Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):

That is apparently what you are considering.

Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):

I said they should be brought up with the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):

Income Tax Act

as good-will advertising appear in all the periodicals and in the street cars and buses across the country.

The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond this afternoon took issue with a statement that was made by someone. I am not quite sure who made the statement; possibly it was my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but apparently it was made by someone who supported the resolution and who suggested that medical expenses are a dead loss. Although the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond took issue with that statement I do not think he had sound ground for doing so.

I think a distinction must be drawn here between two types of medical expenses. There is the type of medical expense entailed in having a periodical check-up of one's physical condition. That is a normal and legitimate expenditure and one which every citizen should be prepared to undertake, but I do not think in the same category come the expenses in which people are involved in order to cure serious physical disabilities. Those are not in the nature of ordinary expenses of life but are an emergency, and in effect they do constitute a dead loss. They are expenditures that have to be made in order that the ordinary citizen may continue to function as a wage earner or salary earner and as a member of society. For that reason I am supporting this resolution, and I have not yet heard any argument that persuades me that it is one that should not be supported.

With great respect I must say that I honestly cannot take seriously the suggestion made by the hon. member for Westmorland that in supporting this resolution and the adjustments in fiscal policy it envisages we may be upsetting the taxation structure. As I have said, the comparison between $35 or $40 million and $5,000 million rules that suggestion out of order altogether. There can be no possibility of upsetting the taxation structure by this very minor adjustment in our fiscal policy, a minor adjustment incidentally that can be corrected, as I said earlier, if the government which these gentlemen support will perhaps have as much tender-heartedness for private individuals as they appear to have for corporations in Canada.

Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, I was greatly surprised and in fact I am surprised on every occasion when a resolution of this type is supported by my good friends in the C.C.F. group to my left. At any time the government has suggested a decrease or increase in taxes on a straight percentage basis the C.C.F. group are the first to get to their feet and completely condemn that idea. They

[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .1

point out the unfairness of a percentage increase or decrease, and their comparisons of course bring out the fact that whereas a citizen with a $3,000 annual income would benefit from that increase by only $15 or $20 the citizen with an annual income of $100,000 would benefit by several thousand dollars; and that is the argument I have heard them use since the first day I came into this house 12 years ago.

The resolution that has been introduced here today is directly contrary to any suggestion that ever came from the C.C.F. party in my memory. They are promoting a plan which would create a situation they have condemned for years and years. Although I was aware of the fact that there had been some changes made in what is known as the Regina manifesto I was not aware that it had been completely abandoned and thrown to the dogs. This resolution gives me the impression that in the past few months they have changed their methods and plans completely.

If the resolution which is being discussed at this particular time is passed it will mean that thousands and thousands in the lower income brackets will receive no benefit, while the more fortunate will receive substantial tax reductions. As I have said, the C.C.F. party has always given us to believe that it was the underdog, the person in the lower income bracket, in whom they had the greatest interest; but I am sure this resolution points out the fact that it is not the underdog who will be benefited but the man who is getting an above average income.

I have been given to understand that if this resolution is adopted it will cost the federal treasury approximately $50 million. Apparently the sponsor of the resolution believes that the great majority of the Canadian people would support such a resolution being put into force. If that is true I for one wonder why those same citizens do not make a much stronger plea and put more pressure upon the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments to have them enter the health plan which was worked out by this federal government with the representatives of every provincial legislature in Canada.

I think we must all agree that the health plan would be more generous than the resolution we are debating. The federal government is prepared to support the federal health plan to the extent of at least $165 million, which is three times the amount the taxpayers would receive by way of reduction under this resolution. If that scheme was adopted by the provinces it would to a great extent eliminate the necessity for the resolution before the house at the present time.

When the legislature of my own province of New Brunswick met just a year ago it was most anxious to pass a bill giving the government authority to enter into a health plan with the federal government. Of course last year was an election year, and that bill has been placed in the Tory archives along with many other bills I can remember. It has been pigeonholed until election time rolls around again, and at that time no doubt it will be dusted off once more and used as election bait in the province.

In the case of the old age pension legislation it was dusted off over a nine year period. Since then,- we had a change of government and were able to get old age security. Of course it will be argued in New Brunswick that these plans are not taken seriously because we have not the funds to take care of the situation. I can remember that only five years ago our provincial revenues were 50 per cent of what they are today, and at that particular time it did not seem as though the government needed the revenue it was receiving. Now we find they are unable to take part in this plan which would benefit every citizen in our province.

Mr. Speaker:

May I take advantage of the interruption caused by the hon. member taking a drink of water and tell him that I fear very much he is in danger of embarking upon a field which is completely irrelevant to the resolution now before the house. Let us not go into the administration of provincial governments with respect to social security measures, nor with respect to what finances they might have at their disposal for these purposes. I think the resolution is quite clear. The resolution has to do with the deductibility of 3 per cent of income in medical expenses, and I think we ought to speak to the resolution and allow ourselves as little latitude as possible.

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly bow to your ruling. I have been listening to the debate and I thought it had covered a very wide field, and for that reason I was trespassing a little myself. I am sure the ordinary workingman in New Brunswick would be much more interested in the health plan suggested by this government than in the resolution now under discussion.

I want to say that it will not embarrass me in any way to vote against the resolution. In fact it is almost a pleasure and privilege for me to vote against a resolution or bill which in my opinion is introduced to embarrass government members. I am not one who is easily embarrassed, and I am not speaking at this time to talk out the resolution. Any time the bell rings I am prepared 82715-89J

Income Tax Act

to stand on my feet to vote against it, or if the bell does not ring the house will know exactly where I stand. This government of which I am a member and proud to be a member-

Mr. Knowles:

What portfolio?

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

-has a very fine record in the social service field. Every single piece of social legislation to be found on the statute books of this country today was placed there by a Liberal administration. Any such legislation originated in the minds of Liberals to start with. For that reason I am always proud to be a member of this party and to support its policies and follow along with them.

I believe also the citizens of this country know that is the fact. They are confident that when circumstances warrant improvements a Liberal government will be responsible for those improvements. The average citizen to whom I have spoken has indicated that he is not very much interested in promises, particularly by political groups who are power hungry and who in desperation will promise the sun, moon and stars or any other planet which they think might get them votes. I am always proud to be a Liberal, to be a member of this government-

Mr. Knowles:

What portfolio?

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

-which has done so much for the Canadian people and the Canadian nation. I am still prepared to go along with this government and trust to their good judgment, the judgment of these outstanding citizens who have done so much for this country. In fact they are the greatest builders in our history. I am satisfied that when improvements are possible they will be brought about by a Liberal government, and that promises will not mean too much to the average Canadian citizen.

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):

Mr. Speaker, the members of the C.C.F. party are again embarking upon that very popular pastime in the House of Commons of seeking to deride the government for causing people to pay taxes, and at the same time attempting to find ways and means of reducing those taxes. They seem to believe in the axiom I heard when I first came here, that to be sure of re-election never vote against a grant and never vote for a tax bill. From the time the house started its session this year the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has supported various suggestions for increasing the amount of the old age pension, and I believe one of the suggestions was to have it increased to $65, beginning at 65 years of age.

Income Tax Act

Mr. Knowles:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Byrne:

That would cost the people of Canada, the treasury, about $500 million. Innumerable other suggestions of that kind have been put forward. I suppose one should not impute motives, but I am just a little suspicious that their sponsors are concerned about an election which may be coming up sooner or later, and wish to appear to be the only ones in the House of Commons who have any feeling for the working people-the underdogs, as they choose to call them-in this country.

When hon. members from the C.C.F. party hear a reasoned argument such as was presented by the hon. member from In-verness-Richmond this afternoon, and when they have no answer to such an argument, they resort to personalities; and I may say the hon. member for Vancouver East indulged in such tactics this afternoon when he attacked the hon. member for Vancouver South.

The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond is a professor of economics and has had considerable experience in sociology in his own province; and when the hon. member for Saskatoon found he did not have an argument with which to answer him he decided to inquire into his marital status, which is a personal matter. That is a preposterous diversion. I am sure there are a great number of people in this country, and the hon. member knows it very well, who are. single and who will be single all their lives because they have taken a vow of celibacy; and they are doing excellent jobs in social and welfare work. As I have said, some hon. members resort to this type of thing when argument fails.

The hon. member for Vancouver South faces the facts as they are, and is consistent. It may be noted that the hon. member for Vancouver South has a resolution on the order paper asking that the government take into consideration this session the need for increasing old age pensions. If the hon. member were to get up and support wholeheartedly the suggestion that taxes should be reduced, then he would be taking a position of inconsistency. Consistency, however, has no part in the policy of the C.C.F. party, as is quite obvious from the debates we have heard so far.

The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and the hon. member for Charlotte have pointed out that if this resolution were passed and a bill introduced it would have the effect of giving greater benefits to those in the higher income tax brackets. It is simple to understand that it is a very extraordinary event for a person with an income

of $3,000 to be faced with a hospital bill which exceeds, say, the $90 which would be required before he could benefit through the present legislation. But a person in the higher income tax bracket might be paying up to $400 in medical expenses and still not benefit from the special provision available at this time.

I do not argue that it would not be a happy situation if everyone could take advantage of this and any other type of exemption which hon. members opposite may think up at the next session of parliament, but it follows that if we continue with this line of thinking we shall reach a point where income taxes no longer bring in revenue and the government must consider all over again ways and means of providing money for the benefits which are at present being provided. There are many other good causes which have claims for income tax exemptions; and rather than accept this one which, broadly, affects everyone from the highest to the lowest without reference to income, I would prefer to seek-and I am sure I would find many- instances where there is discrimination and where something should be done to assist special groups.

There is, for instance, the case of the construction worker who has to leave his home and family and go miles away into the north country or some other isolated area where he has to pay his board and room. These are circumstances which do not occur to people in the general taxation group, and if any one is to be given consideration, here is a group which is, in reality, discriminated against.

We could go from that category to others. For instance, the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers have been proposing this year that special consideration be given to miners who establish their homes in a one-industry town. I invite hon. members to consider the effect upon the community when an ore body is depleted in, say, 15 or 20 years. The miners have paid their taxes while they were working in the town, and they have paid for the homes in which they live. Then the mines are shut down. In most cases it is impossible fcr them to move their homes, and they lose their life savings. The industry is able to write off the investment it has made in homes for officials; it is able to write off its investment in machinery in the course of a few years. The employees have no such advantage. That is just another example of a group of people who suffer today under our income tax provisions, while others are benefited and would further benefit under this proposal.

As the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond pointed out, we are trying to do too many things with the Income Tax Act. I am not suggesting that tax abatement for miners would be simple to introduce, but it is just another example of what the general public expects the government to do.

These ideas are fostered by the type of argument we hear from the other side of the house, particularly from the C.C.F. group. Members of the C.C.F. group try to get the impression across to the general public that there will be no difficulty involved in reducing taxes and at the same time increasing benefits and grants to the people of Canada. I am all for taxing capital gains if that would seem to the government to be a way out of our difficulty and in order to reduce personal taxation in the lower income brackets. But again the members of the C.C.F. party, socialist as they are, mislead their supporters and the people generally in this regard. There must be some capital gain if money is going to be available for the development of our great resources.

Last summer during the pipe-line debate the members of the C.C.F. party were very indignant that more Canadian capital was not being invested in this enterprise. Of course they are quite willing to allow capital to be invested, but just as soon as it is invested they would move in and confiscate. Present corporation taxes are quite heavy.

Mr. Knowles:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if we are now debating the budget? I did not know that the Minister of Finance had brought it in.

Mr. Byrne:

If the hon. member will just recall the speech he made this afternoon he will remember that he referred to the capital gain made by a certain former cabinet minister in a provincial legislature. He does not refer too often to the capital gains of the cabinet ministers in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Ellis:

What capital gain?

Mr. Casileden:

What capital gain?

Mr. Byrne:

He should know that we know as much about the capital gains made by ministers in Saskatchewan as he knows about those made by ministers in other places, but this was just another indication of subterfuge and attempts to mislead. The hon. member becomes very angry if someone this side of the house appears to deviate for a few moments from the actual import of the debate, but the hon. member himself is one of the chief offenders when it comes to deviating from and transgressing the rules of this house.

Mr. Knowles:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is at least

Income Tax Act

ten minutes since the hon. member has made any reference whatsoever to the removal of the 3 per cent floor from the income tax law, which is the subject under debate.