unless it can be shown that the reporter has misunderstood him and he is not permitted to read the speeches made by other members. Control of this practice, under the editor, of course, is in the hands of the assistant editor, who has the power, but seldom needs to use it, to erase what a member has written. He, with his sub-editors, is thus not only the corrector but the protector of the report. It is under his authority that the transcripts are finally passed for publication.
Speakers of the house have twice been asked to give a ruling on the practice of allowing members to alter their transcripts, and they have made it clear that the limits within which the member acts are very narrow. This is the official report of the questions put to Mr. Speaker Lowther on 6th April, 1914, and of his answers:
"Mr. Ronald McNeil: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question relating to a matter of procedure-whether you would be good enough to inform the house, for the guidance of hon. members, whether there are any restrictions on the right of members to correct the official report of speeches delivered by them in the house and in particular whether there is any unwritten rule or honourable understanding that corrections should be limited to verbal errors, and that members may not, by the insertion of words or phrases, effect material changes in the meaning of that which they actually said in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I have consulted the editor of the official report on this matter, and he tells me that, although hon. members make corrections, he revises those corrections, and it does not follow that because an hon. member makes a correction in the proof that that correction is always accepted. I asked the editor on what principles he went, and he said that the chief principle which guided him was to obtain an absolutely correct report of what was said . . .
He is very careful not to allow any corrections which would in any way alter the general sense of the speech made, but that he does accept corrections, for instance, of faults of grammar, split infinitives, redundancies, or incorrect dates, and I have told the editor that in my opinion he is in that way acting quite correctly."
Then later on Sir William Byles asked a question:
Hansard-Altering of Report


Mr. Whyte:: Is it not the case that, owing to the difficulty of reporting hon. members, who usually speak in the direction away from you, the report taken of speeches in this house often omits very material sentences, and therefore, sir, it may often happen that in an important debate phrases or words are omitted or inserted which did not actually leave the lips of the speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: That is so, and I have had complaints from the reporters that when hon. members, and I am sorry to add, right hon. members, turn their backs on the chair and address the benches below the gangway, it is very often very difficult to catch exactly what is said. I have given instructions in cases of that kind that it is the duty of the reporter to leave a blank if he is not able to take down the next words, and to ascertain from other sources what was said, and fill up the blank in that way.
Later on in 1944 Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown was called upon to rule upon the same subject and he reiterated the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1914.
That therefore is the situation in the United Kingdom and those are the rules which I think should apply in our own house. I am fortified in that view by another fact. In 1948 the standing committee on debates held meetings. I think it is the last time the standing committee on debates held meetings. Prior to that date there was a meeting I think in 1932 or 1933 and some in 1924 or 1925. But in 1948, as appears at page 490 of the Journals of 1947-48, I read in the report which was concurred in by the house the following, being paragraph 4:
That the pages of the daily edition be kept intact so that, after permissible corrections are made, the pages of the daily edition can be used for the bound edition as originally printed, and that-
And I draw your attention to this portion:
-changes suggested by members be confined strictly to correction of errors and essential minor alterations.
To me these are the guiding rules with respect to the execution of our duties; I refer to the duties of the editor of debates, myself, the Clerk or anyone else who may have anything to do with the matter in this house.
Some hon. members may say, "If those are your views, you are far away from having observed them in dealing with the point that is now before us". I will agree that is so. The only excuse I have, if any, is this. Whereas of late hon. members have been, so far as I can ascertain, perhaps more particular than ever with respect to any changes which might be made in Hansard, it looks as though even in the United Kingdom, when it comes to figures, quotation or statistics, about which one may have doubt, and especially when the house is sitting in committee and not with the Speaker in the chair, more latitude has been given. Indeed, in 1924 I find that the house even considered the possibility of


Sir William Byles:: May I ask you whether it has not long been the practice of hon. members to make slight verbal alterations in the proof which reaches them in order to make their meaning more precise and accurate?


Mr. Speaker:: That might be their habit, but it rests with the editor of the official report to consider whether that amendment or alteration does materially affect the sense.

Hansard-Altering of Report eliminating Hansard in committee and reporting only speeches made when the Speaker was in the chair. In the order of reference of the committee on debates which studied the matter-and this is found at page 504 in 1924-one question before it was this:
2. Whether it is desirable, in the interests of economy of time, labour and expense, that the report of the debates in Hansard should be limited to set speeches as may be delivered when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, with or without a brief report of proceedings in committee.
On the other hand, in the United Kingdom when the house sits late at night whereas they do not allow members to go upstairs to correct their speeches, they will allow this, and it is a suggestion reported in the Journal of the Society of Clerks at the Table in Empire Parliaments for 1947, page 38, volume 16:
It is suggested that in the case of these later speeches members should not seek to do any revision later than 10.30 p.m., except on special points of difficulty or doubt, involving names, figures, or quotations.
As I said before, if we had been in different circumstances than those which prevailed just a few minutes before six o'clock on Friday night, the matter would have been dealt with in the house.
I believe that from now on it should be made certain, and I think the house will agree with me, that the editor of debates should, if these rulings I have quoted constitute a proper authority for the manner in which hon. members want to have their Hansard protected, be guided by those rulings without any reference whatever to anybody else. /If an alteration is to be made in our debates, the matter should be dealt with on the floor of the house. This matter of the Speaker or the Clerk or anyone else having to do with this editing of debates, and being called upon to judge what may be taken out or put in, is putting those persons in the position of being censors. There is always the chance-as a matter of fact I would say it would be an illusion to think that if any material changes are made to Hansard they will not be picked up.
As hon. members Know, the transcript of speeches made in this house is issued to the press gallery about 20 minutes after the take is reported. Members can always have access to the editor's room to check the speeches that are being made. There are all those hon. members who were in the house at the time the speech was made, most of whom have very good memories and can recall what was said. We cannot therefore eliminate something from Hansard without there being a chance that some repercussions will take place. I think the minister himself
fMr. Speaker.]

did know that, and I certainly knew it. At the time I conceded to what I thought was a reasonable request by the minister, based on the fact he was in committee of supply and was dealing with figures. Under the circumstances, they appeared to be minor alterations such as would be allowed according to the guiding rule recommended by the committee on debates in 1948 and concurred in by the house.
What are we going to do in the present circumstances? We are in the full house, and we are exercising our powers. I think, myself, that the words that have been omitted, now that they have been repeated in the statement made by the minister, should be reinserted in the revised edition where they should have been all along. It is a matter which is now of public concern, and I would suggest that the words eliminated be reinstated. They are not so considerable as some hon. members may think. I have the typescript here, and the omissions consist of two phrases in the reply made by the minister to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). There is one where it says, "They used only 6,000 pounds of margarine. Then they had other fats, neither margarine nor butter, amounting to 53,000 pounds." Then, later, the figures omitted were, "13,591 pounds of margarine and 103,146 pounds of other fats." Those are the words that have been omitted.
My ruling at this point would be-


Mr. Drew:: I trust there will be no ruling until you have heard the views of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has just said, "I hope there will be no ruling until you have heard from hon. members." I do not know exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has in mind, but the editing of the debates is in the hands of an employee of the house who is under the authority of the Speaker. If advice is required, he seeks it from the officials, that is the ones who are above him, and in this case that is what he has done. The Speaker takes full responsibility for what he has done and at the first opportunity submits what he has done to the house.
Now, I did indicate why I took the action that I did. It is because I have doubts that I propose to redress the situation by suggesting that the words omitted be reinserted.
I would tell the Leader of the Opposition that I could even go a step farther and at this moment I could submit my conduct to the house and ask for the yeas and nays.


George Alexander Drew: May I, in deference, submit to you that before you do anything that purports

to be in the way of a binding decision, you permit hon. members to make comments in regard to the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Leader of the Opposition proceed now?


George Alexander Drew: Hansard-Altering of Report It cannot be done by any member of the house on his own initiative, as was done in this case. What is rfiore, Mr. Speaker, I submit in deference that it cannot be done by the Speaker except under the authority of the house. It can only be done by the authority of this House of Commons, which is the supreme authority in matters of this kind.
There are plenty of precedents in regard to this. On April 7, 1933, the then member for Temiscouata, whom most of us remember very well, objected to. a certain word used by a member about him in debate, and Mr. Speaker said at page 3804 of revised Hansard:
If the hon. member for Temiscouata believes that the word referred to him, I will direct that it be expunged from Hansard.
I would like to point out what happened on that occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member be good enough to give me the date of the incident?


George Alexander Drew: April 7, 1933. The then leader of the opposition, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, made the following statement, which appears at page 3805 of Hansard I just referred to, and I quote his words:
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take exception to what Your Honour may have done in the way of expunging possible objectionable phrases from Hansard, but I would ask if it is not part of the privilege of the house to control its own records, and whether the house should not, before any statements are expunged from the records, pass a resolution in the first instance. I raise this point now because Your Honour has made decisions which equally affect members on both sides of the house. I did not wish to take exception to anything done in the past but I respectfully submit so far as the privileges of the house are concerned that His Honour the Speaker is the servant of the house in this as in all matters, and the house should itself determine whether anything is to be expunged from any of its records.
That was the statement of Mr. Mackenzie King, the leader of the opposition at that time. The Speaker then made this- reply, as reported immediately afterwards on the page of Hansard I have referred to:
I will take the remarks of the right honourable gentleman under consideration.
Then, having given the matter the appropriate consideration, Mr. Speaker Black, on April 10, gave his ruling as follows, as reported at page 3855 of Hansard. I submit that this has stood unchallenged as the appropriate statement in regard to matters of this kind. I quote:
On Friday, April 7, the right hon. the leader of the opposition raised the point that the house having control of its own records, the house should, before any statements are expunged from the official report of the debates, pass a resolution to that

effect, and he submitted that the Speaker being the servant of the house in this, as in all matters, the house itself should determine whether anything is to be deleted from any of its records.
In the case in point, the first opportunity I had of fully understanding the words complained of was when I saw the official report, and since I should have ruled them out when they were uttered I consider I was justified in ruling them out from the chair as soon as the house sat again. I agree that in dealing with Hansard the Speaker's authority is subject to the approval of the house.
Instructions for any alteration in the official report of the debates should not be given without communicating them to the house in session, and for this reason, whenever I have deemed it advisable to direct that certain statements be expunged, I have done so from the chair, thus giving a ruling which, under standing order 12, is subject to an appeal to the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the situation here is one in which the minister could have apologized to the house, as he should have done.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite prepared to do that when you sit down.


George Alexander Drew: At least, Mr. Speaker, we have a grain of encouragement to say that the debate has brought this conviction to the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, and we welcome it. But it goes much farther than that. This subject is not one where figures or quotations were in doubt. This is not a case of a minor change. This is a case of tearing Hansard apart. This is a case of changing the whole context after that part of the debate, and in relation to statements which could have been corrected at a subsequent time by the proper procedure.
Now, if it were possible for Hansard to be changed in this way its effectiveness would be completely destroyed. No matter what we may argue as to the degree of official authority that is to be interpreted as applying to these records, the fact remains that they are described as the official report of debates and they are the only official reports we have. The whole context must remain in its proper form if we are in fact to have an understanding of what took place.
It must be remembered that in the proper course of their duties many hon. members may not be present in the house on a particular day. It is not only the members of the government who have legitimate reasons for being out of the house on many occasions. As every hon. member knows, many committees sit while the house is sitting and members are outside of the house. Unless the record conforms to the meaning and intent of the debate itself, hon. members who were doing their proper business as members of the house on committees or otherwise are denied the opportunity of knowing what took place here.

It is of vital importance that the integrity of the debates be fully protected, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should not be left where it is. I submit with deference that circumstances have arisen which make it appropriate that this should go before the standing committee on debates for inquiry as to the procedure which has taken place and what actually did take place in this instance. Perhaps the Speaker could inform us whether Hansard had already refused to make the changes when requested by the Minister of Agriculture. If it did we should know that, because in that case it was no minor alteration but an alteration which Hansard had already refused to make when it was requested by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: May I deal with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. In line with the conversation I had with the editor of debates during the last recess he did refuse to alter the words and that is why he submitted the matter to me. That is why the Minister of Agriculture came to my office to see me. I communicated with the editor of debates this morning again and I said: "In your opinion was it such a material change in view of the fact that figures were involved and the house was in committee of supply?" He did tell me that he did not think it was such a considerable change but in the light of the conversation we had during the recess it was the type of change which he felt he should refer to me.
As I told hon. members before, I would not have dealt with this matter in any shape or form had it not been for the fact that I thought it was merely a minor essential alteration and having regard to the fact that the house was in committee of supply, the accuracy of figures was under consideration and, as I say, I was impressed by the circumstances that there was an inference there about institutions being guilty of something which had been indicated in the house.
The Leader of the Opposition will permit me to tell him and the house that so far as the editors of debates are concerned they are not responsible for one second for anything that has happened. As a matter of fact, I pay them a tribute for their integrity, their independence, their conscientiousness and their impartiality. I will say further that if there is one man who is responsible for this it is not the Minister of Agriculture but the Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, yes, I am.


Mr. Knowles:: Under pressure.



G7509-71

[Stage Direction]
Hansard-Altering of Report
Mr. Speaker:: Oh well, pressure-it all depends what you mean by pressure. The Minister of Agriculture did not insist that I do it-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


Mr. Speaker:: -but the circumstances were such as I explained a moment ago. Hon. members know that between five and six o'clock I had as my guests two parliamentarians from New Zealand and it happened that several members were in my office while they were there. They were just about to take their leave when the minister came in. As a matter of fact, I thought he was coming in to meet the two parliamentarians in question and I was very pleased to introduce him to them. But in the course of the conversation, and it was just a few minutes before six o'clock, I took it that the editor upstairs had perhaps been overzealous and was questioning the fact that the minister wanted to alter some figures for purposes of accuracy.
I take the responsibility and I am prepared to stand before the house. I will say, having reviewed the matter again during the week end, that I realized, as I said, that if I had had a few hours to look into the matter I would not have dealt with it in the manner in which I did. I confess I made a mistake and I do apologize to the house. In order to put the thing straight I suggest that the words be reinserted just as if nothing had happened, and I am prepared to submit myself to a vote of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a procedure, and I have already quoted what is the recognized authority for a similar procedure. In the first place may I, with deference, suggest to Your Honour that the Minister of Agriculture must accept full responsibility for having initiated the proceedings which led to this unfortunate result. One of the things that must be recognized is that when we discuss procedure here and seek appropriate changes it is not a reflection on the Speaker which should call for any suggestion that he submit himself to the house. It is a suggestion in regard to statements which have already been put forward and which, in the minds of many hon. members, do not suggest a satisfactory procedure.
In the quotations that Your Honour made I submit there was appropriate emphasis placed on rules that should be observed. One is that there cannot be a change unless it is shown that the reporter misunderstood the hon. member who was speaking. No such situation occurred here. Another rule is that an hon. member cannot make changes in the

Hansard-Altering of Report meaning of what was said in the house. Neither of these rules permits any change in this case.
Simply with the idea of indicating what would be appropriate in regard to proceedings of this kind I am going to move a motion, but before doing so I must express concern as an hon. member of this house that Your Honour has sought to justify this procedure by drawing a distinction between sittings in committee and sittings while Your Honour is in the chair. I submit there is no precedent for any such distinction. The informality to which Your Honour refers is informality in discussion, not informality in reporting and not informality as to the manner in which these reports will be dealt with.
Discussions in committee may be just as important and may have just as far-reaching consequences as discussions when Your Honour is in the chair and we are discussing a matter with the House of Commons sitting formally. I submit, therefore, that the distinction cannot be drawn and it would be unfortunate if Your Honour proceeded to make anything in the nature of a ruling which incorporated the observation you have just made. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Leader of the Opposition moves any motion, he must realize under what circumstances he has taken the floor. I was dealing with the point and was about to submit my action to the judgment of the house as was done by Mr. Speaker Black in 1933. At that moment the Leader of the Opposition said, "Before you make a ruling I should like to say something." I have heard him and I think I should now hear other hon. members who wish to speak.


George Alexander Drew: If you are not to permit me to make a motion at this time, then before I conclude my remarks-I could of course make a motion at another time-may I strongly urge that you make no ruling until this matter has been submitted to the standing committee on debates with instructions that that committee inquire into and report upon the omission of certain words and figures discussed this afternoon. May I urge that the committee also on the basis of its inquiry make recommendations which will be for the advantage of Your Honour and members of this house whose authority in the end will determine the matter as to the appropriate procedure which would best ensure the integrity of Hansard in the future.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


James Garfield Gardiner: Will you allow me just to make-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman should wait until I conclude my remarks. First of all I want to say that this discussion this afternoon and the interest in the house, in the galleries and in the newspapers indicate the value which members of parliament have placed upon the official record of this house which we call Hansard. I want secondly to say that I noted that you suggested that you would submit yourself to the judgment of the house. May I say with all respect that I do not think you should do so. I do not see that you have any reason for doing that at this time.
I think the whole matter that you have tried to take upon your own shoulders is one that rests squarely upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). It was the Minister of Agriculture who came to you with the suggestion that certain words and figures be deleted from Hansard. You yourself have said that you understood that those figures were more or less inconsequential as far as the meaning of the statement made by the minister went. In that you were misguided or misinformed. Therefore I do not think that you should take the responsibility for what was done. I have no doubt that considerable pressure was brought to bear-


Mr. Harris:: On a question of privilege and a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that remark was made just earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


Walter Edward Harris: I was about to rise at that point but I thought I would leave it until later. Now that it has been repeated may I point out to hon. members that in effect what they are saying that the Speaker of the House of Commons yielded to pressure of a cabinet minister with respect to something that was within his exclusive jurisdiction, and I want to suggest that no such remark should be made in this debate.


Major James William Coldwell: If that inference is going to be taken from it then I withdraw the word and I do it immediately because that was not the meaning of the word as I intended to use it. I should perhaps have said that very strong representations were made to you, Mr. Speaker, by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, may I have the opportunity of saying that at no time did I put any pressure on anyone, either the Speaker or anyone at all. I would like that statement withdrawn. I did not put any pressure on anyone.


Major James William Coldwell: I would like to know why the Minister of Agriculture went both to the editor of Hansard, who as I understand it refused to make the changes that he urged upon him, and then went to the Speaker if it-


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not refuse, he simply suggested that I go and discuss the matter with the Speaker, and I did.


Major James William Coldwell: All right; I will take that explanation from the Minister of Agriculture. But I do know that on one occasion when a colleague of mine simply inserted in Hansard the words "Mr. Speaker" indicating that I had risen to speak, the Minister of Agriculture not only objected to it but he pursued the former editor of Hansard with letters of criticism almost until he went to his grave.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will you produce the letters?


Major James William Coldwell: I say to the right hon. gentleman that he obtained an alteration in Hansard which was not warranted. We have always believed that a member of parliament might go to the Hansard office and make editorial changes. What I mean is that he might change the phraseology without changing the meaning to improve the construction of a sentence. He might go to Hansard and change a figure that he had misquoted or, as I did the other day, when I quoted the name of a slave, in this House of Commons from memory, I quoted the wrong name and Hansard was good enough to accept my correction for the revised record of the debate.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Did the hon. gentleman say slave?


Major James William Coldwell: S-l-a-v-e. I said the name of a slave in this House of Commons. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that you can put something in parentheses, and that is what I was doing. He is a master of the English language and he knows perfectly well what I was doing, but he thought it would be smart to pick me up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I object; I really misunderstood.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: You are still all wet.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was going to say is that those changes have been permitted, but this is a different sort of change. This was a change in meaning. I have looked at all the precedents that I could find this morning. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has quoted one of them, perhaps the most important. During the last 30 years members have risen in this house and drawn mistakes to the attention of the Speaker and the Speaker has
67509-71J
Hansard-Altering of Report ordered that words might be expunged from the record. From the chair he has ordered it, not outside this chamber. I looked through the records this morning and I could not find a single instance where anything of this sort had happened before. I hope that it will not happen again. From what His Honour the Speaker has said I do not think it will happen again.
I want it to be abundantly clear that in rising and discussing this problem I am not placing blame on Mr. Speaker, although I think perhaps Mr. Speaker did not exercise at that moment good judgment. I am placing the blame where it squarely belongs, on the Minister of Agriculture. This was an attempt on the minister's part to cover up something which he felt he should not have revealed to the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend knows better than that; he should know better than that.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was nothing that I should not reveal to the house. I revealed it to the house today.


Major James William Coldwell: If the minister felt it was something he should have revealed to the house, why did he reveal it to the house today after having taken it out of Hansard on Friday. I will tell you why he revealed it to the house today. It was because public opinion will support the members of this house in demanding that the Minister of Agriculture shall not be allowed to falsify the records of parliament. He realized that and so today he came back to try to make, shall I put it, restitution.


James Garfield Gardiner: I realized on Friday that I would have all the abuse I am getting now and I was quite prepared to take it rather than leave some charge on the head of someone else.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad to know that that was the case. But, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you tried to relieve the minister and I submit that the origin of the whole trouble should be laid on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture and that is where I intend to let it remain.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that perhaps in the end it will be discovered that this incident has been more or less highly inflated. However, that does not mean there is not some responsibility attached to someone somewhere, and that "someone somewhere" amounts to three people.

Hansard-Altering of Report As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, the first is Your Honour. You have given rather a lengthy explanation as to the rules governing this matter and the way you were approached on it, and I think the phrase you used was that you thought the minister's request reasonable. I can quite understand that. I do not suppose the minister came running to you with his hands scratching his hair out in a frenzy saying, "Mr. Speaker, you must do something". Politicians do not do it that way. They come and say-I am imagining I would do it this way-"There has been a slight error in some figures I gave today, and I just wondered if you would mind if they were scratched out and the correct figures put in."
Of course, Mr. Speaker, you would say that was a reasonable request. As far as any pressure being brought upon you is concerned, I would not regard it as pressure at all. I would regard it in the way I have said.
I can visualize the minister coming to you in some such fashion and saying that it is an innocent little correction and your saying, "Yes, that seems to be reasonable to me."
I say the minister should not have gone to you in the first place with such a request. That is where the responsibility, to my mind, rests. If your suggestion that you submit your decision to the judgment of this house is carried out, Mr. Speaker, this group is going to vote confidence in you, because they believe that you do act reasonably in all cases.
The second person that might be involved would be the editor of the debates, and you have already paid a high tribute to the editor of debates. The applause in this house confirms your tribute to the editor, and our experience-some of us over a good many years-would lead us to applaud every editor of debates that we have known in the last number of years. So we would vote confidence in them.
Of course there is only one person left, and that is the minister. It took the minister 20 minutes to rise on his point of privilege, and I think he would have gone on if you had not interrupted. I am at a loss to know why there were not the usual bawls on the government side of the house when a point of privilege lasted more than _ about 10 seconds. Today it lasted for 20 minutes, and no member on the government side of the house objected at all. That will be the day when anyone on this side of the house takes 20 minutes on a point of privilege. However, that is only incidental. There are one or two things I should like to amplify. The minister himself said that he had gone to the editor of debates and the editor of debates [Mr. Hansell.l

had said, "No, I am afraid we cannot delete a passage unless we get permission from the Speaker." The minister went to the Speaker, but there was another body of men to whom he went. He went to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that in dealing with this point you might leave strangers out of the argument?


Ernest George Hansell: The press may be strangers to some people but they are not strangers to the minister or to the government.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister went to the press.


Ernest George Hansell: I hope I did not leave a wrong impression. The minister went to the press. It was the minister himself who first raised the matter by saying he went to the press. Now, I do not know whether we can conclude from that that there was any interference with the press, but the subject matter had gone over the wires and so nothing could be done about it. But this is not the first time that government members have gone to the press and tried to stop the press from publishing certain things. Members might talk about the freedom of the press and so forth, but let no person come to this corner of the house and accuse us of not believing in the freedom of the press.
The fact of the matter is that when the minister made his statement regarding the use of margarine by these institutions in our neighbouring province, somebody began to holler. It is not a matter of changing figures in Hansard; it is a matter of the minister's statement becoming a political issue in our neighbouring province. Somebody told the minister "You have to do something about this." The minister did do something about it, and it was the minister who yielded to some pressure. He did do something about it. He scratched it out of Hansard. He tinkered with the official record when it was not necessary to do so. The minister could have let the thing go just as it was, and he would have been better off if he had, because this criticism has gone into the press and has gone over the radio. Its importance, I think, has been highly inflated. All that could have been avoided by the minister letting the thing go, coming into the house today and rising on a point of privilege to say that he had made a mistake and that he should not have said this, correcting the figures and letting it go at that.
I shall not say any more except this. I think we have really said enough about the matter. We are not going to vote for the motion that has been proposed-


Major James William Coldwell: No motion has been moved. He could not move it.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry. I thought it was a motion to refer this to the committee on debates. I am sorry if I misunderstood it. I do not think a motion is required at all. I think enough has been said to punish the minister. It is not the first time he has been punished in his long career.


Major James William Coldwell: It will not be the last.


Ernest George Hansell: He says he is quite willing to rise and apologize. Let us not allow him or anyone else to think they can do these things and cover them all up with a little apology. That is not good enough. I do say, however, that there has been enough said. The minister recognizes the seriousness of the matter, and I trust that things of this kind will not happen again. The strange thing to me- though it is not strange after you have been in politics for a few years-is that, when anything becomes a political issue, my! my! how the sparks can fly!-and that is what that is. The minister knows it. Those gathered around him know it; and that is the reason for the whole fiasco today. As far as this group is concerned, we could just drop the matter now and let it stay where it is and let the minister realize that we are very critical of his action and that he himself will have to take the blame.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the jeers which greeted the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) when he suggested that there had been an attempt to interfere with the freedom of the press in this matter. If I understood the Minister of Agriculture correctly, he told us that on Friday evening he had tried in certain quarters to prevent certain material from being published. That was my understanding of what he said. When the Minister of Agriculture, with all his years of experience and with all his influence, seeks to have something kept out of the press, if that is not interfering with the freedom of the press, I do not know what is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point in connection with this matter that I should like to ask Your Honour to consider. Before I do so, however, may I indicate my full support of Your Honour's suggestion that no member or minister should approach yourself or the Clerk in connection with matters of this kind. We have complete confidence in our reporters on the floor and in the editors of Hansard and we should not go beyond them with respect to a matter of this kind.


Walter Edward Harris: Will you withdraw your earlier remark?
Hansard-Altering of Report


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is my hon. friend
saying?


Walter Edward Harris: Will you withdraw the remark
with respect to pressure, as your leader did?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance is asking that I withdraw the remark that I interjected at one point and in which I used the words "under pressure". Mr. Speaker,
I do not feel that I should withdraw that remark. If any member of this house asked the editor of debates to make a change and the editor refused and if, as a result of that refusal, that member went to the Speaker in my view that is putting pressure on the Speaker.
The point I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, relates to your suggestion that the words that were stricken from Hansard the other day be inserted at the proper point in the bound volume. First of all, of course, it will have to be made clear just where those words go. I believe Your Honour is the only one who has read the exact words so far and you said they would go after the figure "155,000". The figure "155,000" appears twice in the second last paragraph of column 2 on page 1056 of Hansard. I believe the words should be at line 12 of that paragraph.
The point I raise is this. Unless there is some notation put on page 1056 in the bound volume, a future student of Hansard will read page 1056 of Hansard of February 10, 1956, and this discussion of today with considerable confusion. Today's discussion will imply that these words are not there, but a future student of history will look back to page 1056 and will find that the words will be there. I am not proposing on the floor just how it should be done, but I am proposing that the editor of debates should be given permission to make a proper notation, if these words are put back in, to the effect that they were put back in as the result of today's discussion on the floor of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I thank hon. members for the manner in which they have approached this difficult problem. May I say that apparently we are all in agreement as to how we want our Hansard to be protected. I think we are all in agreement that in authorizing the editor of debates to make the change which he made, I acted too summarily, too expeditiously and too lightly. 1 am extremely sorry to have acted in that light manner. I tried to explain the circumstances of the approach that was made to me. I want to state that if the minister had, as some hon. members contend, exerted any pressure, the alterations would certainly not have been made because it would have pointed out to

Hansard-Altering of Report me what, in fact, the alterations were. But it was precisely because no pressure was put on me-


Mr. Hodgson:: Oh,	oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The	hon. member	for	Victoria,	Ontario	(Mr.	Hodgson) makes	anexclamation which indicates that he does not accept what I say, namely that there was no pressure brought to bear. I am not going to quarrel with hon. members. I state upon my honour as Speaker of the House of Commons that never at any time was any pressure put on me with respect to this matter. The circumstances were	exactly as	I have
explained them to the house. I was standing up in my office. My two guests were right there when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) walked in. I introduced him to my two guests, two parliamentarians from New Zealand.
It was at that moment that he indicated that there were some figures that he wanted to have deleted from Hansard in the interests of accuracy, and then he went on to indicate that if they were allowed to remain, there was some implication that some institutions in the province of Quebec would be guilty of a certain crime. At that moment it appeared to me to be a reasonable suggestion. That is all there was to it. The minister went upstairs and I phoned Hansard. That is the whole picture. There was nothing else. I swear to that. What I say now I would say under oath before any committee.
Some hon. members seem to feel it is peculiar that the editor of debates should refer an hon. member to me. The Minister of Agriculture is not the only one who has been referred to me. There are other members in this house at whom I am looking right now who have been referred to me by the editor of debates. During the last recess, when I was discussing matters of administration with the associate editor of debates-I am referring now to Mr. Buskard-he told me that sometimes he was having certain difficulties because he found that members, in revising their copy, were putting in too much or deleting too much. He said to me, "What is my order of reference? It is a difficult matter. Pressure is being put on me to make exceptions".
It was precisely in order to help him to resist that kind of pressure that I advised him as I did. I think hon. members know- in view of several requests that are being placed before me from time to time with regard to different matters-that I know how to resist or how to say no. I think hon. members know that. It was precisely in
rMr. Speaker.]
order to help that employee of ours that I told him this: "Hold the line; and if some difficulty comes along, refer it to me". It is for that reason that the Minister of Agriculture was obliged to come to see me. Where I failed in performing my duty as I should have performed it, in my opinion, was in not telling the Minister of Agriculture, "Will you please wait for me; I will let my two guests leave and then we can talk this matter over, call the editor of debates, bring him down here and look at the words that were to be deleted." If I had been able to consider them then, my reply to the Minister of Agriculture would have been no. That is my position.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has made quite a case of the intervention of Mr. Mackenzie King in 1933 when Mr. Speaker Black had expunged from Hansard an expression which he considered to be objectionable and which had been attributed to Mr. Pouliot. The expression was that Mr. Pouliot had called another person a clown. That was a matter that had to do with disrespectful language or unparliamentary language. The expression was:
... I did not object for the reason that clowns are never taken seriously, . . .
That is the expression that was used by Mr. Pouliot, at page 3749 of Hansard of April 5, 1933. It is that expression which Mr. Speaker Black ordered outside of the house to be expunged. It is that sort of action to which Mr. King took objection and to which he referred to his remarks at page 3805 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take exception to what Your Honour may have done in the way of expunging possible objectionable phrases from Hansard . . .
He referred there, as did Mr. Speaker Black at page 3855 of Hansard, to objectionable phrases which the Speaker may order to have expunged in the house because they offend the provisions of standing order 35. This is a different matter altogether. If hon. members assume for one moment that we are dealing in this case with alterations that deal only with minor revisions, and therefore purely a matter of editing, no hon. member will contend for one second that, in the very narrow limits of revision permitted under editing action, the Speaker, if his advice is sought by the editor of debates, must come to the house to make his ruling.
If, as in this case, it goes beyond the mere editing permitted, then of course it is a different matter. It is for that reason I am glad the matter is being aired in the manner that it is. I repeat that if I have done anything wrong which is not in accordance with

what hon. members would have wished me to do, then I am sorry; I confess; I apologize, and I feel that confession is good for the soul.


Major James William Coldwell: I am told by my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that when I was speaking the Minister of Agriculture rose and offered to apologize to the house. I am sorry. I did not realize that or I would have sat down and allowed him to make that apology.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not my intention. I did rise when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking and said I was quite prepared to apologize but no one would let me do so.


Mr. Fulion:: Has the minister changed his mind?


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I rise on a question of privilege, arising out of the same incident but on another subject than the one which has been raised. My question of privilege is this. A most serious accusation was made by the minister against the charitable institutions of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Politics.


Léon Balcer: It is not a question of politics.


Mr. Lesage:: It is a question of politics, not of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May I tell the hon. member that what he is raising at the moment was part of the consideration that I did give in making my own decision. I am glad he has raised the point, but at this moment I do not think we should go beyond the point dealing with the alteration that was made in Hansard. The question the hon. member has in mind is one which I feel could be raised as soon as the committee is in supply on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. You see, at the moment we do not know what has taken place in the committee of supply. It has not reported. All we know is that Hansard has been altered. This is the point that must be discussed at the moment.
If the hon. member wishes to discuss further the matter of altering Hansard, I will listen to him.


Léon Balcer: It is just that the Minister of Agriculture, when he rose this afternoon on this question, did not give a definition of margarine. It makes a tremendous difference whether he meant the margarine used in the institutions in Quebec was margarine made from vegetable oils or if he meant-


Jean Lesage: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: May I rise to clarify a point? The hon. member for Three Rivers is now complaining that in his statement the minister did not deal with the situation as fully
Hansard-Altering of Report as he should have. The hon. member for Three Rivers will recall that at one point in the minister's statement, a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to the effect that no matter foreign to the alteration of Hansard be touched on by the minister. He could not deal with the matter any further than was necessary in a discussion of the alteration, the question before the house at the moment. Is the house ready to hear the minister deal with the other point, that there might have been some inference that institutions in the province of Quebec were breaking the law?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I really think that the minister ought to clarify the situation because it is very serious for him to accuse institutions of doing something illegal, and just give some statistics. I think he could clarify that. When he mentions margarine, does he refer to margarine made from vegetable oils or made from animal oils, because one is legal and the other is illegal. I think he should clarify that.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the Speaker has already pointed out, that is what I was prevented from doing when I had the floor. I was going to read that into the record.
On December 17, 1953 an act, known as an act to protect the dairy industry in the province of Quebec, 2 Elizabeth II, was passed. In addition to defining dairy products, a substitute for a dairy product is also defined. Subsection G, section 1, reads as follows:
"substitute": any food product prepared for use or used for any of the purposes which a dairy product may serve, and in the manufacture of which vegetable oils or fats are employed; such term means particularly, but not restrictively, margarine, oleomargarine and any similar product, whatever may be the name by which it is called.
Of course, the important fact there is the reference to vegetable oils. This means that any product in which vegetable oils or fats are employed is a substitute for a dairy product and is prohibited by section 2 of this act. You will note that margarine and oleomargarine are specifically mentioned and prohibited.
However, section 3 of the same act permits the lieutenant governor in council to:
(a) withdraw from the application of this act any special alimentary product, in particular any product in the making of which enter largely animal fats and which, in the opinion of the lieutenant governor in council, is rather a substitute of the fat or of another foodstuff than a substitute of a dairy product in the sense of this act;
Unfortunately, in the short time at my disposal this morning I was not able to get a copy of all the amendments or regulations that have been passed under that act.

Hansard-Altering of Report I understand, as the hon. member points out and as some hon. members know, prior to the time vegetable oils became popular margarine was made from animal fats and fish oils. There was not any margarine made from anything else. My understanding is that it is not that type of margarine which is declared to be illegal.
The same form goes to every province in Canada, including Quebec, and the three questions which I read into the record a little while ago are on it. In reporting what they were doing, the institutions did say they were buying margarine. We did not ask them to define what they meant by "margarine", and we have never accused them of breaking the law. I do not want it understood that anything I said on Friday contained implications that we were accusing anybody of breaking the law. It was because I heard so many suggestions afterwards that they were breaking the law that I thought any action whatever was necessary. If it had been a day earlier in the week, I would never have thought of doing anything other than what the rules state, namely bringing the matter before this house.
But as the Speaker has already pointed out, by the time I got around to him it was two minutes before six o'clock and the house adjourned at six o'clock. The only reason I went to the press at all was to point out to them what it would mean to have people publish the idea all over this country, during the long week end from Friday night until Monday morning, that some people had broken the law when as a matter of fact we knew they had not broken the law, in so far as we knew. For, that reason, I did suggest that probably if the press could withhold-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I remind Your Honour that you asked the hon. member for Macleod not to discuss the strangers in the gallery with respect to this matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most members who spoke said they were not strangers to me.


Mr. Speaker:: I did ask him, but he did discuss strangers in the gallery.


James Garfield Gardiner: In any case, the suggestion was simply made that if possible further publicity be withheld until Monday; that is, from Saturday morning until Monday. As hon. members know, there is no afternoon press Saturday anyway, therefore that did not mean very much. But they convinced me that it was absolutely impossible. The messages had gone out. As I understand it, they went out at about half past four, and I did not get around to checking it until it was close to six o'clock. Therefore there was not anything

that could be done about it. They were kind enough to suggest to me that I submit a statement to them, and I gave them a two-line statement which I read out a few moments ago.


Major James William Coldwell: 
James Garfield Gardiner: It might have been. In order to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition, I am going to say to him that I understand the rules of the house very well.


George Alexander Drew: That makes it far worse.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been here for 20 years and I have never asked anybody to take anything out of Hansard before, and that ought to be good enough reason for saying there ought to be a special reason this time. Suggestions have been made in some articles that have appeared in the press, and certain individuals have been named, and it has been said that they brought pressure to bear on me. They did not bring any pressure to bear on me at all, any more than I brought pressure to bear on the Speaker. He has indicated to you that there was no pressure.
As a matter of fact, I realized that if I had not made the suggestion which I did make, the insinuations which I heard today 

and they are insinuations that the law had been broken-were going to go out over the whole week end from Saturday to Sunday, and it would be almost impossible to catch up with them. So I was quite prepared to let anybody abuse me from now until I go out of politics with regard to the matter in order to see to it that persons of that kind, and institutions of that kind, were not being condemned, as they have been condemned over the week end, not by the Canadian Press but by some newspapers. They were not to be condemned without knowing that there was no intention on my part or on the part of any of the officials in my department to say that they had been breaking the law. In my opinion, they have not been.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


James Garfield Gardiner: Again may I say I sat down without apologizing. I do apologize.


George Alexander Drew: Do not let me prevent you.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do apologize for having made it necessary-and I say "necessary" advisedly-to have this discussion. I think that if it concerned only myself I would have seen to it that this discussion did not take place. But knowing this house as I know it, and particularly those who sit on the

other side of the house, I was not foolish enough to think there would not be anything said about it today. Of course, that will get a lot of publicity, but I hope the publicity it does get will indicate that institutions that some people think were breaking the law are not breaking it.


George Alexander Drew: There is one point in Your Honour's remarks which I think I should refer to before we leave this matter, because it constitutes a record which will be referred to later on. Your Honour spoke about the fact that I had made some reference to a case in which Right Hon. Mackenzie King had put on the record a statement that has generally been accepted as a statement of the relationship of Hansard to the Speaker and to the house. Your Honour then went on to refer to the specific words that were used, which were expunged.
I would point out that my reference to that had not to do with the content of the statement which was expunged. It was to emphasize the fact that Hansard is under the authority of the house. That was the point that Mr. King was making, and that is the point I sought to make by quoting that reference today. In that regard, I simply do make this further observation so that the record will be complete.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, no one objects to the theory that Hansard is subject to the authority of the house and that the Speaker is subject to the authority of the house. But that being so, I submit that there are two types of expurgations or erasures which may take place in Hansard. There is the one which forms part of what is called editing, which is very narrow, very limited. And I say that in the work the editor does as an editor he may seek the advice of the Clerk or of the Speaker. There is also a ruling which may be made by the Speaker when an unparliamentary expression is used. The Speaker may either ask that it be withdrawn, or he may ask that it be expunged from the record.
I agree with Mr. Speaker Black that when an unparliamentary expression is used in debate I should not order that it be erased from Hansard unless it is done on the floor of the house, unless I make my ruling right here. In that I fully agree with Mr. Speaker Black, and that is quite in line with what the Leader of the Opposition has said. But the Leader of the Opposition contended that the ruling of Mr. Speaker Black extended to the relationship between the editor and the Speaker with regard to the editing of Hansard, which is a different proposition altogether.
Motion for Papers
As I say, that editing is supposed to be within very narrow limits, and the narrower it will be the better.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want the record in this case to be in any way unclear to those who read it afterwards. This was not a case of editing; this was a case of expunging, and that is exactly the point I was making.
I want to make it quite clear that my remarks were all directed to the fact that the minister was personally responsible, and he has apologized for what he has done. I think at this stage, therefore, hon. members quite agree that much of the discussion this afternoon could have been shortened if that had taken place earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say a word? I will follow the advice of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and I will not submit a question to the house with respect to the action taken, but will understand from the debate that it is the wish of the house that greater care be taken in future in the editing of our debates.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Fulton:
For a copy of the letter or letters sent to chartered banks of Canada by the Minister of Finance in November, 1955, as to the basis upon which they might commence making loans to farmers on the security of their grain, such loans to be guaranteed by the government.
He said: I believe that in response to a request made by one of the other hon. members on Friday the Minister of Finance has agreed to table the letter. If that has been done, it would seem to make my motion unnecessary. If the minister will tell me whether it has been tabled, I would ask that this be withdrawn.
Walter Edward Harris: I tabled the letters, Mr. Speaker, but on rereading them I find that I omitted to attach to them the forms which had been sent with the letters. With the consent of the house I will table these forms later today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask that this motion be withdrawn?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.

Income Tax Act RESEARCH



PROPOSED COMMITTEE TO PROMOTE AND ACCELERATE ACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions: Mr. Murphy (Lambton West) -The following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a special committee representative of all parties, with power to call witnesses and send for documents and papers for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research.
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, since the motion was called last I have read what Your Honour said and what the Prime Minister said, and have considered what the leader of the house said to me personally and what he also said on Friday last when he announced the business of the house for today. As a member of the opposition I must accept that assurance in good faith, and accordingly I suggest that my resolution be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide that the taxpayer shall at his option be entitled to deduct from his taxable income either (a) his medical expenses as now determined; (b) the premiums paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or both; (c) the specific provincial tax paid by him under any provincial scheme of health insurance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my principal intention in introducing the resolution is to call to the attention of the house certain taxation practices followed in this country which I think work an injustice to citizens of the country. The resolution would simply introduce the principle of allowing an option to the taxpayer, and in addition to the present exemption privilege that he enjoys he would be granted the privilege of including in his exemption any premium he might have paid for the purpose of insurance against illness. In the alternative, if he happens to reside in a province which supplies this service and charges a specific tax therefor, the tax would also be allowed as an exemption.
The principle is really very simple. It is simply that the individual will be allowed to include in the exemption from his taxable income a prepayment on medical expenses. At the present time he is allowed to claim medical expenses as an exemption but he is

not allowed to claim such expenses when they are paid in advance by way of premium. I submit it is only logical to allow an exemption for an advance payment when one allows an exemption for a payment after the fact.
It may be held that after all the question of an exemption is only of importance to the taxpayer with a large income but I submit it is of even more importance to the small taxpayer because from an examination of the statistics compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics one sees that the largest single group of taxpayers comprises those who get $5,000 to $6,000 a year. In 1950 they accounted for 7 [DOT] 6 per cent of the total income tax collected by Ottawa. I suggest that the exemption of insurance premiums or taxes, as the case may be, is an extremely important item to the income taxpayer who earns between $5,000 and $6,000 a year.
It may be maintained that the new hospital insurance proposals of the government will lessen to some degree the necessity for such changes in the Income Tax Act, but I suggest that the need will still exist and that anything other than a recognition of this need merely illustrates the extraordinary propensity of the government to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. According to estimates I have heard, they are prepared to spend up to $182 million on a very inadequate and limited plan of hospital insurance and yet they refuse to recognize a relatively minor change in the Income Tax Act that would not be responsible for depriving the treasury of any very considerable amount of money but would certainly assist the average taxpayer in the country materially.
I submit that if the principle of medical exemption is valid in any circumstance it is certainly valid in the sense that it can be applied where prepayment is made rather than actual payment. As a matter of fact there is something a little bit improper, shall I say, if an exemption is allowed for medical expenses which the individual does not actually pay but which are paid on his behalf by an insurance carrier. It may be argued, of course, that he has already paid in the sense that he has paid a premium but nevertheless the premium may bear no particular relation to the amount of deduction he is claiming. Therefore I suggest that a far more logical way would be to allow him the option of claiming an exemption when he has actually made payment of the premium. This would regularize the situation so that the exemption would be claimed only when an expenditure had been made.
Many members, particularly those of the C.C.F. party, may notice that the resolution may appear to be parallel in some degree

to a resolution that was considered previously by the house and rejected. I do not wish to refer to that resolution other than to point out to hon. members of the C.C.F. group especially that the two resolutions are by no means mutually exclusive. I am glad to say I was able to vote for that resolution with a clear conscience and I intend to support this one as well. I would solicit the support of all members of the house for the subject matter of this resolution because I consider that it is logical and sensible and will certainly be very much appreciated by the taxpayers of the country.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor). It does not seem to me that it is out of order in any way despite the fact that we have already dealt with a resolution along somewhat the same lines at this session, as the hon. member has just pointed out. However, it seems to me there are many weaknesses in logic in the proposals contained in this particular motion.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide that the taxpayer shall at his option he entitled to deduct from his taxable income either (a) his medical expenses as now determined; (b) the premiums paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or both; (c) the specific provincial tax paid by him under any provincial scheme of health insurance.
It seems to me that there is a grave weakness in the equation which the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) sets up. He suggests that there is some equality or some balance as between the three things which he is suggesting as possible deductions. May I point out to the hon. member and to hon. members of the house that there are very strict limitations on any deductions that one may claim as of now. In other words, the limit is strictly to a certain percentage of your total income and you are not allowed to make any deduction unless it exceeds that point.
It is when he gets over into the field of suggesting that there should be deductible from income the premiums paid for insurance against sickness or accident or both that I for one cannot see much more sense in that than to suggest that we should be allowed to deduct the premium we pay for collision insurance on our automobiles from income. It does not seem to me to have much more relationship.
Surely the most unwise suggestion of the three is the third where the hon. member suggests that the specific provincial tax paid
Income Tax Act
under any provincial scheme of health insurance should be deductible for the purpose of federal income tax. Surely if we stop to contemplate what is really suggested there we must realize that it is simply a disguised suggestion for transferring from the provincial to the federal authorities the responsibility for carrying on the hospital insurance schemes of this country. As we all know very well, there has recently been made, and we have already had a broad outline of it in the press, a suggestion for a nation-wide insurance scheme under certain conditions, but the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South would preclude and completely undercut the basis which has been suggested for the federal-provincial national health insurance scheme.
I do not think that anything has ever been suggested at any federal-provincial conference for the revision of the tax basis as between the two authorities which is so unwise or so unsound as the suggestions proposed in this motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. It does seem to me that this motion is completely unwarranted. The only good thing about it I think is that it merely suggests that medical expenses which are deductible now should be permitted as a deduction, but as against that it sets out other possible deductions which are not only out of balance in themselves but which would be very much against the national interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the intention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) in moving this resolution is one that should be supported. I think he stated that intention quite clearly in the remarks he made when presenting the resolution to the house. However, I must say in a kindly way, as used to be said by a former minister on the other side of the house, that I doubt whether the resolution as worded carries out the intention of the hon. member.
The hon. member says that he wants it to be possible for a taxpayer to be able to include in his deductible medical expenses any premiums he pays on sickness or accident insurance. With that desire I agree, but I ask him to follow me closely when I point out that his resolution as it is worded does not say that. His resolution does not ask that a taxpayer be allowed to include these premiums in his deductible medical expenses, but rather his resolution asks that the taxpayer be given any one of three alternatives.
The three alternatives suggested in the resolution are, first, that the taxpayer be allowed to deduct medical expenses as now determined. The second proposition is that the taxpayer be allowed to deduct as medical

Income Tax Act
expenses the premiums paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or both. The third proposition is that the taxpayer be allowed to deduct as medical expenses the specific provincial tax paid by him under any provincial scheme of health insurance.
I think it is quite clear that the wording of the resolution would put the taxpayer in the position that he could have one of those choices, but not any two of them and certainly not the three of them. The result would be that if a taxpayer were to choose the first option, namely, the deduction of his medical expenses as now determined, he would not get the other privileges which the hon. member for Winnipeg South wants the taxpayer to have.
I say quite definitely that I do not think there is any argument between the hon. member and myself as to what he wants, but I do feel that I can render him a service by moving an amendment to his motion which will have the effect of making it more clear and which I think will have the effect of setting out actually what he wants.
Before I move the amendment which I have on my desk may I point out another difficulty that faces us when we look at the wording of the motion. I emphasize that the difficulty arises from the wording of the motion, not from the hon. member's speech or from what it is he really wants. The effect of the motion as it now stands would seem to put hon. members in the position of approving of the present provision, of approving of the plan for the deduction of medical expenses as now determined. Most of us on this side have indicated already our disapproval of the present plan, particularly with respect to the 3 per cent floor. We are not satisfied with the deduction of medical expenses as now determined; we want that changed. All of us on the opposition side of the house voted for such a change on January 30 and it would be difficult for us to vote today for a motion that seems to confirm the deduction of medical expenses as now determined as a satisfactory arrangement.


Owen C. Trainor: I voted for your resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly my point. I appreciate the fact that my hon. friend and his colleagues voted for my resolution on January 30. For him or his colleagues to vote approval of this resolution seems to me to be inconsistent with our demands on this side of the house that the 3 per cent floor be removed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would it not be clearer to call it acquiescence rather than approval?
[Mr. Knowles.)


Owen C. Trainor: The words could be "that may be determined" if that would make any difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will come to the suggested amendment in a moment or two. Another difficulty I see with the motion in the way it is worded is that it seems to me that it does not offer a real option to the taxpayer. In most instances the medical expenses which a taxpayer would have would be more than the amount of premiums that he would pay into one of these plans. If you are in effect simply giving the taxpayer one or another of these three options, you are simply giving him what he now is entitled to or something less. It seems to me that that is hardly a worthwhile proposition.
I say to my hon. friend, and I must commend his patience in listening to my criticism of his resolution, that all my criticism is directed at his resolution and not at his speech or at what I believe to be his intention. I feel that what the hon. member wants, and in that we support him, is that the act be amended to make it clear that when a taxpayer is adding up his medical expenses he be permitted to include as medical expenses any amount he had paid during that year in premiums for sickness or accident insurance, either under a private plan or under a provincial plan.
We must not forget that at the present time, if a person is in one of these plans, whether it be a plan such as those in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, or whether it be a Blue Cross plan in one of the other provinces, he is not entitled to deduct the premiums he pays. But in any year in which such a member of one of these plans is hospitalized, or has a bill paid for him in any other way, the amount of that bill which is paid for him out of that plan is allowed as a medical expense.
We do not want to lose that. But my hon. friend, though he stated it in his speech, does not make that clear in the wording of his resolution, and the fact that it is not clear would seem to me to raise a serious question. I think what he wants and what most of us feel we should have is that in any year when a person goes to hospital the present arrangement should stand, that the amount paid for him out of the plan be allowed as a deductible medical expense; but in those years when a person is not hospitalized he be allowed to enter as a medical expense the amount of the premium that he actually pays.
From what I heard my hon. friend say, that is what he wishes. I think this wording would make it clear. Therefore, seconded by

my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "be entitled" and by substituting therefor the following words: "to include in his deductible medical expenses either (a) any amounts billed and paid under a contributory insurance or hospitalization plan, as is now provided, or (b) any premium or tax paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or under any plan of health insurance."
The result of this amendment is that the motion as amended would read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide that the taxpayer shall at his option be entitled to include in his deductible medical expenses either (a) any amounts billed and paid under a contributory insurance or hospitalization plan, as is now provided, or (b) any premium or tax paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or under any plan of health insurance.
The merit of that motion as amended, if my hon. friend from Winnipeg South will accept the amendment, is, I think, that it is clearer and that it seeks exactly what my hon. friend wants. It does not touch the question of whether or not we approve of the existing plan of deductions, which includes the 3 per cent floor. That is not there. All of us on this side of the house are against that floor. It does not alter the present right of the taxpayer to deduct amounts paid for him under a plan, as is now provided in the regulations under the Income Tax Act, but it gives to the taxpayer the right in any year to include in his medical expenses, as an alternative to the amounts paid for him, the premiums he pays in. That would mean, of course, that if there happened to be a year in which the taxpayer found the hospital bill paid for him was less than the premium he had paid, he could charge the premium rather than the amount paid. It would also mean that in those years in which the taxpayer did not go to hospital at all, he would receive credit against his income tax for this prepayment, as my hon. friend calls it, that he makes from year to year.


Owen C. Trainor: He could not claim both?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the intent of my amendment, that the taxpayer not be entitled to claim both what he paid in and what is paid for him but that he be entitled to claim one or the other at his option. I hope my hon. friend will agree to my suggestion that I have tried to do him a service in moving an amendment which simply makes very clear what he wants. Certainly we are in support of the request contained in the motion as amended by the amendment I present to the house.
Income Tax Act


Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker, may I say I am quite willing to accept the amendment as proposed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, not because I think it clarifies things particularly, in my rather incompetent way of thinking things out, but because he apparently thinks it is a clarification. Perhaps the resolution as drafted does lend itself to the interpretation the hon. member puts on it. So if it is of any assistance to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or any other hon. members to accept his alternative phraseology, I am quite willing to go along.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B. C.):: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to say a word about the original motion, when I just had a copy of the amendment handed to me. In the main my remarks, as I had thought of them, will apply equally to the amendment. Certainly I would commend the mover of this resolution for his intention. Any intention to reduce taxes is most commendable. But this resolution would appear to give the taxpayer a choice, and the amendment still gives a choice and, to my mind, not a good choice. Let me refer to the resolution:
(c) the specific provincial tax paid by him under any provincial scheme of health insurance.
In the province of British Columbia the sales tax was increased from 3 per cent to 5 per cent, and the extra 2 per cent goes to hospitalization. No premium is paid by any taxpayer in British Columbia, nor is any premium paid on his behalf, as it used to be a few years ago. I think it is a good scheme now, and I have benefited by it. Formerly we were subject to a premium of about $19 or $20 for a single person and in the neighbourhood of $40 for a married person, and that entitled a person to receive free hospitalization and diagnostic services in the hospitals of British Columbia.
It would appear to me that to be allowed to include that small sum of, say, $40 for a married person as a medical expense would certainly not raise his allowable deductions to the point where he would get any benefit. But should an accident or sickness occur, as it did in my own specific case, and the person be faced with a hospital bill of several hundred dollars, a person in British Columbia can include that hospital bill as a payment made on his behalf and it becomes a part of his deductible medical expenses. It seems to me that is of greater benefit to an individual than to be allowed to deduct an annual premium which for many years would not permit him any deduction at all from his income tax.

Income Tax Act


Owen C. Trainor: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Francis Thrower Fairey: Certainly.


Owen C. Trainor: Do not the resolution and the amendment as worded still permit him to deduct that expense?


Francis Thrower Fairey: Yes, I was coming to that. I should like to point out to the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, that there would be a tremendous difficulty in calculating how much I paid to the province of British Columbia by way of 2 per cent of the 5 per cent sales tax, as a premium for my hospital insurance. It would be an impossibility to calculate how much each individual in British Columbia pays by a levy of 2 per cent on all his purchases.


Owen C. Trainor: If the hon. member has a suggestion as to how that might be done, I should be happy to include it.


Francis Thrower Fairey: I am just saying it is impossible to do. I have no suggestions as to how it could be done. That is why I oppose this resolution. I think it is not possible to put clause 3 into effect.


Owen C. Trainor: It is in Saskatchewan.


Francis Thrower Fairey: It is not in British Columbia, at least I do not think it is.


Owen C. Trainor: It could be.


Francis Thrower Fairey: What does that leave us? It leaves us the choice, as far as British Columbians are concerned, between the A and the B. I know that an amendment has been moved and that the medical expense is to be, I take it from the amendment, the total amount of medical expense. We have that, of course, with regard to expenses over 3 per cent.
I have not made any study of the figures in order to calculate how many persons would benefit to any great extent by being allowed to deduct the total amount of their medical expenses, but I would just point out this feature. In my opinion, the principle underlying this matter is that we are all obliged to make some provision for what might be called the ordinary expenses of living, and included in that category is a certain reasonable amount which we should set aside for health purposes and medical expenses. That is why a limit has been placed upon the amount to be deducted for income tax purposes, and it has been gradually reduced from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and now to 3 per cent. It seems to me that to allow all of it would defeat what I think is a good theory, namely that everybody should be encouraged to provide for his own well-being
fMr. Fairey.]
up to a certain reasonable amount, and that it is only when disaster or a large bill from a serious illness strikes an individual that he should be allowed to make a deduction for income tax purposes.
The objection I have to the suggestion that deductions be allowed for premiums on insurance policies in connection with sickness or accident is that I can visualize the tremendous amount of bookkeeping that would have to be taken care of in the income tax department if every person who carries a sickness and accident insurance policy is permitted to show his vouchers with his income tax return.
Once again I suggest that this is, as I said a moment ago, one of the normal expenses of living. If the hon. member were to concentrate on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) with regard to the first item and have that 3 per cent gradually reduced as he feels able to do so, I suggest it would be more in line with what the hon. member desires.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group had intended to support the spirit of the original resolution. We are happier now to support it as amended because the amendment has led, in our opinion, to a clarification. We in this group feel that illness is something over which no individual has any control, and that when illness strikes the home the net income of that home depreciates. For that reason we feel that individuals who see fit to provide against any future illness through insurance schemes or hospitalization schemes should have the privilege of reducing the amount of their premiums at least by their income tax deductions.
We should also like to point out that, as far as the people of Alberta are concerned, we soon hope to be under a complete system of hospitalization and medical service under which a definite amount will be charged on a voluntary basis to families and individuals who wish to come under the scheme. It is for that reason that we support first the amendment to the resolution and, second, the spirit of the resolution itself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of this resolution as amended, and I base them really on the fact that what it is trying to do is help those who help themselves. I realize that there may be some difficulties connected with it. I realize the difficulties raised by the second last hon. member who spoke with regard to certain aspects of taxation. Nevertheless I, along

with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, feel that I am in sympathy with the spirit which prompted the moving of this resolution.
I spoke about helping those who help themselves. In the last couple of generations -and I suppose in the last generation particularly-we have seen an absolute transformation in the extent to which the state looks after people. That situation has developed with the approval of everybody. It has now gone to extraordinarily comprehensive lengths. For example, I learned today that company retirement plans prevail in respect of 70 per cent of industrial employees.
Let me put it differently. Seventy per cent of industrial employees are in companies where there are pension plans. I am not sure whether that is exactly the same as saying that 70 per cent of employees are participants. No doubt that is roughly true. We look back not so far to the Victorian days when the principles of laissez faire still applied, and when the most high-minded and humane people could tolerate things which now seem to us to be almost incredible. They could tolerate little children working long hours; they could tolerate women doing heavy work in mines underground, and all the other things we know of. I need not take time to enumerate them. We all know also how that sort of thing was finally done away with under the influence of Charles Dickens and innumerable other people whose names are well known. As I said a moment ago, we know how the situation has changed.
On the other hand, I think it is desirable for us to remember that this change was possible, and is still possible, only because in a large department of life we have individual effort keyed up to its highest pitch. These pension plans of which we speak, and which are now so widely accepted in industry, are possible to their present extent only by reason of the most intense individual effort and by reason of the competitive system under which we live. I therefore come to the point I wish to make, namely that I welcome this amendment because it is an attempt to help those who help themselves.
I am going to do something which I very much dislike doing. I am going to read at some little length from a speech made two years ago by the head of a life insurance company, namely Mr. W. M. Anderson of the North American Life Assurance Company. This speech was made in February, 1954. From it I want to read a few sentences which argue the case for tax concessions to those who try to help themselves
Income Tax Act
by means of insuring health. I apologize again for the reading:
. . . The fact that health insurance premiums are not counted in determining the amount of exemption means that there is no tax inducement as in the United States to purchase health insurance coverage.
I should like to interject here that it seems no matter how much we are able to do through the state, no matter how much the Minister of Finance is going to announce to us later in the session, nevertheless there is always a great area in which people will be better off if they are able to do things to help themselves. It is for that reason I am in sympathy with this resolution. I continue to quote:
This point is of particular importance in the case of persons in the lower tax brackets-
I think that is very important to remember.
-where adequate health insurance coverage may cost more than 3 per cent of income of itself. It is interesting to note that the American concept if applied in the context of the Canadian 3 per cent floor would have the effect of providing a tax inducement to purchase voluntary health insurance coverage which would be of greatest value in the lowest tax brackets. Thus the American concept has the effect of encouraging the purchase of health insurance in the very income groups where protection is most needed.
I should like to interject for a moment that it seems to me it is these "catastrophic" costs we should be trying very hard to devise a means of meeting. I continue to quote.
Life insurance companies form but one of a number of types of organization which provide voluntary health insurance. However, the life companies in their life insurance and annuity business are already in continuing contact with most of the families and employers in the community. They have a well developed corps of life underwriters and well organized collection and claims administration procedures all of which are conducive to the efficient operation and expansion of voluntary health insurance. Furthermore, they have substantial resources to guarantee the fulfilment of their contractual obligations in this field. In the United Sattes the companies provide health insurance as an integral part of their overall operations and in recent years there has been a very rapid expansion in this phase of their business and in the number of companies engaging in it.
Then Mr. Anderson says:
It seems to me to be a great pity that Canadian law severely restricts the operations of the Canadian life insurance companies in this field.
Then he goes on to point out the way in which they are restricted. I want to interject here that I realize there are two sides to the argument on this point. At the present time the authorities do not feel that they want to allow the companies to venture too much of their purely life insurance funds in this

Income Tax Act
other field. I quote the next passage in the light of that fact.
If a Canadian company wishes to engage in the health insurance business it must establish a separate fund with separate assets and it has only a very limited privilege of transferring capital to this separate fund from its life fund. This restrictive legislation makes it awkward for a Canadian life insurance company to administer health insurance business in conjunction with its general life insurance affairs. As well as this, since the separate fund must stand on its own feet, the general resources of the company are not available either to finance the expansion of health insurance business or to guarantee the fulfilment of health insurance contracts except by the transfer of further capital to the separate fund.
This situation is particularly unsatisfactory in the case of a mutual life insurance company like our own. The transfer of $100,000 with which we established our separate group health fund, represented the statutory upper limit of capital which we can provide for our health insurance business. As a consequence we are forced to conduct this business in a strait-jacket-as if we were a newly organized and very small company. We must be extremely careful to make sure that we do not expand too rapidly and that the business which we transact does not involve significant loss. It seems to us that the legislation as it now stands is preventing our company and others in like circumstances from acting in a manner which we feel would be conducive to the best interests of you as policy owners and of the communities in which you live.
Then he says:
May I express the hope that the recently enunciated American attitude of encouragement of voluntary health insurance may find its counterpart within the councils of our own government, and that in consequence the Canadian life insurance companies may be allowed to take their proper share in the difficult task of making voluntary health insurance a satisfying answer to the problem of financing medical care costs.
I have read that at some length, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me relevant. I am glad the minister has been here and has been listening, because the point which is raised by Mr. Anderson is very important. The fact that the department has a different view indicates that experts may differ, but it seems to me that the argument made by Mr. Anderson is worthy of consideration, and I hope it will have further consideration.
Recapitulating what he has said, therefore, which is that he feels we might go further along the same lines as the United States has gone and give a greater incentive to people to look after themselves in the way of individual health insurance, I repeat that I am prepared to vote for the resolution as amended.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: When I read this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I came across the same difficulty of wording as that described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When one comes across the word "either" included in a resolution, it generally indicates that there

are two alternatives, one or the other. This resolution had three alternatives.
I thought perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg South wished to convey the idea in this resolution that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide that the taxpayer shall, at his option, be entitled to deduct from his taxable income, in addition to his medical expenses as now determined, that is in addition to the excess over 3 per cent, either the premiums paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or both, or the specific provincial tax paid by him under any provincial scheme of health insurance.
I believe we all agree with what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has said, that even if we cannot accept this resolution we can all sympathize with the spirit which prompted it at this time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has introduced an amendment to this motion by way of clarification. I must confess that personally it does not clarify it very much. If I understand what the amendment means -and I must say that the hon. member read it rather quickly and I was unable to follow it closely while he was reading it, and I have not had an opportunity to study it since-a person, under this resolution, would be entitled to include in his deductions all his medical expenses; that is, doctors' bills, hospital bills, and so forth, and all the premiums he might pay under any hospitalization plan, and any provincial tax he might pay under any provincial scheme of health insurance.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a good deal of talk about a national health insurance plan. I think we are all looking forward to the day when such a plan will be introduced. But we all know that such a plan will cost money. In fact it has been estimated that in its initial stages it will cost at least $180 million a year. Much as we would like to see an income tax reduction, in the face of such expenditure on health insurance it hardly seems possible that we can expect to have both; that is, to have a national health plan costing $180 million and at the same time have our medical expenses included in our deductions under the Income Tax Act.
In introducing his resolution the hon. member for Winnipeg South emphasized the point that premiums paid on insurance plans are premiums paid in advance, and that would justify having them included in income tax deductions. But if we include those premiums in our deductions when we pay them, and include them again when we incur them, then

that means a system of double deductions, and I do not think that is what the hon. member intended.


Owen C. Trainor: Will the hon. member permit an interruption? Nothing in the resolution or in the amendment makes any such assertion. It gives the option of one or the other, not both.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, when there is an option included in the Income Tax Act it is specified in certain ways by using the words, "whichever is the greater", or "whichever is the lesser" as is desired. It is quite possible that a person may be worse off by including his deductions than he would be if he just took advantage of his present deductions under the Income Tax Act.


Owen C. Trainor: Could you not leave it to the judgment of the individual taxpayer as to whether he is better or worse off?


Chesley William Carter: If the hon. member intended that, there would have been no harm in his putting in his resolution the words "whichever is the greater". There is no law to prevent him from including those words in the resolution or in the amendment.
The idea of including in the deductions the premiums paid for a health insurance plan is not altogether sound. I will explain why. A few days ago I was talking to a friend of mine, and we were discussing medical expenses. My friend referred to an illness which one of our mutual friends had suffered. In relating the story to me he made a statement which really startled me. He said, "You know, our friend made about $1,000 out of that sickness?" That struck me as being rather strange. I said, "How on earth could a person make $1,000 out of being sick?" He said: "He had at least two, and perhaps three, insurance schemes. The amount he received from one of those schemes was just about enough to cover all his expenses, and the income from the other two plans amounted to $1,000." If we carry this resolution as introduced by the hon. member today we will actually be exempting the person from income tax on income he makes, and thereby increasing his actual income.


Mr. Nickle:: How many Canadians are there who would be paying for more than one health insurance policy?


Chesley William Carter: I really do not know, but there are a good many. I am paying for three.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Many do not have even one.


Chesley William Carter: I know a good many who are paying for two.
Income Tax Act


Carl Olof Nickle: You are a capitalist. It is like a life insurance policy. If there are more than one, your estate may collect on more than one, but you are not going to benefit.


Chesley William Carter: No. There are many life insurance plans which you can take out today which will pay no matter what you receive in other benefits. There are many of those, and I happen to have one of them at the present time. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are other plans of health insurance which pay actual income. They pay $25, $50 or even up to $100 a week while you are sick. I do not think it is the intention of this house to exempt any person from paying income tax on actual income.
In the course of his speech introducing the resolution the hon. member for Winnipeg South emphasized the point that this would benefit the small taxpayer. He said that the greatest number of taxpayers in Canada are in the $5,000 to $6,000 group. I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend's statement, but I mention it only to point out that there is also another large group who do not pay income tax at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many health insurance policies have they?


Chesley William Carter: I do not know. Some of them have health insurance schemes under provincial governments. That is so in my own province, where there is quite a good health insurance scheme at a fairly small premium. I do not know how perfect the plans are in other provinces, but I think that foremost in our minds should be those who pay no income tax at all. Even though the burden may be great on the $5,000 to $6,000 group, the burden on those under $5,000 and those under $3,000 is infinitely greater. If we are to carry out our policy toward them I think we cannot do much better than we are doing at the present time in providing an exemption for expenses in excess of 3 per cent of income.
The hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) have also pointed out that the alternative of including in your exemptions taxes paid to a provincial government is the equivalent of placing the federal government in the position of financing provincial insurance schemes. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that this is a very poor alternative and not a very wise one.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South and in my opening remarks I should like to draw attention to what seems to have been missed by the house, namely the words "at his option". It is clear that a man might pay $50 on a health

Income Tax Act
insurance plan for his family, but if the bill only amounted to $10 for the previous year he would be apt to deduct the $50. However, there is such a thing as a catastrophe happening in a family and I note that the hon. member includes in his resolution the words "as now determined".
There was a case that received some attention in the press, of a man in the east who spent some $600 or $700 on oxygen for his wife. It was highly necessary and had to be done, but at the present time such an expense does not come within the rules of the Department of National Revenue. But let us reverse the situation. It is easy to say that these things should be deducted, but if we reverse the situation we see how difficult it is for a man to pay income tax on the costs of a catastrophe that has already happened.
In the case of the man who had the bill of $600 or $700 for oxygen, even if he were not in the group the hon. member has mentioned he had to pay income tax on $600 or $700 that it was necessary for him to spend in order to keep his wife alive. So far as the buying of insurance policies is concerned, one might put it this way. A man buys a health insurance policy, if I may be permitted to use that term, in preparation for a catastrophe that may happen. One might say that he anticipates something happening, or one could go further and say that he is safeguarding his family and himself as the wage earner from a catastrophe of that type.
I think the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South is a good one, and that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre merely clarifies it. If there was any doubt in the mind of any hon. member as to what is provided for in the resolution I think the amendment has clarified it; therefore I am very glad to support it.
I believe that the provision of an option is a good point. A man has the right to determine which amount he will deduct. It was said that the department would be involved in a lot of work and difficulty in determining the proper figures, but I believe it would be a very easy matter for the department. A man would only have to do as he does at the present time, submit his receipts with his income tax return. There would be very little difficulty in so far as that is concerned.
I think every hon. member should support the resolution because sickness expense is something entirely different from any other class of deduction. The hon. member who has just taken his seat brought up the question of somebody making money out of sickness. I have never known any person to do

so, but if he does happen to be well covered it takes a lot of money to meet the payments.
I am glad to support the amendment because I think the point is well taken. I am glad to support the resolution, and I commend it to members of the house.


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the subject matter of the resolution and the amendment. My thoughts on the matter were, of course, originally directed toward the resolution, but I think they will apply equally to the amendment that has been moved.
In commenting on the matter I must say I am fully conscious of the fact that the mover of the resolution is a member of the medical profession; consequently I think it is fair to assume that perhaps he has more personal knowledge of the difficulties encountered by people because of the expenses they are occasionally subjected to through sickness. He possibly has more personal knowledge in that regard than other hon. members who, though we may be members of equally noble and learned professions, do not come directly in contact with such matters.
Perhaps it is not entirely amiss for me to say that in the course of my own professional dealings I have occasionally been employed by medical friends to collect for them bills from various debtors, and I should like to pay this tribute to the medical profession. I think it has some relevancy to the subject matter. I find that uniformly they are always willing and eager to extend the utmost consideration to any poor or handicapped debtor who wishes to pay his bill but for some reason is not able to do so. I should like to pay that tribute to the members of the medical profession.
The subject matter of the resolution and the amendment is one that of course has a very definite appeal to the people of the country and their representatives in this house, because it has in mind providing a measure of relief for certain taxpayers, those who can bring themselves within its provisions from time to time. As I say, that is something which has a very definite measure of appeal, like any legislation extending benefits to the people of the country.
Of course, the two points have to be considered one against the other because, as we all know, the source of all moneys expended by the government for the benefit of the people is the taxpayers of the country. In this case if the relief to be afforded is to have any substance at all it of course involves the taking away of a certain amount of revenue from the federal treasury. I believe the hon. member who moved the

resolution stated that it would not deprive the treasury of any material amount. That may be so. I have no figures and I have not heard any as to what amount might be lost. None the less I think we should assume that if the resolution is to provide any substantial relief a substantial amount will be lost to the federal treasury. I think we must keep that in mind in weighing the benefits of this resolution.
Many of these policies for sickness and accident insurance provide not only for the payment of actual out of pocket expenses but for a guarantee of income. Of course it is not suggested that this income should not be subject to income tax, but the premium a man pays contains in part a provision for insurance against that loss of income. I think that factor should be carefully considered.
As I say, we must remember that this would constitute a drain upon the federal treasury. Possibly the chief objection I have to the resolution and the amendment at the present time is in the timing. As we all know, the federal government has proposed a sweeping nation-wide scheme of health insurance which is under consideration by the various provinces. Undoubtedly that is going to be of the greatest benefit to the people of this country. Unfortunately it is also going to cost the taxpayers of this country an extremely large amount of money. I think the estimated figure was $180 million, but the mover of the resolution mentioned a sum of $182 million. If past experience in these matters is any criterion it is most likely that the amount will be even higher than has been estimated. Consequently I do not think this is the time when this measure should be adopted by the house.
We do not know what effect the health insurance scheme when it is finally put into definite form and comes into force will have upon the various private schemes for sickness or accident insurance, or indeed upon any provincial health insurance scheme which is now in effect. It may very well be that when our dominion-wide health insurance scheme comes into effect we will find that things are not as visualized by the movers of the resolution and the amendment. It may be found that the need for this resolution has been largely done away with by the coming into force of the national health insurance scheme.
As I said before, this motion taken as a matter of theory naturally has a great deal to commend it, and I should like to congratulate the mover upon his presentation of the case. I know that he has at heart the welfare of the people it is proposed to
Income Tax Act
benefit. Nevertheless, in view of the imminence of our national health insurance scheme and the probable cost of that scheme to the taxpayers of this country I repeat that I do not think this is the proper time for the house to approve this measure.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat I have come to the conclusion that he is a victim of semantics. Because the government has persistently referred to its proposed or projected measure as health insurance the hon. member appears to think it is really a health insurance plan, when of course it is an extremely limited plan covering only hospitalization. If he would refer to the resolution before us he would see that it relates specifically, among other things, to medical expenses which would not be affected in any way by the hospitalization scheme which the federal government is said to be considering and which the Liberal party of course has been considering for over 37 years. The main thing is that it certainly will not cover the expenses that are referred to in this resolution.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Colin Cameron: Because we have been told that it is going to be a hospitalization scheme when it comes through, in spite of the government's persistent reference to it as a health insurance scheme, a very bad misuse of words in my opinion.
There were two comments made this afternoon by my fellow British Columbian, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Fairey), to which I should like to refer. The first was the question of estimating the amount that is paid on behalf of a citizen of British Columbia by the government of British Columbia under the present hospitalization scheme in that province. As the hon. member pointed out, in British Columbia hospitalization is financed by an increase in the sales tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent. While it is true that the funds for paying these hospital bills are derived from the sales tax, nevertheless I think-the hon. member can correct me if I am wrong, or any other British Columbia member can do the same-it will be found that the scheme is still operated technically as a hospitalization insurance scheme, and that the administration of the hospitalization insurance plan is provided with a sum of money by the government which is an actuarial estimate of what would have been paid into the fund by the citizens of British Columbia had the old premium scheme been maintained.

Income Tax Act
Mi. Fairey: I certainly do not agree with the hon. member. I think the amount placed in the estimates by the province of British Columbia is based upon the cost of the hospitalization, not the sum total of the premiums paid by the individual citizens.


Colin Cameron: It is the same basis upon which the premiums were estimated under the earlier scheme. The idea was to provide sufficient funds to pay for the hospitalization. I do not know whether it would be possible actuarially to estimate the amount paid on behalf of each citizen of British Columbia, but I do suggest that there are enough provincial schemes, one in particular, in Canada now in effect to enable the federal government to estimate with fair accuracy the amount that has to be paid on behalf of each citizen for hospitalization. Therefore the point the hon. member was bringing up in objecting to the scheme could well be covered by including in the legislation authority to make allowance in the case of residents of British Columbia of an amount equivalent to what would be paid under the hospitalization scheme operated under the premiums.
There is another point which was raised by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) which I think should be dealt with. He suggested that rather than proceeding with the scheme as outlined in this resolution and the amendment we would be better advised to urge on the Minister of Finance a lowering of the present floor for medical expenses to be deducted for the purposes of income tax. I am sure that is a most sensible suggestion. The hon. member almost indicated that if we just agitated a little more the soft heart of the Minister of Finance would be effected to such a degree that he would agree to this.
That is a very sound idea, but the curious thing is that no longer ago than January 30 of this year the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) had an opportunity to urge in a very effective way precisely that course on the Minister of Finance, when this house voted on a resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that would have had precisely that effect.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Was not that resolution to eliminate the 3 per cent entirely?


Colin Cameron: Yes. On page 682 of Hansard of January 30 we find that a vote was taken and I find included among the names recorded under "nays" the name of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.). I suggest that it is not good enough for government members to imply that they are in favour of a course of action which their vote in this house does not fulfil. If they believe this should be
(Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).]
done, why do they not take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them on the floor of this house. I would like to know how the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) would be able to tell the citizens of Victoria that he is in favour of this elimination of the 3 per cent floor, when he has not-


Francis Thrower Fairey: I did not say that. I deny
that I said that at all.


Colin Cameron: My hon. friend has suggested that what the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) said was that it should be whittled away. Of course it depends on how big a slice we are going to take with the whittle. We have decided to whittle the whole thing away. It might be possible yet for us to meet the requirements of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) and suggest a whittling resolution, and see whether his resolution would be strong enough to enable him to vote for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been made during the course of this debate, and perhaps I could pay attention to the last one first. The Minister of Finance does receive throughout the year many representations about the manner in which he may collect and disburse the moneys in the public treasury. One of the most frequent that are placed before him is in the matter of deductions from income tax. Everyone seems to think we can make a special rule for a special group of people, instead of taking what I think the other side ought to be, namely that if you are able to reduce taxes you reduce them for everybody, and then the special reason is taken care of in doing that.
If I do not make myself clear, I would repeat that last year we did reduce taxes. We reduced taxes very considerably in the budget of 1955. Yet my hon. friends present motions intended to reduce further the income of the treasury because a particular group of people should have consideration of a particular kind. As a general principle I think the latter is wrong.
I admit that there are reasons why exceptions should be made, and we do in fact make the exception with respect to medical expenses over 3 per cent. But in principle I think most hon. members ought to agree with me that it would be better to have a general tax system in which there would be gradations of tax, of course, but that any changes in the tax system ought to be of a general rather than of a particular nature. In this specific instance-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that what you are planning for this year?


Walter Edward Harris: I am hoping that anything I say cannot be construed as other than an abstract, philosophic approach to the problem. In this particular case we were being asked by the original motion to establish an option on the part of the taxpayer with respect to three particular forms of contribution that might be made by him in the medical field. By the amendment they have been limited, as I understand it, and that amendment has been accepted by the original mover of the motion.
As I understand it, one of the options has to do with any premium or tax paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident or . under any plan of health insurance. This, I understand from the elaboration by some of the speakers, has to do with the payments made presently in some provinces and the payments that may be made in the future in other provinces, where similar payments are not now made.
I have no figures to give the house as to what this may mean by way of a charge on the public treasury, though it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) has indicated at least one weakness in that particular option, that in the province of British Columbia there would not be, unless we established an arbitrary rule of some kind, the opportunity to take that particular option.


Mr. Pearkes:: We would not want to be dogs in the manger about it.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that my hon. friend, being the generous gentleman he is, would not be a dog in the manger. All he would expect, I think, would be that if this resolution carried the government would, in addition to granting these deductions in other provinces, establish an average for British Columbia and grant it whether or not the person might contribute that much in sales tax during the year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fair enough.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre says, "Fair enough". That indicates to me that he does not give very much thought to the real responsibility that is behind a motion of this kind. As I say, I am not in a position to give figures as to the cost to the public treasury of this particular motion, but I have been impressed by what has been said by those speakers who have mentioned the proposal we have made to the provinces with respect to hospital insurance.
I shall not bandy words with my hon. friend from Nanaimo as to whether this is a health
Income Tax Act
plan or a hospital plan, or as to what it may be or what it may become, because once again I do not propose to go beyond what has been said in public about that particular plan. But it must be clear to everyone in the house that the obligation which this government placed upon itself in making that offer is of the magnitude that has been mentioned by government members, and perhaps by other members as well. That obligation is one that is greater than the deficit we anticipated last year when I delivered my budget. It is not a small sum of money; it is a sum of money which takes a good deal of taxation to collect.
Therefore, while I realize that hon. members who make these speeches have no responsibility for imposing the taxation involved, nevertheless it does seem to me that they, in their responsibility as members, might take that into account when they consider the results that would flow from this type of motion.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the position of the taxpayer in British Columbia who, if this motion were to carry and become part of our tax laws, would not be able to claim a deduction similar to that of a taxpayer in other provinces except by an arbitrary decision of the taxing authority as to how much he ought to be allowed with respect to the amounts he might pay in sales tax during the year. When the position is stated in that manner I think it will indicate the weakness in the motion and the weakness in the theory behind it, because you could not import into a taxing law a distinction of that kind.
The same situation applies in a somewhat different manner in the province of Saskatchewan, where the contributions toward a health plan, as I understand it, are made by way of a general tax for about 50 per cent of the cost and, with respect to the remainder, by way of a charge on the taxpayer, through the municipal corporation, attached to the property he may own. It would be easy to arrive at the amount that gentleman might be entitled to claim to the extent of the direct charges that may be imposed upon his real estate, but it is equally difficult to estimate the amount that might be contributed by him in the percentage of the cost which the general treasury collects by the taxing methods they have adopted.

Income Tax Act
If in another province the first option were adopted-and we shall take the province of Ontario, because at the moment in Ontario there is no contributory system of health or hospitalization insurance-say in Ontario under the first option the taxpayer could claim in full the amount of the Blue Cross plan or any similar plan. That might be $50 to $80, perhaps, depending on the type of plan he chooses; whereas the taxpayer in Saskatchewan might have a charge of $10 to $12 to $15 which could be proven-


Mr. Campbell:: There is no land tax.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon. It is collected through the municipal corporation.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: It is education tax and hospital tax.


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so. The taxpayer in British Columbia would not be able to prove any sum at all. Not being a resident of British Columbia I could not say definitely about this, but it is not likely that claims under the Blue Cross in that province would be equal to those, for instance, in the province of Ontario. It must therefore be obvious to hon. members that even if the hon. members who moved the amendment to this motion have something in mind by way of relief for the taxpayer, they are adopting a method which, if I may say so with respect, would require a good deal of refinement before it could be effective in a manner that a taxing law ought to be effective.
The situation with respect to deduction for medical expenses is comparatively simple. As everyone knows, the taxpayer whose medical expenses exceed 3 per cent of his income may deduct the excess. Three per cent may or may not be the average expense of the average resident in Canada; it is probably somewhere about the average expense. It seems to me that the motion and the amendment would in effect say that the federal treasury should permit a deduction about equivalent to the cost of medical services to the average taxpayer in Canada.
I take it that is probably the intention of the mover and seconder of the resolution. But let me point out that however difficult it may be for taxpayers generally to meet their medical bills and their taxes at the same time, it would be unusual to say that this particular type of personal expense should be exempt in addition to all others.
As everyone knows, the exemptions are more generous in Canada than anywhere else,
I believe. At any rate, I made that statement last year-I think it was in the budget address, Mr. Speaker-and I do not recall anyone suggesting that I was wrong. The 
exemptions granted under the income tax law are intended to provide not by any means an estimate of the cost of living of a single person or of a married man with a family, but a general exemption to cover the normal expenditures that we think we can allow from the standpoint of the needs of the treasury and of the taxpayer. This type of expenditure is, of course, included in that exemption by way of computation.
The hon. member for Greenwood spoke of extremely heavy costs and, as I understood him, he said he felt that those ought to be given special consideration. They are, of course, given special consideration. If one has an extremely costly medical experience during the year it will in fact run over 3 per cent, and will then be deductible for tax purposes.
Of course it depends upon the income of the taxpayer as to how much of that expense is borne by the public treasury. We, of course, have people of modest income who have heavy expenses, just as we have persons of average or higher than average income who have medical expenses in that extraordinary range as well. But if we accept the 3 per cent figure as an average-though I am going to say that at the moment I do not quite understand how this motion would fit in with the 3 per cent-as I understand it the purpose here is that there would be an option to deduct the contribution to a medical scheme or the contribution to a provincial government medical scheme of some kind.
It may be noted that these contributions are made either to a co-operative association or to a private association in the business of providing insurance against these particular expenses. It is to be supposed that even in the case of the co-operatives they are trying to keep their income about equal to their outgo plus the cost of administration, with perhaps a margin for reserve, but not a great deal in that respect.
The profit organizations, on the other hand, would probably try to get their income high enough to include their outgo, their administrative costs and a profit to boot. But let us suppose that these organizations, on the whole, do not charge much more than the cost of doing business. It will be seen then that if we allow as a deduction the contributions to those organizations, we are in fact allowing the deduction of the medical costs of people throughout Canada in that particular year. While some hon. members would still feel that ought to be so, I suggest it is not possible to make it so at the present time, at least under our income tax laws.


Owen C. Trainor: Do you think competition would look after that?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I think my hon. friend has missed my point. I am sorry; I will try it again. If all these organizations are running at a cost about equal to what they have to pay those whom they have insured, and their administrative costs, their income then by way of contributions from members of the association would about equal the medical costs which they pay. Therefore my hon. friend, by suggesting those costs should be tax exempt, is in fact suggesting a tax exemption for the medical expenses of all Canadians. If my hon. friend will consider it for a moment he will see that to the extent these sums of money represent the actual cost paid by these associations, they are the costs of the several thousand people who are in the associations during any given year.
Let us consider, then, Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the 3 per cent. As I say, I take it the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has rather shifted the emphasis away from that. Perhaps I could ask him at the moment, but I take it that these deductions would be in addition to the deductions over the 3 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I answer the question? Yes, that was the intent of my amendment. I went no further than that for the obvious reason that if I tried to interfere with the 3 per cent floor in this amendment I would be told the house decided that question on January 30. My point of view on the 3 per cent floor is still the same as it was on January 30.


Walter Edward Harris: We have then, as I understand it, a situation in which we are asked to exempt the contributions paid into a fund, while we are exempting as well the payments out of the fund when those payments exceed 3 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not both in the same year.


Walter Edward Harris: That is just the point of my question a moment ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry. If I might interrupt further, I thought the minister's question a moment ago sought to clear the air with respect to our position on the 3 per cent floor. As to whether or not the amendment asks for both deductions in the same year, the amendment is clear in that it presents an option between (a) and (b). One option is any amounts paid for the taxpayer out of a fund and the other is the premiums he pays in.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. member, then. He has cleared up
Income Tax Act
what I thought was an unusual situation in the motion before us. It will be seen, however, Mr. Speaker, that if this motion were to carry it would be impossible, as I said a while ago, to estimate the cost to the public treasury. I know that hon. members opposite will say there will be no cost to the public treasury because the motion calls for consideration by the government of the suggestion put forward.
On that point we had a rather unhappy experience in recent years. There was a time in this house when private members' day was an occasion on which private members might bring forward any motion or bill they had in mind which would benefit the people of Canada. There was a certain practice, and I would use the word "courtesy" as well, that when the hon. member who presented the motion had made his argument, it was generally permitted to pass in the sense that it did not involve the government. It was merely an expression of opinion by this particular hon. member that this was something he felt should be said, and that all hon. members ought to be in the same position and the same consideration should be given because, in fact, they are hon. members and this is an idea they would like to put forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many times since the end of world war II have such motions been allowed to pass?


Walter Edward Harris: I could not say at the moment, but I will take your word for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not very many.


Walter Edward Harris: But times seem to have
changed. Instead of having that type of motion, we now have motions which require the government or suggest the government should give consideration to the proposal, and on the one occasion we tried this out we were told after the event that the house had, in fact, decided this ought to be done. This was a departure from what had been the case in former times, if not immediately before that event occurred.
The government is put in the most awkward position of not being allowed, without some detriment, to extend to hon. members opposite the courtesy of permitting an argument to be made and allowing the matter to rest at that point. For that reason I approach this motion in the same light that we have approached other motions since this unhappy incident I mentioned, and feel that the government has to take-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unhappy on your side.

Income Tax Act


Walter Edward Harris: It was not unhappy on our side. I have a clear recollection that the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of finance stated that because the motion asked the government to give consideration, the government would in fact do so. I have a clear recollection in the following session, or even later in that session, of being told by the opposition that parliament had decided this particular matter ought to be done.


Owen C. Trainor: Did you believe that?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not believe it, but I think it is unworthy of opposition members to suggest it under the conditions under which the motion was allowed to pass.


Owen C. Trainor: Why worry about it if you do not believe it?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not many worries about the opposition generally, but I have some worries about my position as Minister of Finance, sir. So long as we are placed in that position we are bound to consider what we ought to do when a motion of this kind is presented. If we reject the motion it would not indicate that the Minister of Finance or anyone in this house, did not consider this was worthy of consideration. Every form of relief for the taxpayers of Canada is a matter for consideration, and should be on all occasions.
On the other hand it would be unwise to draw any conclusion from a motion which was adopted that the government felt it ought to follow that particular motion immediately, or even in the distant future. For that reason, sir, and particularly because at the moment we have under consideration a health or hospitalization scheme, which as I have said before is going to be most costly to the federal treasury, it seems to me that all matters having to do with medical expenses and income tax in connection therewith should not be decided affirmatively.
For that reason, sir, I am going to suggest that while I intend to vote against this motion, it is only because of what has already occurred and of which I have given an example, and it does not indicate that we are not giving careful consideration to all matters which affect the taxpayer, especially those who are obliged to spend considerable sums of money with respect to medical expenses.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will forgive me if I am a little repetitious in my remarks. At this stage of the debate one is bound to repeat arguments that have been so ably made already by hon. members who have

spoken. However, I do want to say a few things about the resolution. I think the mover, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, is to be congratulated on his thought-provoking resolution. Certainly the discussion that has taken place has been to me at any rate most valuable, though I do not think I can agree with the premise, or the principle, on which the hon. member acts.
What is the principle behind his resolution? Well, he said the principle was that the individual be allowed to include in his tax deductions all prepayments for medical expenses. He said the taxpayer could now include medical expenses up to a certain point, but not any prepayment. He pointed out that he thought this would be important to the small taxpayer particularly.
I think he more or less presupposes that we are all in agreement with the real underlying principle of a resolution of this kind. The underlying principle is that there should be a reduction in taxes. This of course puts the discussion on a much broader basis.
With respect to the hon. member, I would have hoped that when he introduced his resolution he would have given us a better case on which we could base our judgment, first of all as to whether a reduction in taxes was necessary at all at this time, and second, whether this was the best type of reduction to make in the circumstances.
Naturally we would all like to introduce measures that would reduce taxes. It is very nice for the taxpayer, a very popular and very pleasant thing to do. I am sure the government was most happy, when the budget was brought down in March of 1955, to pass on a considerable reduction in taxes to the taxpayer, but it is not always easy to decide on the best method of reduction, and I suggest this resolution does not outline a particularly good method.
First of all, the resolution itself is rather confusing. A little more care could have been taken in its preparation. I again say, with great respect to the hon. member, that clause (a) sets out that he can deduct from his taxable income first of all his medical expenses as now determined. I was completely taken in by this clause when I first read it. I felt that what he wanted there was a deduction of all his medical expenses from taxes. He wanted to take off the 3 per cent limit, which was suggested in a bill brought in by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre some time ago.
Apparently that is not so. Clause (a) means that you can deduct medical expenses as they are now determined under present regulations. Of course if you take that option

then the principle is drained completely from the resolution. Fortunately for the hon. member for Winnipeg South, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre presented an amendment which does to some extent get around this defect, and it was accepted by the mover. He said you may include in your deductible medical expenses either any amounts billed and paid under a contributory insurance or hospitalization plan, as is now provided, or- and again this is an option-the taxpayer may take any premium or tax paid by him for insurance against sickness or accident under any plan of health insurance.
Clause (b) is most interesting. Presumably the resolution is an effort to assist the small wage earner. Under clause (b) you may take any premium paid for insurance against sickness or accident. This has been mentioned by previous speakers, but I should like to emphasize it. This would, of course, introduce a great inequity into the scheme because the number of policies for sickness and accident are legion. If you can afford it, you can insure yourself for any length of time against almost any type of sickness. Naturally if you were going to be allowed to deduct from your taxable income premiums paid for the most expensive type of sickness or accident insurance, then this would be an excellent way, under the proposed resolution, to gain the effect of health coverage completely at the expense of income tax, and of course not provide any particular benefit at all to the lower income groups.
I emphasize "the lower income groups" because the hon. member who moved it mentioned in the first instance that this resolution would be most important to the small taxpayer. Therefore I would suggest that in clause (b) of the amendment you have a great drawback in the wording of the resolution, and no doubt if this ever reached the point of the introduction of a bill some such limit could be introduced, or would be introduced, I imagine, to protect the taxpayer and the government against what is to me an obvious problem in the resolution as drawn.
I suggest that the resolution is too wide and too broad in its scope. If it were to be of any use at all, certainly it would have to be gone over with great care to take into account what limits one should put on the deduction concerned.
What about the resolution in the light of our pending health insurance scheme? This subject has also been dealt witth in this debate. I think you can accomplish the same purpose the resolution tries to accomplish by providing a health insurance scheme on as cheap a basis as possible. In other words,
Income Tax Act
instead of providing what must be a rather complicated method, a complicated set of regulations, for the deduction of certain allowances, why not say to yourself: Well, we are in a position to save the taxpayer some money. We would like to pass on the saving in as fair and equitable a way as possible. We are contemplating the institution of a national health insurance scheme. The best way to pass on the saving is to cut down the cost of the scheme. Then everybody, regardless of their position, gets a fair share of whatever saving or whatever possible tax reduction you can achieve.
To my mind the prospect of such a health insurance scheme takes away any real necessity for a resolution of this kind at this time. If you did it in that way, naturally you would be able to pass on the saving. You would achieve the same result with less work, less administration cost and less of the bureaucracy that my hon. friends in the official opposition are averse to increasing. In my opinion this would certainly achieve a better result on the whole for the lower income group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frank A. Enfield: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is aware of the fact that the plan proposed by the federal government covers only hospitalization. This resolution discusses medical expenses generally. Would he implement the principle he is now advocating by having the government plan include medical expenses as well as hospital expenses?


Frank A. Enfield: I really do not see that it would make that much difference, because whatever saving you pass along on any type of hospital insurance scheme would be money in the pocket of the taxpayer. Whether the actual scheme itself covers the whole gamut of health insurance and health facilities would not, it seems to me, make a great deal of difference.
For example, you could take the argument a step further and say that we might have a health insurance scheme to cover hospitalization, diagnostic services and medical services, the three things. You could argue whether the same principle would not apply if the health insurance scheme were carried further and covered other aspects of health problems such as loss of income during a period when one is ill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are coming along.


Frank A. Enfield: Well, we all hope that this scheme, if we get one, and we hope we will,

Income Tax Act
will cover a fairly wide field and that taking into account our responsibilities to the taxpayers, we will be able to broaden the scheme as time passes. The point raised by the hon. member was raised earlier by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I noted at that time that I did not feel it really changed the principle of my suggestion.


Owen C. Trainor: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frank A. Enfield: Yes.


Owen C. Trainor: Is he suggesting that the cost of an over-all health insurance scheme would be at all comparable with the economic relief suggested in the resolution?


Frank A. Enfield: That, Mr. Speaker, is a rather difficult question, as I think the hon. member who asked it will agree. In the light of the fact that the health insurance scheme which we are so glibly discussing is still in the process of negotiation we do not really know what it is going to cost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit another question? Does he realize that the health insurance scheme he is now talking about was first proposed by the Liberal party the year before he was born?


Frank A. Enfield: Well, I think the hon. member is really paying me a compliment having taken the trouble to look up my birth date. However, it is difficult to know at this time what the scheme is going to cost us. I do wish I could answer the question of the hon. member, and I do wish that in introducing his resolution he had indicated to us what it would cost the taxpayers. I think we would all have been in a better position to exercise our judgment on the resolution.


Owen C. Trainor: I have not been able to do that, but I suggest it would be very much less than the $182 million we have heard bandied about.


Frank A. Enfield: That may be so, but again I cannot help indicating that I was rather surprised at the brief outline the hon. member gave us when he introduced what apparently was for him quite an important topic of discussion.
I was interested in an argument of the hon. member for Greenwood. He always has a very interesting little turn to add to our discussions. He said that in his opinion the resolution would help those who helped themselves. In other words he looked at it from the incentive viewpoint. He says that if you allow people to deduct this charge it will encourage more people to provide such insurance for themselves, and he mentioned that

apparently somewhere in the United States of America that type of regulation is in effect. Like so many of these incentive propositions, as the proposition works out it helps everybody except the people who really need help.
He mentioned that insurance company executives were very much in favour of this idea. Naturally they would be, because it would be very nice from their point of view to get people as far into these schemes as possible in order that they would buy insurance from the companies represented by the insurance company executives. To reiterate an argument I made earlier in connection with this point, the type of people who would make the most money in dollars and cents out of a resolution of this kind are the well to do who can take out large policies covering every facet of health including protection of income, and then deduct the cost from their taxable income. Although we might help those who are willing to help themselves, I submit with great respect that on the whole I do not think we would help the main group that we want to help.


Owen C. Trainor: Put a limit on it if you wish.


Frank A. Enfield: The hon. member has suggested that we put a limit on it. It would appear that my remarks have perhaps added something to his thoughts on the subject. I do not believe I have any other points to raise. I think the underlying principle of whether or not we should have a tax reduction and whether this is the best way to bring about that reduction certainly needs more canvassing before we can go ahead with this type of thing. It might be better to give relief in a good many other ways, and this topic has not been touched upon at all in the debate except by the Minister of Finance.
Therefore I submit that as matters stand we are not justified in going ahead with the resolution because of the broadness of the wording, the difficulties involved in the regulation of the premium and the fact that we are in no way able to exercise proper judgment as to whether a tax reduction is possible in the light of all our other financial commitments.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion? The hon. member for Cape Breton South. I am sure that all hon. members will wish me to welcome the hon. member back to this house. We missed him and we are glad to see him back with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is good to be back. One misses this elaborate club very much when one is away for any length of time. I know you will excuse me for occupying a little time at this point. I am interested in this particular resolution, but I did not want to speak on it while the frills were on.


An hon. Member:: Who put the frills on?


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, being a little concerned, attempted to dress it up so it would make some sense, but he did not succeed in doing it very well. I know that while he did attempt to amend the resolution, he felt about the resolution and his own amendment very much as I do.
Any hon. member in the house who has done any travelling through the country in the past few months will agree with me when I say that one of the main issues in this country today is the question of national health insurance. As I see this resolution, with all due respect to its mover-it reflects his opinions-it is merely an attempt to justify the present very inadequate insurance schemes that exist in the country. Since the government has been making some serious pronouncements on the question of health insurance, practically every insurance company in the country has inaugurated a scheme of hospitalization insurance. This resolution merely attempts to amend the Income Tax Act to get a tax offset for contributions to the present insurance schemes which are not working very well.
I want to say very emphatically that every insurance company that is selling hospitalization insurance schemes in Canada is selling something it cannot deliver. You do not have to go outside this city to see it, for there are thousands of people paying into these insurance schemes who have to go on waiting lists to get into a hospital. These companies cannot sell hospital insurance when they have not the hospitals in which to put people, and they certainly do not contribute anything toward the upkeep of the hospitals.
I want to stress very emphatically that we cannot go on fooling the people of Canada

Income Tax Act
that these schemes give them hospital insurance, when the people selling the insurance have not hospitals to put them in. That situation exists right across this country.
I do not think the government can pass in this house legislation in respect to income tax for a small section of the population. In the second place, I do not believe income tax can be optional. I think income tax must be firm and must be applicable to everybody in the country in exactly the same way. This legislation, if it is passed, would be class legislation, as it applies only to those who can afford to enter into a hospital insurance scheme such as those sold today by the various insurance companies and other organizations across the country. For that reason I oppose it.
This resolution is proposed by a member of the house who is opposed to national health insurance. I heard him on a television newscast, and he emphatically made it clear that he is not favourable to national health insurance as discussed in this house on many occasions. In my opinion this resolution is merely an attempt to justify the present schemes and get the contributions to these schemes as tax offsets. If we were honest in the opinions we have expressed about national health insurance, I think we would see that something was done about it. I think the people of Canada today from coast to coast, expect the government within the foreseeable future to indicate a comprehensive scheme of national health insurance. If they do not get it within a reasonable time I think most people in this country are going to be badly disappointed.
The mover of the resolution is a medical doctor. I respect his opinions in these matters. I think he will agree with me that if there is a need in the country today, that need is to bring medical science within reach of the average person in this country.


Owen C. Trainor: I suggest it is there already. I suggest it is within reach of the average person.


Clarence Gillis: I hazard a guess that one-third of the wage-earners and salary earners in this country are working below the income tax levels as far as salary and income are concerned. I am certain the hon. gentleman will agree with me that those people cannot pay present medical costs. There is only one way to get medical science to them, and that is by having those who can afford to pay taxes to support a national health scheme make medical science available to them. There is no other way in which they are going to get it.

We just cannot go on buying health insurance from private companies and then standing in queues at hospitals waiting to get in.
I do not think anyone has a right to sell something they do not possess. Hospitalization is not the prerogative of private companies. They do not have hospitals. The citizens of the community, with contributions by governments, build hospitals. Many of them across the country are kept up on a subscription basis by the citizens who built them. The private companies will go into these communities and sell this type of insurance without any guarantee at all that you can get into a hospital. In every town across the country there is a waiting list of those who are buying this type of insurance.
If we are honest about this matter, I think the thing we should be discussing is, first, the abolition of the floor on medical expenses. I think people should have the right to write off the amount of those expenses. You can write off a great many things that could not be justified on as good grounds as those upon which you can justify the abolition of that 3 per cent floor. The 3 per cent floor is all right if you can write a cheque for $500 or $1,000. If you can do that it does not mean very much to you. But if you are in a bracket under which you are paying $50, $75 or $100 in taxes and you get a medical bill of $25, $30 or $45, it means much more to you; that 3 per cent relief would be of much more advantage than to the fellow who could write a cheque without any difficulty. This step would mean a great deal to the lower income groups.
I think that is the thing we should be definite about. I believe a resolution on this subject should be on that particular point, namely the abolition of the floor. Then I think we should be putting all our vocal chords to work in urging the government to try to bring medical science to the thousands of people across this country who cannot afford it.
If you are living in Winnipeg, Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto, you have very good medical facilities. But if you are living down in the maritimes, particularly in the lower end of them 300 rftiles east of Halifax, or are living in some sections of New Brunswick, or on the prairies or in the far west where those facilities are not available, this is what happens. You have hundreds and hundreds of people in those communities where you have just ordinary practitioners. If you get any kind of disability that requires expert attention you are obliged to go from door to door, from neighbour to neighbour, attempting to borrow $400, $500 or $1,000 to send people over to some clinic

or big hospital in the United States, or to get them into the Victoria hospital in Halifax or the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. There is where you are hitting real expense and real hardship. There is not any insurance for most of those people. You borrow from your neighbour.
In the community in which I live, as in many other sections, there is not a day in the month when an appeal does not appear in the paper on behalf of someone who requires a serious operation such as a heart operation, a brain operation, treatment for cancer or a diagnosis in these expert centres. It costs hundreds of dollars for transportation plus the cost of the treatment. In many cases appeals are made in the newspapers to borrow the money in order to make that kind of thing possible.
It is true that the big centres are well provided for and that the expert attention is there. I do not think it is necessary to send any of our people to the United States. We now have the centres established in Canada, but they are not available to 75 per cent of the population in this country, and they never will be available to them until such time as the government has the courage to enact the necessary legislation. I refer to legislation which will place upon the citizen of this country who has the income the obligation to contribute by way of taxation to making medical science available to the hundreds of thousands of people in this country to whom it will otherwise never be available.
As far as I am concerned, I cannot support this resolution. I would make this suggestion to the Minister of Finance. Before his next budget comes down I would suggest that he give serious consideration to the abolition of that 3 per cent floor on medical expenses, and that he join with his colleagues in the cabinet in working out a comprehensive medical plan that will really give to the people the hospitalization and the medical science that is available in this country today.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, one appreciates the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South but, if I may say so with respect, we have launched into a different field from that in which we started. We have heard expressions of opinion from, I think, all the opposition groups and from the government side. I have made an engagement to give serious consideration to the amended resolution or motion. Of course I fully appreciate the fact that hon. members expect us on all occasions to consider the 3 per cent floor or ceiling, as you will.
Having that fact in mind, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we could usefully adjourn the debate and I therefore so move.
Family Allowances


Stanley Howard Knowles: The guillotine again.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide an increase in the family allowance.


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


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


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


Hazen Robert Argue: No; this motion was allowed to stand the other day.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased to have the opportunity of once again moving a motion requesting an increase in the family allowance. I believe the family allowance legislation, enacted back in 1944, is one of the most important acts ever placed on the statute books of this country. It is an important part of our social security legislation. Because I believe family allowances are a good thing, because I believe the legislation is worth while, I view with alarm the gradual deterioration in the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque. It is not sufficient at any time for a government to merely provide legislation which is good. In my opinion the government should be prepared to protect the value of that legislation. Year by year almost consistently since 1945, inflation has been allowed to eat away a good part of the value of the family allowance cheque.
There is only three-quarters of an hour left for this debate, and because time is limited and I should like to see other members take part in the debate I shall endeavour to make my remarks rather brief. The latest

Family Allowances
report of the Department of National Health and Welfare shows that more than 2 million families are in receipt of family allowance cheques on behalf of almost 5 million children. A little later on I am going to give some income statistics which I believe will demonstrate that family allowance cheques are absolutely essential to the welfare of the family. Moreover, I believe I can demonstrate that the incomes of the vast majority of Canadian families are at a level which makes it necessary to consider an increase in the amount of the allowance at this time.
In some quarters it is being advocated that family allowances be doubled. Another suggestion is that the payment of the family allowance should be extended on behalf of children beyond the age of 16, probably up to 21, as long as those children remain in school. I think that suggestion is a valuable one. I feel it is one that the government and the house might consider. It seems to me that the importance of education and the high cost of it in this technological age should cause the government to consider encouraging young Canadians to stay in school as long as they can profitably do so. I believe, therefore, there is real [DOT] merit in the suggestion that the age up to which family allowances may be paid should be extended.
The family allowance is just one aspect of the Canadian social security program. It is one instance where the government has provided a very important piece of legislation, and year by year has stood idly by while inflation has taken away a substantial part of the original program. This is not the only field in which the government, by standing idly by in an inflationary period, has allowed the value of social security legislation to deteriorate. I refer now to the old age pension cheque. The last increase in the amount paid old age pensioners was in April, 1949. It is true that since then the means test has been removed, and therefore the number of Canadians who are receiving old age pension cheques has been greatly increased. Nevertheless, since April, 1949, inflation has caused a very serious deterioration in the purchasing power of the old age pension cheque.
I have made some calculations, and on the basis of the consumer index for 1955 the old age pension cheque which was worth $40 in 1949 is today worth only $34.29 in terms of 1949 purchasing power, a deterioration of $5.71 since that time. I do not think anyone will say $40 a month for an old age pensioner in April, 1949, was too high. Certainly $34.29 in terms of 1949 purchasing power is today far too low. Not only in the field of family allowances, therefore, but in the field

of old age pensions the value of the social security legislation has been allowed to deteriorate.
I have in my hand a table which shows the increase in the consumer price index each year since 1945, and the resultant decrease in the value of the family allowance. The consumer price index for 1945 stood at 75 and the initial family allowance cheque for the youngest child was $5. The next year the consumer price index was 77-5 and the value of the $5 cheque was reduced by 10 cents, to $4.90. The next year the consumer price index was again higher and the value of the $5 family allowance cheque had deteriorated an additional 50 cents to become worth only $4.40. The following year there was a further large increase in the cost of living and the value of the family allowance cheque went down another 50 cents to $3.90. Year by year, with the exception of 1953, inflation has caused a decrease in the value of the family allowance cheques until in terms of 1945 dollars, the year in which family allowances were first paid, the 1955 family allowance cheque of $5 became worth only $3.20. In 1955 the $6 family allowance cheque had deteriorated in value to $3.84; the $8 cheque had deteriorated in value to $5.93.
To show the position of our family allowance legislation, on the assumption that inflation continues in the next 10 or 20 years at the same rate as in the last 10 years, and the government does nothing in the next 10 or 20 years in regard to increasing the family allowance, we shall find 10 years from now that the $5 family allowance cheque will be worth just $2.05, and that 20 years from now a cheque worth $5 in 1945 will be worth $1.41.
I do not believe this government, or any other government that may be in office during the next 10 or 20 years, if inflation should continue at the same rate, will stand idly by and allow the value of family allowances to deteriorate from $5 to $1.41. I do not believe the people of Canada will stand for that being done. They will not stand for this drastic drop in the value of family allowances, which I have estimated to be 36 per cent. Now is the time for the government to consider restoring the value of the family allowance.
If nothing is done about it, 10 years from now the $6 cheque will be worth just $2.46, and 20 years from now, $1.69. The $8 cheque, the largest that is payable, 10 years from now will be worth $3.28, and 20 years from now, $2.26.
There is another way to demonstrate the deterioration in the value of family allowances. The family allowances legislation was

enacted and had its first full year of operation in 1946. At that time the gross national product in Canada was just over $12 billion. The amount paid out in family allowances was almost 2 per cent of the gross national product, or $245 million. Since 1946 the gross national product has increased from $12 billion to $26 billion. If the family allowances today were the same percentage of the gross national product as they were in 1946, we should be spending this year on family allowances the sum of $539 million. As a matter of fact in the coming fiscal year the estimate for family allowances is $399 million. Therefore, assuming that next year the gross national product does not increase-and we all know it should; it should go up about 5 per cent each and every year-the family allowances will be $140 million short of 2 per cent of the gross national product, that percentage of the gross national product which they constituted back in 1946.
I believe that 2 per cent is a very small part of the gross national product to have allocated for family allowances. I should like to see it even higher; but certainly I believe that the part of the gross national product used for family allowances in 1946 should be retained, and we should not be content to allow it to fall, as I have said, by $140 million.
The government brought in family allowances in 1944, and the legislation was passed. Family allowances became operative in 1945. The Liberal party, year after year, election after election, point out to the people of Canada the value of family allowances and take, if not 100 per cent of the credit, at least 99 per cent of the credit for having placed them on the statute books.
What has been happening since? The value of family allowances has deteriorated; the value of the old age pension has deteriorated. At this time, instead of restoring the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque, the government is talking of extending the field of social security legislation. I am all for the extension of social security legislation; I am in complete support of a program of health insurance, and better old age pensions. But unlike the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), I do not believe that the amount of wealth represented by the deterioration in the value of family allowances should be used or an extension of social security measures in other fields.
I believe the family allowance legislation should be protected and any new legislation should be added to it. In speaking in the debate on February 23, a year ago, as
Family Allowances
recorded at page 1444 of Hansard the Minister of National Health and Welfare had this to say:
If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal a number of years ago does any hon. member think it would have been possible to have an old age security program that is costing Canada over $350 million a year? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal last year would we have been able to bring in the disability allowances program last year? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal would we have been able to bring in legislation to help the blind, or to bring in a national health program?
The most I have ever advocated in proposing an increase in family allowances was that the value of the family allowance cheque be restored; yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare says that had the value of the family allowance cheque been restored the government would not have been able to bring in the disability allowance, the blind pension or to provide $350 million for an old age security program. In other words the government is attacking its own legislation. It is taking a good part of the value of the family allowance legislation and, in the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is using that sum of money to provide social security legislation in other ways.
Are the people of Canada really in need of family allowance legislation? Should there be an increase in family allowances? Is the average working person in need of an improvement in family allowance legislation? I hold in my hand some excerpts from taxation statistics, 1955, based on the 1953 taxation year. It shows that 39 per cent of income earners obtained less than $2,000 in 1953; that 51-4 per cent obtained less than $2,500; that 64-4 per cent, or almost two-thirds of the income earners in Canada, obtained less than $3,000; that 79-9 per cent obtained less than $3,500.
When you add to that table the statement that has often been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that 19 per cent of the working population of this country are responsible for the upbringing of 84 per cent of the -children, you see that the average Canadian family obtains a very modest income, and must be able to balance the budget with the greatest difficulty. If almost half the working men obtained $200 a month, and if they obtained housing accommodation at a rental of $75, which would not be excessive, they would have $125 a month to buy food for the table, to buy clothing for the family, to provide for medical expenses, and all of the costs of raising a family, because the statistics of the Department of National Revenue point out that 51-4 per cent of income earners obtain less than $2,500 a year.

Family Allowances
The united automobile workers put out a publication entitled The Guardian. In that publication they have figures showing the estimated cost of modest living for a year for a city family as at January 31, 1954. They have statistics for a working man who is a tenant, who has a car, who is a home owner, or who is a home purchaser. They estimate that the highest cost for a modest living is $4,600 for a home purchaser with a car, and the lowest modest living cost is for a home owner, someone who owns his home and has no car. In that case the estimate is $3,628.
In other words, according to this publication the average family needs at least $300 a month for a modest living and to balance the budget. Yet according to the taxation statistics three-quarters of the income earners in this country obtain less than $300 a month.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that family allowances are essential, that an increase should be made at this time, and that the very least the government should do is to restore the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque so that it may be of greater assistance to the vast majority of families who now find it almost impossible to balance the family budget.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, before I speak on this particular item I think I should perhaps apologize for having started to speak on it a week ago last Friday. My only excuse is that I was listening to the page boys who were bringing us the Olympic hockey game scores, and I was not paying attention to the clerk when he read the item in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia. So I started to speak on the wrong subject.
I am also a bit sorry that I did not speak last Friday as I should have, because I think I could have given a wide measure of moral support to the measure introduced by the hon. member at that time. I am afraid, however, that I can give him no moral support with respect to the resolution we are discussing tonight.
I think if hon. members had it within their power to say whether or not they would grant an increase in family allowances, old age assistance, old age security or any other welfare measure that we have in this country, not a single member of any of the four parties would hesitate if we were able to do that. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite irresponsible to suggest that regardless of the taxation we levy, regardless of the necessity to balance the budget, we can increase our welfare allowances from year to year just out of good intentions.
I say to the hon. member, without any intention of being out of order, that it is not

so many days ago that we heard a warning in this chamber about the terrible things that would happen if the price of beef should go down or if the floor price under butter were removed. I submit that all of these things have a connection with the increase in the cost of living and therefore with the justification for or argument in favour of higher family allowances.
In this country we are about to embark on the most comprehensive step that has ever been taken in the history of our nation in the form of the great national-provincial, coast to coast health care scheme.


An hon. Member:: Hospital care.


Elmore Philpott: Hospital care scheme. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has clearly laid down the terms on which the government is willing to proceed with the plan, and we all know that it is going to cost the treasury of the federal government real money. By coincidence it is going to cost the treasury almost exactly the same amount in millions of dollars as the amount by which the hon. member for Assiniboia suggests that family allowances should be increased to bring them up to the level of the increase in the cost of living since 1947.
Maybe I am wrong, but I have the impression that if all the citizens of Canada could have their choice between an increase in the family allowance to bring it up to an amount that would compensate for the increase in the cost of living since 1947 or a plan whereby the national government in co-operation with the provinces will go ahead with a national health insurance scheme they would, in my opinion, vote by an overwhelming majority, probably by 99 per cent, to go ahead with the national health insurance scheme.
I had the great privilege this summer of travelling quite extensively in several of the countries which are most often held up in the house as being the ideal welfare state countries in all the world, namely the Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway and so on. I spent some time in each of those countries, and on some other occasion this session I hope to have the privilege of saying something about civil defence in that wonderful country, Sweden, where I had the privilege of examining their system.
However, tonight I want to talk for a minute or two about how the welfare state schemes in these countries compare with our own. These countries are often portrayed by the hon. gentlemen immediately opposite me as being the most advanced in all the world in this regard. Not one of these countries has a family allowance scheme that compares in any way with what we have right here in our own

Dominion of Canada. For instance, in Finland the family allowance payment is 1,200 markkas per year, very much less than Canada. In Norway the family allowance payment is 240 kroner per year, and the first child gets nothing. In Sweden the amount is 290 kronor per year. In that country it is allinclusive. You do get a grant even for the first child. In Denmark the amount is roughly the same as in Sweden.
But in all these countries, Mr. Speaker, quite a rigid means test is applied in the case of all their welfare measures, not only with respect to unemployment insurance but also old age pensions. To date they have nothing comparable with what we have here under our old age security system payable to everybody right across the board.


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


Elmore Philpott: I can give them to you or you can figure them out yourself. The kroner is worth somewhere between 20 and 25 cents, so that in terms of dollars the Norwegian family allowance would amount to about $60 per year. In France the first child is excluded but the second child receives the allowance. On paper France has the most generous of all the European schemes. In the case of a city worker the allowance for the second child is based on 20 per cent of the worker's wages, which would really be a fabulous allowance if that system were applied in Canada.
However, if you examine the actual situation in France you will find that the scheme is full of jokers. It is not only true that a great many people do not pay taxes; it is also true that a great many people who are theoretically entitled to some of these welfare allowances do not draw them. It is also true that in the richest country in the world, the great United States of America, there is as yet no family allowance scheme of any kind whatsoever.
Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that before we talk too readily about extending these payments, desirable as all of us might consider that to be, we should sit down with pencil and paper and figure out exactly where the taxes are going to come from to pay these allowances, or where we are going to put the extra debt to pay for them if we are going into debt. It seems to me that the whole welfare scheme of Canada must be considered as an entity.
If I for one had to express my preference as to priority I would say that before there is any substantial increase in family allowances,
Family. Allowances
consideration should be given to the old age pensioners. They certainly have a higher claim to prior consideration, because I can show you from my own files in my office in this building, literally hundreds of letters in which people have actually sent me their budgets, proving quite plainly that one simply cannot live on $40 a month.
I would say in all kindliness to the hon. member for Assiniboia, do not go M. Poujade one better. In France M. Poujade only comes out with the slogan, "Down with all faxes" but as far as I can see the hon. member for Assiniboia is in favour of "Down with all taxes but up with all welfare benefits."


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, the time remaining for the debate on this motion is not very long and I hope I will not take up all of it. I am really surprised, probably astonished would be a better word, after being among so many university graduates, that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) should be in such a hurry to oppose this measure that he had to speak on it before it came before the house at all. It is simply amazing, and I am quite sure it is not what the people of British Columbia expect of the hon. gentleman.
He told us of his experiences during a trip to the Scandinavian countries, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, this year. Surely the ability of those countries to provide for their people should not be compared with that of a rich country like Canada. Finland has not yet finished paying heavy reparations to the country which conquered her a few years ago. It is not so much the size of family allowances paid in those countries as it is the relationship of family allowances to the standards of living of the various classes in the country.
The hon. member says that if something has to be done in connection with social security there is a greater need in connection with old age pensioners. I am not going to dispute that the condition of old age pensioners in Canada, those who have to live practically or altogether on old age security or old age assistance, is deplorable; but I insist that if there is to be a choice between doing something for a child who has not yet developed into a man and doing something for an old person whose days are over, if we cannot do something for both, we should do it first for the child who is a future citizen of Canada.
There is another point I wish to mention in that regard. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman who preceded me would say

Family Allowances
and has said that this country should do more toward feeding the underprivileged people in other parts of the world. Many people say that if we are going to save the world from the dangers of communism that is something that should be done. But I suggest to you that if we want to feed hungry people we do not have to go outside of of Canada to find them. Our first duty as representatives of the people of Canada is to see that the national income is so distributed that all will have bread before some have bread and cake as well. That is what we are suggesting when we suggest that family allowances should be raised.
I have in my hand a bulletin prepared by the Vancouver housing association, which is a recognized organization in Vancouver coming under the red feather scheme. This bulletin contains a brief which was prepared for the Minister of Public Works in regard to housing. The association had a study made of housing conditions among social assistance families. Those were not old age pensioners; they were fathers and mothers, in most cases mothers, with growing children. The study was made by a man by the name of W. A. Wilson, and I should like to read some extracts from the study he made which appear in this brief. The first is as follows:
A family dependent on assistance has only about a 50-50 chance of finding shelter which will not jeopardize its physical and emotional well-being.
What does that mean? It means that in Vancouver, the city which the hon. gentleman and myself represent, families with children on social assistance are forced to give up proper food and clothing and other things that the ordinary child should expect in order to be able to obtain adequate shelter. Family allowances are one way of adding to the income of those children. The next extract is as follows:
It is a decidedly bleak outlook for the family attempting to find adequate shelter within the rental grant. A family without outside help is literally torn between two choices; paying an exorbitant proportion of their income in attempting to find satisfactory housing, or living in poor housing and having more of their income available for daily necessities.
We talk about juvenile delinquency, but what can be expected of children who are brought up hungry, who are brought up in homes that we would not want to live in? If we are going to combat juvenile delinquency successfully we must begin by improving the lives of young people in the community, not only with better food and clothing but with more of the social amenities and educational and recreational opportunities. Here again increased family allowances would help a great deal.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
I have before me an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 6 which
was written for several papers by James S. Duncan, C.M.G., describing his experiences on a recent visit to Russia. Referring to the condition of the Russian people he says:
The small luxuries, the Important non-essentials, the minor niceties which lend grace and charm to life are conspicuous by their absence from the Russian scene; and yet the great masses of the people who have no points of comparison with the way other peoples live, apparently accept their drab lives without complaint or unhappiness.
I read all of it because there was no period. I could have read the first half and left it at that, pointing out that Russia is not the only country where the small luxuries, the important non-essentials and the minor niceties which lend grace and charm to life are conspicuous by their absence. I can take my hon. friend to hundreds of homes in the city of Vancouver where these minor niceties which lend grace and charm to life are lacking and where there is a continual daily struggle to provide the essentials of bare living.
Yet my hon. friend says in this house that we cannot afford this. How quickly people become satisfied. Let us first look after the many people in every city, in every town, in every hamlet in this land who are not getting enough food to eat, who are not getting proper clothes to wear, who are not getting the proper educational opportunities. Let us look after these people first, even before we extend our bounty to the more unfortunate people in other parts of the world.
My hon. friend, as I have said, is now one of the satisfied people. He is continually drawing attention to what this government is doing. I remember the day when he did not think this government was doing so much. I have here a quotation from a speech made by someone:
Both parties are absolutely in the grip of financial interests. The real government of Canada is not at Ottawa but in St. James street, and the old parties are as closely linked as the Siamese twins.


An hon. Member:: Who was that?


Mr. Sluder:: What have the socialists got to offer?


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

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


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words in support of the resolution under consideration at this time, consisting in a request to the government for an increase in family allowances.
There can be no denying the fact that the sum of $5, which the government had assumed to be an indispensable minimum for our families, in 1945, has gradually decreased in real value and that the family allowance cheque has lost 35 per cent of its worth, now being equal to a mere $3.20.
In other words, if the government was of the opinion, in 1945, that Canadian families deserved a minimum of $5, it should at this time, to be logical, be prepared to adjust the amount of this allowance to the present cost of living in this country.
Every time members in this house have asked for an increase in family allowances, there was always eagerness on the side of government benches to protest and to say: "Let's be serious, gentlemen. The government can only give money that it collects. Where are we to find the revenue to do this?"
It is unbelievable to see how often this argument is used by members of the government, and equally unbelievable to see how readily the government brushes it aside when it finds it convenient to do so.
When, for instance, we asked on behalf of the provinces for an increase in the field of income tax, the government said: "We can hardly grant more than 5 per cent, because that would make the situation unbearable for us". Some time later, the Prime Minister offered 10 per cent and, through some unbelievable and unaccountable miracle, the government had seen its way out of an unbearable situation.
Last year, when there was talk of increasing the rate of family allowances, the government was faced with the same problem: no money. It was not unwilling, but where could it find the money necessary for this purpose? Yet this same government, this
Hansard-Current Index year, is ready to spend $180 million on health insurance. I am not opposed to this plan, but if it is considered practicable, why can't the money be found to boost family allowances?
In the last analysis, the government must realize that if the $5 family allowance is now worth not much more than $3.20, the worker's income has also been affected so that he is proportionately less able to provide for the security of his children. Everyone will also recognize that, since children are our greatest asset, they deserve the largest share of our national income. If we can spend two billion dollars on defence, which may be an important thing, why could we not afford more than one-hundredth of that amount for the welfare of our children? Why could we not do more for an asset that is so important to our country?
(Text) :
On motion of Mr. Girard the debate was adjourned.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLICATION OF CUMULATIVE INDEX TO &quot;HANSARD&quot;

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


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Regier: 1.	Have any requests been received for assistance to Indians of British Columbia as a result of flooding in 1955?
2.	If so, what has been the reply of the government to such requests?
3.	Have any Indian agents reported on the extent of damages suffered by Indians?
Answer by: Mr. Pickersgill:
1.	Yes.
2.	There has been only one application for assistance and the applicant has been provided with clothing, furniture and other essential requirements and it is intended to assist him with minor house repairs.
3.	Yes.


INDIANS, ALBERTA-POPULATION AND MEDICAL STATISTICS
Mr. Smith (Battle River-: Camrose):
1.	What is the number of Indians in the province of Alberta?
2.	What was the cost of (a) hospitalization; (b) medical services; (c) dental services, for these Indians in each of the years 1954 and 1955?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
Because the Indians of the Yukon and Fort St. John agency are cared for by the Indian health services organization in Alberta it is difficult to segregate expenditure figures for the care of Indians in Alberta alone. Therefore the figures quoted below include these two areas, the Indian population of which represents about 11 per cent of the total Indian population involved.
1.	Indians in province of Alberta, 16,327; Indians in Fort St. John agency, N. E. sector of British Columbia, 488; Indians in Yukon Territory, 1,608.
2.	(a) 1953-54, $1,823,754;	1954-55, $1,973,900;	(b)	1953-54,	$65,423;	1954-55,

Note: This item includes amounts paid to non-departmental doctors, dentists, opticians, and radiologists.
(c) Dental services are provided by dental clinics in hospitals and by non-departmental dentists. The amount paid for the latter is included in the amounts shown in answer 2(b). In addition two travelling dental surgeons were employed by the Indian health services in Alberta in 1955 and one in 1954.
In addition to the above expenditures there were those made in moving patients to and from hospital, which amounted to: 1953-54, $30,396; 1954-55, $34,178.


STAPHYLOCOCCAL EPIDEMIC, B.C. HOSPITAL PERSONNEL
Mr. Goode: 1.	Is there an epidemic of staphylococcol infections among the personnel of the hospitals in British Columbia?
2.	If so. what discussions, if any, have taken place between federal and provincial government research staffs to eliminate the serious spread of such infection?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
1.	No.
2.	The possibility of staphylococcal infections occurring in hospital personnel has always been a potential hazard. With the introduction of penicillin the solution seemed to be at hand. However particular strains of staphylococci, resistant to the effects of penicillin and other antibiotics, have developed. While the occurrence of these resistant strains of staphylococci has not assumed epidemic proportions, their presence has been reported from various areas in Canada and throughout the world.
A full discussion of this matter of staphylococci resistant to antibiotics took place at a conference of federal and provincial laboratory directors held in Ottawa in December, 1955.
Considerable research has been undertaken with the objectives of studying the characteristics of these penicillin resistant organisms, of developing improved methods for reducing the possibility of their transference from one person to another, and of discovering new antibiotics which will be effective against these resistant strains.
Typical of these research projects which have been supported under the national health program are: (a) the epidemiological study of penicillin resistant staphylococcal infections in the province of Quebec which has been underway since 1951; (b) investigation at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto of the sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics; and (c) a study of the control of skin infections in the newborn and a proposed companion study now under consideration of the epidemiology and control of infections caused by staphylococci in the pediatrics department of a general hospital, both in Vancouver.
In addition to this financial support to independent investigators, both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the laboratory of hygiene of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been actively engaged in comprehensive studies of this problem.


BLIND PERSONS
Mr. Proudfoot: 1. Can recipients of blind persons allowances receive medical or surgical attention in cases where it is likely to improve their sight?

2.	If so, does the government bear any portion of the cost?
3.	Who selects the pensioners who are to be given treatment?
4.	How many have been treated to date and of these in how many cases has the treatment been successful?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
1.	Yes. In 1947 the federal government introduced a scheme for treating blind persons in cases where such treatment would restore vision. The provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia are now participating or have agreed to participate in this scheme.
2.	Yes. The federal government bears 75 per cent of the cost, the province bearing the balance.
3.	The blindness control division of the Department of National Health and Welfare aids in the selection of cases for treatment
Questions
in collaboration with the provincial authorities. Most cases are selected on the recommendation of the oculists who make the examinations for blindness allowances purposes. In some cases other oculists ask for authority to treat pensioners, frequently the Canadian National Institute for the Blind recommends treatment, and in a few cases the blind pensioners themselves ask for treatment. All cases are carefully reviewed in the blindness control division before treatment is authorized. If it is doubtful whether treatment would restore vision, a new eye examination is secured before authority for treatment is given.
Most of the cases treated are new recipients of blindness allowances whose blindness is due to cataract. The treatment is administered provincially and the patient can choose his own eye doctor.
4.	258 blind persons have been treated. 191 cases have been successful. 40 additional cases are under treatment now.

Tuesday, February 14, 1956