Angus MACINNIS

MACINNIS, Angus

Personal Data

Party
Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)
Constituency
Vancouver Kingsway (British Columbia)
Birth Date
September 2, 1884
Deceased Date
March 3, 1964
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_MacInnis
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=b8094e9f-95f3-46b2-ab3e-9e132f32ed9e&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
motorman, unionist

Parliamentary Career

July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
IND
  Vancouver South (British Columbia)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
CCF
  Vancouver East (British Columbia)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
CCF
  Vancouver East (British Columbia)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
CCF
  Vancouver East (British Columbia)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
CCF
  Vancouver East (British Columbia)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
CCF
  Vancouver Kingsway (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 6 of 1083)


March 4, 1955

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):

Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words on the second reading of this bill. I was not in the house a week ago when it was considered in the resolution stage, but I have glanced over that debate and I wish to refer to a few of the points which were raised at that time.

This group will support this bill. The national harbours board of Canada is today big business. Without being able to offer any expert opinion on the matter, I feel that an additional member on the board is quite justified. This is a large country and if members of the board are going to keep themselves informed about the various harbours they will undoubtedly have to travel.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested last Friday that as there is to be a fourth member appointed the new member should come from the Pacific coast. Without doubt Vancouver is one of the most important harbours in Canada. I do not wish to reflect upon any other section

of the country when I say that the Pacific coast province is the fastest growing province in Canada at the moment, and before many years go by Vancouver will be Canada's greatest port.

If my recollection of what I read in Hansard is correct, I believe the minister said that when members are appointed to a national board they become nationally minded regardless of the locality from which they may be chosen. I agree with the minister and I think that that is a good thing indeed.

Topic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1955

Mr. Maclnnis:

The minister could have

suggested that as I do not think there is anything wrong with it. However, if he does not want to agree with my point of view I shall not impose it on him.

There is another point which was not covered by what the minister said. If someone from Vancouver were appointed to the national harbours board I think he would have a better knowledge of the conditions in Vancouver than if he came from some other part of the country. I am not sure that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made this point but I think it is important and I hope the minister will keep it in mind when making the new appointment.

The other matter I want to refer to is the question of an advisory committee. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. It certainly is not the first time it has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). Probably in this house members do not like giving a political opponent credit for good work, but in this case I wish to give honour where I think honour is due. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has been consistent in urging the appointment of advisory committees over the years, and in doing so I think he is merely expressing the wishes of the people in Vancouver who have a special interest in the harbours board.

I think these committees could be of great assistance to the members of the board. At the present time when a commissioner goes out to Vancouver he meets people there who are interested in the work of the port. However, if there were a committee appointed whose business it was to correlate all the

National Harbours Board Act various activities, the commissioner or commissioners would have someone to contact who would be able to supply them with more accurate information than they can get at the present time.

These, Mr. Speaker, were the only two points that I wished to make. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) will take them into consideration because I believe they are legitimate requests. The first point, so far as I am concerned, applies to Vancouver and I think one of the commissioners should be from the Pacific coast province. The other point applies to any part of Canada where there is a national harbours board.

Topic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1955

Mr. Maclnnis:

They become nationally

minded instead of parochially or locally minded.

Topic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD
Full View Permalink

February 15, 1955

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this debate to say a few words on a particular phase of immigration matters that I have taken up with both the present minister and his predecessor. I am not going to go into the question of general policy now, but will deal with the policy of the department respecting certain people found more generally, I think, in the province of British Columbia.

The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) referred to the East Indian residents of British Columbia, and I can save time by saying that I agree with what he said and support him fully in the points he raised. I wish to take up the case of other persons of Asian origin in Canada, the Chinese. It is just possible the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) may have touched on this, too; I went out of the chamber while he was speaking, and I do not know.

I am sure the minister will know, even although he did not hold his present office at the time, that the Chinese benevolent association of British Columbia presented a brief concerning immigration laws and the citizenship act to his predecessor, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). I must say that I am in complete agreement with the association when they say they want to be put on the same basis as other residents in Canada in regard to immigration. I do not believe that is too much to ask.

I see the minister is paying attention, and he will find on page 3 of this brief-I am sure he has a copy of it on file-a request for modifications. Under that heading they say this:

As you know, the Chinese benevolent association has, on behalf of its members, long pressed and

still presses most strongly for the repeal of the discriminatory order in council P.C. 2115 and of the footnote thereto, and for the repeal of P.C. 2826 which replaces former orders in council P.C. 2743 and P.C. 4849. If, however, the total repeal of the aforementioned provisions of the immigration regulations is at this time impossible, we would petition for at least the following modifications to the immigration regulations.

I am not going to take up the time of the house by reading the modifications particularly requested. I do insist, however, that we should not have in this country two classes of citizens or even two classes of residents. What we do for a resident, let us say of Swedish nationality who is not a citizen, we should do for a resident of Chinese nationality, Japanese nationality, or East Indian nationality who is not a citizen. I feel the house will agree with me when I say that is not too much to ask.

Now I shall read the last request made by the Chinese benevolent association. I am going to say a few words about that, and then I shall conclude my remarks. This is clause (g) of the modifications the Chinese benevolent association would like to have made:

That in special cases or merit where circumstances of hardship exist, close relatives of Chinese Canadians such as parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and stepchildren, and children not otherwise admissible because of their age, be allowed to immigrate to Canada at the discretion of the minister of citizenship and immigration.

The particular persons to whom I am going to refer do not fall within any of the particular relationships mentioned. During last winter it was brought to my attention by a person of Chinese nationality resident in Vancouver since 1910 that for a number of years he had been supporting two grandchildren in China. I believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) has full knowledge of this case as well, because I discussed it with him. He told me he knew this gentleman, who is a merchant in Vancouver.

This man emigrated to Canada in 1910. He went back to China twice, once in 1917 and once in 1925. On one of these occasions he was married and lived in China for some time. His wife lived in China until about a year ago. She stayed there from 1949 until 1954 solely in order to look after these two grandchildren. I believe it was the father of the children who had deserted the family. I took this matter up with the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) and he informed me, I think quite correctly, that under the regulations as they now exist there was nothing he could do. I am in the very happy position that in any cases I brought before either minister I received a most courteous hearing and possibly the most assistance they could give under the regulations.

Immigration

I believe that a certain discretionary power should be given the minister to deal with cases such as I have mentioned, when he thinks the weight of evidence presented to him indicates that certain persons should be allowed to enter the country. I quite appreciate that this is a great deal of power to put in the hands of a minister, but I am sure no minister of immigration would misuse a power of that kind. He is far more likely to be strict in the other direction. I would hope that the government might give some thought to this matter, because I think it is a very worthy point.

They should give some particular thought to the removal of the discrimination that now exists in connection with immigration matters pertaining to persons of Asiatic origin in view of world conditions at the moment, and particularly in Asia. We should be very careful that we do not discriminate or do anything that would indicate to the people of Asia that we consider them of any less importance than or in any way inferior to the citizens who may come to us from any other country.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

February 14, 1955

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.

Topic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO MEDICAL EXPENSES
Full View Permalink