Ray THOMAS

THOMAS, Ray

Personal Data

Party
Social Credit
Constituency
Wetaskiwin (Alberta)
Birth Date
December 11, 1917
Deceased Date
December 8, 1985
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Thomas_(politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5f0c55b9-ff34-4c5e-b53d-7f1a3ff5c71f&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
merchant

Parliamentary Career

June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
SC
  Wetaskiwin (Alberta)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
SC
  Wetaskiwin (Alberta)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
SC
  Wetaskiwin (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 81)


April 4, 1957

Mr. Thomas:

When I attempted to rise just before the previous speaker I had in mind exactly the same points he had. I would urge the minister to consider raising the exemption beyond 10 per cent because, as has been pointed out, many people pledge 10 per cent of their income to their church, and anything they give beyond that is not eligible for deduction. Possibly if the minister is not willing to consider that he might consider permitting a large donation to be spread over something like a five-year period, so those who are extremely generous in their donations would not be discriminated against. It seems to me unfair that someone who gives very little or often nothing is allowed a deduction of $100, whereas someone who is much more generous receives no exemption whatever for a certain portion of his donations.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Full View Permalink

April 4, 1957

Mr. Thomas:

I just want to ask the minister one question in this regard. Under the definition of "hospital" there are mentioned three special types that are not included under the act. I wonder whether a specialized clinic or a hospital privately owned would be included under the act. At the moment I am thinking of something in the line of the Banff arthritis clinic.

Topic:   HEALTH INSURANCE
Subtopic:   AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENTS FROM CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND
Full View Permalink

April 4, 1957

Mr. Thomas:

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Kootenay West I have received a good many representations from these women's organizations throughout my riding and they have been unanimous in the request that the $50,000 be a true exemption for the purpose of the act. They have, however, gone a lot further and in this regard I think they have made a pretty logical request, which is to the effect that half of the estate be considered as having been earned and accumulated by the wife.

It has been pointed out in other debates, during this session particularly, that in the case of a farm wife she has worked equally as hard as the man in building up the estate and the farm. She has milked the cows and fed the chickens and been up early in the morning. I feel that these women, particularly on the farms-although this is also applicable to almost any other case; and indeed how many of us would get anywhere without our wives -for the purpose of this act should be considered as having earned and accumulated these moneys. Therefore there would be no succession duty chargeable on this amount of $50,000.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1957

Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 138, to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have introduced this bill in the house. As I stated at the time of introduction this session, the purpose is to have the political affiliation of the candidate placed on the ballot paper. The reason for this is to do away with some of the confusion that has been apparent on many occasions when we have had two or more candidates appearing on the ballot paper with similar names. I will not mention any specific cases. I think it is common knowledge to all members that there have been many occasions in the past when there has been a great deal of confusion.

I understand that in one constituency where candidates have already been nominated for the coming election, not only their names but their initials are absolutely similar. This can give rise to a great deal of confusion. The last time I introduced the bill it was pointed out by a good many members that in the House of Commons we have no political affiliations, that we are all members of parliament, and political considerations should not be taken into account. I should like to point out, as I have done on previous occasions, that not only are we listed on the seating plan of the house according to our political affiliation but we also sit in the chamber in groups according to our political affiliation. At the back of Hansard every Wednesday we find that the names of the members are .listed with their constituencies and political affiliations.

I am not going to say any more on the bill. I do not think it needs further explanation. In my opinion a good deal of confusion could be done away with in elections if this amendment were made in the elections act.

Topic:   CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING PRINTING OF BALLOT PAPERS
Full View Permalink

February 20, 1957

Mr. Thomas:

Like the other members who have spoken on this resolution, I welcome it. I think it will do a great deal to assist the farmers who come under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. But like the hon. member for Red Deer my constituency is in the position that nearly all the crop failures come about as a result of hail. I have brought this to the minister's attention on several other occasions, and I am not going to dwell on it to any great extent. However, the eligibility clause under the act certainly leaves the way open for discrimination. Many of the farmers in my area are being hailed out, some of them for several years in a row, and they have been unable to get any payment for these losses.

The information I have been able to gather from the farmers is that they do not mind paying the one cent. They have no objection to it at all, and as the hon. member for Red Deer has indicated many of them would be agreeable to paying even more if they could derive some benefit from the fund. However hail does not, under any circumstances, flatten crops in any six-section area. It runs in streaks, and in very uneven paths through the area. As a result many of these farmers have been paying into the fund for years but have been unable to get a cent from it.

I have one other point about which I should like to ask the minister. A year ago I mentioned to him that there was an area within

Prairie Farm Assistance Act my riding that had been excluded from the original act because it was considered to be submarginal. I pointed out also that due to the growing of different crops and improved farming methods, the area in question had increased in productivity to a very great extent. I asked him at that time if it would be possible to have this area investigated to see whether or not it would be possible to reclassify it and bring it under the act. A year ago the minister assured me it would be possible to check into the matter, and if he found things were different from what they were when the act was originally drafted he would certainly take steps to see that something was done in conjunction with the provincial government.

I ask the minister now if he has made any inquiry into that area, and if so what has been decided. I may say that at that time the minister was under the impression that it was in a special area of the province farther north, and I assured him that it was not. It is in a grey wooded soil area and they are raising good crops of clover, alfalfa and other feed grains and are doing very well.

However, their big complaint is this. In spite of the fact that it is now a productive area they are unable to get under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and cannot derive any benefit from it although their neighbours very near to them in an eligible area are able to derive some benefit from prairie farm assistance.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE AUTHORIZED AWARDS AND LEVY
Full View Permalink