1955-02-14

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 14, 1955

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I have a special privilege, which I think would be very graciously granted to me by all hon. members, and that is to express in their name as well as my own our sincere congratulations and our best wishes to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, coming from where it does, and with its feeling of sincerity, I feel somewhat flabbergasted in accepting the congratulations extended by the Prime Minister. I am happy to be living, and thankful that I have a real appetite for everything that is going to happen, even for big speeches from the opposition.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That Messrs. Benidickson, Byrne, Cameron (Nanaimo), Cannon, Churchill, Decore, Des-chatelets, Dupuis, Fleming, Garland, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Hellyer, Henry, Jutras, Lafontaine, Macdonnell, MacEachen, Macnaughton, McLeod, Michener, Monteith, Power (St. John's West), Stuart (Charlotte), Thatcher, Tucker and Yuill constitute the special committee appointed Tuesday, February 8th, to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and that the provisions of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I undertook on Thursday to make a brief statement to the house about the meeting of the prime ministers of the commonwealth countries, from which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I have just returned.
Perhaps I should begin by reminding hon. members of the statement made by Sir Winston Churchill on November 4 last when he announced that it was proposed to hold this meeting. He said:
Many events of great importance in the international field have taken place since our last meeting at the time of the coronation. These will be among the principal subjects for our consideration when, as we have now agreed, a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers is held in London, opening January 31.
These words, I think, indicate quite accurately both the scope and the limitations of such a meeting. The meeting was not called because there was some particular problem of concern to all the member countries of the commonwealth which we were attempting to settle. The meeting was not called to make decisions on any question. It was intended to be, and I suggest that that is all such a meeting could be, an opportunity for a full and frank exchange of views about the many events of great importance in the international field to which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom referred, and of course any other matter of common concern which might be raised.
I am sure all hon. members will now have read the two communiques which were printed as an appendix to last Thursday's Hansard. They will have found in these communiques a summary indication of all the matters which were considered by both the plenary meetings and the additional meetings arranged to discuss regional defence problems. They will agree that all these matters were important and worthy of the careful consideration they received.
There is in reality very little to be said that is not already set out in the communiques. I notice that disappointment has been expressed in certain quarters at the lack of more positive results from the meeting of prime ministers. Such disappointment is obviously because of the mistaken conception of what the meetings were intended to accomplish and of how they do produce their beneficial results.
The commonwealth is not a political organization under centralized direction or control, and I believe we are all agreed that any attempt now to transform the commonwealth into that kind of union would be unsuccessful and might destroy the free association which has been maintained successfully,

Commonwealth Conference despite the many changes in the status of member nations which have taken place in recent years, of which the proposed change in the status of Pakistan, which was freely accepted by all the other commonwealth nations, is only the most recent example.
But the nations of the commonwealth are closely and confidently associated in the pursuit of common objectives which are good objectives for them and good objectives for a wider community than the peoples within their own borders, and they are representative of all parts of the world. Each prime minister naturally looks at the world situation from the point of view of his own country and his responsibilities to the people whose government he heads.
Frequently, however, it can be helpful, and it has been helpful, to see how the world situation looks from an entirely different part of the world. For me that was the most rewarding part of the tour around the world which I made a year ago. For me and I believe for all other prime ministers, that is one of the most valuable aspects of these meetings. It is not merely that we gain new and useful information, though we do that, but it is that we have an opportunity of seeing through the eyes of trusted and like-minded associates how the world situation looks from other parts of the world. It was of immense value to the representatives of western governments to get the point of view of the Asian prime ministers on the questions before us-all the questions before us.
Though this was not an economic conference, we did have a useful and encouraging exchange of information and views about the development of commonwealth trade and of world trade. This is summed up in a paragraph of the communique: We all reaffirmed our adherence to a principle-which is the very foundation of Canadian economic policy-that is to say:
The progressive approach to the widest practicable system of trade and payments.
-as the best way of serving our individual and the general interest. We also had very serious discussions of the problems of nuclear energy, and listened to a most impressive, indeed an unforgettable, statement of Sir Winston Churchill as he painted for us, in majestic and memorable words, the significance of man's discoveries in this field which could mean his total destruction or the unfolding of a future for him beyond our present dreams.
While the superiority of the western world in nuclear weapons is now probably our most important single deterrent against war, nevertheless, we recognize that this is a wasting


asset and that peace must ultimately rest on a better and more lasting foundation. But one thing is sure and we had impressive evidence before us to prove it: a nuclear war would mean global ruin. Against this grim conclusion, we contemplated the happier possibility of hope for peace arising out of the very destructive power of the weapons now available. This may, as Sir Winston put it, result in the destruction of war, rather than the destruction of humanity. It is then for us all, as the communique puts it, "a choice and a challenge".
Defence questions generally were discussed in plenary sessions, during which the various prime ministers spoke of their own countries' problems in this field and how they were being met. There were also limited meetings on area defence problems, attended by those members of the conference which had accepted special peacetime commitments in those areas. International tensions, however, and the search for peace and security, dominated our discussions. It was accidental, but I think useful, that we met while developments were taking place in the Far East, which caused general anxiety. As these developments occurred, we exchanged views about them in a way which I am sure was very helpful in relation to our individual policies.
We did not try to draw up a blueprint for collective action which would be made public, but we all have our individual obligations in these matters, and we all have a common concern to avoid conflict; and also, may I add, to avoid disunity and division among the nations that are earnestly seeking peace; and I am convinced we are all doing our utmost toward those ends.
At the close of our meetings, it was my privilege to express the thanks of all the prime ministers to our host, Sir Winston Churchill. He replied with a few moving words about what he called our "fraternal association", in which he pointed out that this association meant to him, among other things, that each of our governments should always think of the others every time we had to say or do anything which would affect the others. I do not propose to disregard that wise advice, but as the principal communique indicates that the developments in the area of Formosa were necessarily of special concern to all the prime ministers present, I want to say a special word about our own position on this Formosan question. This position cannot, of course, be either final or inflexible, because the situation itself is changing and the changes that take place are bound to affect our judgment of how our policy should develop.
ini

But the principles upon which our policy is based and our approach to this problem have already been made known to the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I want to emphasize that again, in spite of some reports to the contrary, those were not altered during the meeting in London.
The first objective, on which we are all agreed, is that everything possible should be done to prevent fighting and stop it if it occurs, and then to seek a political settlement by negotiation. But no one thinks this is going to be easy. It will require time and patience and the chances for success are not likely to be improved by hasty or ill-considered declarations, or by conferences for which there has been no proper diplomatic preparation.
No one in the free world wants war, with all its unimaginable horrors, to develop over this Formosan situation. I am confident that those who are directing policy in Washington and London and other commonwealth capitals are just as anxious that such a war should be avoided as we are. I think we can all take encouragement from the fact that the President of the United States has recognized that the situation is one which requires great care, great patience, and understanding, and that these are the qualities which are governing his policy in this matter.
I should also like once more to emphasize this: Canada has no commitments regarding collective security in the Far East, and indeed no commitments of any kind in respect of the Formosa area except those which arise out of our membership in the United Nations. I do not think that there is anything else I could properly say about our discussions at the prime ministers' meeting beyond what is set out in the communique. These communiques do represent in substance what all the prime ministers were agreed it was desirable to publish about these meetings.
We expect to move at an early date to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee on external affairs and there will then be an opportunity to discuss any matters arising out of reports on this recent conference as well as any other aspect of our international relations.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, while it has been agreed that any debate on the statement given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the house take place at a later date, I do wish just to comment that we did expect a much fuller statement on the conference than we have received today. It is rather a surprise to me that the Prime Mini-50433- 714
Commonwealth Conference ster has made his report on such an important conference so brief. It is very difficult for us in the opposition to realize just why so many of the things that we thought might have been brought out in the open were not mentioned in the statement.
The tragic possibilities that are implied in hydrogen development make us all more or less stand aghast as to how far mankind has gone in planning its own destruction. As the right hon. Prime Minister has well said in the words of the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, it may be-we all pray that it will be so-that the powerful destructive forces may destroy war rather than mankind itself.
As the Prime Minister stated, the Formosa situation developed at the same time as the conference and it is difficult to see how any such conference could deal very effectively with a situation like that with the seventh fleet of the United States moving alone to stand between Formosa and the mainland of China.
I rather regret that something more was not said and more details given as to how far the conference got on economic problems. I do feel that despite these international tensions we should not be overlooking entirely the problems of our own people in our own daily lives. These rather terrifying tensions are likely to be with us for some time but I do think that our common economic progress is vital to the strength and livelihood of our whole scheme of defence and influence in the world.
I am not going to enlarge on this but I just want to say that speaking for myself, and I think for the party which I lead temporarily, I am disappointed that the Prime Minister's statement was so very brief.


Mr. Coldwell:: When does the Prime Minister expect that we shall be able to discuss international matters? When is it the intention to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I have been discussing this with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I understand that he has important engagements that will take him out of town for Wednesday and Thursday.


Major James William Coldwell: Early next week.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I would hope that if it cannot be on Friday it would be early next week.
lLater:l


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has made.
1112	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference and which in many details does not go even as far as the press went, I should like to ask a question. Among the questions referred to by the press was that there was to be a discussion as to a more equitable distribution in defence efforts. The Prime Minister stated that Canada's emphasis was going to be on continental defence. Would the Prime Minister say something with regard to that?- because there would appear to be a complete change of attitude from that indicated in the House of Commons.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I expressed no change of attitude. This conference was held in camera and there was a lot of speculation by newspapermen about what went on. I was rather surprised to read some of the reports.
The only statement I made was that Canada was taking a substantial part under the North Atlantic treaty in building up the land and air defence forces in Europe and that developments in thermonuclear weapons and in the method of delivery had brought home to us the need of providing a warning system on the American continent which for geographical reasons would have to be largely on Canadian territory. We felt that it was necessary to have that early warning system as one of the components of the deterrent effect of these weapons so that any potential enemy would realize that even a surprise attack would not make retaliation impossible.
I added that our part in the establishment of such a system would place a heavy load on the Canadian people; that a large part of the financial burden would be borne by the United States but that Canada must play her part. It was most important that these things done on Canadian soil be a joint operation and be dealt with as such; and that there be nothing that would indicate that it was not something of interest to Canada as well as to the rest of the continent.
I did say that I felt that both the Canadian and the American people would wish to feel, regarding this essential part of the shield and deterrent against war, that a proper balance was being maintained between what we were doing in Europe and what was being done on our own continent. As the industrial and productive potential of North America was of such importance in the build-up of the forces of the free world, it was felt that proper attention should be given to everything that was necessary to keep the whole defence set-up in its deterrent effect in proper balance.
I saw some report about my having made a comparison between Canada's defence expenditure and that of New Zealand. But


nothing I said anywhere could be a foundation for that kind of report. That was not the atmosphere in which these matters were discussed. No invidious comparisons were made in any quarter.
With reference to the assertion made that Canada was a wealthy country, I pointed out there were limits beyond which we could not go, and I felt our people would support any government in carrying what was considered its proper share in building up these joint defences. But I also pointed out that care had to be taken to maintain a proper balance in the manner in which expenditure was made, and that I did not think we were in a position where we could take on additional commitments in regard to these defences.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one other question. To what degree is Canada making a contribution to the building of the northern screen to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made reference? I ask that because of the fact that the suggestion has been made that Canada should contribute to a strategic reserve of airborne troops, and that Australia and New Zealand agreed to give one division to that end for services outside their respective countries. Did the Prime Minister take a stand against that on behalf of Canada?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I would prefer to read the exact words used by my hon. friend because I do not remember anything that would justify the statement that we took a stand against what was being done by other?. I believe we have wider commitments outside our own country, and more air and land forces stationed outside this country, in proportion to population, than any other of the commonwealth countries except perhaps the United Kingdom itself.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to ask the Minister of Public Works what is causing the delay in bringing into operation the provisions of the National Housing Act making loans available for home improvements.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: To the best of my knowledge there is no delay. I see that at least one of the banks has advertised the availability of mortgage money for that purpose.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe there has been some difficulty in obtaining schedule D, the application form which is necessary to make this particular section operative.


Robert Henry Winters: I will look into that. I am not aware of any difficulty.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Can
the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether Canadian air carriers have sufficient freight aircraft of Canadian registry available to handle the airlift required in the construction of the D.E.W. line and the McGill fence?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I cannot answer that question offhand. I shall take it as notice.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. Shall they all be taken in one motion?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question on this motion for these 26 divorce bills I would like to say a brief word with respect to them.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment I am merely asking if it is the wish of hon. members to have all these bills moved in one motion for second reading. If there is not consent to do so I shall have to take them one by one. But if it is agreeable that they all be taken in one motion then I would like to know. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


William Gilbert Weir: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Vera Grace Westley Stewart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Freda Margery Turton Pellerin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Sieglinde Rosa Wolf Coss.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Marie Vina Lebel Duhamel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Florence Pearl Loader Varden.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Smith Tero.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Elizabeth Annabel Clouston Grandjean.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Miriam Rabi-novitch Yampolsky, otherwise known as Miriam Rabinovitch Pollack.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of George Angus Robinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Gerald Willy Moore.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Desneiges Pri-meau Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Gladys Krass-ner Garoff.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Margaret Aitken Robertson Comis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Marie Rose Barsey De Board.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Maureen Theresa May Baker Reed.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Henry Schoen. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Harold Archie Donaghy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Beatrice Ellis Oakes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Rose Blum Brenner.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Georges Ovide Normand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Marjory Grace Darling Downey Picktell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Francis Joseph Ellis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of John Mc-Kinnell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Ada Garland Skakle Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Shirley Elizabeth Saul Hutchison.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Rotha Dodgson Webb.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question but that the procedure you asked me to follow was perfectly correct, but I did not want to run any risk of not being heard before this motion is put and carried.
This is private members' day, and when we get to private members' resolutions I believe that one in my name may be called. Obviously, therefore, I am not going to spend very much time on this motion for the approval of the 26 divorces which are on today's order paper.

Private Bills-Divorce
I wish to say though, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken the trouble to look through the evidence of these 26 divorce cases. In some instances I have read the evidence in full; in other cases my reading was more cursory, but I have gone through all of them.
Reading these cases one is aware of the fact that we have before us at the present moment 26 tragic stories. Despite the tragedy of these cases, despite the evidence presented with respect to each of them, and despite the fact that I have read that evidence, I must say I do not yet feel in a position to pass judgment as to whether these 26 divorces should be granted. I suggest that if I feel that way, after having gone through the evidence in these 26 cases, there must be many other hon. members who, if they cared to say so, would indicate that they feel exactly the same.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we should be dealing with this business at all. However, Your Honour has ruled -and the smile on your face would indicate that you are now ruling similarly once again -that one must not talk about the procedure by which we handle divorces, but should rather talk about the cases that are now before us.
In that connection I wish to make reference to something that came out in the committee in the other place which deals with these divorces with respect to one of the cases. I do not intend to pinpoint any of the details given in this case, but I think it is only fair to indicate that the book of evidence I have in my hand relates to Bill No. 70, which is one of the divorces now before us.
I can assure hon. members that what I refer to as having been brought out in this case is not on the seamy side, but rather indicates an awareness on the part of Their Honours in the other place that certain tricks are sometimes being pulled on Their Honours. I wish to congratulate Senator Roebuck and Senator Kinley on making it clear that there is one trick they want discontinued.
In connection with this particular case they pointed out that the lawyer for the petitioner, even though he knew the name of the co-respondent, refrained from giving that name, and even went so far as to say that the adultery had been committed with a person unknown.
I congratulate the chairman of that committee, Senator Roebuck, on picking up that point. This is what he had to say:
You see the problem Is this, Mr. Masse,-

Mr. Masse is the lawyer in the case.
-that woman should have been notified of these proceedings so that she could have a chance to come here and tell her story too.


Mr. Masse:: We have never done it so far.


The Chairman:: Well the sooner you get to it the better.


Hon. Mr. Kinley:: As a matter of fact you not only have not done it but you went out of your way to keep it in the dark, not you, but most who come here, they try to evade telling the name.


William Alfred Robinson: You know that in the Ontario courts you have to get permission to plead "with persons unknown." You have to give the name of the respondent as well as that of the corespondent unless the court orders otherwise.


Arthur Massé: I have been before this committee a great number of times for the past 20 years and it has been a standing practice-I have never notified the co-respondent as a matter of fact, I have never mentioned it although on many occasions we knew the co-respondent, and X have never been told anything about it otherwise.


William Alfred Robinson: Yes. We will pass it' on this occasion but in future please observe the rules of the court in Ontario, and for all the provinces for that matter, with regard to co-respondents. They should be named and they should be notified.
Then after another exchange there comes this further paragraph which I would like to quote:


William Alfred Robinson: I agree that the practice here has been very confused in the past but the sooner we get to a better arrangement the better.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I am very happy to hear you say that.
So, as I say, I congratulate Their Honours on picking up this particular trick that has been played by some of those who have appeared before them and on taking the stand that Senator Roebuck has taken in connection with this practice.
I might say that, in connection with another of the bills that is before us-it happens to be Bill No. 67-Their Honours also discussed with a detective who was before them the question as to how they get into rooms where they have no right to barge in. They obtained from the detective the admission-and we all know it to be true-that they use ruses of various kinds; in other words, they just tell lies in order to get into rooms to collect their evidence.


John George Diefenbaker: There is not much collusion there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the whole matter is well put in the words of Senator Roebuck when he said, "I agree that the practice here has been very confused". It is confused, Mr. Speaker. We are all confused by the whole business and I think the best way to end the confusion would be for us to go out of this divorce business completely so far as parliament is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion for the second reading of these bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many collective agreements between employers and employees in Canada include provision for a guaranteed annual wage?
2.	How many employees are covered by such contracts?
3.	Is the Department of Labour making any studies as to the possibility of encouraging more employers and employees to include provision for a guaranteed annual wage in their collective agreements? If so. are such studies available?


Mr. Gregg:: 1 and 2. A study of guaranteed wage and employment plans in collective agreements in a selected sample of 937 agreements covering 610,000 workers or about 40 per cent of


Mr. McCann:: Questions
the total number of workers under collective agreements was published in the Labour Gazette of September, 1953. In this sample two guaranteed annual wage plans were found in the manufacturing industries and three in non-manufacturing industries. The total number of workers covered by these five agreements was 1,900. One of the five plans has since been discontinued.
In a survey of working conditions in April, 1954, which was answered by 6,684 manufacturing establishments with 802,500 plant employees, eight establishments with total employment of 1,050 replied that they had an annual wage guarantee. Of these eight establishments, five reported having no collective agreement and in the remaining three plants a guaranteed annual wage provision was not included in the agreements.
3. No; but studies of a general nature are made as indicated in answers 1 and 2. The usual practice followed is to report on studies of this nature in the Labour Gazette.



INCOME TAXES BY PROVINCES

Mr. Hahn:: What was the total sum received by the federal government in personal income taxes, corporation income taxes, and in any other levies on persons or bodies, by provinces, in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Taxation Division Tax collections by provinces Fiscal years 1950 to 1954 inclusive
Province	1949-1950	1950-1951	1951-1952	1952-1953	1953-1954

Newfoundland	
4,163,949	11,088,279	19,267,532	25,976,056	23,667,694Prince Edward Island	
2,776,793	2,982,452	2,812,260	3,305,279	3,028,174Nova Scotia	
24,338,200	29,486,593	35,558,408	46,593,471	41,164,738New Brunswick	
19,054,472	20,305,258	31,116,418	34,425,033	34,334,163Quebec	
353,903,217	429,894,266	611,157,042	698,658,372	674,801,460Ontario	
600,544,274	740,106,446	1,046,908,377	1,242,324,676	1,297,787,761Manitoba	
62,328,349	70,338,444	90,710,410	111,255,398	111,993,299Saskatchewan	
36,258,273	31,139,066	34,397,747	48,015,412	58,147,234Alberta	
65,037,219	71,411,626	91,030,280	121,442,870	134,548,814British Columbia	
131,588,237	149,064,858	239,463,705	259,708,170	236,283,544Yukon	
762,434	1,058,101	1,564,123	2,255,881	2,284,218Head Office	
26,167	120	-	-	-Totals	
1,300,781,584 1,556,875,509 2,204,046,302 2,593,960,618 2,618,041,099



PUGWASH, N.S.  WHARF

Mr. Brooks:: What was the total cost for (a) the construction of the Pugwash wharf, Pugwash, Nova Scotia; (b) the necessary dredging around it for each year for the past seven years?


Mr. Bourget:: (a) The wharf was rebuilt in 1950-51 at a cost of $407,371.23.
(b) 1947-48, nil; 1948-49, $108,262.63; 194950, to 1952-53, nil; 1953-54, $83,060.41; 1954-55, (to date); $220.31.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS-PROVINCIAL SUBMISSIONS

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did any provincial government make any submission to the federal government concerning

Questions
the subject of dominion-provincial taxation agreements between September 20, 1954 and January 14, 1955?
2.	If so, what was the nature of each submission, and what was the reply in each case?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: 1.	The only letter on this subject received by the federal government during this period was that of November 1, 1954, from Premier Duplessis of Quebec, and this letter was among those tabled in the House of Commons on January 17, 1955.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Are there available to the dominion government statistical records from which can be gathered particulars of (a) the numbers killed or fatally injured on the highways of Canada: (b) the numbers of those injured but not fatally: (c) the total
of property damage resulting from accidents on the highways of Canada, in each of the years 1930 to 1954 inclusive?
2.	If so, what are the respective figures?
3.	If not, (a) what information is available and can be given in partial answer to these questions: (b) what suggestions can be offered as to sources from which such information, or the balance thereof, can be obtained or on the basis of which a fair estimate can be made?


Mr. Dickey:: 

INFANT DEATHS

Mr. Enfield:: Is any federal assistance being given for research into the causes of infant deaths in Canada?


Mr. Robertson:: Yes, under the national health grants program payments have been made on projects approved amounting to over $52,600.
These research projects include one in Toronto and one in Winnipeg to study the causes of stillbirths and the deaths of newborn infants. The departments of obstetrics and pathology of the University of Toronto, and the research institute of the Hospital for Sick Children are collaborating in the study in Toronto. In Winnipeg the research is under the supervision of the department of pediatrics of the University of Manitoba.



FLUORIDE

Mr. Proudfoot:: Has it been definitely proved that one part per million of fluoride in a water supply will help to prevent tooth decay?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Yes, to the extent of about 65 per cent. This has been proved by research studies carried out in Canada and in the United States, including one conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare over the past eight years working in co-operation with the departments of health of the province of Ontario, Brant county, Lambton county, and the city of Stratford.



INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many cases, by provinces, have been heard and decided by the income tax appeal board since its inception?
2.	In how many of such cases, by provinces, has the decision been in favour of (a) the Department of National Revenue; (b) the taxpayer?
3.	How many of the decisions, by provinces, rendered by the said board in favour of the taxpayer have been appealed to the exchequer court by the Department of National Revenue?


Mr. McCann:: 1. Number of appeals heard and decided by the income tax appeal board since its inception-by provinces-
Newfoundland	 0
Alberta	 126
British Columbia	 173
Manitoba	 88
New Brunswick	 15
Nova Scotia	 17
Ontario	 410
Prince Edward Island	 5
Quebec	 293
Saskatchewan	 72
Total	 1,199
	Questions	
2.	(a)	(b)In	favour of	In favour ofDepartment of	the taxpayerNational Revenue:	in whole orin part:Alberta	92	34British Columbia	99	74Manitoba	60	28New Brunswick	11	4Nova Scotia	12	5Ontario	236	174Prince Edw. Island 3	2Quebec	166	127Saskatchewan	43	29Total:	722	477
Note: In addition to the above, the income tax appeal board has dealt with 633 appeals which have either been withdrawn or in which judgments have been given following consent. These are as follows:
Appeals allowed Appeals dison	consent	missed on withdrawalAlberta	26	30British Columbia	44	47Manitoba	9	27New Brunswick	8	10Nova Scotia	6	15Ontario	93	125Prince Edw. Island	4	5Quebec	72	73Saskatchewan	15	24Total:	277	356
3. Number of appeals, by provinces, in which the decision was in favour of the taxpayer and have been appealed to the exchequer court by the Department of National
Revenue:
Alberta	 5
British Columbia	 11
Manitoba	 4
New Brunswick	 1
Ontario	 44
Quebec	 21
Saskatchewan	 3
Total:	 89
Of these 89 decisions appealed, 24 were later withdrawn by the department.



WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONT.   LANDSCAPING

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	What was the total cost of landscaping the area surrounding the psychiatric wing of Westminster hospital, London, Ontario?
2.	Was the contract let by tender, and if so, at what price?

Questions
3.	What was the name of the company involved?
4.	What were the names of the subcontractors, if any?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	$10,485.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) $10,485.
3.	Sunnybrook nurseries, Toronto, Ontario.
4.	Nil.
APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP-QUALIFICATIONS Mr. Fulton:
1.	Is it allowed or accepted that, where an applicant for Canadian citizenship appears under section 10(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, before a court as defined in the said act, in any place other than the Northwest Territories or the
Yukon Territory, the qualifications of such applicant under the said section 10(1) should be determined by any person or officer other than the judge of such court or, in the province of Quebec, a district magistrate?
2.	If so, (a) in what places and on what authority; (b) is any payment authorized to be made to such other person or officer?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
POST OFFICE REVENUES, NICOLET-YAMASKA, QUE. Mr. Boisvert:
What was the revenue for the fiscal years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 of the following post offices in Nieolet-Yamaska:	(a)
Nicolet; (b) St. Gregoire (Nicolet); (c) Baie-du-Febvre (Yamaska); (d) Pierreville (Yamaska)?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1948 - 49	1949-50	1950 - 51	1951 - 52	1952 - 53	1953 - 54Nicolet 	$20,279.94	21,883.34	21,799.23	29,273.92	42,437.85	56,354.15St. Gregoire 	2,707.59	2,665.44	2,869.01	3,273.34	3,268.85	2,861.62La Baie 	
(Baie-du-Febvre)	3,313.55	2,918.20	3,419.75	4,624.38	5,196.05	5,520.86Pierreville 	5,996.14	5,393.24	5,605.75	6,057.42	6,955.91	6,858.69



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Mr. Cameron (High Park):: 1.	As of December 31,	1954,	(a) how many
families were in receipt of family allowances; (b) for how many children were the allowances paid?
2.	What was the total amount of family allowances paid in each province for December, 1954'


Mr. Robertson:: 1. (a) 2,176,130;	(b) 5,104,662.
2. Province	Amount
Newfoundland	 $ 1,006,112
Prince Edward Island	 216,310
Nova Scotia	 1,436,921
New Brunswick	 1,264,840
Quebec	 9,750,617
Ontario	 9,332,516
Manitoba	 1,569,047
Saskatchewan	 1,750,369
Alberta	 2,140,142
British Columbia	 2,313,645
Yukon and Northwest Territories	 61,939
Total	 30,842,458



INDIANS-HEARINGS BY COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many commissioners held hearings during the year 1954 on Indian reserves pursuant to provisions of the Indian Act?
2.	Who were the commissioners, and in which Indian reserves did each of them hold hearings?
3.	Which of the commissioners have made reports to the minister or department?

4. How many persons, if any, on each of the reserves were found not to be members of their respective bands by each of the said commissioners?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. 17.
2 and 3. Robert Harvey, Jr., Beecher Bay, B.C., received; Alex S. Duncan, Hope, B.C., received;	Alex	S.	Duncan,	Langley, B.C.,received;	Alex	S.	Duncan,	Ohamil, B.C.,received; Alex S. Duncan, Coquitlam, B.C., received;	Alex	S.	Duncan,	Seabird Island,B.	C., received; C. W. Morrow, Q.C., UpperNicola, B.C., received; C. W. Morrow, Q.C., Lower Nicola, B.C., received; C. W. Morrow, Q.C., Cook's Ferry, B.C., received; C. W. Morrow,	Q.C.,	Coldwater,	B.C., received;C.	W. Morrow, Q.C., Okanagan, B.C., received; C. W. Morrow, Q.C., Penticton, B.C., received; Chas. H. Grant, Q.C., Blackfoot, Alta., not received; Chas. H. Grant, Q.C., Samson, Alta., not received; E. H. Logan, Driftpile, Alta., not received; E. H. Logan, Beaver, Horse Lake, Alta., not received; L. Trelenberg, Peepeekeesis, Sask., received; L. Trelenberg, Okanese, Sask., received; J. Glass, Carry the Kettle, Sask., received; J. Glass, Muscow-petung, Sask., received; J. Glass, Pasqua, Sask., received; H. J. Fraser, Mistawasis, Sask., received; H. J. Fraser, Beardy's and Okemasis, Sask., received; Alex. W. Prociuk, Muskeg Lake, Sask., not received; Alex. W. Prociuk, One Arrow's, Sask., not received; Alex. W. Prociuk, James Smith, Sask., not
received; Harvey J. Bell, Red Pheasant, Sask., received; Harvey J. Bell, Saulteaux, Sask., received; Harvey J. Bell, Poundmaker, Sask., received; C. D. C. Blackburn, Q.C., Thunder-child, Sask., not received; A. M. Kindred, Kinistino, Sask., not received; A. M. Kindred, Poorman, Sask., not received; A. M. Kindred, Gordon, Sask., not received; C. B. McGregor, Key, Sask., received; E. G. Porter, Q.C., Long Plain, Man., received; James F. Anderson, Fairford, Man., received; W. P. Telford, Jr., Chippewas of Nawash, Ont., received; A. S. Pettapiece, Nipissing, Ont., received.
Motions for Papers
4.	The commissioners were appointed under part II of the Inquiries Act. The duties of the commissioners were to investigate and report to the registrar. Decisions on protests must be made by the registrar pursuant to subsection 2 of section 9 of the Indian Act.



CUSTOMS REVENUES, ETC., NICOLET, QUE.

Mr. Boisvert:: What was the revenue of the Nicolet office, for the fiscal years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 with respect to: (a) the customs duties; (b) the excise duties and sales tax?


James Joseph McCann: (a)	(b)		
Import	Excise	Sundry	TotalDuties	Taxes	Collections	Revenue1948-49 	
$ 50,216.71	$174,957.37	.80	$225,174.881949-50 	
38,653.95	129,515.86	-	168,169.811950-51 	
56,739.03	140,403.28	.50	197,142.811951-52 	
59,241.82	170,931.21	17.70	230,190.731952-53 	
63,721.04	180,038.83	31.25	247,791.121953-54 	
192.298.12	334,815.80	94.50	527,208.42
Note:
(a)	Customs duties taken from annual reports of Department of National Revenue.
(b)	Excise taxes taken from annual reports of Department of National Revenue. This includes both sales and excise taxes.
No excise duties were collected at this port for the years referred to.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Montgomery:: 1.	How many buildings have been constructed since January 1, 1950 for the Department of National Revenue and/or its employees at the following places of entry into New Brunswick from the state of Maine: (a) Union corner; (b) Woodstock Road; (c) Belleville; (d) Bloomfield; (e) River de Chute; (f) Mare Hill road; (g) Beaconsfield; (h) Andover; (i) Four Falls; (j) Grand Falls; (k) Hamlin; (1) Fosterville?
2.	Of the above buildings, how many (a) houses, showing number of rooms; (b) garages, single or double; (c) offices; (d) terminals?
3.	What is the type of construction of each?
4.	What is the total cost of each, Including furnishings, heating systems, grading, and lawns and defences?
5.	Are any vacant at the present? If so, how many?
6.	Are any buildings under construction at any of these places?
7.	If so, of what nature and what has been the expenditure on each to date?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frederick George Hahn: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport, the board of railway commissioners and/or others, pertaining to Mr. A. G. Webster, conductor, relative to a train wreck on Canadian National Railways track at Avola, British Columbia, on May 28, 1942.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have received the information through other channels. With the permission of the house I should like to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT, MANITOBA

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged from January 1, 1950 to date, between the federal Department of Agriculture and the provincial government of Manitoba and other groups and individuals in that province, relative to the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gardiner:: Subject to the usual privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is carried subject to the reservations made by the Minister of Agriculture.
1120

Motions for Papers



QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL, MONTREAL

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters and communications since the 1st day of August, 1954, written by the minister, deputy minister or any officials in the Department of Transport to the Canadian National Railways, or any officer or official thereof, concerning the leasing of or intended leasing or management agreement of the Queen Elizabeth hotel in the city of Montreal to the Hilton Hotels Corporation.


Mr. Marler:: Mr. Speaker, on Monday,
February 7, the house considered a motion by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asking for the production of correspondence between the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways respecting the so-called lease of the Queen Elizabeth hotel. I took the position that this concerned a matter of internal operation of the railway and that it should not be accepted by the house. That motion was dropped from the order paper.
The hon. member's motion which is now before us, while differently worded to some extent, is in effect the same as the motion which was dropped in that it requests, just as the other motion did, correspondence between the department and the Canadian National Railways in regard to the operation of the Queen Elizabeth hotel.
My position on this motion must be as it was on the previous motion. It seeks correspondence written by the minister, deputy minister or any officials in the Department of Transport to the Canadian National Railways or any officer or official thereof concerning the subject of the motion. Correspondence between departments of government and the Canadian National Railways has always been considered privileged, just as correspondence within departments is considered privileged.
With respect, I would ask, therefore, that the motion be withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do you
allow any argument at the moment on that question? The question was raised the other day and at that time Your Honour said that you were making no ruling. In view of that fact and so that there would be no appeal from a decision as yet unmade and also out of respect to Your Honour, no appeal was made at that time. Is your Honour going to allow any argument at this time respecting this matter which has the effect of muzzling parliament in the search for truth? It is not the same motion as was made the other day; far from it.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member
allow me to say this? The other day I made an appeal. As the hon. member says, I did

not make a ruling. I just made an appeal that when these motions are refused for, if I may use the term, standard reason-and by that I mean for reasons which have always been invoked in similar circumstances by those who have occupied the treasury benches so far as I am able to ascertain, looking into the records-members should not provoke a recorded division on every occasion. That was the sort of appeal I was making, having in mind that we might expedite the business of the house if, whenever a motion of that type is refused, we were not to have a recorded division. That was the purpose of my appeal the other day. I did not intend to say anything today because I have had private conversations with some of my colleagues and it appeared that the remarks I had made the other day had worried some of them. If I had said anything today it would merely have been to put them at their ease. I recognize that in all cases when a motion is before the house the house, if it so wishes, must make a decision by whatever machinery is at its disposal. What the hon. member is asking me today has nothing to do with the remarks I made the other day. If he is influenced by what I said the other day, I repeat that he should be quite at ease because it was merely an appeal and it had to do with the situation whereby a recorded division is asked for on every occasion. As hon. members know, the opinion of the house is not necessarily made known by a recorded division. That was the only point I was trying to make the other day.
But what the hon. member has asked me today is if I will allow a debate. I am restricted by standing order 51. In moving his motion the hon. member indicated by placing an asterisk beside it that he did not wish to have a debate. Standing order 51 says: Notices of motion for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper above "notices of motions", under the heading "notices of motions for the production of papers". All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of;
The last part of the standing order reads as follows:
but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "notices of motions".
It is the privilege, indeed, it is the right of any member of the house to ask that a notice of motion for the production of papers be transferred to notices of motions if a debate is desired. I know the hon. member will tell me, and not without justification, that when a minister stands up and says that he refuses the motion for such and such a reason he is debating the motion. Perhaps before giving

his reasons lor refusing, the minister himself might ask to have the motion transferred to notices of motions in order to be able to say those words. However, that has not been the practice. On these non-debatable motions ministers have been allowed to explain why they were refusing the production of papers and, as I say, I am restricted by the requirements of standing order 51.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says that the document is a privileged one.


George Carlyle Marler: I did not say the document was.
I said that such correspondence has always been looked upon as privileged.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order on the basis of authorities which indicate that these letters are not privileged. I have not asked for documents in the possession of the Canadian -National Railways. I have asked for the production of the documents in the hands of the government. I am not going into the rule and the different citations on the subject, but they are to the effect that the rule of non-production of railway documents and the like applies only because of the fact that the documents are not in the possession of any department of government. Therefore when my hon. friend says that it is not in the public interest my submission is that such a doctrine cannot apply except when the security of the state is challenged or where a matter arises which, in the interests of security, should be denied to the house. Therefore I wish to press the motion.


George Carlyle Marler: Speaking on the point of order, I did not say at any time during my remarks this afternoon that this was a matter of public interest. All I said was that correspondence between the minister, officers and officials of the department and Canadian National Railways had always been looked upon as privileged correspondence.


Mr. Fulion:: Speaking on the point of order, my understanding is that when that ruling was first laid down it was at a time when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was prime minister, and he took the position as the responsible prime minister of the day that these documents were not producible because they were not in the possession of the government. I submit to Your Honour that it is through a misapprehension of the position taken by the prime minister of that day that the practice now followed by the minister has grown up
Motions for Papers
of stating baldly and sweepingly that correspondence with Canadian National Railways is in the class of privileged documents. That was not the point made by the prime minister in 1921, and his position will be found at page 1004 of Hansard of that year. He went into the matter at some length.
He took the position then that documents or correspondence in the possession of the railways obviously would not be producible by the government and that therefore no motion for their production could be brought in the house. As the hon. member for Prince Albert has pointed out, his motion calls for copies of the letters from the government to the railways, which obviously must be in the possession of the government, and what we are asking now is that the government produce those documents. Since the minister himself has said just now that he does not suggest that they be refused on the ground that they are privileged documents-


Mr. Martin:: He never said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -then I suggest that he comply with the order. I would also refer Your Honour and the house to a citation in the fourth edition of Bourinot which is not exactly in point but is very close to the point under discussion. It is found at page 253 and is cited with approval by Bourinot at the bottom of that page. He is discussing the question of producing documents and the grounds upon which they may from time to time be refused. He says:
And on a later occasion it was declared by Sir Robert Peel that "where parliament has given peculiar privileges to any body of men, as, for example, banks or railway companies, it has a right to ask that body for information upon points which it deems necessary for the public advantage to have generally understood."
It goes on, and I want to place the whole thing on record so that I will not be under the suspicion of having quoted only a part of it. It continues:
The point to be aimed at in such inquiries, he considered to be "that while you extract all the information the public require to have, you should, at the same time, avoid all vexatious interference in the details of the business of the respective undertakings."
I suggest to you, sir, that it is not open to the minister to suggest that the request for the production of copies of these letters, seeking information with regard to the managerial agreement between Canadian National Railways and the Hilton Hotels Corporation, which information is in the possession of the government, can be regarded as vexatious interference but rather that it is merely parliament asking the government, with respect to this correspondence with the railway, for

Motions for Papers
information upon points which it deems necessary for the public advantage to have generally understood. In that regard I submit to Your Honour that this is a point about which the public are greatly concerned, in which public welfare is most certainly involved, to which public moneys are to be devoted, and that therefore it is for the public advantage to have the correspondence produced.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. I must say, however, that some of the points that have been made pertain rather to the debatable side of the matter between members of the house themselves in which it is difficult for me to intervene because I cannot take part in debates. It is a borderline case. If I were to refute or comment in any way upon some of the points advanced it might lead some hon. members to say that I was debating a matter which is not within my province to debate. On the other hand, if I make a slip perhaps I can be forgiven because I will try to be very careful and will do some fancy skating in order to put my own views before the house strictly from the point of view of order. I have here before me the reference made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) with respect to the statement made by Mr. Meighen in 1921. As a matter of fact, the day after I made some remarks as to the question of the production of papers, I did refer hon. members to that very question which appears in the debates of 1921.
To justify my appeal, I did refer hon. members on February 7 to Bourinot, fourth edition, pages 249 to 254; Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, revised by Spencer Walpole, volume II, pages 157 to 160; and also to the Debates of March 17, 1921, at pages 1003 and 1004, volume II. See also Debates, page 694, volume I, 1932-33.
Inasmuch as hon. members of the government consider that the production of papers relating to affairs of the Canadian National Railways is, by practice, to fall in the same classification as those which are refused because they are privileged, and of a personal or confidential character, we must look at the refusal given by the ministers to these motions for the production of papers in the light of the general theory which I find very clearly expressed in Todd's Parliamentary Government, volume II, as revised by Spencer Walpole. I would refer hon. members to page 157, where they will find this:
The rule which forbids any encroachment by parliament upon the executive authority of the crown has a further application, to which our attention must now be directed.

It is imperative that parliament shall be duly informed of everything that may be necessary to explain the policy and proceedings of government in any part of the empire; and the fullest information is communicated by government to both houses, from time to time, upon all matters of public concern. For it is in parliament that authoritative statements are made, or information given, by ministers upon public questions; and no action in. parliament should be based upon declarations of policy made elsewhere.
Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions: were it other wise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servants of the crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the house refrains from insisting upon its production. And if the government object to produce any documents, on the ground that they are of a private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished, except under peculiar and imperative circumstances.
It was based upon that general theory, which has been followed in practice by all governments I have known in this country since confederation, that I made an appeal that whenever a motion is refused for what I might be permitted to call standard reasons, a recorded division perhaps should not be asked on every occasion. That was the sense of my appeal the other day.
I am not in a position, because I have not the authority, to decide upon the point brought out by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as to the interpretation given by Mr. Meighen in 1921 with respect to certain documents pertaining to the affairs to the C.N.R. management, which he said should not be produced. That is a debatable point which I should not be called upon to decide. And if I were to decide that the minister's interpretation of practice with respect to these things is not the proper one, and were to condemn Mr. Meighen's opinion as expressed in 1921, how do I have authority to force a minister to produce documents?
The hon. member will recall that there was a case of that kind two years ago when he, himself, protested against a refusal to produce documents by the treasury benches, and he asked Mr. Speaker Macdonald to order that certain documents be produced. The hon. member will recall what Mr. Speaker Macdonald said at that time, as I must say today, "I have no authority to order a minister to produce documents he feels should not be produced." See Debates, April 28, 1952, pages 1648-1651, volume II.

That is my position. As I understand it, the hon. member wishes to collect the voices and to divide the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) would like to have a further reference with regard to this matter. He will And this at page 1178 of Hansard of 1921 where an amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply had been moved by Mr. King. He will see that Mr. Meighen restates the position which he had taken earlier as reported on pages 1003 and 1004 of Hansard. This particular reference will be found at page 1180. It might help the member to clarify his own stand with respect to this type of motion in the future.
++NAYS



G. M. FERRIE

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Mr. Nicholson:: Anderson
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Benidickson
Bertrand
Blanchette
Boisvert
Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Bourget
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Campney
Cardin
Carrick
Carter
Cavers
Dechene
Deschatelets
Dickey
Dumas
Dupuis
Enfield
Fairey
Follwell
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gardiner
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Goode
Gour (Russell)
Gregg
Habel
Hardie
Harrison
Henry
Herridge
Hosking
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
James
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) LaCroix Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Legare Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacNaught McCann McCubbin
For a copy of the expense accounts submitted by G. M. Ferrie of the Department of Agriculture for the year 1954.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Decore-The following proposed resolution: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore) has had to absent himself until February 21 because of a death in his family. He has asked me to ask the house for unanimous consent to have his motion remain on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Income Tax Act INCOME TAX ACT



PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO MEDICAL EXPENSES

Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend how he got hold of a copy of the speech to which he has paid such high tribute?


An hon. Member:: It is a privileged document.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if it is a privileged document?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was how the hon. member got hold of a speech to which he has paid such high tribute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Either the minister or his department made a considerable supply available to the press gallery.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has not answered my question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most hon. members of this house visit the press gallery from time to time. I was up there this morning and found still posted there for all to read, and I am sure that that is what the minister wanted- I am sure if he does not get sufficient publicity he will be grateful to me for calling attention to it-a number of copies of this speech.
As I have already indicated, not everyone gets the speeches of the Minister of National Health and Welfare but almost everyone does get in one form or another a copy of the income tax return.


James Joseph McCann: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the Minister of
National Revenue (Mr. McCann) saying "hear, hear". He is not asking me how I got hold of this. This is not a privileged document for he makes them available high, wide and handsome.


John George Diefenbaker: You would not get that by means of a motion on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggests that I should not try to get anything like this by means of a motion for I would not be very successful. On page 4 of the T1 general form for 1954, the income tax return, I find that among the expenses which you can deduct for income tax purposes if you are an income tax payer using this form is an item covering repairs. I hasten to add that the repairs referred to are repairs to buildings, machinery and fishing equipment.
I have looked over this return very carefully and I have looked over the act on which it is based and I find that there is no limitation with regard to that right. You can deduct the cost of repairs to buildings, machinery or fishing equipment-in other words, repairs to property-right from the first dollar.
Despite the excellent words used on Saturday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare about health being a proper national concern, despite the way in which he joined with President Eisenhower, the late Mackenzie King and others of us who have taken that view, I find that when it comes to the cost of

repairs to the human body it is a different story. You can deduct expenses for repairs of that kind only after they exceed 3 per cent of your personal income. In my view that is a discrepancy and an unfairness that should be corrected. If it is proper in the view of the government that the cost of repairs to property should be considered a deductible expenditure for income tax purposes starting with the first dollar, the same should apply to expenses for repairs to the human body, or medical expenses, right from the first dollar.
I must say that I am indebted to a friend of mine in the press gallery for drawing to my attention just after a debate similar to this one finished a year ago a letter which appeared in the New York Times in February, 1954. I do not know the Leslie Handler who wrote the letter, but he certainly knew what he was talking about. He discussed the effect of the federal administration's taxation program in the United States. He discusses the very point I have tried to make this afternoon, namely that in that country-and the same thing is true here- better consideration is given by the income tax authorities to repairs to property than is given to necessary repairs to the human body. I would like to quote from this letter which appeared in the New York Times:
Take the matter of repairs. AH reasonable costs of necessary repairs to business property are good tax deductions. But if an individual suffers illness he may not deduct medical expenses unless they exceed 5 per cent of his gross income.
That of course refers to the United States. The writer goes on to point out that there are maximum limits as well. Later on in this same letter the writer puts it this way:
My suggestion is to treat the taxpayer as a person no worse than we treat his property. At least let him deduct the cost of the "repairs" to his person without limitations.
As I said, I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare still has additional copies of the excellent speech he made on Saturday and that he will send a marked copy of it to his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and remind him that it is the view of the government that good health is a proper national concern, and that it is also the view of the government that our greatest national asset is the health and well-being of our people.
If it is the view of the government that the health of the people is our greatest national asset, surely that asset should be given at least as favourable consideration by the Minister of Finance when he comes to income tax matters as that given to other assets such as property.
That, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, is the purpose of the motion now before the
Income Tax Act
house. This motion asks that the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation amending the Income Tax Act so as to remove therefrom the 3 per cent floor in relation to the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes. The aspect of the legislation which requires to be amended is well known, but-


John Horace Dickey: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am just wondering if the hon. member would be good enough to tell us if, following out the logic of his argument up to now, he would also suggest that a formula be worked out so that taxpayers could charge some rate of depreciation each year in accordance with advancing years?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey) must have seen the letter in the New York Times to which I refer. He shakes his head. Well, this writer in the New York Times suggests exactly that, in addition to the proposal he made. Perhaps I could better put it this way. He believes that some allowance should be made for the depreciation of the human body, but because of the difficulties involved in such a course

and this is the whole point of the letter-the government should at least allow the deductibility of medical expenses right from the first dollar rather than after a certain percentage of income.
Now, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this matter is pretty well known I was about to say that perhaps one or two facts about the legislation and what we are trying to do might once again be put on the record.
As hon. members know, the provision for the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes was first brought in by Mr. Ilsley when he was minister of finance. It was brought in so as to apply for the year 1943. In that year deductibility was allowed for expenses in excess of 5 per cent of one's total income.
In 1944 we had a debate in this house during which it was urged that the floor be removed or the percentage reduced. Despite the fact that Mr. Ilsley made no reference to this in his budget speech he did respond to appeals made from the floor of the house and during the 1944 session the 5 per cent floor was reduced to 4 per cent. It stayed there until 1953.
As hon. members know, a good many speeches were made in the interval and a good many appeals were made to the government in this regard. We had motions, procedural difficulties, and many debates on the issue. Finally, and I think it is fair to say as a result

Income Tax Act
of the attention drawn to this question in the house, the floor was reduced to 3 per cent in 1953. I do not think one should fail to note the coincidence that there was also an election that year. However, there it stands now.
The taxpayer can now deduct his medical expenses from his income before he computes his taxes, but he can deduct only that portion of his expenses which is in excess of 3 per cent of his total income. Even there perhaps I have to make one slight qualification. Total income in this connection refers to income left after you deduct one or two items such as trade union dues and pension fund contributions, but before you deduct the $1,000 or $2,000 statutory exemption plus whatever exemption you may have for children.
Thus for all practical purposes the 3 per cent floor relates to your total income. If you have an income of $2,500 a year, you can deduct only that portion of your medical expenses which is in excess of $75. If you have an income of $5,000 a year, you can deduct only that portion of medical expenses which is above $150.
I have pointed out on previous occasions that there are at least two other limiting factors in connection with this right of deductibility for medical expenses. One of these limiting factors is the absolute ceiling in terms of how much you can deduct no matter how high your expenses might be.
I know there are some hon. members who do not agree with that ceiling and believe there should be no ceiling at all. For my part I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have no quarrel with the ceiling. My quarrel is with the floor. I think we should be concerned about this in regard to those in the lower brackets rather than those in the upper income brackets who can afford outlandish medical expenses. The purpose of my motion is to help those who need help the most.
It is true that those with larger incomes would also get help, but there is a limit on the help they would get. That ceiling in terms of absolute dollars is in the legislation and it is spelled out in the income tax forms, and I am not asking for any change in the ceiling in regard to the amount that can be deducted.
There is another limiting factor and that is that you can deduct only those kinds of expenses which are spelled out in the act, and of course you must have receipts for them. For the most part the kind of expenses you can deduct is limited to the bills you pay to doctors, dentists, nurses and hospitals, and for a few selected drugs. There are one or

two other types of things but they are rather limited. I believe, as I have said on previous occasions, that the limitation on the kind of things you can deduct detracts to a considerable extent from the right of this deductibility.
Everyone knows that when illness strikes there are expenses other than those spelled out in the act. If the breadwinner is away from work there is a loss of income. If an illness is suffered by the mother there can be extra expenses because of the help that has to be engaged while she is in hospital.


Mr. Benidickson:: That is deductible under certain circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, under certain circumstances, but in the main I believe the parliamentary assistant will agree that there are many expenses associated with illness which are not deductible at all.
I recognize the administrative problem of allowing all the expenses that a person suffering illness might claim to be expenses relating to an illness. But it is because of that difficulty that I believe the 3 per cent floor should be removed and the government should at least allow what one pays to hospitals, doctors, nurses, dentists and so on to be deductible from the very first dollar.
As to these three limitations, namely the ceiling, the definition and the floor, I think I have made it perfectly clear that I have no quarrel with the ceiling; that I think the definition is too narrow, though I am not in this motion asking for any change; but that I feel strongly that the floor is wrong. I think it is wrong in principle, unfair to the taxpayer and inconsistent with the statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) about the health and well-being of our people being our greatest national asset. My request to this house once again is that we pass this motion asking the government to consider removing this 3 per cent floor.
Mr. Speaker, I made a comparison today between medical expenses and the treatment accorded to repairs to property. As I say, I think that the same amount of fairness should be accorded to one expense as to the other. I also remind the house, as I have done on previous occasions, of something else, namely that the government accords better treatment to donations to approved charitable organizations than it does to medical expenses. I approve of the position taken by the government with respect to charitable donations and I agree with the principle and the formula that it applies to those donations. But I want to say again that it seems to be unfair-and the more I think over this matter, the more I come back to it year after

year, the more it seems to me to be unfair -that the government should not accord to medical expenses that people pay of necessity at least the same treatment as is accorded to donations to charity which are made voluntarily. Perhaps the best way in which to spell this point out is to do what the parliamentary assistant will tell me I have done a good many times, and that is to put a few examples on the record. He knows the cases that I have taken in previous years, and probably he expects me to take the same cases today with up-to-date figures. I am not going to disappoint him. I am going to do precisely that; and if he has done his arithmetic by way of homework, he will be able to check on them.
Let me take two or three cases. First, there is the case of the married couple with no children and having an income of $2,400 a year. If there are no other factors entering into the picture, the total income tax they would pay, according to the rules now in effect, would be $68. If that couple has medical bills of $200, the operation of the 3 per cent floor is such that they would save only $21.76. The amount of tax they would pay would be $46.24 which is a saving of $21.76 as compared with the normal tax of $68. But if, instead of being faced with $200 medical bills which they are obliged to pay, that same couple were to give away $200 to an approved charity, they would save $34 against their income tax. That is a typical case. The government grants income tax rebate with respect to $200 given to charity to the amount of $34 but only $21.76 if the same amount is paid out on medical bills.
Let us take the case of a married couple with two children where the income is $3,600 a year. Let us assume medical bills of $300 during the course of the year. That couple's tax, before any deductions, would be $227. The allowable deduction above the 3 per cent floor would result in their paying $190.52 or a saving of $36.48. I repeat that would be a saving of $36.48 in respect of $300 medical expenses. But if that same family gave away $300 to an approved charity, the saving which would accrue to them from the income tax department would be $57. It is that inequality which I think is unfair: to give to that family $57 of income tax saving if they give away $300 but only $36.48 if they have to spend $300 on medical bills. I agree with the provision that the $57 in that case should be allowed for charitable donations but I contend that at least the same allowance should be made in respect of medical expenses.
Let me move on to the case of a couple with two children, with total income of $5,000
Income Tax Act
a year. Their tax before any deductions would be $507. If they have $500 medical expenses they would pay only $433.50, or a tax saving of $73.50. But if instead of paying $500 in medical expenses, they gave away $500 to an approved charity, their tax would be only $402 or a saving of $105. There again you have the same type of discrepancy. The income tax department says to that family, "If you give away $500 we will give you back $105; but if you are stuck with $500 medical expenses we will give you back only $73.50."
Let me go back into the lower brackets again and take the case of a couple with two children trying to keep alive on $2,400 a year. How that is done, no one understands. Their tax, before any deductions, would be $17 a year. If that couple has medical bills of $100, the rebate is only $4.76. If they gave away $100, they would pay no tax at all. They would save the whole $17.


Mr. Trainor:: Are you suggesting they might do that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My medical friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) is asking a very good question. He is asking me if I can imagine a man and wife with two children and with $2,400 a year income giving away $100. No, I do not see how they could do so. They would not have it to give away. But he knows that they might well have to pay medical expenses of $100 a year or more.


Owen C. Trainor: That is quite doubtful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure he will agree with me that if they do, they should get better treatment than $4.76 tax rebate.
I come to just one more of these examples. This time it is that of a married man with two children and with an income of $3,000 a year. Let us again assume $100 of medical expenses or $100 given to charity. Before any deductions, the tax would be $119 a year. If $100 is given to charity that couple would save $17 from their taxes but if they have $100 medical bills their saving is only $1.70. There is a difference of ten to one: $17 if the $100 is given away and only $1.70 if it is spent on medical bills.
To my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South, whose interest in Blue Cross is well known-in fact, he is anxious to push Blue Cross in the hope that that will prevent us from getting something a great deal better, good as Blue Cross is-I may say this. He knows that if a member of a family is hospitalized during the course of the year and is a member of Blue Cross, the amount paid for him to the hospital out of Blue Cross is allowed as deductible under this arrangement; and it is quite possible for people in

Income Tax Act
those brackets to have medical bills of that size when it comes to making up their income tax returns, even if they do not have the cash to pay heavy doctor's bills.
The point that I have been making here, Mr. Speaker, is of course one that I have made every time this issue has been up for discussion. To me there seems to be a gross unfairness and a gross discrepancy between the treatment accorded to medical expenses and that accorded to charitable donations, just as I pointed out earlier there is a gross unfairness between the treatment accorded to repairs to property and that accorded to repairs to the human body.


Mr. Marlin:: Does my hon. friend wish to leave the impression that people with incomes of say $2,400 are not to be found in the voluntary insurance groups such as Blue Cross?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. I thought I was leaving the very opposite implication, namely, that there are such people in Blue Cross and other plans and that when they have to go to hospital what is paid for them out of the fund which is there because they have paid their premiums is deductible for income tax purposes.


Murdo William Martin: But there are people with incomes of $2,400 or less who are subscribers to Blue Cross or other such schemes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are. There is no question about that.


Murdo William Martin: I thought my hon. friend had given the apposite impression.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. But the minister knows that does not begin to meet the situation so far as providing payment for medical costs is concerned. In fact I can send him his own speech-


Murdo William Martin: I quite agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the one he made on Saturday, in which he points out that this is a pretty serious problem to which a great deal of attention is being given, and I hope that attention will soon result in the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is complimenting me with his attention, bringing in a proposal for national health insurance.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the hon. member a question too? Does he realize that the deduction of expenses on property refers to business property? I recall that the writer of the letter was fair enough to use the words "business property", but the hon. member has not done so yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh yes, that is quite true. You get deductibility for repairs only if you are the kind of taxpayer who uses the T1 general form which means that you have to be in business or on some sort of gross income rather than on net wages or salary.


William Moore Benidickson: No, only if the property is producing income that is taxable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, most human beings come into the clutches of the income tax department only if they are producing income that is taxable.


Owen C. Trainor: They have to be in good health to produce that income too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) for that interjection. If I can get back to the train of thought I was developing, I want to say that it does seem to me that elementary fairness and the concern which has been expressed by persons such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the health of our people call for the kind of treatment of medical expenses envisaged in the resolution now before the house.
I have already pointed out, in addition to the basic argument I make on the question of fairness, that the definition of medical expenses as we now have it is not all-inclusive. I admit the administrative difficulties of including everything, but since you cannot include all kinds of expenses I think that those that you can handle administratively, such as bills from doctors, hospitals and so on, should be allowed right from the first dollar. I point out, as I have on previous occasions, that there are people who have to use some of these expensive drugs and people who have to use others that are not too expensive, such as insulin and so on, and that they find that what they thought was a provision that was helpful to them does not really help them at all.
It is only two or three years ago that some of these drugs were included in the list of deductible expenses. Many people who have to use these expensive drugs find that they make quite a hole in their incomes and yet at the end of the year they have not enough to get over the 3 per cent floor. If they do get over, they are only a little way over and there is no real help provided.
I think it is socially desirable to move in this direction. This is not at all a substitute for the advance the minister and I were talking about a moment ago which, I was glad to see, he mentioned in his speech at Carleton Place on Saturday, a program of national health insurance, but the very fact that the

government is taking so long to bring in such a program makes it all the more imperative, it seems to me, that the government should take at least this step at the present time and should take it without further delay.
I will be the first to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have made this appeal so often that most of what I have said can be found in one form or another in speeches that I have made on the same subject on former occasions. As a corollary to that, I think the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benidickson) will not feel offended if I say he is not likely to produce very much that is new when he speaks in this debate today. In other words, I know what his arguments are going to be. They are in the book. They have been put there in former sessions.
One of these arguments is that in the view of the government such a move is wrong in principle. I like the way that somebody can say something and then later on you can pick it up and quote it and it becomes a principle almost as if it were one of the ten commandments. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance quotes Mr. Abbott in that spirit. When this matter was up last year he felt that it was a satisfactory answer to my appeal simply to quote from what Mr. Abbott had said as found at page 901 of Hansard for January 12, 1953. This was the quotation:
I think it is unsound, in principle, that normal living expenses of the individual should be paid out of income before tax.
You know, it sounds good, you can drive things home when you say, "in principle", but, Mr. Speaker, if that principle stands why does the government allow a statutory exemption of $1,000 to a single taxpayer and $2,000 to a married taxpayer, plus an addition for children? Surely these exemptions are on the basis that certain normal living expenses should be recognized first before a tax is imposed on one's income. I think that medical expenses should be in the same category, that on top of the statutory $1,000 or $2,000, as the case may be, there should be this allowance for medical expenses. I cannot imagine the government proposing a flat sum. They propose a bit more through the medium of this formula with this 3 per cent figure in it.
I suggest that the statement quoted last year by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, which he picked up from the former minister of finance, is unsound and basically wrong, and that just as we allow normal living expenses to be deducted up to the figures set by the government, $1,000 for a single taxpayer and $2,000 for a married taxpayer, we should accord the same treatment to medical expenses.
Income Tax Act
A second argument which has been used on former occasions and will no doubt be used again today is that this would cost a lot of money. The figures vary-$30 million, $35 million, or if the parliamentary assistant is in an expansive mood he may run the figure up higher. I recognize that to make a change of this kind in the income tax legislation affects the balance of ways and means and would cost the government something which would have to be made up in some other way. Any change in the income tax regulations either brings in money or cuts down the amount of money that will be received. Surely it is not an answer just to say that this move will cost money and therefore we cannot do it. If what is being practised is unfair, surely the thing to do is to put a stop to that practice, and if you have to raise money to make up for it then raise it in some way that is more fair to all concerned.
Another argument that sometimes is used, though not a great deal, involves what I think is a rather specious suggestion that such a proposal will be of more help to the rich than to the poor. That of course is supposed to be the final answer to any proposal made by anybody in this corner of the house. The only time that argument was ever advanced very extensively was when the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was parliamentary assistant to the then minister of finance on an occasion when I think it is fair to say he misunderstood what I was asking for in my resolution. On that occasion he thought I was asking not only for the removal of the floor but for the removal of the ceilings.


William Moore Benidickson: You have changed your resolution since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad the parliamentary assistant called my attention to that point. I changed the resolution to make it crystal clear that I was not seeking removal of the ceiling. When he thought-which I contend was a misinterpretation of my viewpoint- I was asking for the removal of the ceiling, the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was justified in saying that that would be a tremendous boon to the very wealthy, that it would be more of a boon to them than to those in the middle and lower income brackets. But I have made it clear that I am not asking for the removal of those ceilings.
Having done so, I wish to make it clear that any advantage the proposal I make would give to wealthier people is cut off by that ceiling. There is only a certain amount one can claim, no matter how much he spends on medical expenses. Once he reaches that point, he cannot claim more. To the extent

Income Tax Act
that from this proposal a wealthy person does get some increase in the amount of deductibility, and to the extent that the increase he gets is up in the higher percentage bracket, it is already money that is being taken away from him in that higher percentage bracket. In other words you give back to the lower income person a certain rebate directly related to the highest rate of income tax he has to pay, and you do the same thing for the wealthy person.
As one whose primary concern is for those in the middle and lower income brackets I do not think there is anything unfair about that, particularly when you have an over-all ceiling, such as $2,000 for a married taxpayer. So there is no chance, as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) tried to suggest in the debate some years ago, of a wealthy person getting doctors' orders to go off to Florida for the winter and being able to include it in his medical expenses, as well as making money out of the trip.
On several occasions recently I have not bothered to deal with this argument; but just in case this argument might be built up a bit today I thought I should point out that, as I see it, there is nothing in it. I think the real point of this appeal was caught very well in one of the debates a few years ago when the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) said that this is a measure to help those fellows who just do not quite get over the line, who just do not get over the 3 per cent floor-or the 4 per cent floor, as it was at that time.
I strongly urge the house to support this resolution. I am pleased with the support it has received-various kinds of support-in years gone by. I shall not go into a procedural argument today unless it becomes necessary. I am glad to recall that there were certain Liberal members, notably the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite), who a few years ago spoke in support of a similar resolution. I recall, too, the support of the general direction in which this resolution goes that was voiced back in 1944 by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and the hon. member who is now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Any time the matter has come to a head, all hon. members on the opposition side have supported it.
This is an issue about which there is a great deal of information throughout the country as a whole. There is a feeling that

the government's continued refusal to remove this floor is most unfair, and that when the government went as far as it did in 1953 by reducing the floor from 4 per cent to 3 per cent it took a step in the right direction, and only indicated that it should go the whole way.
I strongly urge the house to give consideration to the thinking of the Canadian people generally on this issue, and that hon. members approve the resolution which I now commend to this House of Commons.


Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: As the
hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, the subject matter of this resolution has been debated before in the House of Commons, and the arguments are on record. I have not been in the house long, and I had not intended to take part in the debate today. Indeed I would not have done so had I not received a letter from a constituent of mine in New Brunswick in which he deals with this subject.
I realize there are many features of the discussion with which I am not too familiar. Sometimes it is said that the younger members do not know shucks about most things. However, I take exception to that in this instance, because I have something to say.
The removal of the floor of 3 per cent would be of assistance to a certain number of people, but it would not help others who do not come within the medical expense provisions set out in the act. The letter I have refers to epileptics and others suffering from brain damage, who require sedatives to prevent seizures. I am informed that if they do not have these sedatives the brain damage becomes greater. The drugs required are prescribed by physicians. I am told in the letter that these drugs are costly and that they must be taken over a period of three or four years, sometimes for the lifetime of the patient. Those of us from the maritimes, when confronted with serious sickness of this kind, must travel to Montreal or some other large centre to receive expert attention. In our case that is another item allied with serious illness.
I do not believe the motion should be supported in its present form, when it seeks the removal of the 3 per cent floor. I do believe, however, that the other part of the motion, about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has spoken, should be given consideration. Perhaps if it could be reworded so it would appear in slightly different form, it would be more effective for a greater number of people. In other words the medical expenses to be allowed as a deduction should be widened to include anti-convulsive drugs.

I am told that the cost of certain drugs can be deducted from income tax. Each of us expects to spend a certain amount of money each year on sickness, or in payment of medical bills. We do not expect our health to be so perfect that we will have no further need of doctors. We know, too, that we cannot deduct all our expenses in a lifetime. That is we cannot say that because we have to have food for the body, such expenses must be deducted from income tax. In other words we do not expect to deduct all kinds of expenses for our income tax purposes, so that we would have left only a tax on a small amount set aside for entertainment. We know we have to spend a certain amount on medical expenses, and most people are prepared to do this.
It seems to me, however, that one who suffers from a serious ailment of the kind I have mentioned should not be penalized by not being permitted to deduct his expenses. A person requiring anti-convulsive drugs should not be placed in that position, when at the same time someone who is receiving liver injections or injections of some drugs is allowed to deduct the cost of those drugs.
I know there is a floor on medical expenses because the government must raise money to pay the bills of the country. We cannot operate without money; we cannot operate without taxes. Therefore I suggest that consideration might be given to the broadening of the term "deductible expenses" rather than removal of the floor.
That is all I have to say. I do not want to take up too much time in this debate. I wish only to draw the attention of the house to this matter that was brought to my attention yesterday by my constituents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question before he sits down? I would agree with what he suggests should be added to the definition, but has he considered how those people would get deductibility for these other drugs to which he refers if the 3 per cent floor is still there? People using insulin do not get a deduction because of the 3 per cent floor. It would just disappoint more people, unless you removed the floor.


Henry Joseph Murphy: My view is that if you remove the floor altogether you would leave these people of whom I am speaking high and dry. It would be fairer to all concerned to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: To add them.


Henry Joseph Murphy: To add them rather than to change the existing floor.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to say only a word. I support the resolution offered by the hon. member
Income Tax Act
for Winnipeg North Centre. I am not going into a technical argument; I am not going to quote a lot of facts and figures. I support the resolution because it is the humanitarian thing to do. We have to look at a thing of this kind in that light. Sickness is a thing nobody wants; sickness is a thing nobody invites; sickness is a thing people fight against. They do not want the thing to happen in their homes and they will do all that is possible to prevent it. Therefore it means that people become the victims of circumstances that impose upon them ill health with the consequent expenses.
It is also true that the majority of our people are in the low income brackets. In these days of high living costs, they find considerable difficulty in getting by, and when sickness comes of course it means an added burden. A good many people in the small income brackets are family people, people with children. Sickness is a thing that comes to children quite often and puts an added burden on the incomes of the parents.
We can say that the homes of our nation are the mainstay of the nation. Without our homes we would not have a nation. Yet the people in the medium and small income brackets who are rearing families and encountering sickness have that additional expense, an expense which they have not purposely incurred. For that reason alone medical expenses should be deductible for income tax purposes.
All groups in this house have advocated a national health insurance scheme. The party in power recognizes that it would cost a tremendous amount of money to put a health insurance scheme into operation. We recognize that it would cost a lot; nevertheless all are agreed that some sort of national health insurance plan should be put into operation. Why do we offer that? We offer it for the same basic reason that we suggest with respect to this resolution. People in the medium and small income brackets cannot afford to pay medical expenses. Therefore the whole nation should share in that cost. That is the general and basic idea of the national health scheme. By the same token, and because of the same principle, why should people not be permitted to deduct the total of their medical expenses before paying their income taxes?
It seems to me that with all the facts and figures in our possession, we do not really have to argue it from that point of view. It may he all right to do so, but the more humanitarian fact appeals to me, namely that since we do not incur the expense purposely it is not in the same category as buying radios and cars, even though they may be necessary.

Income Tax Act
They are things that we might be able to do without, so we are taxed with them. Sickness is an expense which nobody invites and is to some a tragic expenditure, yet it is not deductible for income tax purposes, or very little of it. Therefore we in this group support the resolution and urge the minister to do something about it.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Ever since I have been in the house I have supported motions of this kind which have been placed on the order paper, because I have felt very strongly that the taxpayer is losing out on exemptions to which he is properly entitled. It is true, as has been said in the past few years, that some concessions have been made. The floor has been lowered, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a little while ago, from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and then to 3 per cent a couple of years ago. But if it is proper to lower the floor, then why is it not proper to wipe it out entirely? There can really be no proper basis for estimating what is the fair amount, if that amount can be varied in this way.
It has been said that the taxpayers should be prepared to undertake what would be normal medical expense. That has been said on more than one occasion by the minister or by the parliamentary assistant, who has taken part in these debates in the past. Even if that were true, how does the government arrive at what is a normal medical expense? Why does it change the rate first from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and then to 3 per cent?
Other changes were made in the last few years. I mention specifically the matter of allowances for expenses met in a given year. At first this item read "incurred and paid in a given year". Many offices across the country overlooked the word "incurred" and permitted the taxpayer to deduct on the basis of receipts supplied whether or not the expenses were incurred in the taxation year. Eventually the Minister of Finance saw that this phrase should be changed, and he altered the wording of the act to permit the expenses to be deducted in the year in which they were paid without regard for the year in which they were incurred. All these things have helped a little, as has also permission to deduct as medical expenses the cost of certain specified drugs. It has been on this basis that the department has contended that all expenses over and above this floor should be treated as extraordinary expenses and permitted as deductions.
I should like to point out, or perhaps I should say reiterate because I have said this on former occasions, that there are many 
expenses in the home beset by illness which are non-deductible. If the person who is ill is in a hospital, the members of the family will be visiting that hospital. It is an easy matter to run up a considerable transportation expense just going back and forth between the home and the hospital. Anyone living in a city knows that it will cost at least 20 cents a return trip. That is about the lowest charge for transportation by bus or trolley in any municipality, and in some it is considerably more. If one person goes once a day that means a transportation bill of $6 a month, which is quite a sizeable item to people who are living on modest incomes. If more than one person goes it will be seen how rapidly the cost will multiply. But this is not a deductible expense, although it is incurred by reason of the illness of a member of the family.
Then there are such things as special foods. These probably are not necessary, but quite often they are purchased for the purpose of exciting the appetite of the patient who does not feel like eating during the convalescent stage. Most of these special foods are much more expensive than the type of food one normally has in his home.
In addition there are the medicines which must be purchased, over and above those for which a deduction is now permitted. These medicines in turn are not all treated alike. If the medicine is purchased in the hospital it goes on the hospital bill and is a deductible item. If it is supplied by the doctor it goes on the doctor's bill and is a deductible item. But if it is supplied by a druggist it is not deductible.
By and large this puts people who live in urban centres in a different class from those who live in rural centres. I am sure my hon. friends of the medical profession will bear me out when I say that in most rural centres the doctors carry at least staple drugs for administration to their patients. The cost of such drugs goes on the doctor's bill. But in urban centres where drugstores are located at fairly frequent intervals it is the practice of the doctor to write out a prescription which the patient has filled at the drugstore. He thus gets no benefit of a deduction, no matter what the cost may be, and some of these medicines are quite high in price.
There are other extraordinary expenses. For instance, nurses may be required. If the patient is in a hospital he must pay the hospital for the meals consumed by the nurses. That item is put on the hospital bill and the taxpayer is permitted to deduct it for income tax purposes. With the present crowded condition of our hospitals a patient quite frequently is sent home while still requiring

Income Tax Act
special nursing care. The patient may still have to pay the cost of three nurses, and the food bill in that home goes up greatly; but that extra cost cannot be claimed as a deduction. When a patient is in a home extra help is often required apart from the nursing help. This is particularly true if it is the homemaker who is ill. It is certainly true whether the mother is in the home or in a hospital.
I feel as I have always felt, that the taxpayer should be permitted to deduct the full amount of medical expenses which can be substantiated by receipts, regardless of what they may be. There is so much expense attendant on illness which you cannot substantiate under any circumstances and accordingly deduct as a medical expense.
There is another aspect of this about which I have spoken before and which I should like to mention again. When there are heavy medical expenses attendant on a major illness the taxpayer very often does not claim everything in one year; he may spread it over two, three or four years, depending upon his income and the size of the bill with which he has been presented. But each year when he claims an exemption he loses the first 3 per cent. It is not a case of losing 3 per cent of the total amount of the bill in one year, it is a case of losing 3 per cent of his income each year in the process of making a deduction of medical expenses. In the case of a taxpayer with an income of $3,000 he would lose $90 of his deduction each year in which he was paying his medical expenses, regardless of the fact that those expenses might be due to one major illness with large attendant bills.
Then further I submit that a taxpayer who is big-hearted enough to assist the more unfortunate members of his family when they are ill should be permitted to deduct from his taxable income such payments as he may make on their behalf, even though they are not entirely dependent upon him. I know people who have been in the habit of paying hospital and medical expenses for relatives who are not dependent upon them, and who if they did not so contribute would certainly not have the care that should be given. If a person is sufficiently big-hearted to undertake some portion of the medical expenses of a relative I do not think he should be penalized when he comes to pay his taxes. As has been stated before, if he paid a similar amount to a charitable institution he would be permitted to deduct it from his taxable income, but if he pays a hospital bill for a relative he cannot deduct it.


William Moore Benidickson: If that relative is not a dependent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Surely charity begins at home. Many of us have been brought up on certain old sayings. We were taught in our youth that charity begins at home, that blood is thicker than water; but when it comes to taxes apparently that is not true in the tax department.


James Joseph McCann: That is not charity, that is benevolence.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure it would be interesting if the Minister of National Revenue would enlighten this house at some time as to the fine distinction between charity and benevolence.


William Earl Rowe: Would you call it benevolent charity?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Whatever it is, the relative might very well be exempted. If he thought of it he might gain some advantage by making a sizeable donation to a hospital and forget about the relative who was dependent upon him.


William Earl Rowe: He might be benevolent to a municipality.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would like to give one or two instances to illustrate the manner in which some of our taxpayers are deprived of the deductions which are rightfully theirs. I should state at the outset that in giving these illustrations I am not making a plea for the abolition of the ceiling. That, in my estimation, is another matter. But it just so happens that these illustrations have to deal with the ceiling as well as with the floor.
I am acquainted with a young couple who have a child who has required special treatment for a good many years. This treatment is obtainable only in an institution, and that kind of institution happens to be rather high priced. They have two children, and he is permitted an exemption of $2,000 because of his marital status and $500 for each child, which gives him a ceiling of $3,000. During the past eight or nine years, to my certain knowledge, he has expended anywhere from $3,300 to $3,800 per year for the care of this child. He has also had normal medical expenses with the other child and his wife. His medical expenses therefore have run to very close to $4,000 a year.
It is only in the last couple of years that he has had the $3,000 maximum. Before that period the deduction permitted was lower. That young man has lost the deduction in excess of $3,000 each year, as he lost in excess of the former amount, the exact figure for which I have forgotten, though I believe it was $1,500 and $300 for each child. He also loses the exemption on the floor. Hon. members will probably suspect that

Income Tax Act
this young man is not in the $2,400 a year category, but I might point out that he does not make over $10,000. By the time he pays these medical expenses and his income tax he goes down a long way in the income scale. He loses on the floor and also loses on the ceiling.
A short time ago I had a communication from a retired gentleman with a modest income. He has been ill now for some time and it is necessary for him to have a fulltime attendant in his home to look after him. He was unable to afford a registered nurse, but he was successful in obtaining the services of a practical nurse. However, even that is quite costly, and when added to that we take the cost of drugs and doctors' bills it will be seen that he has run up quite a considerable amount in medical expenses. He is a single man and the maximum allowance he can claim is $1,000. He is not making very much money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Even so, the amount he has expended over the last couple of years is much in excess of that. He loses the expenditures over $1,500, and he also loses the floor of 3 per cent of his income. He likewise loses both on the floor and on the ceiling.
It will be surprising to me if in speaking to this resolution, the minister or someone speaking on his behalf, does not refer to what this will cost. We have had various figures given to us before in this regard. I have taken the budget papers for 1954-55 and from them obtained the amount of personal income for 1953. I presume it is higher now. However, if everyone who pays taxes and everyone earning the income reported in the budget papers were to claim medical expenses, and if they all claimed the full amount of the floor, the total amount it would cost the government if my calculations are correct would be three-quarters of 1 per cent of the total government revenue.


An hon. Member:: How many million?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have taken 3 per cent of the $1,287 million shown on the table and that amounts to $38,610,000. However, in my estimation it is not a matter of how much it costs. It is a question of whether it is right or wrong. In my view it is right that these deductions should be permitted for the reasons I have stated, for reasons I have given in this house on former occasions, and more particularly because in my opinion in the event of illness the amount of extra expense the taxpayer must meet over and

above his ordinary living expenses is sufficiently high that he should be given the benefit of the full amount of money he has spent in medical expenses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I would like to say a few words in support of the motion submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As far as expenses associated with sickness are concerned I can, unfortunately, speak with firsthand knowledge, because I have had to meet such expenses during the last few years.
Despite the fact that every family must consider a certain amount of illness as normal and meet the resulting medical expenses, it should be remembered that the cost of medical treatment in the past few years has risen so much that even a minor illness, if it means a person is taken to hospital for a few months and must have specialized treatment, can run up to a very large amount in a short period of time.
I am talking as one who does not complain in this house about taxation. I doubt if I have ever spoken against the incidence of taxation in general, though I might have advocated higher exemptions for those in the lower income brackets. Though taxes have been heavy since the beginning of world war II I have not complained, and in truth I do not believe we have been overtaxed. I shall give my reasons for saying that in a moment.
I have said it outside of this house and I might as well repeat it on the floor of the house. I believe this country has been fortunate during the past few years in having a government that was not afraid to tax. If we want to see what happens when a government has not the courage to tax or where the people do not want to be taxed, we can see it quite clearly today in France. The situation that exists there is largely one growing out of the fear of taxes and the lack of courage to tax. The result is going to be that the country will be brought down in ruin; either that, or there will be brought into power some government that will have far less regard for constitutional procedure than the government that is now in office. Some time the government will fall, and it will have fallen for the last time unless they are prepared to do something about it.
When I say that taxes are not too high, I mean as they apply to those in the higher income bracket. By no consent of mine I have been put in that higher income bracket.

Consequently I am quite willing to bear my share of the expenses of other people's illness. That is really what happens in the world in which we are living today. The great mass of our people do not pay income taxes because they have not sufficient income to bring them under the income tax laws. Not only do they not pay any taxes, but they have to be helped in various ways out of the taxes paid by others.
I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) when she says that hospital and doctors' expenses and the things you can charge up to your income at the present time to the extent of over 3 per cent of it are only a small part of the cost of illness when it strikes a family. There are ever so many other things on which money has to be spent when there is illness in the family.
I do not want to reflect on anybody when I say this, but I think there is this possibility. If the whole of the expense for illness were to be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes it would mean that receipts would be required from dentists, doctors and every other person who does a service on behalf of a sick person. I am quite sure that such a deduction would bring greater revenue to the government, and that the deduction of the whole sickness expense would not be altogether loss. I think that when, as has already been said, we allow the whole amount of charitable donations as a deduction from taxable income, there is no good reason why medical expenses should not be deductible in the same way. As the hon. member for Hamilton West again points out, if you pay somebody else's expenses or give the money to an institution that will accept it and give the service, you can charge that amount against your taxable income; but if you yourself incur the expenses or if your family incurs them, only a certain amount is allowed. I think the system is contradictory and that it is about time it was changed.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say, because this is not a new question in the house. It has been discussed on previous occasions. I wish to support the resolution.
In doing so I wish to bring to the attention of the house and the government the fact that one of the resolutions adopted at a recent convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-and the delegates to that convention represent almost half a million farmers in Canada-was exactly in the terms called for by this resolution. Unless the government and the members of this house are willing to disregard completely the wishes of this organization which represents the
Income Tax Act
Canadian farmers, I think they would be well advised to give sympathetic consideration to this resolution.
I want to add that I am not making this appeal to the government itself because this is not a motion which calls for a vote of confidence in the government. It is a private member's resolution. I think the appeal should be directed to the private members of this house, regardless of where they sit, and particularly to those members who normally support the government. This is one issue on which they may express their own wishes without endangering the position of the government in any way. I believe they would be well advised to carry out the wishes of the great majority of the Canadian people on this occasion.
When the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance rises to speak, I imagine he will have some excuses or reasons why this resolution should not be adopted. I would appeal to the private members who sit behind the government to vote as they see fit, according to their own views rather than those expressed by the parliamentary assistant.
I should like to mention one feature that should not be overlooked, namely that the adoption of this resolution permitting the full deductibility of medical expenses would be an incentive-though this is perhaps not the main reason we support this resolution- to all people to pay their medical bills. At the present time the part that is permitted as a deduction is only allowed if it is paid. It does not apply to unpaid bills. I think the medical profession and the hospitals would be quite interested in this matter from that, point of view. It would be an incentive to people to pay their medical bills and in that way earn the deduction which would be coming to them.
As I say, that is not the chief objective. The main reason we support this resolution is that we believe it is just, fair and right that expenses which are unavoidable-and medical expenses are of that nature-should be the first to receive consideration.
Not long ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), in one of his first public addresses after he took over that portfolio, shed some bitter tears for the corporations that were being taxed so heavily; in fact he is purported to have said that he could not understand how they had stood it for so long. The balance sheets of most of the corporations will show that they are a long way from starvation. They have done fairly well. For the person who is struggling to just make ends meet and then is confronted with these

Income Tax Act
unexpected medical expenses, I think a little bit of sympathy would be more in order at this time. I therefore appeal to the private members on the government side of the house not to regard this as an obligation to support the government but rather as an obligation to carry out the wishes of the Canadian people.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of this motion has stated, this is not a new resolution that is now before this house. I think, with some alteration in its terms to which reference has already been made, this is the fourth time at least the house has had an opportunity to discuss its merits. In addition, as hon. members know, it is also a subject that usually receives the attention of the house annually when the budget resolutions are being debated and later when the Income Tax Act is up for revision. My hon. friend the mover pointed out that in consequence the arguments for and against the proposition do appear in Hansard. However, he did review certain points connected with the proposition and, although Hansard of past years does contain all the arguments, it is necessary for me to review some of those points.
It was fairly obvious that opposition speakers would outline particularly some of the advantages of the proposition and some of the disadvantages of the existing legislation. It is my duty to point out for the government some of the reasons why the proposition should be looked at with the utmost care. I do congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on introducing one or two new features in his speech this afternoon. He took his cue from the cold scene that he described at Carleton Place and did not just use the old speech he mentioned as having had on ice, and I congratulate him for so doing.
He quoted with approval what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said the other day when he in turn quoted President Eisenhower as saying that the good health of our people is a proper matter of public concern. I do not think that anyone in the house would have any quarrel with that assertion, but before I sit down I hope to establish, at least to the satisfaction of most hon. members, that giving this type of financial aid does not guarantee the provision of adequate health services.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) was fair enough to say that taxes do have to be raised. I should like to point out to the house that one of the important considerations in the usage of
(Mr. Zaplitny.]
tax moneys, particularly in recent years, is the devotion of those moneys to the national health plan, and it does so happen that the amount of money involved in this suggestion of tax forsaking is very close to the annual expenditures by the government on the national health plan.
I interjected when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced another new feature in his annual speech, namely, repairs to property. I pointed out that while the writer of the letter to the editor, which the hon. member subsequently quoted, did specifically define "property" as "business property", the hon. member had not done so. However striking the illustration, I think the hon. member will realize that it must be fully qualified by the knowledge that repairs to all property are by no means the subject of certain deductions on one's income tax form. There is only income tax recognition of repairs to property of the type from which revenues are derived. I would not want people throughout the country who are not so familiar with our tax laws to think by any means that property in a general way, such as our own homes, is the subject of such consideration with respect to tax deduction.
The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) introduced the question of depreciation. I think the point was fairly well taken so far as the individual is concerned, because from the point of view of our tax laws and our fiscal policy there is certainly very definite recognition that from age 65 upwards people do frequently become impaired in health and the physical machine runs down. We recognize that in consequence earning power usually goes down about that time and because of retirements and so on. Therefore there have recently been considerable improvements in government-supported pension plans for those 65 and up.
In addition, I think it was in 1949 that another new feature to the advantage of that age group was introduced into our income tax structure. In recognition of some extraordinary expenses of our senior citizens, largely due to declining health, and having regard to their declining earning power, we provided for that group an additional personal income tax deduction of $500 per person per year over and above what is allowed younger citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At a time when their income is lower anyway.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. I have pointed that out already. I am also going to point out to my hon. friend in a few minutes that by reason of the increase in the personal exemption and by reason of the fact that the earning

power of that group of our citizens generally has declined quite noticeably, his proposition is not going to be of very much value to that class of people.
While the hon. member did refer to some of the history of this particular feature of our income tax law, certain features were not put on the record that I think deserve to be. I would remind hon. members that this provision was introduced in 1942, when taxation was extremely high compared with taxation at the present time. I only need to remind hon. members that in 1942 the personal exemption of a single person was $660 while today it is $1,000 and the exemption of a married man was $1,200 while today it is $2,000.
As the hon. member says, other conditions are not the same as they were then. The floor that we have under discussion at the moment was reduced in 1944 from 5 per cent as it originally stood to 4 per cent, and in 1953 to 3 per cent. I might say that in particular the reduction made in 1944 from 5 per cent to 4 per cent was made in the knowledge that many people felt the original plan was inadequate, particularly in so far as the allowance for drugs was concerned. It was realized how difficult it would be administratively to examine all the vouchers that might be presented with respect to the purchase of drugs if drugs in a very broad way were subject to an allowance under this provision. The minister of finance of that day made it quite clear that the reduction from 5 per cent to 4 per cent was in a very substantial measure motivated by an attempt to take this point into consideration.
We had some evidence last year in the United States that there is difficulty in dealing with all types of medical expenses, if small claims that can be advanced for drugs are eligible. It is my understanding that prior to last year the United States definition of medical expenses was sufficiently broad that great number of claims were possible for drug items, and that this involved a heavy administrative load. Consequently, while last year they made their floor provision similar to ours at 3 per cent rather than 5 per cent and in some respects more generous, in so far as drugs were concerned they imposed last year a new condition stipulating that drug claims would not be considered unless they exceeded 1 per cent of the income of the taxpayer.
Then the ceilings on total allowable medical expenses have also been very substantially increased with respect to income tax deductions. When introduced the ceiling for a single man was $400 and for a married man $600. With several increases that have
Income Tax Act
been made since 1942 the present ceiling is not $2,000 for a married man, as has been stated this afternoon, but $2,000 plus $500 for each child or dependent up to a maximum of four dependents, which means a maximum for a married man with four dependents of $4,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Let me point out that is what I said.


William Moore Benidickson: It was perhaps quoted elsewhere as $2,000. Then there is not a complete understanding of the provision introduced since 1942 which placed in the law an allowance of $500 where there is chronic illness or blindness and an attendant is required. That is now one of the important items of medical expenses allowable.
Hon. members know that, basically, under our Income Tax Act there is a general personal exemption which, in the case of a single man, is $1,000 and in the case of a married man is $2,000 with additional exemptions for children and other dependents. It is considered that this general personal exemption which applies to all taxpayers has included in it various items of usual expense that taxpayers are bound to meet. If they are not met in one year, they will be met eventually. It is considered that in addition to at least something for shelter and food, there is represented in this personal exemption some consideration for other ordinary, usual expenses such as fairly normal medical expenses. We all know that practically every taxpayer and his wife have to go to the dentist once or twice each year, and their children have to do likewise. Most taxpayers are not so fortunate that they do not have to call a doctor once or twice a year.
Let us consider the average income earner of $3,000 a year. It is true that under the present income tax stipulation that taxpayer would not be permitted to claim deduction on income tax with respect to medical expenses unless they amounted to 3 per cent of his income, or $90. It may be that many people pay $90 as a sort of normal or usual or unavoidable medical expense or overhead. I am not for one moment, any more than I did last year, suggesting that that expense is insignificant for anyone, or that it is inconsequential. But there may be a difference between that and saying that it spells tragedy.
On the other hand if the expense of that taxpayer was $125, or $150 or perhaps $500-* and, as someone has said, sickness is something that is not invited-such expenditures may very well spell extraordinary hardship and tragedy. In those circumstances this provision of the law comes into force and is extremely helpful.

Income Tax Act
Speaking in the debate last year I quoted the former minister of finance, and reference has been made to that quotation. I should like again to quote what was said by the minister of finance who held office in 1953 and who, in his last speech on this subject, said:
I have in each year paid out money in varying amounts. Perhaps sometimes it would be a few hundred dollars, and sometimes somewhat less than that-for these periodical medical check-ups, general child care and the like.
Then he said:
I see no reason in the world why I, or anybody else, should be in a position to deduct those normal expenses-and I prefer to use the word "normal" rather than "average"-I see no reason why I should be permitted to deduct those normal expenses from my income before calculating my income tax, any more than I should be entitled to deduct expenditures for clothing necessary to keep the children warm, or food necessary to keep them alive.
That is the principle behind the floor. Reference has been made to the probable loss of revenue. I do not think, any more than last year, that I need go into detail to establish this loss. Several speakers last year and some this year have indicated they do not quarrel with the suggestion that it would cost something in the nature of $35 million.
I do say, however, that such a loss, if not made up somewhere, in all probability would have the effect of denying an equivalent tax cut somewhere else. If one had $35 million of tax relief to offer, I certainly would not say that this was the best method of providing $35 million of tax relief. In addition, it is true that administrative difficulties would be greatly increased if there was no floor and claims from the first dollar of expenditure on doctor bills and drug costs were permitted; because if doctor bills were allowed from the first dollar inevitably claims for drugs would be made.
In addition to that I can only refer to such obvious difficulties as would be encountered due to the fact that a great number of our employees pay their income tax through deductions at the source. It is fairly easy now for them and fairly easy for their employers by reason of the fact that there is a general personal exemption that on the whole is applicable to everybody. It is easy for them to have their income tax deducted at the source. But if at the end of the year there is introduced a new reason for claiming reassessment and re-examination of files, that in itself would indicate an increased burden placed upon the administrative staff.
I have mentioned that in my view there are better methods of offering tax relief, if one were contemplating such relief and had it to dispose of to the extent of $35 million, or
[Mr. Benidickson.l
$50 million, which we think at the moment is somewhat nearer the cost of this proposal. There are better methods without the same burden of administrative costs for the same amount of money involved. I need only mention that in Canada we have a working force in the neighbourhood of 5-4 million people and that now we have only 3 [DOT] 8 million who are paying income tax, to show that relief of this kind would not be for the benefit of those who are less well off, those who have not earnings sufficient to pay income tax. I have already mentioned that I questioned whether those citizens in our community over 65 years who under normal circumstances require increasing medical care, at a time when their income is going down, would derive much benefit from this proposal.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as he has done in the past, gave a number of illustrations to show the actual savings that would come to taxpayers in certain income tax groups if the floor was removed. I have no quarrel with his figures. I think in the case of a married taxpayer earning $2,100 he referred to a tax of $17, and said that if that taxpayer had given away $100 he would have saved $17, but that if he had $100 in medical expenses he would save only $4.76. But, as I say, the allowance of $4.76 is probably not the best method of providing such a tax saving.
In addition I should like to place some other illustrations on record. Let us consider the man with two dependent children under 16 years of age, who is entitled to family allowance and has an income of $3,000. If he is claiming exemption at the present time for expenses over 3 per cent, of course he would get a saving of $15.30 a year, or -51 per cent of his income. But a great number of those are not entitled to claim; therefore they would not be getting the maximum saving, in fact the saving would just be a matter of something between zero and $15.30.
A man with an income of $10,000, if he is now claiming medical exemption, would be better off by $78 or -78 per cent of his income. If he has not had medical expenses, or his medical expenses have not come up to 3 per cent of his income, then of course one cannot say just what his saving would be, but it would be something between zero and $78. But the big point I want to raise in connection with these amounts is not that they are small or insignificant in the eyes of the taxpayer, as I have said.
I do say from personal experience that I find a great number of our taxpayers who seem to think, as they read about this proposition in the newspapers, that if the proposition were accepted the deduction

would apply to their tax and not to their taxable income. I was talking to somebody the other day and this person said, "Why do you not include spectacles in this regulation? I bought some spectacles the other day and paid $15 for them, and I would get that $15 back". Of course I pointed out to that person-whose income was rather small, and if he was paying taxes I knew the rate was not more than 17 per cent-that the tax saving by the acceptance of this proposition would not be $15 but 17 per cent of $15. I have had many personal experiences of a similar kind.
My hon. friend says he does not feel there is any advantage in counteracting advantage to the poor as against advantage to the rich. The difference in advantage with this 3 per cent floor, in so far as the poorer people of the country are concerned, is better than the proposition he makes. I would put it this way. Take someone with an income of $13,000. I am assuming that $2,000 of that at least is subject to personal exemption. We say now we will not consider for tax credits any of his medical expenses until they exceed $390 a year. If they exceed $390 a year, then we start to what could be called subsidize his medical expenses, and as his income tax rate is then 35 per cent, the effect is that we assist him or give him tax credit or subsidy, whatever you want to call it, to the extent of 35 per cent of his medical expenses after that point.
Take the case of someone earning $3,000 a year. Again I assume that he has a personal exemption of $2,000. We say now that we do not come into the picture to assist him with respect to his medical expenses until they have reached $90. We assume that he is paying at the rate of 17 per cent. After that we will assist with a tax subsidy of 17 per cent on his medical expenses, but there is a great difference between taking on the subsidy from the first dollar and making it subject to a floor of 3 per cent of income.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) raised an interesting proposition. I rather expected to hear it, although it was not referred to today by the mover of the motion, which surprised me. He made an appeal to hon. members who normally support the government by advancing something we have heard about before, particularly in 1952. He said that a proposition of this kind advanced by a private member by resolution does not embarrass the government. I think his words were "does not endanger the position of the government; it is only a private member's resolution". I would like to remind hon. members who were not here in 1952 that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
Income Tax Act
advanced this same proposition or its equivalent in 1952, and he emphasized the words in the resolution to this effect: "we urge the government to consider doing this".
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) who was then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance, with the instructions of the minister of finance said: "We are receiving propositions in connection with our budget two weeks hence from many sources, by letter, by resolution and suggestions of members of parliament, and with that thought in mind we think perhaps we should not decline to consider this proposition at this time." It was made very clear in the debate at that time that it was in that spirit the parliamentary assistant indicated he would accept the proposition and vote for it himself.
Two weeks later the budget came down and we had a debate on the Income Tax Act and the budget resolutions. It was made quite clear by the parliamentary assistant and the minister that in their opinion they had carried out their undertaking to the house and had given consideration to this but could not recommend it; but despite that, the leader of the C.C.F. party moved a vote of want of confidence against this government on the ground that it had ignored the proposition, even though it was one of those abstract propositions that used the words "give consideration to". Therefore in subsequent years the minister of finance felt he could not recommend that such tactics be followed another time.
I regret that the Minister of Finance was not able to be present today. He has an engagement to give an address outside this city. But he is quite familiar with this issue. He has assured me that since we are starting this week to look at all budget propositions that are advanced at this time and come in many forms, some by letter, some in budget debates last year and other debates this year, some by personal approaches by members of parliament and so forth, of course this proposition will receive with those others-and as it has in other years- further study.
It is inevitable that during the course of the year recommendations come to us not only with respect to removing the floor but also that the ceiling should be adjusted or removed. It is inevitable that propositions should come to us such as the one so capably advanced by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) that we should change our definition of entitlement, and all these things will certainly be considered.
Probably the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) raised more new points than anybody else this afternoon.

Income Tax Act
Certainly some of them have not been advanced by any others to date. I assure all hon. members who have made comments that they will surely be considered by the minister in the ensuing weeks as he gives consideration to the next budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say, but even a few words would run it awfully close to six o'clock, and I would not want it on my conscience that I kept hon. members for a vote during the supper hour. Perhaps, therefore, hon. members might agree to my asking Your Honour to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any length in closing this debate, because I do not think it is necessary to do so. In the very nature of things I was able to predict the arguments which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benidickson) would put forward in opposition to my proposal. In all modesty or with respect, whichever it is, I must say that I think those arguments against my proposal were answered in the speech I made when introducing the resolution this afternoon.
I might say that as I see it the parliamentary assistant tried to say two things. He said he agreed with the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway that this measure of itself would not guarantee that health bills would be paid. I agree too. In other words the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance thinks, and in this I thoroughly agree with him, that there are better ways to deal with medical costs. My answer to that is, well and good; bring them forward. He knows as well as I do that the best answer to the problem of medical costs is a nation-wide program of health insurance, but that is not before us in this resolution. The government does not seem to be prepared to take that step just yet, but if it is now going to use the argument that this is not the best way to deal with medical costs, then it rests upon the government to come forward with that better way without delay.

The other thing which it seemed to me the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance said was that in his view there are better ways than this to afford tax relief. If that is the case then I say to the government once again, all right; come forward with them. I do not know what the parliamentary assistant had in mind, but if he has in mind such proposals as raising the present exemption levels from $1,000 single and $2,000 married to higher figures, well and good; bring them on. If he has in mind reducing or cutting out the sales tax, well and good; let us do it. But if the government is not prepared to come forward with better ways than this to provide tax relief, then I suggest that it should not throw cold water on this suggestion.
May I say just a word to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) who spoke in the debate this afternoon. I want him to know that I agree with the positive aspect of the suggestion he made, namely that the definition of medical expenses should be enlarged to include the kind of drugs to which he referred. I think you will recall, sir, that in the earlier part of my remarks I suggested that the definition is not satisfactory. As medical science is finding more drugs which are beneficial to people suffering from one illness or another, and particularly in view of the high cost of some of these modern drugs, the need to enlarge the definition becomes even greater.
But I would remind the hon. member, as I tried to do by a question at the end of his speech this afternoon, that if you do not remove the 3 per cent floor it then becomes a cruel hoax on people just to add another drug to the definition. This happened some years ago when the minister of finance added insulin, cortisone and ACTH to the list of drugs. The users of insulin in particular thought that that meant that they would get an income tax benefit from that drug being added to the list. But when it came time to pay their income tax many of them found that although insulin was on the list the amount they had spent on insulin in the course of the year did not add up to 4 per cent of their total income, as it was then, so they got no advantage. So I say to the hon. member for Westmorland that while I support what he is asking for, namely, the addition of these drugs to the list, unless you take away the 3 per cent floor merely to add them to the list is a cruel hoax on those who have to use these drugs, because they will not get any income tax advantage.
I said that I did not feel it was necessary to take all the arguments put forward this

afternoon and answer them in detail, because I submit that they have been answered already.
In closing I would just take note of the fact that the parliamentary assistant suggested that the Minister of Finance is going to give consideration in preparing for his forthcoming budget to all suggestions that are brought to his attention. The parliamentary assistant did not say it, but I could read between the lines the suggestion that in view of that fact perhaps as the member who had moved this resolution I might see fit not to press it to a vote.
I am not brand new around here. I have been here long enough to know that you do not get things in that way. I know that the best way to ensure that the minister's consideration of this matter will be active and perhaps favourable is by a large vote for it by the private members of this house. I hope that when the vote is called-and I shall ask that a vote be taken on the matter; I do not think there was ever any doubt of that in anyone's mind-it will carry. If it does not carry I hope that at least there will be half a dozen or more brave Liberals who will stand up and vote for it.


An hon. Member:: All Liberals are brave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even though they may be a minority I suggest that a few Liberals standing up and voting for this motion would speak volumes to the Minister of Finance and tell him to make that consideration very serious. This way we might get results.
I am very pleased to recall the vocal support we have had for this proposal on the floor of the house in days gone by from such friends of mine as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I hope these hon. members and others will join with us who intend to vote for this resolution which I now commend to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I perhaps ascertain on what side the hon. member for Chicoutimi
1X42	HOUSE OF
Vancouver International Airport (Mr. Gagnon) wished to have his vote registered, because no mention of it is made here.


Mr. Gagnon:: Yea.
And the result of the vote having been announced: Yeas, 60; nays, 86.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT



ELIMINATION OF CONGESTION-SEGREGATION OF TRAFFIC

Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to institute action which will relieve the congested and dangerous conditions existing at the Vancouver international airport, in the constituency of Burnaby-Richmond, with a view to:
1.	Eliminating congestion.
2.	Segregating the various types of traffic.
3.	Establishing areas for a major portion of the aviation training program, both military and civil, at points removed from the Vancouver international airport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of presenting this resolution to the house. It could have been presented by any lower mainland member from British Columbia, regardless of the side of the house on which he sits, because each one of us knows the serious conditions that prevail at that airport.
Because the resolution obviously indicates that private planes should be taken from the Vancouver international airport, it might be said that it is the intention of this house, should hon. members approve the resolution, to say that private flying at that airport and other airports in Canada is not important to the nation. It is not my intention for a moment to say that men flying private aircraft, whether owned by them or chartered by them for a week end, are not important to the training facilities of the R.C.A.F. Each one of us in British Columbia knows that practically all the manpower that will come to the R.C.A.F. in the way of pilots in the next few years will come from those men who today, at their own expense, fly private planes from our airports throughout Canada. But more important than the sympathy we have for the private air pilot is the fact that Vancouver international airport, which is in my riding, is the busiest airport in Canada, and has more air traffic than any other city airport in Canada. In 1954 the total number of aircraft moving through that airport was 168,954; and in 1953, during the same period, it was a fraction over 160,000. Of that total, private aircraft numbered 86,510 in 1954 and


over 91,000 in 1953. Added to that number were 11,000 visiting airplanes in 1954 and almost 9,000 in 1953.
This summer some of us had the opportunity of visiting the airport in a more or less official capacity and of standing in the control tower of that airport for a period of about one hour. We saw the difficulty experienced by those men in the control tower at that time, which was an extremely busy day in the life of the busiest airport in Canada. We saw the work they were doing. I would think that young men working in that control tower would have grey hairs in five years. The work is just impossible under the circumstances. That control tower not only handles all the private planes in the vicinity of Vancouver airport; it has to handle all air-line traffic. It handles seaplane traffic that is almost out of its orbit. Half of the seaplanes landing on the north arm of the Fraser cannot be seen from the control tower and are not under the control of the tower. Added to that is the fact that most of the private planes in British Columbia are not equipped with radio but are controlled both for take-off and landing by an Aldis lamp from the control tower itself, with all that means in lack of control. From these facts you get a rough idea of what the young men in the tower are trying to accomplish.
I said that in 1954 there were almost 169,000 landings and departures from the airport, and of those over 50 per cent of course were by private planes. My idea in presenting this resolution to the house is to try to convince the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), who I know is sympathetic to the idea, that a secondary airport should be established somewhere on the lower mainland of British Columbia that can accommodate not only the private planes owned in that region but visiting private planes from outside the province.
The Vancouver board of trade, in a very comprehensive preliminary brief has supplied me with statistics and certain comments with respect to the situation. For some years that very important body in the internal life of the province has considered with much concern the situation that prevails on Sea island. The board has told me through its experts that unless something is done very quickly one of these days a very serious major accident will take place within the confines of the airport. In the last two years we have heard many questions asked in the house, particularly by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), regarding flying conditions

throughout Canada. I had the misfortune to be in Moose Jaw a few days after a certain very serious air traffic accident, and I saw what could happen in a region where there are no mountains to be contended with and visibility is unimpeded for many miles. On the other hand, we in British Columbia must consider the terrain wherever we put airports. I saw in Moose Jaw the terrible results brought about by certain circumstances, and it is not only beyond my comprehension how the same thing has not happened over Vancouver airport in the last two or three years but beyond the comprehension of the experts, having regard to the traffic conditions existing there.
Control of private aircraft is carried out almost entirely by means of the Aldis lamp. Most of us who were in the army are familiar with that lamp, having used it at one time or another, and we know how restricted its beam is. With 169,000 take-offs and arrivals a year at the airport, how the landing and take-off of private planes can be carried out by means of a beam lamp without accident is almost beyond anyone's comprehension. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and some others had the privilege some months ago of visiting Vancouver airport and watching these young chaps trying to bring in private planes on the grass crossways to the direction of the airstrips. At any moment of the day that could mean a collision between a great T.C.A. plane and one of these small aircraft.
Conditions are so serious that in the last few months four private planes have been literally blown off the airport by the blast of wind from the North Star engines. Four private planes had their propellers seriously damaged just by the force of the blast from the large North Star engines. It is easy to imagine that one of these days a private plane is going to come in crossways to the present airstrip, the pilot is not going to see a T.C.A. plane landing, and the resulting crash will kill many people.
It is because of these conditions, and that situation in particular, that I have brought this resolution before the house. Perhaps I might say something about seaplane traffic at the airport. As I said earlier, all seaplanes land on the north arm of the Fraser, which is also in my riding. From the time these planes get within about half a mile of the control tower until the time they land they are not within the visual control of the operators in the tower. Actually they are practically flying free of control. With 15, 20 or 25 private planes in the air on a Sunday over the airport, with a seaplane 50433-73i
Vancouver International Airport beyond the control of the airport tower, perhaps a T.C.A. two-engine plane arriving from Victoria, a big T.C.A. plane arriving from Calgary, and another one or two planes taking off, you can imagine the immediate problem the control tower has with no radio control over the private planes that are crossing the airport runways and landing on the grass, because they are not allowed to use the runways.
As I have said, one of these days we are going to have an accident of major proportions. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) will take steps to avoid such a catastrophe by establishing a secondary airport in the lower mainland area that will take away from the very busy Sea Island airport private and visiting planes that could easily be handled at a smaller airport not too far from the present one. Most of these private pilots are paying their own tuition, and they are young chaps who have no more than ordinary jobs. If a secondary airport were established too far away from Vancouver it might mean that some of them would not fly any more. As I have said, these pilots are important in the over-all scheme of things as far as the R.C.A.F. is concerned.
There is a very fine airport at Abbotsford that Trans-Canada Air Lines use sometimes when weather conditions are not good on Sea island. It might be possible to put the private planes there. However, as I have said, most of these young fellows do not have too much money. It costs a lot of money to get to Abbotsford, and with Sunday traffic as heavy as it is on the lower mainland at all times of the year I doubt whether too many of them would be interested in continuing their training. Therefore I believe the Minister of Transport will have to look for a location much closer to Vancouver.
When one brings a resolution of this kind before the house one should have a suggestion to offer as a solution. In its brief -I am sure the minister has seen it-the Vancouver board of trade suggested two or three locations. I can offer one more. They suggest that there is a place at Como lake near Maillardville where, in the opinion of their experts, there is plenty of good land available and the price is not too high. It is also suggested in their brief that the Kit-silano Indian reserve could be used. I am not too sure of the feasibility of that suggestion, but perhaps the Minister of Transport would take it under consideration.
Boundary Bay airport was used during the war by the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have seen the taxi-ways and the airstrips there in the last few months, and much
1144	HOUSE OF
Vancouver International Airport money would have to be spent on that location before it could be used even by private planes. And if it could be used I doubt if we would create a satisfactory solution. The board of trade had suggested that Boundary Bay airport could be used, but I am of the opinion that it could not.
I have one suggestion to make jointly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), who I am pleased to see in his seat this evening. There has been some criticism of the government in connection with some land at Port Coquitlam. When that land was purchased that part of the country was in my riding. I know of the necessity for buying the land and the reason for the purchase, and I believe the reason was good. I am not too sure of the quality of the land for airport purposes, but I would not think it would have to be of high quality to handle lighter aircraft. We own the land; it is in a good location. It is not in as heavy a fog area as the Vancouver international airport. Now that the government owns the property I hope the Minister of Transport will have his officials look it over, in co-operation with the officials of the Department of National Defence, with a view to finding a solution there.
I wish to bring to the attention of the house once more the seriousness of the overall situation at the airport. As I have said, at one time or another hon. members have visited there. We have seen conditions under which operations cannot be carried out efficiently. At that point there is a control tower not much larger than an ordinary chicken house. The three or four young men in the tower, efficient though they may be, cannot carry out their job as it should be carried out in the interests of efficiency and safety.
I believe if the Minister of Transport looks into the situation carefully there will be no difficulty, so far as those of us from British Columbia are concerned, in obtaining a secondary airport in very short order.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) has dealt with this situation thoroughly, and there is very little one could add to the submissions he has made.
I have before me a press report indicating the number of passengers who landed at Vancouver airport in 1954, and it discloses that there were about 600,000 persons. It has been estimated that each day of the year about 1,700 passengers go through the airport. The airmail amounted to 4 million pounds and the air cargo about 6 million pounds.


Those figures will give hon. members some idea of the business being done at that airport.
For some time there has been growing concern over the number of planes, and there has been a keen desire to remove the smaller planes from that airport. The hon. member's resolution is in terms almost identical with those of a resolution passed by the council of the Vancouver board of trade on June 17, 1954. I believe the Vancouver airport board has been making recommendations to the Department of Transport since November, 1952, urging the establishment of a secondary airport to take care of the minor traffic consisting of light planes and private flying.
In addition there has been the suggestion that sooner or later the Royal Canadian Air Force training should be taken away from that airport. We have been led to believe that the Department of Transport was about to prohibit any further civilian flying training at that field. Members from the greater Vancouver area were told that by the airport board when we were guests of the board at the airport in December. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Department of Transport but, if so, it does show vividly the need for the establishment of a second airport.
We were also told that the department had a survey under way, but since that time nothing more has been heard about it. I noticed about a month ago that the airport board recommended consideration of the use of Boundary Bay airport for minor flying. As yet, however, there has been no definite announcement from the government that any action is to be taken; and if action is to be taken, there has been no indication what form it will take.
In supporting the resolution tonight I urge that the minister tell the house what the government has in mind. I hope he will give us some assurance that there is to be a secondary airport in that area.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain all hon. members from the lower mainland of British Columbia will support the motion moved this evening by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.
As has been pointed out by the two hon. members who have preceded me in the debate, the international airport at Sea island is one of the largest and busiest in the whole of Canada, and is rapidly reaching the point where, without question, serious consideration must be given to the policies governing the use of the airport. Although I am certain this resolution will have the support of all members from the lower mainland of British Columbia, a number of whom sit in the

opposition, I am glad the motion is made by a Liberal member, because for that reason I doubt if it will be called a want of confidence motion. We may expect to have it discussed on the basis of the issue involved, and to reach a decision, something which I know members of all parties from British Columbia most earnestly desire.
As was pointed out, just prior to coming to this session of parliament the lower mainland members of all parties, on a semiofficial occasion, had the opportunity of meeting with the airport board at Sea Island, and I am sure we were all amazed by the information we were given. The growing importance of this airport can be demonstrated by the fact that we were told that, in the light of its present business and the growth of Vancouver as a calling point on the international air routes, inside of the next ten years the airport will require the expenditure of not less than $35 million. This will give some indication as to what is taking place. Yet, sir, we have this, the only major international airport in British Columbia, most certainly on the coast, at which we have not only all the commercial flying but also a great deal of private flying and the R.C.A.F. stationed there.
I do not know whether the gentleman to whom I am going to refer is now or was a high-ranking officer in the R.C.A.F., but I do know that one of the members of the airport board met with us. He very definitely said that in the view of the R.C.A.F., as a matter of policy, they had to be stationed at the airport on Sea island. Personally, I cannot see why, with the high speed of R.C.A.F. planes at the present time, their training could not be done at some other location either on Vancouver island or nearby on the lower mainland. I want to point out, sir, that there obviously has not been the necessary cooperation and co-ordination between those who are responsible for the various types of flying on that field. As I said, the R.C.A.F. are stationed at this major airport. I am not going to repeat the figures given by the hon. member who moved this motion. Not only do we have the R.C.A.F. stationed at the airport in Vancouver, but they do their training in the city of Vancouver area from that airport.
You know, some of the things they do are positively stupid. It can only come about under a government that has not realized the situation and recognized what is going on. On the very day that a number of members of parliament from Vancouver and the lower mainland were out at the airport at the request of the airport board, the R.C.A.F. put their paratroopers through a training period
Vancouver International Airport Where did they drop the paratroopers? They dropped them right on the Vancouver airport at about two o'clock or two-thirty o'clock in the afternoon. At this busy airport they not only have their planes stationed but they put their paratroopers through their spot landings right on this airport. Surely, sir, that particular type of training could be done somewhere other than at one of the major international airports in the Dominion of Canada.
Considerable reference has been made to the private planes. We were told at that meeting to which I have referred that, in the opinion of the R.C.A.F., the maintenance of those private flying clubs and the fact that young men and young women can learn how to fly at these clubs is a most important part of the defence training of Canada. I most certainly believe that it is. But, as has already been pointed out by the previous speaker, there can be no question but that with the heavy commercial business and the R.C.A.F. the time is very close at hand when that airport can no longer be used by private planes.
I have a great many friends who are members of these private flying clubs. I know a great many who are learning to fly through the medium of these clubs and their flying schools. Almost without exception they say they will have to give it up if they have to go too far away from the centre of the city. Surely in the lower mainland around the Vancouver area there are a number of locations that could be taken over by the federal government to establish fields suitable for their accommodation.
As has been said by the previous speaker, I am not an expert either, but I have heard the officials of those clubs say they think there is a location at Jericho Beach, which is in Vancouver itself. I know there is a location about six miles out of Vancouver on Burnaby lake. The hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond (Mr. Goode) has already mentioned a location in the neighbourhood of Coquitlam or Maillardville. All these places or locations are within six to twelve miles of the centre of Vancouver, and that would be no obstacle whatever to the maintenance and encouragement of the private flying clubs, and would give the necessary airstrips for the planes of any of our visiting private flying clubs.
After talking to these potential defenders of Canada, I do feel that to go too far out to places such as Abbotsford, or even to an excellent location at White Rock, about 34 miles from the heart of Vancouver, would be throwing a very great obstacle in the way of the maintenance of these clubs and the training of new fliers. Therefore, sir, I want to

Vancouver International Airport add my word to those already spoken, and I am certain to those which will follow after I sit down.
The situation at the Vancouver airport cannot be allowed to continue as it is at present. It is only by a miracle that there has not been a major accident there already, or even a series of major accidents. It is absolutely wrong to have paratroopers dropping down on the main airfield of western Canada. It is wrong to have all those who operate their own private planes, or who are learning to fly or who rent private planes, not know where they stand and always be faced with the possibility that on a minute's notice from Ottawa, they will have to stop the use of the Vancouver international airport by private planes and those private flying clubs.
The responsibility rests directly on this federal government exactly in the terms of the motion now before us. Surely, from the point of view of commercial traffic, passenger and tourist traffic and from the point of view of stationing the R.C.A.F. where they will be of the utmost use with respect to training young and new fliers, the federal government has a major interest. Since they have a major interest, they should accept the major responsibility. If the federal government does not awaken to the situation and do something about it I am sure they will live to regret it, whether Canada be at peace or at war.
Therefore, sir, I want most emphatically to support this motion. I hope when it comes to a vote, although the majority of the members of this house are not from British Columbia, they will recognize that it is an important and integral part of Canada and will support the motion.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in this Sea Island airport for personal reasons. I visit it as often as I can during the summer, and I should like some information. I have never seen a busier place, and I have wondered why, with so many planes coming in and going out, there have been no accidents. As far as I understand, the two large companies that use the airport facilities are Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Pacific Western. There are also six other companies that operate on the island.
I was wondering if all those companies would be moved off the island. Is that the idea? They use the airport facilities and the hon. member who has proposed the resolution knows perfectly well that something must be done in the near future. Judging by the efficiency and wisdom of the Minister of Transport we think he will find a way to


satisfy not only the companies which may have to move but also those which stay.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion I want to say that I respect old age, and particularly when an Irishman has a birthday. I was pleased when I noted that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was going to move this motion. It has been indicated that every party in the house supports it, to a certain degree at least. It is not my desire to talk out the motion, but I do have a few observations to make which I think are quite important and should be borne in mind before a vote is taken.
Several different sites have been mentioned such as Como lake, Port Coquitlam, Burnaby bog and Jericho Beach. I have one or two others that I would like to add to that list. First I should like to say that I was particularly interested in what the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say about the members of all political parties from the lower mainland being invited to attend a meeting called by the airport board in respect to this particular matter, and to look over the Vancouver international airport. I happen to be the Social Credit member nearest to the airport, and I am still waiting for my invitation. I am quite sure no other Social Credit member of the federal house received an invitation. I would suggest that if anyone had an invitation it should have been the person who has spoken of and taken an active part in suggesting alternative sites in this house. I have suggested other sites that might be available if and when the Minister of Transport decides to extend the field.
I am heartily in agreement with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. He is suggesting that steps be taken to eliminate congestion, to segregate the various types of traffic and to establish areas for a major portion of the aviation training program, both military and civil, at points removed from the Vancouver international airport.
Last year when I spoke on this question I suggested that the government should let the municipal district of Surrey know it was essential that they should reserve the last remaining airport site. I mentioned the White Rock site, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East, who suggested that that was too far distant from the heart of Vancouver. He said 34 miles. The hon. member knows quite well that when the proposed super highway is built from the international boundary to the heart of Vancouver it will not be 34 miles. It may be 34 minutes, but certainly not that distance.

The council of Surrey realized that there would be need for such an airport site, and they went out of their way to set aside a particular piece of property to be held as a future site for the Department of Transport. Apparently being on the scene and close to the problem they have a better concept of what is needed on the lower mainland than the transport board here in Ottawa, but I would not expect them to overlook this particular site.
The need is apparent. Some time ago when speaking in the throne speech debate the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) referred to a near crash at Moose Jaw. This emphasizes the point, to me at least, that if these crashes can occur on the prairies there is a much greater possibility of crashes in an area which is practically surrounded by mountains except for the sea on one side, and which is as subject to fog as is the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I shall not review the traffic hazards, as we are all familiar with them. We all know the importance of the international airport to the lower mainland. That cannot be overemphasized. However, there is one truth which I think must be recognized. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province of December 22, 1954. It refers to the crash at Brampton, but that is not what I am interested in at the moment. The latter part of the article contains these words:
Public safety, not the protection of a government department, or the government itself, should be the first consideration of inquiries into air crashes.
I would go so far as to say that it is not just the inquiries which are important. To begin with we should have knowledge of the problem which faces us on the lower mainland. This is vitally important. The department have recognized this problem, and during the past few years they have contributed to a minor degree to the airport at Langley. The minister knows something of this problem. I have made it a point to acquaint him with it, but I do want to emphasize that Langley airport is not too far distant from the heart of Vancouver.
As I understand it, the question is the development of airport facilities in connection with the development of the lower mainland. The point here is that the lower mainland is not just the city of Vancouver and Burnaby. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) I know is very familiar with the region, and he seems to be quite amused. He may be interested in hearing some of the facts and figures about the population of the
Vancouver International Airport whole area, and more particularly in connection with sites that are available for airport purposes. This is no laughing matter.
This problem must be met head on. As has been suggested before in this house, we are going to have a major catastrophe in the city of Vancouver because we have foolishly followed the practice of continually setting up airports right next door to the large centres of population. I need only emphasize what happened in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a year or so ago when they had a terrible air crash over the city. Flying bedsteads are only in the experimental stages at the present time, and it will be some time before they will be used by individuals for transport purposes within cities or from city to city.
With respect to this factor, I was not fortunate enough to be in attendance at the meeting at the Vancouver airport, and I had to depend on newspaper clippings outlining the facts. But I understand that something is to be done about this airport soon. I know the Minister of Transport is new at his job, but I am wondering whether he can indicate to the people on the lower mainland how soon is "soon", because we are quite concerned.
If this Department of Transport has any desire to utilize some of the fields available I might suggest to the minister that he should inform the municipal districts which are foolish enough to set aside property for airport facilities that they are wasting their time, and would be much better employed in developing those areas for school or housing purposes.
I would urge the government to make an early and complete survey of the entire area. That would be an important step forward. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond mentioned an area the government owned in Burnaby. Apparently it is a bog and quite useless for any other purpose. The hon. member believes it might be utilized by the Department of Transport. I do not know the region too well and I am quite satisfied it is a bog, but that does not necessarily mean it cannot be used for airport purposes, providing the runways are made sufficiently long.
Coming back to the airport at Langley, I have a clipping here from the Vancouver Province dated January 5, which carries the heading: "Langley Wants Bigger Grant for Airport." The report, which incidentally was also carried in the Vancouver Sun, stated briefly that a meeting was called which was attended by Senator Tom Reid, William Mott, M.P., Reeve George W. Brooks, Councillor
1148	HOUSE OF
Vancouver International Airport Noel Booth, and airport manager Art Sellers. The report in the Vancouver Sun continues: Mr. Sellers stated Skyway Air Services could handle all the aircraft likely to come, without being overcrowded for several years.
He declared "Langley airport is becoming the prime field of the Fraser valley for light aircraft and a few more dollars spent here would be well invested."
My purpose in drawing this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is to underline the fact that here we have an airport on the lower mainland in which the government earlier invested a total of more than $100,000 for construction purposes. They have invested an additional $5,000 annually over the past three years, and this year another grant will be required.
I am well aware that we are not now discussing the estimates, but I would suggest that in considering the problem of airport facilities it should be remembered that we already have an airport available, and that that airport can be made usable. Indeed, it is already being used today for agricultural purposes, and there is a private flying school operating from that field. I understand 25 light planes are already using that airport for agricultural purposes, principally for dusting.
I discussed this matter earlier with the minister, and I would now urge him to take a very close look at the matter and see to it that the board submits its recommendation early so the people in the area can prepare themselves for the renovation work which will require to be carried out. They are ready to do a certain amount of work in the rebuilding of the airport, and advantage should be taken of their proffered assistance. We have the site available, the facilities are there, and I believe it will not take very much money to reconstruct the airport so it can be used for the very purposes outlined by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.
With reference to the article from which I have already quoted, I would like to draw attention to the fact that it refers to a gentleman by the name of William Mott and has put "M.P." after his name. I take it "M.P." does not mean the military police, but in all likelihood means "member of parliament". On several occasions I have heard this gentleman referred to as an ex-member of this house, but I did not realize until I saw this article datelined January 5, 1955, that he had been again elected to this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it means "member for patronage."


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) states that it means "member for patronage." That might be, but I believe we should be set right on this thing and the people of that riding


informed that they have a new member of parliament. I might say in justice to the man who invited this gentleman to this meeting- and I believe the house has the right to know-that the gentleman in question is also a member of that particular board and that was probably the reason for his being there.
I might also say for the information of the house that I had this delegation to see me about two and a half months ago. It is possible, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests, that there might be a form of patronage involved in this whereby the Liberal party hope to put their own representative back into the good graces of the public, and hope to keep their representative before the public by suggesting that he is the man who is accomplishing all these things. However, I am convinced the Minister of Transport is satisfied that such probably is not and should not be the case, and I am prepared to let the matter rest there.
Hon. members have already spoken in support of the resolution outlining what should be done, and I believe the answer to the problems posed can be found in my riding. The Langley airport, for example, requires just a few thousand dollars of expenditure in order to make it a feasible proposition and it is within 30 or 40 minutes' drive from Vancouver. We have the airport, hangars, and 25 planes already there, and all that is basically required is the rebuilding of the gravel runway on which a plane nosedived last year in nine inches of water. A certain amount of that money is required for sinking tiles to help dry up the runway.
We have another airport at Boundary Bay which has been in operation for some time. It is possibly 25 or 30 minutes' driving time from the downtown section of Vancouver, and it is already being used by planes today. I believe we have our own caretakers there. The Minister of National Defence could possibly tell us quite a lot about that if he so desired. However, I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that it is there and I hope the new Minister of Transport will take advantage of it.
We have the answer to most of these problems in the riding of New Westminster, and we would be only too happy if the Minister of Transport through his department availed himself of the opportunity to make use of these facilities. More important, however, than any of these things is the fact that we must obtain a secondary airport on the lower mainland, and for my part I hope it will be established in the New Westminster riding.	.

Vancouver International Airport


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr, Speaker, I feel 1 should say a very few words in connection with this resolution. I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should have used the words "member for patronage" in referring to the former representative for New Westminster. But when I consider the matter I realize that he is an authority on that, perhaps more so than any other hon. member in this house. I do not think we should designate whether such persons belong to one party or another. I do not think we should have to listen to remarks about a former member of this house who served the people of his riding well and was defeated by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), now sitting in this chamber.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I merely repeated what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Lorne MacDougall: I so stated. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) spoke about the stupidity of the R.C.A.F. If the R.C.A.F. is stupid I hope I may be considered to be in the same category. None of us is perfect. Of all the various branches of our services in Canada I think it is rather difficult for anyone to state that the R.C.A.F. is particularly stupid.


Harold Edward Winch: As a correction may I say that I said that only about the dropping of paratroopers in mid-afternoon on Vancouver airport.


John Lorne MacDougall: I heard you the first time.


Harold Edward Winch: You did not mention that in your talk, and you are not going to get away with that sort of thing.


John Lorne MacDougall: The hon. member for New Westminster said that when we get that super highway, that matter of 25 miles, 35 miles or 40 miles is going to mean nothing at all. Maybe that is so. I am not going to disagree with him on that point. But I say that as yet we are a long way from having that so-called superspeed highway.
On top of all that there are several factors that are important. They have been touched upon by those who have preceded me in this debate. I must say in all sincerity and truth that I am in perfect agreement with the suggestion that some other alternative landing field ought to be made available for the various flying schools, and also for the various air lines other than Trans-Canada Air Lines, of which there are many, that operate from the international airport. Unfortunately I cannot offer to the house tonight a location 50433-74
either for $3,000, $30,000 or $3 million within my own riding. But I would suggest to the Minister of Transport that if and when he considers some alternative to eliminate the congestion that now exists at the airport in Vancouver, we should at least avoid getting into a blueberry bog, regardless of whether we get it for $3,000, $30,000 or three cents.
Having regard to the stage of modern aeronautics through which we are passing today, I do not think we should take steps which, at the moment, may seem to be absolutely necessary but which, in the matter of a short time, may not be so necessary. I do not know-and I do not know of any member of this house who does-when we might have a type of airplane that will not require a lengthy runway upon which to land. If that situation should come about in the foreseeable future, as it might, then the runways of the international airport on Sea island, or a certain portion of them, could be utilized for some of the auxiliary flying services other than T.C.A.
I must admit that I am out at the international airport in Vancouver possibly as often as any of the hon. members who reside in and around that locality. I cannot impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, the terrific importance of the international airport in Vancouver.


Harold Edward Winch: What is that? What did
you say?


John Lorne MacDougall: You heard me. I was not
stuttering.


Harold Edward Winch: I could not believe my ears.


John Lorne MacDougall: Will you sit down until I have finished? Read it in Hansard tomorrow. I said no one can realize the importance of the Vancouver international airport.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the reason I asked you what you said, because it did not sound that way from here.


John Lorne MacDougall: You had better go and get your ears washed out.


An hon. Member:: Don't go to a dentist.


John Lorne MacDougall: I did not ask you to
come to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Lorne MacDougall: This is a serious problem; make no mistake about it. I am as fearful as any one in this house about what might happen almost any day at that airport.
Because of that fact there is one thing that I want to point out. It seems to be the dogmatic statement of some hon. members that the federal government own the airport. Unfortunately we do not own the airport. As all hon. members know, of course, we are

Vancouver International Airport spending a great deal of money in connection with its upkeep; but I went through the last parliament and so far during this parliament trying to get an agreement among the federal government, the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver airport so the federal government might own this great international airport. Some three years ago we were within some $50,000 of coming to an agreement. The aldermen, three in number, headed by the mayor, came down here; and had it not been for an accident which occurred on a particular day, I believe that gap of $50,000 would have been closed and that we, the federal government, today would be in complete possession of the Vancouver international airport.
However, that has not as yet been done. I think that is possibly one of the restraining thoughts in the mind of the minister, if he has any restraining thoughts along that line, although I do not think he has. I refer to the fact that at the present time we are not the possessors and owners of the international airport.
That does not mean we should not take a vital interest in it. My interest is that of the people of greater Vancouver and of British Columbia generally. Vancouver airport has been described here tonight as the greatest airport in the dominion. I think the likelihood is that it is the greatest airport in the commonwealth. The passenger services operating from it and to it, together with the haulage of freight and what have you, make it a terrifically important economic item in the whole air transport system of the Dominion of Canada.
I should be extremely happy, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Transport would take this matter under serious consideration. I have sufficient confidence in his judgment to believe that he will go into the matter very fully and that, having done so, he will find some ingenious method whereby we may be able to have the additional facilities that are now jeopardizing the T.C.A. in that area housed or based at a location not too remote from the great metropolitan centre of Vancouver city. If that is done I am quite sure that not only the press but the people of all political thoughts in British Columbia will be more than happy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say I would hope that might be the outcome of consideration by the minister. If he would do that, I am quite sure that all the representatives from that area in this House of Commons, regardless of the party to which they belong, would be more than pleased
[Mr. MacDougall.l
and would look to the future with confidence in the matter of safety at the greatest airport we have in the land.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on behalf of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which seems to have been the butt of considerable comment tonight. In the first place, the Royal Canadian Air Force does not operate training facilities in the sense of training pilots at Vancouver. There is no elementary or intermediate flying school or anything of that sort at Vancouver airport. We use the airport more or less as an operational base. There are two auxiliary fighter squadrons based on Vancouver, one equipped at the present time with Vampires and one with Mustangs, and I would doubt very much that the people of Vancouver would want them moved somewhere else. These squadrons have to fly during the week ends, as the pilots are engaged in civilian activities during the week, and they do fly from that airport. But the pilots are experienced, many of them veterans of world war II, and I do not think they should be classed as pilots in training.
Then we have a search and rescue unit at Vancouver airport which operates up and down the coast. It is equipped with quite a few planes, a number of them being seaplanes, and I doubt whether they could be better based than on Vancouver. Our operations are located at the far side of the airport away from the civilian activities and are not relatively very extensive, but I do think they are and could be very useful to the city of Vancouver.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) raised a question about paratroopers. That is new to me. I have never known the R.C.A.F. to conduct any paratroop training at Vancouver airport. Probably it was a demonstration put on for some purpose, but I cannot say unequivocally that it was or was not because I had not heard of it.
All I want to say is that I think the Vancouver airport is a very great airport, a very busy airport and a very well run airport. The speaker who preceded me pointed out that while it is called an international airport, it is in fact a municipal airport in respect of actual operation. That does not detract of course from the control exercised by the Department of Transport. I have been trying in my humble way for the last five or six years to have the airport acquired by the federal government. I thought I had arrived at that point after I had persuaded the former minister of transport to make an

offer and the city council approved it. Somehow the matter seems to have bogged down because now I understand it has to be voted on again.
So far as our operations are concerned, I think they are a minor factor in the operation of Vancouver airport. I also think they are carefully supervised, and are very necessary and useful to Vancouver and the lower mainland area.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and others speak about the difficulties that are being experienced at the Vancouver airport. I want to tell them that Vancouver is not the only airport in Canada where there are difficulties. Unless something is done soon about conditions over the Moose Jaw airport some planes flying west will not get as far as Vancouver, because those flying that way seem to run into so many difficulties.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, my problem for a few minutes will be to keep in order, but I am going to try to do so. We have had a major air crash over Moose Jaw and a lot of incidents, and we think something could be done to improve the air regulations and prevent these happenings. I hope when the Minister of Transport replies tonight he will take the opportunity to tell us what amendments his department is planning. From the speakers who have preceded me I take it that the difficulty at Vancouver is the fact that the airport is not big enough or is not properly located to handle both military and civil planes. Over Moose Jaw the trouble seems to be that the safety regulations are not adequate or are not being enforced.
I wish the Minister of Transport would tell us why military planes do not observe the same safety regulations as civilian planes. I find that fact very strange. I may say that the people of my riding do not blame the R.C.A.F. for most of these difficulties. We find the attitude of Trans-Canada Air Lines to be somewhat lacking. We do not feel that T.C.A. is doing all it can to avoid these air incidents. I wish I could tell you why we think thus, but I hesitate to begin. However, the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines-


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, I would submit that this discussion is out of order. There will be ample opportunity to discuss questions of this nature during the session. If the hon. member is permitted to continue it will mean that we will get into a debate on something that is completely irrelevant to this particular motion.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you. I observe what the hon. member says-
Vancouver International Airport


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. Perhaps at this moment the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre will permit me to remind him that the operative part of the resolution is "action which will relieve the congested and dangerous conditions existing at the Vancouver international airport". It is not my intention, and I do not think it is the desire of the house, to hamper the hon. member too much in presenting his arguments, but he will have to make them apply to conditions at the Vancouver airport.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our world is shrinking.
These places are not very far apart.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The first point the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond made was that he wants congestion at the Vancouver airport eliminated. I think that is a good idea and I support it, but at Moose Jaw our trouble is not the elimination of congestion. It is to have the air safety regulations improved. The second request of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was to urge the segregation of various types of air traffic. I think that too is a good idea, both at Vancouver and Moose Jaw. I am sure that if Trans-Canada Air Lines when flying over Moose Jaw would just notify the R.C.A.F. control tower-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -on the way to Vancouver-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I do not think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre would like to create the impression that he is deliberately twisting his argument to make it appear to apply to Vancouver when it actually applies elsewhere. I know the hon. member, having indicated the points he wishes to make, will now make a real effort to remain in order.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, but I do hope that before the evening is through, the Minister of Transport will make a statement which will clarify the safety situation at all these airports.


Mr. Pearson:: He would be out of order if he did.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I firmly believe that the air safety regulations could be improved to take care of cases such as have been discussed tonight. I am sure something can be done, and I think the safety of passengers travelling on Trans-Canada Air Lines is in jeopardy as long as some action is not taken.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Vancouver International Airport Thatcher) was very far out of order because, as I understand it, Moose Jaw is not very far from Edmonton-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -and I noticed in a recent press story that one of the first of the CF-lOO's to come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence arrived at Comox airport-which happens to be not very far from Vancouver although it is on Vancouver island

in one hour flat. Therefore when we are considering Vancouver international airport we have to realize that in this high speed air age quite a lot of territory can be taken into consideration in any discussion such as we are having now.
I felt somewhat timorous about entering the debate until the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre did, because up until that time only members from what we in British Columbia consider to be the lower mainland had participated. While I am a British Columbia member, I certainly do not consider myself to be one of that group, however select an assembly they may consider themselves to be.
However, I do wish to assure the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East that I would not for one moment decry the great importance of Vancouver international airport. Nevertheless, in rising to support this resolution introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond I notice reference has been made to the need for some reassessment of the use of the airport both in relation to civil and military training.
The Minister of. National Defence suggested that it is not primarily a training station so far as the Royal Canadian Air Force is concerned. But while the hon. member for Vancouver East was describing the landing of paratroopers at the airport at Sea island it did occur to me that this might be a good time to remind the Minister of National Defence, and perhaps draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport, that there are other airports in British Columbia.
One that comes to my mind is known as the Tofino airport, located at the edge of Long Beach on the west coast of Vancouver island which, if my understanding is correct, cost the taxpayers of Canada several million dollars, and is now lying idle. In fact it is a desolate looking place. Here and there through the cracks in the runways one can see weeds beginning to appear. I must say it is a matter of some regret to me, when I pass that way, to see what was a very substantial investment, made of course under

wartime conditions, going to waste. I was going to suggest that possibly an airport such as that might be a more suitable place to drop paratroopers.
Incidentally I might suggest that it has the attraction of being right alongside one of Canada's finest and most famous beaches. I hasten to assure the Minister of National Defence that I have no intention of raising the much-discussed question of an access road to Tofino. I understand that is being taken care of by the same government about which my hon. friend from New Westminster is so fond of talking. I understand they are going to build a road out to Tofino, or perhaps it is one of our logging companies that is going to build it for them; I do not know.
However, that is something to be taken into consideration. Perhaps if we cannot leave the airports in the cities we can move some of the cities out to the airports; perhaps to Long Beach, or to the fine, expansive airport at Port Hardy on the northern end of Vancouver island.
I feel that, should a more extensive program of training in the R.C.A.F. be contemplated now or in the future, and if the congestion to which reference has been made is going to increase, the facilities on the west coast of Vancouver island should not be overlooked either by the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Transport in any plans they may be making to implement the resolution so well introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have not yet had the opportunity of revisiting Vancouver and seeing its airport, or of becoming more familiar personally with the problems about which hon. members have spoken tonight. I sincerely hope it will not be long before I shall be able to visit the international airport at Vancouver and see at first hand some of the difficulties and problems mentioned. I think hon. members will realize that the congestion at Vancouver airport is a problem similar to that we have to meet at a number of other major airports in Canada. I just wish it were as simple to provide alternative facilities as it is to suggest that they be provided.
Let me say immediately I realize fully that the international airport at Vancouver is not owned by the crown and operated by the Department of Transport, but that it is owned by the city of Vancouver. Notwithstanding that fact, let me add that in our. consideration of the problem we have approached it in much the same way as if the department were wholly responsible for its operation, and as if it were one of the airports owned and operated by my department.

I am told that traffic congestion at Vancouver has existed for some time, and that action to relieve it has been under constant review by officers of the department. I am told that one of the factors which contribute to the congestion is civil and military training, and that in June of 1954 consideration was given to the possibility of transferring these auxiliary training squadrons to Abbotsford. However, it was found that to locate these auxiliary flying units at such a distance from the city of Vancouver would cause a reduction in efficiency; and moreover the proximity of Abbotsford to the mountains made the situation unacceptable for modern fighter operations.
Since that time, however, we have asked the Department of National Defence if it would review the matter further, and my information is that it is under consideration at the present time. So far as providing alternative sites is concerned, we have requested our district officials to investigate other possible sites which might be developed as an alternative airport. One of the sites, for example, was located at Burnaby. The department conducted a detailed engineering survey which, regrettably, revealed the fact that the area was underlaid by soft soil and was not suitable for airport construction.
The district officers have continued to examine other possible sites, and I would say that every site mentioned to date has been found to have distinct disadvantages, because of the nature of the terrain, surrounding obstructions, or distance from the centre. And the civil operators have voiced strong objections to relocating flying training at any point very far removed from Vancouver. In all cases this factor has been one of the serious defects we have been met with in considering these alternative sites.
Tonight some hon. members have mentioned sites that might be considered. I am sorry to say my personal knowledge of the situation does not permit me to say whether or not these particular sites have been examined. But I may assure hon. members that the suggestions they have made tonight will be given serious study by my department, because we are most anxious to remedy the situation and to do so at as early a date as possible.
I would go on to say that in November of last year the officials of the city were informed the department thought that before long it would be necessary to notify organizations at present engaged in flying training at the airport that after a reasonable period of notice no further civil flying training activity could be conducted from the airport. I am sure hon. members realize how reluctant we
Vancouver International Airport would be to take a definite step in that sense. The possibility of restricting the use of that airport to aircraft equipped with two-way radio has also been considered. The present traffic control tower structure is not big enough to house the additional radio equipment which would be necessary to put this program into effect. The tower could be enlarged or a new one could be built, and I might say this question is also under consideration by my department.
One cause of complaint in connection with the airport has been the conflicting traffic of seaplanes operating in and out of the seaplane base immediately to the south of the airport. The air traffic control has adopted the most rigid possible procedure with respect to seaplane traffic and has been able to co-ordinate it more closely with traffic using the runways. Another serious cause of trouble, and of course congestion, has been the lack of circulating taxi strips on the airfield. There is no taxi strip parallel to the new runway, 0826, and aircraft cannot move toward the take-off position on that runway until the runway has been completely cleared of aircraft. There is a provision in the 1955-56 estimates which, if approved, will enable a strip to be built paralleling at least a part of the runway this year, and we look forward to completion of the entire length by the fall of 1956.
I am sure hon. members will understand that the provision of these additional facilities will permit easier movement of the aircraft with less delay. There is also a plan to introduce an approach control as soon as equipment and personnel are available, and the estimated date is July of this year. This will permit the control tower to exercise more precise control of traffic in the vicinity of the airport.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, if I might summarize, I should like to ask that the following points be noted. First, that the handling of the seaplane traffic has been improved. Approach control is expected to be introduced in the summer of 1955. A circulating taxi strip for runway 0826 will be started in the summer of 1955 and probably completed in 1956, and the possibility of improving or enlarging the control tower is now under review. The Department of National Defence is considering the possibility of relocating training operations at Abbotsford.
Perhaps what is most important, Mr. Speaker, is that we are looking for a possible site for a secondary airport. I think I should point out that even after a site has been located it will probably take a couple of years before it is possible to bring it into use.

Vancouver International Airport
I should like to convey to hon. members the fact that the Department of Transport is very much impressed by the importance of the traffic at Vancouver international airport. We desire by all means possible, and within the limits of the funds at our disposal, to remedy the situation which is referred to in this motion. I should like to assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond of my sincerity when I say we shall do our utmost to try to improve the situation at an early date.
I should like to say one further word before I take my seat. I would have liked very much to respond to the invitation of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to talk about other things than the motion under consideration, and in particular about the subject of air safety and air regulations, but I thought that in these first remarks which I am addressing to the house I should try to stay within the four corners of the rules, and reserve until some other occasion the opportunity of replying to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Mr. G. R. Pearlies (Esquimalt-Saanich):: One
of the causes of the increased congestion at the seaplane base at Vancouver is the fact that the seaplane base at Patricia Bay was done away with a few years ago. When the R.C.A.F. were administering the Patricia Bay airport a seaplane base was maintained at the west side of that airport; but when the R.C.A.F. moved away the floats which had been at Patricia Bay for the seaplane landing were also removed.
I took this matter up with the minister's predecessor last year, and he recognized the fact that because of the absence of a seaplane base on Vancouver island additional seaplane traffic had gone to Vancouver. It was hoped that a new float could have been established at Patricia Bay. I believe the amount of money required for the establishment of a float is small. The sum of $3,000 was mentioned, and I would like to suggest to the minister that there is a very practical

method by which he could relieve the congestion at Vancouver and also provide facilities on Vancouver island at which the firms using seaplanes to travel up and down the coast and the large number of visitors who come by plane could be accommodated for many years. I suggest that to the minister to see if he will not give it his earnest consideration.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond speaks now, he will close the debate.


Tom Goode: With the permission of the house I could finish in two minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the hon. member the permission of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Tom Goode: thank hon. members for supporting this resolution. It is a compliment to the resolution that we have had two cabinet ministers speak on it, both sympathetically. I think it has done its job in that it has acquainted the Minister of Transport, who has not yet visited Vancouver, with the seriousness of the situation. 1 am quite sure that we shall have his sympathetic consideration. In his speech tonight he has shown that he is willing to consider ideas. I now ask that I be allowed to withdraw my motion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has
the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond the consent of the house to withdraw his resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Milton Fowler Gregg: Tomorrow the house will move to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 15, 1955