Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Of course what the parliamentary assistant has said is an indictment of the inadequacy of the present range of pensions. That is exactly what it spells to me.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I was only citing that as an example. I could have given a better illustration.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The interpretation to be put on the illustration is this, that in the case of the soldier who gave his life for his country, leaving behind a daughter-in-law for his father to support, an inadequate pension is provided.

Mr. ABBOTT:

My hon. friend is quite correct. I am afraid that my example was unfortunate.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

My understanding of the position was that the demand was in respect of the parents-in-law and did not extend beyond them downwards. It might include the grandparents-in-law but not the others. I understood from a remark made by the minister yesterday that brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, were put in to carry out the parallel in the present law, for the sake of uniformity. I would like to know if there has been any real demand or any real necessity for this. If there has been, if this is justifiable on the ground of necessity, I shall not oppose it. I am favourable to granting assistance in respect to the parents-in-law, because I have known of many cases where assistance would be absolutely necessary and a deduction should be allowed. But is not this based on the theory that the department thinks there ought to be a parallel?

Mr. ABBOTT:

There has been some

demand, I am told, in the case particularly of men who are maintaining a daughter-inlaw. That is perhaps the case which arises most frequently. But it was felt that as we are

Income War Tax

making this change in the law, it was both sound in principle and logical to extend it to all classes of in-laws. So far as I know, there has been no demand upon the government for it, but it was felt that in extending this to some classes of in-laws, which has never been done before, if we did not include them all we should inevitably create a demand from the others which it would be hard to resist on principle. They will say, "Well, you extend it to the father-in-law and the mother-in-law. I am obliged," a man will say, "to support a daughter-in-law; she has no other means of support. If she were my own daughter I could claim the tax credit, but because she is my daughter-in-law I cannot". It seems to me that that is what we should be faced with. But if the committee would prefer, we can let the section stand. The committee may prefer to have the views of the minister on it.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am going to ask that the section stand. I am in accord with the principle of the parents' and grandparents' allowance, but I think these other collaterals stand on a different basis. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the government has made this proposal and it has to make a case in support of it. The only case I can observe is a desire to parallel the present law in respect to these in-laws.

Mr. ABBOTT:

Perhaps we might let it stand; or if we want to pass the resolution it can certainly be given further consideration when we come to the bill.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) :

That is all right.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I am glad that the government has granted the request which has been made by hon. members to make the definition of "child" wider than it was. For a number of years there has been hardship to persons who have children in their homes who have not been legally adopted. Also, of course, there is the case of the illegitimate child; some mothers with an illegitimate child have been penalized all through life. After all, the child cannot choose the circumstances under which it shall be born. This is a worth-while reform, and we approve it.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I am in accord with what the hon. member has said

with respect to children under eighteen years of age dependent upon the taxpayer for support. That is quite right. With respect to the illegitimate children, I assume this will be granted or should only be granted to the mother who is a taxpayer, and that it would not go any farther than that.

Mr. ABBOTT:

Certainly that is the case it was intended to meet.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I hope the legislation will be so guarded that the father of such a child would never be given any tax concession.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I had not given that any consideration.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It is quite possible he might claim it, and I think he is the last man in the world who should get it.

Mr. GRAYDON:

You might have trouble in finding him.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I don't know. The courts pin him down, you know.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

I wish to follow up what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said. Numerous representations have been received on this matter, and I am pleased that this proposal has been adopted. I have had many letters from welfare societies saying that it will be a real godsend.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury)1: I suggest to the minister that when the legislation is framed it be made absolutely clear that this provision for the illegitimate child shall go only to the mother. Under this resolution it would be quite legitimate for one to argue that it covers both parents. I am sure the committee does not want to put a premium on a man who is the father of an illegitimate child. The mother cannot help herself, and I want to help her.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I will certainly give consideration to my hon. friend's observation. The provision is that a credit should be given to anybody who is supporting the child. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred it would be the mother. I am not prepared to say at the moment that if the father was supporting the illegitimate child he should not benefit from this provision. However, that matter can be considered.

The hon: member for Peterborough West has indicated that there have been a great many representations from all sides of the house and from social service organizations throughout Canada that an amendment of this

Income War Tax

kind should be introduced. I want to point out, in view of the rather general terms of the resolution, that the legislation will provide in effect that the dependents must be in the custody of and wholly dependent on the taxpayer.