Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):

I

may say this, that as chairman of the committee I have no greater authority than any other member of the committee. I presume in this house to be only the spokesman for the committee, and my duty is to lay before the house, in case a question comes up, what were the views of the committee on matters which were brought before it.

In this particular instance, last year in the report it was decided to abrogate section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act. The report was laid on the table here, and it was decided not to act upon it during the course of last session. During the course of this session a great deal of time was taken up by discussion of other matters. At the last meeting the general committee came to the conclusion that it was not expedient at this session of parliament to consider even the amendments which had been adopted last year, so that no debate or discussion took place on the particular suggestion of my hon. friend.

May I say that in the committee of 1929 there was considerable discussion just on this very point, and I might go further and say that some of the members who at one time or another have been most emphatic in their condemnation of this section were not quite so sure last year that it should be taken from the act. In fact, though it was incorporated in the report, it was not by any means the definite conclusion of the committee that this section should be taken out. I am going to give my own personal opinion, which is that had the members of the committee been perfectly sure that legislation was to be enacted in the sense of taking section 9 out of the act at the last session of parliament, there would

Dominion Elections Act

have been very much more difficulty in having such a suggestion placed in the report. The very persons, as I said before, who have discussed this matter most frequently, are not quite sure that the repeal will save the purpose which they intended it should serve.

Under the circumstances, though I personally have not the slightest objection nor do I know that any member of the committee has any objection, I believe that unless the matter is further discussed and further studied it would be well for us not to take any action upon this suggestion during this session

Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):

Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that there were amendments moved to that section last year in committee but that the amendments were struck out. I do not think there is any doubt in the world that the committee, after careful consideration, thought this section should be removed from the act This session, unfortunately, we never reached the amendment. If it is going to materially affect the time when the election shall be held or anything like that it might be all right to leave it, but if it can be struck out and if there is no objection from the other members-and I doubt very much if there is-we might very well indeed strike out this section.

Mr. POWER:

If the hon. member is asking for my personal opinion, I am absolutely of opinion that it should be struck out, but I am not now speaking for the members of the committee when I say that.

Mr. CANNON:

I have no objection to

the amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The amendment should

be redrafted.

Mr. BENNETT:

The bill wiU have to be recommitted.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I understand the

Solicitor General accepts this amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, but the Solicitor

General would not violate the standing orders of the house.

Mr. CANNON:

I have no objection to

the amendment provided it is adopted in accordance with the rules of the house.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The bill should be ordered to be reported back to the committee and there to be amended in the way suggested hy the hon. member. Shall I draft the amendment accordingly? It is moved by Mr. Woodsworth, seconded by Mr. Heaps, that the

said bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to add a clause providing for the repeal of section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Woodsworth moves that section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act be repealed as a new clause to Bill No. 309. Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. BENNETT:

There was one clause

regarding charities which was allowed to stand.

Mr. EULER:

Subsection (j) of section 3

was allowed to stand in order that some decision might be arrived at to widen the exemptions from income tax. The government felt at the time that the exemptions allowed for donations to schools, hospitals, universities and churches went far enough, but during the discussion we realized that there was a great deal to be said for the arguments advanced that this clause might be broadened out in so far as the federated charities, the Red Cross and other organizations were concerned, and we decided that it would be desirable that this clause should be broadened out to that extent. We did not feel that there could be included in this clause definite reference to such organizations as the federated charities and the Red Cross, because we knew that protests would be coming in such as were presented yesterday. In casting about for some phrase which would make this clause as broad as possible, we decided on the phrase "charitable organization," and I propose to move the following amendment:

That section 3 (j) be amended by striking out the words "any church, university, college, school or hospital" in lines 24 and 25, and substituting therefor the words "any charitable organization."

Objections might be raised that the words "charitable organization" would not cover such institutions as churches, universities, schools and so on but I think the hon. leader of the

Income War Tax Act

opposition is familiar with Halsbury's Laws of England in which Charities are discussed as follows:

Only those purposes are charitable in the eye of the law which are of a public nature, whose object, that is to say, is to benefit the community or some part of it, not merely particular individuals pointed out by the donor.

Accordingly gifts which are directed to the abstract purposes of relieving poverty, advancing education or religion, are charitable.

A bequest for the relief of such poor persons as the testator's trustees may choose is charitable, but not where the choice is to be made from a number of named individuals.

"Charity" in its legal sense comprises four pricipal divisions: trusts for the relief of

poverty, trusts for the advancement of education, trusts for the advancement of religion, and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads. Within one of these divisions all charities to be administered by the court must fall, though every object which might be brought within one of them is not necessarily a charity.

I submit that this phrase embraces every organization of this kind. The section will then read as follows:

not more than ten per centum of the net taxable income of any taxpayer which has been actually paid by way of donation within the taxation period to, and receipted for as such by any charitable organization in Canada operated exclusively as such and not operated for the benefit or private gain or profit of any person, member or shareholder thereof.

Mr. BENNETT:

I desire to congratulate

the hon. minister upon having introduced this amendment. I had an opportunity of looking into the authorities after the sitting of last evening and I am satisfied that the term "charitable organization" covers every species of benevolence that any citizen of Canada may desire to indulge in. The limitation not to exceed 10 per cent of the taxable income protects the government and enables the broadest field of choice to the individual who may desire to utilize 10 per cent of his earnings for the benefit of charitable purposes. In fact, the word " charitable" is so broad that there is no field of human endeavour which he may desire to assist that is not open to him.

Mr. EULER:

This is going to give us a

lot of work.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think not.