1956-01-30

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Diefenbalcer:
For a copy of all correspondence with the government of Saskatchewan since the 1st day of July, 1955, regarding the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project together with any reports of engineers or other investigations as to the feasibility of this project.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a return showing a list of all the P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. officials or field officers with their respective postal or home address, salaries and expenses paid to each of them during the year 1955.
Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, there is no
objection to this being brought down but I should like to point out that the inclusion of the word "salaries" would limit the number of items to be brought down. I imagine that the hon. member wants particulars in all cases, including those who are on day rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to, subject to the
remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all resolutions supporting the demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies, by the Prime Minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government, since the 15th day of August, 1955.
Mr. Dickey:: This motion is in almost
exactly the same terms as the motion which was passed last week in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I wonder if the hon. member could let it stand? I should like to have a word with him about it.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Subject to an alteration in part, to cover additional information.


John Horace Dickey: That is what I would like to discuss with the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



PENSION ACT-TABLE OF DISABILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of the table of disabilities used as a basis for assessing war disabilities in connection with the awarding of war disability pensions under the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick, since January 1, 1953, with respect to trans-Canada highway.
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I would ask that this motion be accepted subject to the reservation that the government of New Brunswick be informed.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, subject to the reservation made by the Secretary of State.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all communications received by any federal cabinet minister, dated at any time since December 1, 1955, with reference to lay-offs at Bristol Aircraft, Limited, at Winnipeg, and for a copy of all replies thereto.
John Horace Dickey: In the absence of the Minister of Defence Production, I would ask the hon. member to permit this to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notice of motion: Mr. Murphy (Lambton West) - The following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a special committee representative of all parties, with power to call witnesses and send for documents and papers for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research.
Mr. Speaker:: I may have to set aside this motion, pursuant to the provisions of the rule of anticipation.

Proposed Committee on Research


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Before Your Honour makes a ruling, I wonder if I might mention that my motion was on Votes and Proceedings the first day the house was in session this year and appeared on the orders of the day, as is the usual custom, on the second day. I anticipate what Your Honour is going to say. I should like to point out that my motion was made in two previous years. In consequence of the assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last year that a committee would be set up, I withdrew my motion from the order paper. In the previous year, 1954, I had the same motion on the order paper, and it just so happened-as these things so happen-that when my motion was supposed to have been called, another motion which we expected was not going to be called was called, and the government supporters took good care that the last day for private members' motions was taken up completely. I was sabotaged in 1954 and scuttled in 1955. This time I want some assurance that that committee is going to be set up, and I feel justified in asking that we proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: I sympathize very much with the position that the hon. member is taking and I would like to point out to him that by invoking the rule of anticipation I refer him to Campion's book of introduction to the procedure of the House of Commons. It is said, at the end of the first paragraph on page 178:
The abuse of blocking motions is obviated by the direction given to the Speaker to have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, will you permit-


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, as soon as I am through. If there would be a chance that the government order be not called for debate at all during the present session or within a reasonable time, I would certainly allow the hon. member to proceed, but I would imagine that if a notice of motion by the government has been made a government order as recently, I believe, as the last sitting day, it has been placed there with the intention of having it proceeded with and again I say that if I were sure it would not be proceeded with within a reasonable time-I would imagine within a month or so-I would certainly let the hon. member proceed. Is there any assurance given that the government order regarding the setting up of this committee will be proceeded with?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion was put on the order paper with the intention of disposing of it as expeditiously as the

business of the house will permit. It is intended to have the committee provided for by this item, No. 35, constituted at as early a date as the business of the house will permit so that it can get on and proceed with the matters that are provided for in the notice of motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) goes some way, I think, to substantiate or support a ruling along the lines of that which I understand Your Honour has in mind. I think, however, there are one or two other observations which should be made. The citation which I think is applicable in this case is citation 182 of Beauchesne's third edition dealing with the question of anticipation.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to repeat the number of the citation? I did not hear it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is citation No. 182 found at page 79 of Beauchesne's third edition which I think reproduces the paragraph from Campion which Your Honour has just referred us to.
As I said, I think there are a couple of points which should be decided before that citation is applied to its full extent. Obviously the rule against anticipation should not be invoked with respect to two motions which are different in substance, and I suggest to Your Honour that there are sufficient differences between these two motions to raise a doubt as to whether in fact the one anticipates the other. That is, the motion of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) calls for the setting up of a committee to inquire into the field of research generally and it would also give that committee specific powers, the most important power being that of calling for witnesses and sending for documents and papers. That provision is conspicuously omitted from the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Furthermore, the motion of the minister is confined to the field of non-military research. I do not find any such restriction in the motion of the hon. member for Lambton West, so there are, I submit, very substantial and important differences between the two motions sufficient to raise a real question as to whether the one does anticipate the other.
The other point that I think it is important to have settled quite conclusively is this, Mr. Speaker. I am quite sure that you and all hon. members would agree with me when I say that the rule against anticipation was not intended to be used-and should not be so used-to give the government, whatever

government it might be, the opportunity to block discussion of a private member's motion which chronologically anticipated the government's notice of motion simply by placing on the order paper a motion in similar terms and then not proceeding with it. That is what happened last year.
I looked up the record, and I would refer Your Honour to page 1353 of Hansard of last year where the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) withdrew his motion on the basis of a previous assurance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the government intended to set up and proceed with a committee on research. The government did not proceed with its motion that year.
As I say, I think some regard must be had for the chronological order in which these motions appear on the order paper. Otherwise the broad application of the principle we are now discussing would enable the government effectively to block discussion by the simple device of placing a motion on the order paper and then not proceeding with it.
I recognize that to a considerable extent we have had an assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today, but with all deference to yourself and to the right hon. gentleman I suggest that we should have the most absolute assurance that the government will in fact proceed at this session with the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not merely that it is the present intention of the government to do so. For my part I would hope that Your Honour would give effect to the first point I made, namely that these motions are different in substance and that therefore one does not anticipate the other. But should Your Honour disagree with me on that point I think it is proper to ask that Your Honour should obtain from the Prime Minister the most specific assurance on the other point, namely that the government will proceed with this other motion at this session before you apply the rule against anticipation.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I supplement the submission made to you by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I point out that the resolution moved by the hon. member for Lambton West sets out as the purpose of this committee the "examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research." For example, that resolution is worded broadly enough to cover inducements in the way of reduction of taxation or allowances of one kind or another for money spent in research activity. The motion
Proposed Committee on Research has to do primarily with research by industrial concerns. On the other hand, the notice of motion given by the government deals with research in so far as the national research council is concerned. The wording is: "operations of the national research council". That was what was done by a committee which was set up some years ago. They dealt with the work of the national research council. Obviously the intention of the government's motion is to deal primarily with the atomic energy field, and that matter is referred to in rather wide terms, and then to deal with the national research council; whereas what the hon. member for Lambton West is proposing is something entirely different. He is referring not so much to the national research council as to research in industry. Under those conditions I submit that it would be unfair to rule out his motion.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one further matter, Mr. Speaker, to which I should like to refer and it is this. In the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the essential words are:
... to examine into the role of government

Those are the essential words.
-in the field of non-military research in Canada, including:
(a)	operations in the field of atomic energy,
(b)	operations of the national research council.
The motion of the hon. member for Lambton West in no way covers the role of government except indirectly. The motion of the hon. member for Lambton West has to do with private industry and research in general. One deals with the role of government, and the other with research in general. I point out, as the hon. member for Kamloops has already mentioned merely for the purpose of re-emphasizing it, that under these circumstances if a motion such as the one moved by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) were ruled out by reason of the government's placing on the order paper, some 17 days later, a motion in different terms, then the government would indeed be able to control private members' days by placing on the order paper a general resolution and thereby defeating the special resolution of a private member.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West is:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a special committee . . .
It is not a resolution to set up the committee but it is a resolution calling upon the government to consider the advisability of setting up the committee. The government has considered the advisability of setting up
660	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Research a committee and has put a notice on the order paper for the setting up of that committee.
Now, it may be that some gentlemen will feel that the provisions of the notice of motion are not sufficient to authorize the committee to do everything that might be done if the government considered favourably the matter contained in the motion of the hon. member for Lambton West. If that is the feeling, at the time the motion to set up the committee was before the house an amendment could be moved and whatever decision was arrived at would be a decision that would be operative. Here, we merely have a suggestion to the government to consider the advisability of setting up a committee. It is not a motion to set up the committee with these powers. The government having given notice and having, as a government order at the present time, a motion to set up the committee, it would seem that the only logical further step would be to have hon. members decide whether the committee should be set up with the powers indicated in the notice or whether there would be added by amendment something more than is provided in the notice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister if we have an absolute commitment from the government that they are going ahead with the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think I have given that commitment to the extent to which it can be given. Events which are not foreseen at this time can occur, but it is the, firm intention of the government to proceed with this government order as soon as that can conveniently be arranged in disposing of the other business before the house.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I have another word? We all appreciate the fact that we do not want a duplication of debate. In view of the Prime Minister's assurance that the committee will be set up, I am wondering whether, instead of ruling it out of order, we could have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to let the motion stand? Probably it would be called in a month or five weeks' time on a private member's day.
I hope by that time we would know whether the other committee is set up, if or when it is set up I shall be glad to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if we allow the motion to stand the hon. member will not be able to let it stand more than twice because after that it will be dropped from the order paper.
I have no personal objection to that except


that if he wants to call it the next time we shall have the same problem as we have now.
Hon. members should consider that in examining the anticipation rule regard should be given to the steps which lead to the most effective results. We are not looking only for academic debates. We want to have decisions taken by the house if we feel that something should be done, and since there is a government order which has been appointed by the house and appears on page 81 of the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, January 27, we shall not have to give consideration to the advisability of establishing a committee, but we shall definitely have the establishment of a committee whenever the order comes up. As I said, the only point that worried me, and it did worry the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and others, was whether or not a motion appearing under government orders would be called within a reasonable time.
It does not appear to me that I have to deal with any other point that has been made because there seems to be general agreement that hon. members do not want duplication of debate. They realize they have their responsibilities for protraction of debate and they want to avoid duplication, if possible. If it meets with the wishes of the house I will go along with the suggestion of the hon. member for Lambton West to let the motion stand. As I say, we shall have the same problem perhaps later on when it comes up again. However, I will say that on both sides there is good faith.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a way in which the request of the hon. member for Lambton West can be met, even if only somewhat academically. He could let it stand today. The next day when it is called, if he says "stand" it will be dropped; but he could then put it on the order paper again. It is true it would be at the bottom of the list, but at least he would have it on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking

steps to further protect the health of the nation by requiring all trucks, tractors, buses, or any other diesel-powered vehicles, including engines on railway lines, and all stationary type of engines, be equipped with a device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines.
He said:	I move this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that diesel and gasoline fumes are a very definite menace to the health of the nation, and especially so in districts of concentrated population. I make no apology for bringing it to the attention of hon. members, even though I realize that control measures may more properly be a matter to come under provincial jurisdiction.
It is my sincere hope that through the discussion of this resolution we may bring about a general awareness of the dangers we encounter in the air we breathe.
Canadians have fought hard for the pure food laws that guarantee that our food is uncontaminated. We have organized and paid for expensive water systems that assure us of a plentiful supply for pure water. There have been many debates on the question of whether our drinking water should be fluori-nated to prevent tooth decay. But until quite recently practically nothing has been done about the air we breathe. The acute effects of unrestricted air pollution upon public health have been demonstrated unpleasantly but successfully in three air pollution disasters, namely, the Meuse valley in Belgium in 1930; Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948; and Poza Rica, Mexico, in 1950.
The chronic effects of air pollution are not so clearly defined, but nevertheless the frequent occurrence of eye irritation during periods of smog in Los Angeles and statistics on the increase in the death rate from respiratory diseases during fogs in industrial communities in England represent evidence which cannot be ignored. Although this resolution deals specifically with diesel fumes I should like to discuss for a few minutes the possible effects of high concentrations of exhaust fumes from gasoline-burning engines.
In the case of Los Angeles, California, of which we have heard so much recently in the press, the smog condition is to a large degree caused by the exhaust fumes of motor vehicles. Dr. Haagen-Smit, a biochemist, in trying to solve the problem in Los Angeles proved that nitrogen dioxide, a product of all combustion, serves as a catalyst converting the atmospheric oxygen into its unstable form of ozone in the presence of sunshine, and proved further that smog was a result of the reaction of ozone with gasoline vapour. In the Los Angeles area there are some 2-3 million motor vehicles circulating
Health-Poisonous Gases almost daily. The quantity of unburned gasoline or gasoline vapour emitted from those vehicles is estimated to be 1,200 tons daily.
It is a well known fact that the mileage per gallon of gasoline decreases considerably in stop and go city traffic. At cruising speed about 250 parts per million of the total exhaust is unburned gasoline vapour. When a motor is idling it is two or three times that figure, but when you lift your foot off the accelerator and decelerate, the output is 5,000 parts per million. It is generally conceded that about 7 per cent of gasoline is unburned, and that figure could be increased to 8 or 9 per cent through evaporation from the carburetor or fuel tank.
This problem is one which we must face in the near future as the number of motor vehicles increases in Canada. Far more important is the fact that deadly gases are emitted with these exhaust fumes. One of these gases is known as carbon monoxide, with which the average motorist is only vaguely familiar. We may attribute this lack of familiarity to the fact that he can neither smell it, taste it, feel it nor hear it; yet in a very short space of time it can be the means of reducing the mental functions of a driver to the point where co-ordination of muscles and the ability to react properly in the operation of a vehicle to below even minimum requirements for safety.
A concentration of -02 to -03 per cent of carbon monoxide will cause a headache; a concentration of -04 to -07 per cent, unconsciousness; and a concentration of -08 to [DOT]10 per cent, death. Unlike some poisons it does not permit a human being to build up immunity over a period of time. Repeated exposures, particularly attacks of acute poisoning, result in a progressive increasing susceptibility to the gas and can cause acute cumulative tissue damage.
It might be well to pursue the theory that carbon monoxide is the cause of a great many accidents on our highways due to the inefficiency of drivers. At some time all of us have experienced a condition of sleepiness while driving our motor vehicles. We have also perceived odors from our own car and cars in front of us. We have experienced headaches, dizziness and sometimes car sickness. Whenever any of these occur while you are driving, consider carbon monoxide and bear in mind that death by carbon monoxide is not restricted to tightly-closed garages with the motor running and that a state of collapse has occurred when cars are parked with their motors running in some instances even while they are travelling along the highway. It is safe to assume that

Health-Poisonous Gases carbon monoxide has contributed a great deal to many accidents heretofore classed as unexplained.
To substantiate this the California highway patrol tested 1,007 automobiles on the open highway and found that 30 cars contained concentrations of this gas in excess of the maximum safe limit. The conclusion arrived at from the survey showed that 3 per cent of the cars tested were found to have concentrations of carbon monoxide in such quantity as would affect the driver with headache, sleepiness, weakness, impaired judgment, and decrease his driving ability for a period of several hours. Another conclusion was that no automobile, regardless of design, age or type, is free from the possibility of carbon monoxide entering the driver or passenger compartment. It behooves every motorist to have his car tested for complete exhaust system tightness and to observe the rules of safety at all time in order to rule out as much as possible the dangers of this lethal gas which is an inherent part of our present-day motor vehicle.
If this condition exists on the open highway, what is the situation in areas of highly concentrated traffic. Tests have been taken in these areas and on busy streets and concentrations of -09 per cent have been found during periods of high temperature and humidity. I have just indicated that a concentration of -09 per cent will cause death. Here we have concentrations of -09 per cent on busy streets during heavy traffic hours with high temperature and humidity.
Is it any wonder that the busy housewife often comes home from a shopping trip with a splitting headache? Then consider a busy street with high buildings on either side, with many of the offices equipped with air conditioners in their windows. These fumes rise and infiltrate into the offices and that is probably the reason why many secretaries have bottles of headache tablets on their desks.
Unlike the gasoline engine the diesel engine operates normally with excess air. The fuel is injected into the cylinder and is ignited by virtue of the pressure and temperature in the cylinder rather than by a spark. The fuel used is heavier than gasoline and has a higher boiling range. Because of the excess air used, very little of the fuel is normally exhausted unburned. Under certain conditions of operation, however, both smoke and aldehydes are evolved. The latter are quite noticeable when in high concentrations because of their pungent odour and eye-irritation characteristics.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record in Hansard in the form of a table a
summary of the reported variation in diesel exhaust gas composition.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman the
consent of the house to put this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Alpheus Charlton: The table is a follows: Composition of Exhaust Gas from Diesel Engines
Constituent	Maximum	Minimum	Typicalper cent	per cent	per centCarbon dioxide ....	... 13-8	0-7	90Carbon monoxide ...	... 6-4	nil	005Oxygen 	... 20-0	0-5	90Hydrogen	... 2-6	nil	003Methane 	... 0-5	0	002Nitrogen 	... 84-2	79-8	81-9Oxides of nitrogen	.. 0112	nil	[DOT]036Aldehydes 	... 00031	nil	[DOT]0007The figures are	reported by the ail	* pollution control district of Los	Angeles	on the
determination of air pollutants emitted by a 210 horsepower, two-stroke cycle diesel bus. Cruising conditions were simulated on a dynamometer by operating at 30 m.p.h. and 15 brake horsepower. Based on this study, losses of various pollutants to the atmosphere per barrel of fuel burned were: non-ether soluble aerosols, 3-2 lb.; hydrocarbons, trace; total aldehydes (calculated as formaldehyde) 0-46 lb.; oxides of nitrogen (calculated as nitrogen peroxide), 9-4 lb; organic acids (calculated as acetic acid), 1-3 lb.
It is concluded that the contribution, of the various pollutants (except hydrocarbons) per barrel of fuel burned is two to ten times greater from diesel fuel than from gasoline.
The odour and irritating effects of the exhaust gas of diesel engines are caused mainly by aldehydes, which occur in varying amounts depending on several factors, such as the fuel, the air ratio at which the engine is operating, the design of the engine, engine temperature, and the condition of the fuel injection equipment or mechanism. If the exhaust gas contains a high concentration of aldehydes, it is definitely irritating to the eyes and nasal passages; in fact, the irritating effect may be more noticeable than the odour if one is exposed to a high concentration of the exhaust gas.
But the most dangerous gas in diesel fumes, both with regard to injury to health and amount produced, is oxides of nitrogen, which when inhaled form nitric and nitrous acids in the respiratory organs. Let us compare oxides of nitrogen with carbon monoxide, as far as toxicity is concerned. An atmosphere containing -5 to 10 per cent of carbon monoxide is likely to be fatal to human beings in less than 30 minutes of exposure, whereas as little as -07 per cent of oxides of nitrogen may cause fatalities in the same length of
[Mr. Charlton.)

time. This is an indication of the danger from the exhaust gas of diesel engines as compared with gasoline engines.
There is still another danger from these exhaust fumes which science is presently dealing with.
Dr. W. C. Hueper of the cancer control branch, national cancer institute of the United States public health service, addressed the first Canadian cancer conference which took place in June 1954, under the sponsorship of the National Cancer Institute of Canada. I quote from certain comments of his which I feel will be of interest to you:
Comments on respiratory aromatic hydrocarbons. At the present time, exposure to tar, pitch, asphalt, heavy fuel oils, lubricating and cutting oils, soot from domestic furnaces, incinerators, industrial power plants, oil refineries, steel plants, metal smelters, carbon black factories, oil dumps, and smudge pots, as well as to the effluents of diesel and gasoline engines represents the most widespread occupational environment contact with carcinogenic material.
Since our civilization and economical life has been built around the production and use of the basic carbonaceous substances and their derivatives, it does not seem feasible to attain complete protection against exposure to these carcinogenic chemicals with the preventive and prophylatic engineering and sanitary measures practical and economical at the present time.
There is, however, no doubt that a great deal remains to be done in this respect and that we are still rather far removed from having the maximal amount of possible reduction in exposure to the respiratory cancer producing hydrocarbons contained in the various carbonaceous substances mentioned.
I also have here an article entitled "Aromatic Hydrocarbons" which appeared in "Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine", 11th volume, on pages 113 to 120, in February 1955. This article was written by Paul Kotin, M.D., Hans L. Falk, Ph.D., and Marilyn Thomas, B.A. I should like to deal with the comments and the summary and conclusions of this article. I might say that it is an article having to do with the testing of mice with aromatic hydrocarbon from diesel engine exhaust. It states:
Demonstration of carcinogenic hydrocarbons in the exhaust products of diesel engines and the successful production of skin tumours by the painting of diesel-engine exhaust extracts is selfexplanatory in so far as satisfying the criteria for proof of experimental carcinogenicity. The emission of carcinogenic hydrocarbons into the atmosphere from diesel engines is of particular interest from a preventive medicine and public health point of view. The as yet unaccomplished task of relating proved experimental carcinogenic hydrocarbons to human lung cancer in no way militates against regarding their atmospheric presence as anything but a potential hazard. While it is apparent that diesel engine exhaust does not differ markedly from gasoline engine exhaust and incinerator soots, its possible control presents a brighter picture. The present inability to eliminate cacinogenic hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere from the latter two sources is not duplicated
Health-Poisonous Gases in the case of diesel-engine exhausts. Efficient and innocuous operation of a diesel engine from an atmospheric pollution viewpoint is possible without costly engine redesign or the development of catalytic or combustion completing devices for inclusion in the exhaust systems, a situation not applicable to incinerator or gasoline engine pollution sources.
The qualitative presence of chrysene and Compound Y in the exhaust products of a diesel engine was unanticipated in view of their absence from gasoline engine exhausts. The knowledge that these two compounds can be emitted into the atmosphere incidental to rubber tire wear and tear precludes the conclusion that the diesel engine is alone responsible for their presence.
As noted in our previous publications, the qualitative studies reported herein are in the process of repetition by means of injection in contrast to painting techniques, with quantitation of both individual components of the exhaust samples and combinations of emitted hydrocarbons serving as the basis for the experiments.
Here are the summary and conclusions:
The particulate phase of diesel-engine exhaust products has been analysed. Carcinogenic hydrocarbons have been demonstrated as being present among these products. Their production under varying conditions of engine operation has been determined.
Extracts of the particulate phase of the exhaust products have been successfully used in painting experiments to produce skin papillomas in C57 black mice and cancers in A strain mice. The demonstration of carcinogenic hydrocarbons in a source of atmospheric pollution and their successful use for the production of skin tumors in mice require their careful assessment relative to a possible role in the observed increasing frequency of human lung cancer. Two observations are worthy of special comment: first, the high yield of aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons, including benzpyrene from the exhaust of an inefficiently operating diesel engine; second, the increase in these emissions as the load and engine speed are increased. This is in marked contrast to a gasoline engine where load and speed increase reduce the amount of aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons, emitted into the air.
I have here a statement made in London by Sir Clement Price Thomas, a distinguished British surgeon who took part in the lung operation performed on King George VI in 1951. The press release states that Sir Thomas declared that smoking does not cause cancer of the lung:
He said the fact that lung cancer is predominantly a disease of the city dweller lends "very serious support" to the theory that atmospheric pollution plays a predominant role.
"But I myself do not believe that cigarette smoking or atmospheric pollution as such cause cancer of the lung. My own feeling is that they probably determine the site at which the patient gets his cancer."
The Globe and Mail of January 17, 1955, carries a statement attributed to the noted German specialist and Nobel medicine prize winner, Dr. Otto Warburg:
Warburg, who won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1931, said he has established that lack of oxygen respiration of the body cells is a major cause of chronic damage to normal cells and their conversion into cancerous cells.

Health-Poisonous Gases
Warburg admits that lack of oxygen can by no means be regarded as the sole cause, "but intermittent lack of oxygen will be a frequent cause as, for instance, pressure on the blood vessels frequently results in the intermittent lack of oxygen in the body."
He suggests the following preventive measures: Do not inhale cigaret smoke; ban diesel oil fumes from the streets; forbid curing of foodstuffs with certain cures; ban the dyeing of foodstuffs with aniline dyes; forbid the preservation of foodstuffs with antiseptic substances.
The London Free Press of April 30, 1955, carried a report of an interview with Dr. William Franks. Dr. Franks was being questioned by Jacqueline Moore and in reply to the question, "What has our environment got to do with lung cancer?" he said:
The world is full of cancer-producing agents, or carcinogens, as we call them. Tar on asphalt highways, for instance, Nickel-carbonyl. Chromates. Fuel oil. Radioactive compounds. Even sunshine. An idling automobile engine. Rubber tires. A faulty oil furnace. Commercial soot. Even printers' ink. All these things are known to contain substances which can cause cancer experimentally. Inject the dust of any one of these products into a mouse and you'll be liable to get a tumor. Do you know that extracts of dust from the air of eight large American cities have been injected into mice and they developed cancer? Why put all the blame on cigarettes? The association between lung cancer and smoking is real enough, but it's not the sole cause; it's probably only the straw that broke the camel's back. It's our whole noxious environment. And that's why I say we can do something about lung cancer because we can clean up the air we breathe. We are at the stage now where we must pay as much attention to the air as we pay to our water supply.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote extracts from an article which appeared in the September 21, 1955, edition of the Ottawa Journal. This article concerns a report prepared by Dr. A. H. Sellers, a medical statistician of the Ontario department of health who appeared before the Ontario legislature select committee on air pollution and smoke control. The article says in part:
"There is seen to be some correlation between the respiratory cancer mortality for males and the proportion of the population residing in urban areas", the report said. "This correlation is not shown for females."
Deaths from cancer of the trachea, lungs and bronchus; from cancer of all forms and from pneumonia and bronchitis were unexpectedly low in the rural areas and municipalities with populations under 15,000.
The report said studies made elsewhere have shown that mortality from lung cancer in England, Wales and Denmark is higher in urban areas than in rural.
In England it appeared to be related to the density of buildings rather than that of population. Atmospheric pollution was increasing in England while lung cancer was rising.'
There is much more evidence I could give, Mr. Speaker, but I hesitate to take more time of the house when I believe all hon. members will agree that the problem is
CMr. Charlton.)

serious enough to deserve action. The question is, "what can we do?"
For several years now diesel engines have been used underground in mining operations of various kinds. It would not have been possible, had they not devised an economical method of rendering these diesel fumes practically harmless, to miners working underground in contact with these fumes. The equipment used is known to the trade as a "scrubber". Briefly, it is an arrangement whereby the exhaust fumes are passed through an aqueous solution of sodium sulphite, with a percentage of hydroquinone added. The cost of chemicals for operating this device is in the neighbourhood of 10 cents per working hour. The cost of the equipment is not unreasonable, and I understand it is presently available.
How many hon. members have followed behind a diesel truck or bus on the highway for any distance? I'll wager that you either passed it as soon as possible or slowed up to let it get ahead far enough that the fumes did not bother you. True diesel trucks have an upright exhaust pipe, but it is useless on the highway travelling at the ordinary speed. The vacuum behind the truck sucks the exhaust fumes down to highway level and these fumes are taken into newer model cars via the front air vents. You can see proof of that from the fact that the tarpaulins on these diesel trucks are blackened right from the front to the back and down the back of the truck. Most motorists realize that these air vents should be closed when overtaking a diesel truck or bus on the highway or in heavy traffic, but how many bother to do so, until the odour becomes noticeable.
That may be good enough for diesel fumes but remember you cannot smell carbon monoxide. It is not only motorists who are subjected to these fumes. Pedestrians on city streets where diesel buses are used get a substantial amount every time a bus passes them. These fumes are quite noticeable also to passengers in buses, especially at stops when doors are opened. Most passengers on diesel powered trains have noticed the fumes when the air conditioning is turned on in their sleeping quarters. Almost everyone has noticed the irritating qualities of diesel exhaust fumes, but what do we do about it? Grumble, but accept it as part of present-day living until public opinion is aroused to the point where governments are forced into action.
I consider we have sufficient proof to suggest that diesel fumes are a contributing factor in the cause of lung cancer. Do we

have any proof that carbon monoxide poisoning is not the cause of many heart conditions? The finger of suspicion could definitely be pointed in that direction at least.
It is only fair for me to state at this time that the government is doing a limited amount of work on air pollution in the Department of National Health and Welfare under the directorship of Dr. Morris Katz. I sincerely suggest that much more could be done and that the government could set a good example by looking into the possibility of installing "scrubbers" on all the diesel locomotives on the Canadian National Railways system.
The danger is obvious. Action should be taken without further delay, and I hope hon. members from both sides of the house will support this resolution.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in moral support at least of the importance of the question raised by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton). It has often seemed to me to be remarkable that while a man can live for three weeks without food, for three days without water, and only three minutes without pure air, nevertheless I suppose we spend less time in passing laws and making regulations to make sure that the human species has his supply of pure air than we do on any other subject along a similar line. It therefore seems to me that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has raised an important question in connection with this matter of pure air. I certainly go along with him to the extent of waiting to hear what the minister has to say about what is being done now.
It seems to me that a few general observations will make clear the importance of the question he has raised. A good many of us are old enough to remember what the old city of Pittsburgh was like when the black, ugly smoke hung like a perpetual fog over that city. When we go back to that city now we find that the air is clearer than it is even in my home city of Vancouver and a good deal clearer than it is in Ottawa; I am not now talking about the vicinity of the parliament buildings, either. When you look at what has been done in Pittsburgh, it is quite clear that public action can make an improvement with regard to this allimportant question.
When you go to the great city of Los Angeles, which I suppose is one of the richest cities on earth, and you find that people are literally being driven out of that city, are being forced to move away from it, for the simple reason that there is no pure air in the city-that their noses and their
Health-Poisonous Gases eyes smart because of this perpetual smog that hangs over the city-again you realize that we are dealing with an important question indeed.
That when you go over to London-the "big smoke" as they used to call it-and find that the old black fog and smog of earlier days has now given way to this poison variety, I think it will be realized that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand certainly has raised an important question.
I do not know that I can go along with him altogether in absolving the cigarette from responsibility for the sharp increase in lung cancer. I happen to have been a director of the Canadian Cancer Society for many years. While I am, of course, just a layman, for a good many years I have listened to experts present increasingly ominous evidence which suggests that there is a real relationship between the increase in cigarette smoking and the increase in lung cancer. However, as a layman I must put in this qualification. I still have my fingers crossed with regard to this evidence. From my own observation women are smoking far more cigarettes than men are smoking and at least the increase among women smokers is sharper than the increase among the men smokers.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to interrupt for a moment to say to the hon. member that I did not exclude cigarettes. That was Dr. Franks. I was quoting from Dr. Franks. I said not to blame cigarettes entirely.


Elmore Philpott: I do not blame them entirely but, as I say, I still have my fingers crossed about the relative amount of blame to be attached to cigarettes and to the diesel engine. However, I am certainly quite willing to be shown. Far be it from me to ascribe more blame to cigarettes as opposed to diesel engine fumes or ordinary automobile fumes. All I am trying to point out is that, in my opinion, an extremely important question has been raised, and one about which we should know a great deal more than we now know. The more that governments can reasonably do to make sure that we get pure air, the better for all concerned. To that extent at least I certainly go along with my hon. friend. I think he cannot do too much to encourage even this good government to be an even better government by getting an improvement in this direction.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: In a general way, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in support of this resolution. However, as it is now drafted, it is not particularly clear in all respects. I am therefore going to propose
666	HOUSE OF
Health-Poisonous Gases an amendment in a minute or two. In the resolution there are several words which leave the question rather vague as to whose responsibility it would be if the intent of the resolution were to be carried out. For example, the resolution states that:
-the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to further protect the health of the nation by requiring all trucks, tractors, buses, or any other diesel powered vehicles, including engines on railway lines, and all stationary type of engines, be equipped with a device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines.
The resolution does not make it clear who shall be responsible for this device. If it is the intent of the resolution that the owners of such vehicles themselves-the individual owners-shall be responsible, I would foresee a great deal of difficulty from two points of view. First of all, there would be difficulty with regard to the question of having any kind of a check or control on the device which is envisioned in this resolution and second, with having a standard device which would be effective if it were left to the individual owners of such vehicles.
Then in the second last line of the resolution we find these words: "to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted" and so on. The word "harmless" takes in a lot of territory. I would assume it to mean harmless to human beings but it could be read as harmless in a wider sense, namely harmless to vegetation and to life in general. I would imagine that the hon. member was taking the narrower meaning, namely harmless to the health of persons. However, in order to make the resolution more explicit-at least in my opinion-I am going to suggest an amendment. I do so particularly because the wording of the resolution includes the word '"tractors". As the hon. member will be aware, in western Canada particularly a great number of farmers use diesel tractors. If they were to be harnessed with the responsibility of providing a device-each for his own tractor-which would render harmless poisonous gases, I am afraid we would be asking for something which it would be practically impossible to get. Therefore, in order to make the matter clearer, for my own satisfaction at least I should like to propose the following amendment with which I am sure the hon. member would be in agreement. It is in these words:
That the resolution be amended by inserting after the word "all" in the second line thereof the following words: "manufacturers of", and by substituting for the words "be equipped" in the fourth line thereof the words "to equip same".


Mr. Martin:: Have you a copy of the amendment?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, I have a copy. Unfortunately I have just one copy because I jotted it down while the hon. member was speaking. But it is a very simple amendment. If it means that the government should favourably consider the intent of this resolution and make some provision for such a device to be used, then I think it should be at the manufacturers' level. It should be standard equipment which could be checked for its effectiveness and it would be provided at the time the vehicle is manufactured.
Obviously, we could not place the responsibility upon individual owners of trucks, buses and particularly tractors, because any kind of device that is sold to be attached by the owner may prove ineffective. The person involved may not even know where or how to obtain such a device.


Mr. Trainor:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Owen C. Trainor: Would he also suggest that this device be provided without added cost to the purchaser?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would be most happy to provide for that if I were in a position to so provide. Unfortunately, we are operating under the so-called private enterprise system and this parliament no longer has any control over prices. I am afraid, therefore, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament to so provide. I would hope that if such devices were used they could be provided at nominal cost, because certainly the manufacturers of that type of equipment would realize that by equipping their trucks, buses and so on with such devices the vehicles would be made safer and more attractive, and the manufacturers would be enhancing the sale of their product. In that sense, they might find it would be in their own interests to provide the device at a nominal cost. Assuming the government favourably considers the intent of the resolution, I would strongly suggest that implementation would have to be at the manufacturers' level rather than at the individual owner's level.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborcugh):: I
must say this discussion has been most enlightening and most interesting. There is one point we might perhaps be forgetting and that is that no matter how much we may all be concerned with the health of the people, the various governments in Canada still have their proper legislative spheres with regard to the health of the nation. In Ontario most matters of this kind fall within the jurisdiction of the highway traffic act, which is a piece of legislation enacted by the provincial government.

I gained the impression from the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton), who introduced the resolution, that he was mainly concerned with the results of exhaust gases emitted by vehicles of all kinds on the public highways. Of course, there are some other types of vehicles that enter into it, but in his view the great danger came from the vast amount of gases emitted by motor vehicles. He mentioned particularly the number of vehicles in Los Angeles. A select committee appointed by the Ontario legislature, to which the hon. member also referred, has recently returned from Los Angeles and other parts of California after studying this question of the pollution of the air by smoke and other gases. This committee is, therefore, presently engaged in looking into some of the things this resolution contemplates.
Although we are having a pleasant discussion on this matter, and although it may be very pleasant for us to discuss it, I really do not believe the subject lies completely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. If we did vote for this resolution, certainly we would create a great furore if we tried to step in. I know that is true so far as Ontario is concerned. I do not feel we should fall into the trap of saying, "Well, anything that concerns the health of our people is our concern." That may be true, but you simply cannot take any activity in which Canadians might engage where their health is affected and, by relating it to the field of health, say you have jurisdiction to legislate.
Normally, one would go along with the idea because there are many borderline cases in which the jurisdiction is not clear, but certainly I would guarantee that were we to try to introduce a measure in this house in the terms of the resolution and say that all vehicles had to be equipped with a device to render harmless these gases, our position would be completely untenable from the legal point of view. I submit that view very respectfully for the consideration of the house.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplit-ny), who moved the amendment, is I believe treading on particularly dangerous ground. He suggests that the type of device be standardized and you would therefore have to lay down exactly the type of accessory that would be attached to the vehicle. I feel that would certainly be well beyond any legislative field with which this house is concerned. While I am sympathetic to the view expressed by the member in putting this resolution before us, I certainly do not believe we have any jurisdiction to act upon it.
Health-Poisonous Gases


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) on the presentation he made this afternoon. It is quite apparent that he has put a tremendous amount of work into studying this problem. He came forward with a lot of information that was a complete surprise to me. I am not going to speak very long, but I should like to say that I agree with the resolution.
It is quite apparent from the statement made by the hon. member in introducing this subject that some serious consideration has to be given to this problem. If the facts are as dangerous as he sets forth, not only in his own view of the subject but the views of various scientists, then it is high time something was done. He did say, too, that the means of offsetting the dangers of these diesel fumes was available and was being used on the diesel engines in various mines.
I believe he said the cost was something like 10 cents an hour, which is probably reasonable enough for any sort of industrial development. I know, however, I would hate to have to instal machinery that would cost me an extra 10 cents an hour in running my car.
While mentioning automobiles, I should like to tell the hon. member that I regret his resolution deals only with diesel engines. He did deal extensively with the dangers of gasoline engines during his remarks, but I regret that he did not include gasoline engines in the terms of the resolution. It is apparent that many public health authorities feel the fumes from gasoline engines are more dangerous than those from diesel or any other type of combustion engine.
I should also like to have seen him include not only vehicles but all types of industrial machinery, manufacturing plants, and so on. I would urge the government to take into consideration the advisability of helping to bring about a complete investigation into that realm of public health, since it is endangered by industrial fuel fumes of all kinds.
I can agree to some extent with the hon. member who spoke last that this is probably not primarily a federal matter; it does come under provincial jurisdiction. I can also agree that we would run into a great deal of difficulty in trying to legislate on the matter. However, I do think that the investigations branch of the department of health and welfare would do very well to insist on an immediate investigation into the harm that can be done by these industrial fumes, and probably make representations and recommendations to the provincial governments as to what action should be taken. I think the
668	HOUSE OF
Health-Poisonous Gases provincial governments would go along with the suggestion. I do not think any of them would argue about it. However, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I would think they would kick a great deal if the federal government tried to take over this field of legislation.
As far as the amendment is concerned, I cannot see too much in it to quarrel with. Of course, it does leave the problem as to who is to be responsible for vehicles and engines that are now in operation. However, the lives of those are reasonably short. Probably it would not be too long until the danger from them would be overcome.
As I said, we agree with the resolution and support it. I see no objection whatsoever to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny.)


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution for two reasons. The first is that I should like to correct some of the damage that might be done in the minds of people who might be thinking of coming to Canada. This is the one country that has the least smog and such troubles of any country in the world, and it would be a very bad thing if people were to think that it was an unhealthy country.
Let me come a little closer to home. I should like to suggest that we do not have the problem of fog and smog that they might have in the maritime provinces. Certainly the hon. member for Vancouver South (M. Philpott) may suggest that he has that problem in his part of the country. But in Wellington South we have the best air to be found anywhere in the world and very little fog; therefore, we have no problem whatsoever.
After listening to the very able lawyer from York-Scarborough, I would agree that it is a provincial matter. If it is a provincial matter, then we should not be wasting our time discussing it in this house.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I wish to say only a few words. I support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton). The hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member who preceded me brought out a point. Owing to the fact that on more than one occasion I 1 ave mentioned the government heating plant in Ottawa-and I shall speak on it again.-I feel I should mention it now. The heating plant throws out more smog every day than all the diesel engines in the country. In the summer time when the windows are open, one can find the evidence of it on the tables in the restaurant, in the


offices and elsewhere. One can take a towel or a handkerchief and by wiping his forehead get evidence of it. I have mentioned this on more than one occasion to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), but nothing has been done. They state they are experimenting with some smoke eliminators but it has not been eliminated yet. A few years ago when Mr. Alphonse Fournier was minister of public works the Daly building was throwing out clouds and clouds of smoke, as does the transport building on a cold morning. These public buildings should not do that. There are ways and means of getting rid of that smoke. Ottawa has a by-law against smoke of that kind, but the government certainly has not done anything about it.


Mr. Macdonnell:: They are above by-laws.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member for Greenwood says, "They are above by-laws". I often think they try to get away with murder at times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Greenwood does not really mean that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I say to the
Minister of National Health and Welfare that the hon. member for Greenwood always says what he means. He always tells the truth.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will not get' into an argument on that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In regard to exhausts on tractors, I had an experience last fall that proves the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is right. One of my men complained that every time he got into the tractor and used it all morning and all afternoon he had a headache. He said, "I do not know whether it is the jiggling up and down, or what it is". I climbed aboard the tractor myself and examined it. I ran the tractor and I said, "The trouble is in the exhaust; it has to be extended". There was a cabin on the tractor and I felt that the fumes were coming from the exhaust into the cabin. We extended the exhaust line away from the cabin entirely, and now there are no headaches. You can operate a tractor all day long without a headache. There is something in those fumes that certainly is not good for one's health. What can be done I do not know but I really believe something should be done.
Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare going to speak?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is grateful to the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand for raising a matter that

Health-Poisonous Gases
admittedly is not within our competence constitutionally, but a matter that is of considerable interest and one which has occasioned concern to those persons in the country and elsewhere, such as the hon. gentleman himself, who have given it careful attention.
The amendment offered by the hon. member for Dauphin was intended, I am sure, to be helpful, but it indicates how incompetent constitutionally this parliament is to deal with this particular problem. To require that the manufacturer shall be obliged to place on the vehicles concerned the necessary equipment, of course, clearly places the matter under the caption of property and civil rights and clearly indicates that it is not a matter that we have power to deal with under the British North America Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question? How is the federal government able to say something about the kind of wrapping that is to be used in packaging bacon?


Mr. Marlin:: That comes under the Food and Drugs Act. That act has the element of criminal law. The matter is constitutional, because it is under the guise of criminal law. That is not true in the particular resolution before us. You may under the guise of criminal law in a particular context seek to deal with a matter that has the aspects of property and civil rights, but you do it under the guise of criminal law. That is not the situation confronting us at the moment.
The resolution presented by my hon. friend is likewise outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I did not rise to oppose the resolution on that ground. My hon. friend and I have talked about the matter and I think he will agree that having raised it and having focussed it on our minds and brought it to the attention of the public at large he has rendered a service. I accord him that distinction at once, and I would add that he has rendered the country a service in presenting the motion in the way he has today.
The resolution serves to underline the increased attention now being given this matter by health authorities who are active in environmental health, not only at the federal but as well at the provincial level. I may say that the researches and experiments being carried on in the United States, to a lesser extent in Great Britain and I understand also in Belgium and France, and before the war in Germany, have produced results which are familiar to the officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
As a matter of fact, for many years the Department of National Health and Welfare
and provincial and local authorities in Canada have carried out measures to safeguard human health by ensuring the safety and purity of drinking water, food and drugs and insecticides, and more particularly the air which we breathe has come under surveillance. The problem is one, not only of scientific interest but of the health of the people and it is well that from time to time when we spend so much time on other matters of a political character that we should accord an opportunity in this house for the discussion of matters as constructive as is this particular question.
Air pollution has been of course the inevitable accompaniment of industrialization and growth of our large cities. I may take as an example of what we have attempted in our department as the result of suggestions made by provincial governments and officials in the United States the researches that have been carried on in the Detroit-Windsor area. That area was chosen because that is the largest Canadian city on the Canadian side of the border close to a large United States community. This is an example of international co-operative effort to try to determine the extent of air pollution and the dire results that come from that kind of pollution.
In that area the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the department of health of Ontario, the department of health of Detroit and the board of health of Windsor, have been carrying on for some time one of the most extensive investigations of the result of air pollution on human health which I think has ever been undertaken. That has been under way now for two years on both sides of the river involving a careful examination of family groups and individuals in an effort to ascertain the effect of air pollution conditions emanating particularly from the large industrial centre of Detroit and the large industrial centre of Canada's first city, the city of Windsor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I appreciate that the house has recognized the high priority I have placed on the community which is mine. This pioneering effort and the results of this study undoubtedly will yield much information of value to health departments all over the world. An assessment of the study is now under way but it will be some time before all of the statistical data are finally determined. Undoubtedly it will play its part, as studies to which my hon. friend referred have played their part, in enabling him and others to formulate opinions on various aspects of this
670	HOUSE OF
Health-Poisonous Gases problem. It may be that with the information which this extensive air pollution study in the Detroit-Windsor area will yield it may be possible to provide for considerable improvement and amelioration.
The subject matter of the resolution of course relates to one aspect only of the overall problem of air pollution. Our officers have carefully studied all the implications of the resolution and I am bound to say that there is no doubt in their judgment that the operation of diesel vehicles in certain situations, especially in mining operations, in tunnels, and in more or less confined spaces, does represent a potential danger to health. We have placed the skill of the people in our occupational health division at the service of provincial departments who admittedly accept this as their primary constitutional responsibility. However, that does not deter us in any way from seeking to assist them in a matter which is of concern.
The control of this hazard in such cases is usually achieved, I am told, by the installation of adequate ventilation facilities. In the stationary type of engine the exhaust gases must be removed by piping into proper exhaust gas ventilators or ducts for disposal of the fumes. I am further advised that the operation of such vehicles or engines in the open atmosphere may constitute a hazard to health in areas of dense traffic and population. It may be that when the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) was speaking of Guelph he was not speaking of an area of dense traffic and population.
This phase of the problem is now under intensive investigation, as my hon. friend has noted, in the area of Los Angeles, California, and a special study is under way by the automotive industry primarily in the city of Detroit. Waste products of internal combustion engines include unburned fuel or hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, oxides of nitrogen, as well as carbon, soot, tarry material and other products, including water vapour. After listening to my dissertation-my hon. friend is smiling. I am sure that after listening to my dissertation he appreciates that he and I at least have one thing in common, that is the technical knowledge that each of us possesses in this important matter.
I am told that the theory has been postulated in the Los Angeles area that smog is formed to a major degree by the interaction of such hydrocarbon waste products with oxides of nitrogen in the presence of oxygen and sunlight. Such chemical interactions of pollutants may be related to eye irritation and other health effects that have been


observed and to some of the crop damage sustained in the Los Angeles area. Perhaps it was this circumstance that brought my hon. friend to take an interest in this matter. In any event, that seems to be one of the implications involved. It is stated that, in the immediate vicinity of diesel engine exhaust, the concentrations of aldehydes and oxides of nitrogen may be sufficient to produce considerable eye, nose and throat irritation. I may say in this connection that Dr. Grove of our blindness control division has done considerable work in this particular field. I am sure the hon. gentleman would profit greatly if at his convenience some time he allowed me to arrange for him to discuss this matter with this outstanding public servant.
Various control methods have been suggested for reducing the toxicity of waste gases from internal combustion engines. These include systems for treating exhaust gases such as catalytic exhaust converters, after-burners, absorbers, condensers and filters.
Other proposals concern systems which modify engine operating conditions, such as manifold vacuum control, deceleration fuel cut-off, ignition timing control, recycling of exhaust gases and fuel injection. I simply add this rider, that objectionable visible smoke and fumes may be reduced greatly, my officers tell me, by improved maintenance practices. It may be that if greater care on the part of those who have the legal power to require enforcement were taken to see that this enforcement took place, many of the abuses to which my hon. friend has directed our attention could be avoided.
I can point out that there are now under investigation by the automobile industry such proposals as the change in the design of cylinder combustion chambers, carburetors and intake manifolds.
It has been shown in field and laboratory tests by the Los Angeles air pollution control authority that approximately seven per cent of all fuels used by automobiles is discharged unburned into the atmosphere, and this constitutes the greatest single source of hydrocarbon loss in the Los Angeles area. However, I am advised by my technical officers that no success has yet beeen achieved in securing the development of a control device suitable for controlling the emissions of exhaust gases from automobiles.
In the case of diesel engines, a limited amount of control has been achieved with the installation of exhaust gas absorbers which contain alkaline and other types of solutions for removal of aldehydes and oxides of nitrogen.

Health-Poisonous Gases
Several companies in the United States, including the Houdry Corporation and the Catalytic Combustion Corporation, are experimenting with catalytic systems for more complete combustion of exhaust gases and also with various types of after-burners. This work, however, is still, I am advised, in the development stage.
Much more study and research is needed before adequate means are available for the control of emissions from trucks, tractors, buses and other types of vehicles on highways and railways, apart from the abatement of smoke and visible exhaust fumes by proper maintenance practices.
I would tell my hon. friend and the house that the development of effective controls for exhaust gas waste products is contingent upon the successful completion of studies that are now in progress, some in this country but a great many in the United States. As I have already noted in respect of one aspect of the problem, we have undertaken in Canada in co-operation with the city of Detroit a most extensive study.
At the end of his speech the hon. gentleman mentioned that for a very small amount of money a device could be used which would avoid the dangers feared. I was not aware of that device and I asked my parliamentary assistant to contact the officers of our department. They advise me that, with regard to scrubbers for diesel engines, these scrubbers contain water to which are added alkalis, ferrous sulphate or other ingredients which remove the aldehydes and to a certain extent the oxides of nitrogen. Our officers tell us that these are not very effective for carbon monoxide, and that therefore adequate ventilation is still required. Their value has not been proven for railways or diesel transport trucks on highways, but there are three places where these particular devices are now being subjected to strict study and scrutiny, and it may be that we shall have more information on which to pass a final judgment.
Before taking my seat, I should like to mention that the hon. gentleman referred to cancer and the studies which I announced in this house, regarding one alleged form of cancer. Those studies are now under way, as a result of the financial contributions made by one company in addition to the grants that have been accorded by the federal government.
As the hon. gentleman mentioned, Dr. Warwick, the director of the institute, has made mention of some of these researches. I forget whether my hon. friend did go on to say, but Dr. Warwick could have gone on to say, that, as a result of funds which this
parliament had voted, researches are now under way in at least two different universities in Canada in the matter of analysing the possible potential relation between some of the factors of causation of cancer mentioned by my hon. friend. In any event, I hope I have indicated to my hon. friend that these matters are the subject of research by those who are qualified to engage in this kind of examination.
My hon. friend may well feel he has served a useful purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the public. He may be assured that, to the extent that this is a matter within our competence, it will continue to have our sustained interest and, to the extent that we can assist the provincial governments in the prosecution of this matter, this will be done. With that in view, I am sure my hon. friend would agree that this would possibly be the appropriate moment to withdraw his motion.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to take the opportunity, as there is an amendment to the resolution, to say a very few words. First I should like to point out to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) that at the outset of my speech I did say it would probably be unconstitutional and would more properly be taken up under provincial jurisdiction. I admitted that at the outset of my speech. I said that, if it did accomplish nothing else, it would bring it to the attention of the public and make them aware of the dangers facing us in the matter of pollution.
I rather think the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) will regret having stated that this matter was a waste of time this afternoon, after having heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Murdo William Martin: I do not think he said that.


John Alpheus Charlton: He said it was wasting the time of the house, and I think he will later regret that statement.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) raised the question of combatting fumes from gasoline engines as well as diesel engines. The Minister of National Health and Welfare himself has answered that very well in stating that there is a solution now for diesel engines. It is being used in mines all over the country and is proving very satisfactory. I did not say that a very small amount of money was needed. I said they could be procured for a reasonable amount of money. The reason I did not bring in gasoline engines is, as I said before, because it would be most difficult. It has not

Income Tax Act
yet been proved that a contrivance or a mechanism of any kind can be put on automobiles with gasoline engines to render these fumes harmless. For this reason I did not include gasoline engines in the resolution. I did say, however, and I shall repeat it, that there is a device known as a scrubber. I think if the minister looks into the matter further he will find that a great deal of good can come from the use of scrubbers. They are obtainable for a reasonable price and it costs only about 10 cents per working hour for the chemicals to operate them. I feel that the matter should be investigated.
As I said at the conclusion of my speech, I think the dominion government could set a pattern in putting them on the diesel locomotives of the C.N.R. over which they have control. I do not wish to deal with it particularly but I would ask the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) what he would do with the existing diesel engines that are now in operation and which, as far as I can tell, may be in operation for another 15 or 20 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member wishes to withdraw his resolution?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Dauphin wish to withdraw the amendment?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That would be quite satisfactory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member have leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the withdrawal of the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



INCOME TAX ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion makes a request, the subject matter of which is well known to hon. members of this house and is well known throughout the country. It

asks that what is known as the 3 per cent floor in relation to the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes be removed and that medical expenses be allowed deductibility right from the first dollar.
Last year when I moved a motion in terms identical with this one the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benidickson) was gracious enough to say some kind words about the fact that I had added some new arguments and some new material to my speech of the previous year. I am sorry to disappoint him but so far as this year is concerned it is not I who will be introducing the new material. I hope that the "something new" will come from the government side of the house.
I think it is time the government took this matter seriously. I think it is time the government realized the feeling of the Canadian people that this request . is a just one. I think it is time the government took the action proposed in this motion and removed the 3 per cent floor.
Hon. members are aware that this matter has been discussed in the house for quite a number of years. It was discussed generally in the debate on the speech from the throne, in the budget debate, and so on, in the late forties and early fifties. In 1951 it was the subject of a motion which I presented to the house but it was defeated. Again in 1952 it was the subject of a motion in my name and on that occasion the motion carried. It was passed unanimously by the house and the house thereby called upon the government to consider the advisability of removing what was then the 4 per cent floor. The house, and I think I can say the country as a whole, was disappointed when the consideration which we can only assume was given by the government to this matter resulted in no action at that session of parliament.
The next year, 1953, I again brought in the motion. On that occasion only two speeches were made; mine and that of the then minister of finance, Mr. Abbott, who at the conclusion of his speech moved that the debate be adjourned so that there was no further discussion on the motion at that point. However, when Mr. Abbott brought down his budget of 1953-which, of course, we cannot but remember was in an election year-he at least took the action of reducing the 4 per cent floor to the present level of 3 per cent. Well, that was a step in the right direction which was appreciated. One remembers that when medical expense deductibility was first provided for in 1942 and 1943 the floor was at 5 per cent, so we are glad to note that the floor is gradually

being lowered, first from 5 to 4 per cent in 1944 and then in 1953 from 4 to 3 per cent.
But as one who feels it should be abolished altogether I did not allow the matter to rest on the basis of the action taken in 1953 but I again brought in the motion in 1954, asking at that time that the then 3 per cent floor be wiped out. That motion was again defeated. Last year I brought in the motion again, and again it was defeated. But last year the margin of defeat was not very great considering the tremendous superiority of the government strength in this house. The vote last year was only 86 to 60 against my motion.
Well, it is now before the house again. In the meantime hon. members have had an opportunity to think more about it and to sense the feelings of their constituents back home in relation to the subject and I hope on this occasion there will be a more favourable result than in the past few years.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I had dared to hope that other developments might make unnecessary a motion of this kind at this time. I shall refer very briefly to these other developments which I hoped might take place. We knew there was to be a meeting of the federal government with the provincial governments on health insurance and I dared to hope that the results of that meeting might be sufficiently far-reaching that individual medical expenses might be cut down to the point where a matter of this kind would not be of such importance as it has been in the past.
However, despite the fact that one welcomes the steps that have been taken in the right direction by the conference which met last week, it still remains clear that even if the proposals of the federal government are accepted by a sufficient number of provinces and come into effect, there still remains a great area of medical expenses, particularly doctors' bills and dental bills, as well as many other kinds of medical expenses, which will have to be met by individual Canadians. Therefore the problem of the impact of individual medical expenses, although it will be ameliorated slightly if the government's proposals with regard to hospitalization and other services come into effect, will still remain for the great bulk of our Canadian citizens. Hence I once again present this motion, Mr. Speaker, so the government might have this opportunity to show that it is really concerned for the health of the Canadian people, and might show that concern in this small way by permitting the deductibility of medical expenses right from the first dollar.
As hon. members are aware, the right to deduct one's medical expenses is surrounded by certain limitations. For example, there is an absolute ceiling as to the amount one
Income Tax Act
can claim as a deduction. That ceiling is at the figure of $1,500 for a single taxpayer and $2,000 for a married taxpayer plus $500 for each dependent up to a limit of $2,000 for dependents. That is one of the limitations on the deduction of medical expenses. You cannot deduct them all. You can deduct them only up to a certain point. Another of the limitations is that only certain prescribed kinds of expense can be deducted. You can deduct what you pay to a hospital; you can deduct doctors' bills, dentists' bills, nurses' bills and so on. You can deduct the costs of a few drugs which have been put on the list, and certain other specified expenses.
The fact is, however, that there are a great many expenses which are really medical or which relate to illness but which you are not permitted to deduct. There is, of course, the question of spectacles and devices of that kind. Most drugs and medicines are still not on the list of expenses that you can deduct for income tax purposes. Then, of course, there is the whole problem of help in the home that may be required at the time of illness, and all sorts of other expenses with which one is faced when illness strikes.
The other day I drew to the attention of the house that strange case-something that seems to be most unfair-in which a taxpayer was denied the right to charge as a medical expense the sum of over $700 which he had had to pay for oxygen in order to keep alive his wife who was suffering from tuberculosis. The reason given by the income tax branch and accepted by the income tax appeal board for refusing to allow that expense was that it was not paid directly to a hospital or a medical institution as defined in the act.
I mention that matter in passing, expressing the hope that the situation will be corrected in the budget this year. I mention it also to indicate that there are many items which are not allowed as medical expenses. Therefore the words which appear in the income tax form, and which make it clear to the taxpayer that he cannot deduct all his medical expenses, are indeed quite correct.
Those are two of the limitations, namely the ceiling and the limited list of things that you can deduct. The third limitation is this 3 per cent floor which is the subject matter of my resolution. I have made it clear before, and I do so again, that I have no quarrel with the ceiling. The figures which set the ceiling are reasonably ample, it seems to me. However, I do have a quarrel with the limited nature of the list of items that can be charged as medical expenses. I feel that that list should be extended. At any rate, I have not confused the issue by putting

Income Tax Act
that question into my resolution. I have confined my resolution to the one question, namely that the 3 per cent floor should be abolished.
Even at the expense of repeating what has been said just about every time this matter has come before the house, let me take a moment to remind hon. members that when you set about to deduct medical expenses from your income tax, you first of all must strike a figure that is 3 per cent of your net income. For all practical purposes your net income is just about your total income; at least it is closer to your total income than it is to your taxable income. Net income is the gross income you receive less one or two specific deductions, such as pension fund deductions, deductions for trade union dues and so on. That figure to which you must apply the 3 per cent is the figure you have before you deduct the $1,000 or $2,000 statutory exemption, or whatever your exemption may be. Hence if you are a person with an income of $3,000 a year, the first $90 of your medical expenses are not allowed as deductible. If your medical expenses in a year are $75 or $30, you get no credit for them. If your medical expenses are $100, you get credit for $10, namely the amount over the $90 figure which represents the application of the 3 per cent floor.
I have repeated that again despite the fact that it is well known to all of us and to most people in this country. My reason for doing so is to make clear what it is that we are asking for. In the example I gave of a taxpayer with a $3,000 income and having $100 medical expenses in a year, we are asking that he should be allowed to deduct from his taxable income not just the $10 that he is allowed at the present time but the full $100 of those medical expenses.
As I have pointed out on six or eight occasions now, it is a fact that if one makes contributions to approved charities he is allowed to deduct those contributions from his taxable income; and although there is a ceiling, as there is with respect to medical expenses, still there is no floor. You are allowed to deduct charitable donations right from the first dollar. If a person is allowed to deduct charitable donations, which are voluntary, right from the first dollar, we feel strongly that the same privilege should be accorded to taxpayers with regard to medical expenses, which are certainly involuntary.
In the past I have given various examples, and I think perhaps I should give them again if for no other reason than to put the matter in terms of the income tax rates that apply for the present year. I take in the first place
[Mr. Knowles.l
the example of a married taxpayer with no children, and having an income of $2,400 a year. That taxpayer's income tax, including his old age security tax, would amount to $60. If that person had medical expenses of $200 in a year his tax would be reduced to $40.80, or he would get a tax rebate or tax credit of $19.20. But if that same person, instead of having- to spend $200 on medical expenses, were to give $200 to an approved charity, his tax would be reduced to $30. In other words his saving would be $30. It is that discrepancy, that difference, that we think is unfair. We think the person who is allowed $30 in tax rebate for giving away $200 to charity should be allowed the same amount if he has to spend that much on medical expenses.
I come to the example of a married couple having two children of family allowance age. Let us assume that their income is $3,600 a year. Under this year's rates their total income tax before any other adjustments would be $201. If this family had medical expenses of $300 in a year their income tax would be reduced to $168.36, leaving a tax saving of $32.64. But if that same family, instead of spending $300 involuntarily on medical expenses, were to give away $300 to approved charities their income tax would be reduced to $150, making a saving of $51. Putting the two side by side, their income tax saving for $300 given to charity is $51, but their income tax saving for $300 medical expenses is only $32.64. We think the two should be put on the same footing.
My next example is that of a married taxpayer having two children of family allowance age where the total income is $5,000 a year. Their income tax before any adjustment would be $453. If this family has medical expenses of $500 their income tax will be reduced to $386.50, representing a saving of $66.50. If this family gives the same amount, namely $500, to an approved charity, their tax [DOT]is reduced to $358, so that the saving is $95. The tax saving for $500 of medical expenses is $66.50, but the tax saving for $500 given to charity is $95.
I move back again into the lower income brackets. I cite the case of a married taxpayer with two children of family allowance age trying to get by in this day and age on $2,400 a year. Their tax before any adjustments would be only $15 for 1956, according to the law as it now stands. If they have medical expenses of $100 their tax will be $10.80, representing a saving of $4.20. But if they give away $100-don't ask me how anybody earning $2,400 and supporting a wife and two children could give away $100-the entire $15 income tax would be wiped out.

There would be a saving of $15 that way, but there would be a saving of only $4.20 if the family has $100 of medical expenses.
Let me take just one more of these examples. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance will probably notice, these are the same examples I used last year, except that I have worked them out in terms of the income tax rates that are now provided in the Income Tax Act. My last case, therefore, is that of a married taxpayer with two children of family allowance age where the income is $3,000 a year. The tax before any adjustment would be $105. If this family had $100 of medical expenses, their tax would be reduced to $103.50, a reduction of $1.50. But if the same family gave away $100 their tax would be reduced to $90, or a saving of $15.
I have given a great many figures in the last few minutes. Let me put these last two alongside each other. In that last example, the income tax saving for $100 of medical expenses is $1.50, but the income tax saving for $100 given to charity is $15 or ten times as much. We feel this year, as we felt last year, the year before that and the year before that back until we first started this campaign, that it is not fair to continue that discrepancy. We feel that the same treatment should be accorded to those two types of expenses or contributions.
There have been times when it has been suggested to me that this would be a great boon to the wealthy, more of a boon to the wealthy than it would be to those in the lower brackets. The fact of the matter is that our concern is for the little people, for those who just do not get into this bracket because their expenses are not over the 3 per cent level. Actually, if you want to talk about the very wealthy, the ceiling which the government has imposed would prevent any great bonanza coming to them as a result of the removal of the floor. For example, if a person had an income of $20,000, at the present time he would get only the portion of those expenses in excess of $600, which is 3 per cent of the $20,000, and even that would be limited by the ceiling. If such a person were married and had $3,000 of medical expenses he would not be allowed the whole $3,000. He would not even get the $2,400 which is over the $600 floor. He would have only $2,000 allowed as deductible because of the ceiling which is there. That is one of the reasons I do not object to the ceiling, because if you take away the floor you find in the example I have just given that $2,000 is the maximum the wealthy person can claim. In an outlandish case such as that-or go higher 67509-43J
Income Tax Act
if you will, to persons with incomes up to $50,000 or $100,000-in most cases you are not going to get any tax relief from the removal of the floor, because of the ceiling. Indeed, the government raised the ceiling a bit in 1952, the year in which we thought we had won the battle for the abolition of what was then the 4 per cent floor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware I am rather full of this subject, having spoken on it so often. But as I indicated in my opening remarks the new thing that is needed, the something new that should be added, is not additional argument from this side of the house. The something new that should be added is an awareness on the part of the government that the time has come for favourable action on this matter. I am grateful for the support we have received in the past from members of the opposition in whatever part of the house they sit. They have supported this matter every time I have raised it. I am grateful for the unanimous support given to my motion in 1952. I am grateful also for the support that was given by a few Liberals, even in years when the measure was not looked upon with too much favour from the government side of the house.
I recall the supporting remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) and the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). I recall also the approval of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais). I recall the interest in this matter of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) and his implied support of the proposal. I remember, too, that long ago there were requests for the extension of this principle by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and even by the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) when he was the more humble private member for Renfrew South. I am grateful also for the support that has been given in the past by one who is no longer with us, one who has gone to his reward in the other place, the former member for Spadina.
It is perhaps unfair to single out only half a dozen Liberals when there have been 60 or more on the opposition side of the house who have stood up for this proposition every time it has been raised. And yet perhaps it is significant that there were six or eight on the other side of the house who felt that a few words might be spoken in favour of this principle of extending the coverage of income deductibility, no matter what stand the government was taking.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I want to see the list of allowable expenses extended.

Income Tax Act
I am also interested in a resolution on the order paper in the name of an hon. member from my own city. I may not agree with all its details, but I am interested in the proposal that premiums and taxes paid for hospitalization plans and health insurance schemes might be included as well. There is a whole range of things that might be discussed, but it seems to me the most important thing is to get rid of this floor and permit taxpayers to deduct their medical expenses right from the first dollar.
There is wide public interest in this. No one contributed more to the widening of that interest than did the former minister of finance in 1952 by taking a negative view on the matter, after the decision of the house that the government should consider the advisability of removing the floor. I thank him for the attention he drew to it in that way. I call on the present government and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to look on this matter favourably, to consider the justice of our appeal and to take action at this session to remove this floor. Toward that end I hope the house will support the motion which I now have the honour to present.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Those who were in the house in 1952 will well recall what happened when a similar motion dealing with a 4 per cent figure was introduced by the hon. member who has introduced this motion today. Everyone in the house appeared to give approval to the resolution at that time and undoubtedly all, with the exception apparently of those who sat on the treasury benches, expected the government to give some regard or effect to the resolution on which the house had so strongly declared itself. But we had assumed that there was more responsible government in the chamber than proved to be the fact; for the Minister of Finance did not choose to be bound by the firm and unanimous declaration of the opinion of the house.
However, before the last election the Minister of Finance did bring in a budget proposal which, so far as it went, did receive the unanimous approval of the house, contemplating a reduction from 4 per cent to 3 per cent of that portion of taxable income which must be first subtracted before medical expenses can be deducted in determining taxable income.
The Conservatives in the house, Mr. Speaker, have supported this resolution in the past and will, I am sure, continue to do so. It seems to me there is every reason why, in looking for means of introducing more

equity into our taxation laws, as well as seeking needed reductions in taxation, this particular proposal should be favoured as one entitled to high priority.
It is not to be overlooked that the cost of hospitalization and medical expense is rising substantially all the time. On some other occasion we shall no doubt hear a good deal about the very heavy burden that is borne by the Canadian people in respect of their outlays on hospital, medical and nursing expenditures. It seems to me that this type of expenditure is a very proper one to be favoured from the point of view of deductions that ought to be fallowed to taxpayers in calculating their taxable income.
Sir, I do not propose to discuss this matter at length. There is a question of principle involved here. I suppose we can expect to hear from the government the familiar refrain that it is estimated, based upon statistical reviews, that an average of 4 per cent of the income of the people goes to pay medical, hospital and nursing expenses, and therefore it is fair enough that that percentage should be subtracted, or a similar proportion should be subtracted, in reckoning what should be allowed by way of deduction on this account from income.
Well, sir, these statistics can be used to deal with average expenditure, but in my view average expenditure is not sufficient to justify any further withholding by the government of this benefit from the taxpayers. There are very good reasons why we should go the whole way and eliminate the 3 per cent which is now subtracted. The burden is never equally distributed; the outlays on medical and hospital expenses fall disproportionately heavily on those of modest income, but it affects all and here is a good place to bring a general benefit to bear for all taxpayers.
Hon. members who have followed debates on this subject in the past will not be surprised if I advert to a subject on which I have addressed the house on many occasions, namely the altogether too narrow definition that is placed by the act and by the government in its administration of the act on medical expenses. We have had many debates on this subject. Attention has been drawn repeatedly to the fact that some extraordinary anomalies exist under the present act, and those anomalies have not been improved by the way in which the act has been administered by the government.
Why some appliances prescribed, for example, by physicians should be regarded as proper medical expenses and others disallowed is something I have never been able to justify on any basis of logic. We have

the familiar example of spectacles. They are not permitted to be included in the medical expenses of the taxpayer. Why they should not I have never been able to understand. The act permits certain forms of hearing aids to be included in the category, but aids to vision are rejected. One could go down through the category of appliances as defined in the act or in the light of the interpretations put upon the provisions of the act in the administration thereof.
Then there is the matter of drugs. This is a subject again that has engaged the attention of the house frequently, and where some remedial legislation is badly needed. The act has been amended on a couple of occasions in recent years specifically to permit about four drugs to be treated as deductible, in other words entitled to be included in the list of medical expenses. But why some should be included and others rejected again defies any sense of logic, and in many respects a sense of fair play. Sir, if drugs are prescribed by physicians as required for the health of a patient, why should they not be regarded as medical expenses?
Then we have a further anomaly, sir, in the case of physicians doing their own dispensing. Apart from four named drugs in the act, no status whatever is given to expenditures on drugs, even though prescribed by physicians, so far as the definition of medical expenses is concerned. We know that physicians in the cities and towns normally do not do their own dispensing. The country physician almost of necessity must do his own dispensing, and when he includes drugs or medicines in an allinclusive account to the patient those items are allowed by the government. This anomaly has been known to exist for years, but the government has taken no remedial action as yet.
I am glad this motion offers an opportunity to reaffirm the support which has been given on previous occasions to the purport and principle of this resolution, and to point out that anomalies continue to exist and that the government has failed repeatedly to bring forward proposals at budget time designed to cope with these existing anomalies. Surely the time has come when this matter can no longer escape the attention of the government.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has said, many of us have expressed our approval in the past. As has been stated this afternoon, the resolution
Income Tax Act moved by the hon. member has had our support on other occasions, and in fact on one occasion it had the support of the whole house.
I never could understand why the government has not taken more action than they have on this resolution. It has met with unusual unanimity, because we all agree that the fear of medical expenses is one of the greatest fears that a family man and his wife can have; especially those, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, who find difficulty in getting along on the wages they are earning.
That has been recognized no doubt by the whole house, in fact even by the government and the cabinet which refused to accept the unanimous recommendation of the house. Recently this government has been discussing health insurance policies with the provinces. That matter has been recognized by the party supporting the government for well over a quarter of a century because they have played with the idea at every election they have held for almost a third of a century.
It seems to me that principle has not been followed in practice. In fact one might take advantage of this opportunity to suggest to the government that before the budget is brought down they give consideration to going beyond this 3 per cent exemption and allowing contributions made by those who assist in the payment of medical expenses incurred by patients who cannot afford to pay them. I know of some hon. members who have been in near financial embarrassment for many years because they have taken care of members of their families over long periods of illness.
Those who contribute to the building of a hospital or who make substantial gifts to a hospital are allowed to deduct those contributions from income for income tax purposes under the present regulations. On the other hand, if a person contributes toward the care of a patient in hospital I think he should be entitled to a similar exemption.
I am not going to burden the house by repeating what has been said in other years or what has been said so well by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, except to say that it seems to me the government somewhat accepted the principle when they reduced the floor from 4 per cent to 3 per cent just before the last election. I would certainly be sorry to see this government remain in power long enough for them to have a sufficient number of elections to get the other 3 per cent off, because it would appear that it would take quite a long time even if they accepted the principle since

Income Tax Act
apparently they take off only 1 per cent at a time. I do not know why they did not take off the 3 per cent because, as has been mentioned by the mover of the resolution, it means that the man with a small income does not receive much benefit while the man with a larger income, who usually does not find medical expenses too great a burden, is allowed to deduct what he pays out for medical expenses, what he pays to the hospital or for other charitable services.
I would urge the government to take cognizance of the motion before the house. Before the budget is brought down I hope the government and the cabinet will consider the approval that has been given to this matter, especially the complete unanimity which was shown in 1952. I expect that it will all disappear if we should have an election in 1956, or at least a portion of it; but even if we do not have an election until 1957 I would urge the government to adopt the principle and not wait to remove 1 per cent at election time, but remove the 3 per cent even a year before the election.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am completely in support of the resolution. It must be borne in mind that what is paid out for medical expenses is a dead loss. Usually a person faced with the payment of medical expenses also has his earning capacity decreased to a considerable degree. Frequently the total cost of a sickness cannot appear in any record which a person might present to show that he has been faced with medical expenses. For example, different kinds of food may have to be provided in nursing an individual back to health. There are many other ways in which the account presented by a doctor or hospital would not show the total cost. I think the time has come for us to give people with ordinary incomes at least something like a break. Let us just permit them to deduct all medical expenses.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this resolution has said, we have had a discussion on this matter during each of the past several years. The records of Hansard are available to indicate the general principles which the government has advanced in debating this question from year to year.
I would remind hon. members that this particular exemption is of rather short-term duration in our income tax law. It was introduced as an exception to the general principles in 1942, and I think for a good reason. At that time, because of the war, the tax rates were at a very high level indeed. I could illustrate by simply pointing out that

in the case of a married man without dependents with an income of $2,500, the tax and compulsory savings amounted to $651. At that time it was recognized, fortunately that a taxpayer who had extraordinarily high medical expenses would be in a very difficult position indeed, in view of the portion of his income that was required to finance the conflict in which we were then engaged. In the case of a married man without dependents with an income of $3,000, the tax and compulsory savings taken from him for the requirements of the government in 1942 amounted to $384.
In consequence there was a departure from the basic principle that there is one over-all personal exemption applying to the normal cost of living of all citizens. I may say that under our Canadian taxation provisions, that basic personal allowance and deduction from gross income before taxes are imposed is a larger sum than in either the United States or Great Britain, or indeed in any comparable country that we could consider in connection witht modern tax provisions.
I should like to point out that in recent years there has been a very substantial decrease in the general income tax that applies to people in the income groups I have already mentioned. As I have said, we have had debates on this subject in each of the past several years. I have indicated in debates in former years that the actual cost to the treasury of acceding to this form of tax relief would be in the neighbourhood of $50 million or $60 million. When tax reductions are possible, one must consider what form of tax relief would provide the widest possible benefit and would have the best possible economic results.
We had a very substantial tax reduction in 1953 as compared with 1952. I want to point out that an individual, married and with two dependents, respecting 1952 income was paying an income tax of $88. That was reduced in 1953, and it was reduced again last year. The same is true of the other person I used as an illustration, namely a married man earning $3,000, who in 1952 was paying a tax of $175 and in 1956 will pay a tax of $130. I point out to hon. members that this means broadly a reduction of 25 per cent in those years. That tax reduction applies to all taxpayers, whether or not they have had the particular misfortune of having medical bills to pay.
I also say that this form of utilization of tax deduction possibilities has considerable merit, because a great proportion of the working force of this country are not in the income tax paying group at all. To use

approximate figures, we could say that the working force of this country is probably of the size of about five and a half million people. Some two million in that group do not at the present time have to pay income tax, because of the general exemptions that are provided in our law. It would be obvious to members that the form of tax relief suggested by the sponsor of this motion would apply only to persons who are in the smaller income taxpaying group.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he hoped there would be some new note in the annual debate on this subject. It must be obvious to him that one of the outstanding new notes that could be referred to would be the very important events of last week when the federal government, in the health field, made propositions to the provinces for sharing costs of hospital and diagnostic health services to a very impressive, and indeed gigantic, extent. The implications of that offer, if the majority of the provinces see fit to accept it, are at the present time, in dollar value, probably of the order of four or five times what is involved in this particular form of approach to the health question.
I would point out in connection with my other remarks that this form of federal government participation in the health field would be of general application, contrary to a scheme such as is proposed, which would assist with respect to health problems only those citizens who are in the income taxpaying group.
I would also remind hon. members, as we are inclined to forget, that actual individual tax rates have dropped radically from 1942, when I indicated the very great proportion of the income of one in the lower brackets-or in any bracket-that was required for governmental purposes. Indeed, I pointed out that the reduction in the tax rate for a person earning $3,000 is from $884 in 1942 to $130 in 1956.
In connection with the opportunities for tax deductions in this particular field for health expenses, the law has been very radically liberalized since 1942. In 1942 the ceiling of the total medical expenses that would be considered for exemption for tax purposes was only a fraction of what is provided for at the present time. In most of the years since 1945 there have been added other provisions that are greatly to the advantage of the taxpayer. The types of drugs, types of appliances and the calendar period for consideration have all been changed very greatly to the advantage of the taxpayer.
These details have all been set out in past debates but I would not want hon. members
Income Tax Act
to overlook them. In addition there have been two changes in the rate of percentage for medical expense deduction that is considered as the norm, or the rate which must be exceeded if one is to get consideration for tax relief in this field. Originally it was 5 per cent. It was reduced in 1944 to 4 per cent. The hon. members who have spoken thus far have overlooked what was announced as the reason for that reduction from 5 per cent to 4 per cent.
The main reason for that reduction was a recognition of the fact, as was pointed out at that time, that the administrative cost of examining the number of small drug accounts that might be submitted by a taxpayer would be exceedingly expensive to the crown in the matter of administration. So in a general way the rate was reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, taking that into account. Certain exceptionally expensive drugs were in themselves given qualification for exemption under the income tax statute as well.
Some reference has been made to a recent appeal under the Income Tax Act with respect to the expense of purchasing oxygen. As a matter of fact, although every year individuals, members of parliament, sometimes officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare and other people prior to the consideration of the annual budget present recommendations to the finance minister concerning things which they think should be subject to consideration in this section of the Income Tax Act. It happens the matter of oxygen is not one of those items which has been directed particularly to the attention of the department for tax consideration.
This section of the Income Tax Act receives very careful attention each year from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and all the officials of his department as well as the Department of National Revenue. All the recommendations that have been received in the preceding year from hon. members of this house and from outside the house are most carefully studied. It is a practice to seek the advice of the Department of National Health and Welfare in regard to the relative costliness, the apparent worth and necessity, and some other factors relating to a particular drug. I assure hon. members, several of whom have made some representation urging the addition of certain specific drugs beyond those which have been considered for exemption, that this aspect will be reviewed again in the weeks that are to ensue prior to the bringing down of the new budget.
I should like to point out that under present tax law a person married, without dependents, with an income of $3,000 whose medical expenses would be totally exempt under this

Income Tax Act
motion, would receive a tax benefit of $13.50. I have no doubt whatever that most of the people across the country who read the newspapers and learn that this parliament is considering the question of deducting all medical expenses without any limitations such as we now have, at the 3 per cent level, will think that what is being considered is a deduction of the medical expenses from the amount of the tax cheque which they would otherwise be obliged to pay.
As I have pointed out, if the income of a married person were $3,000 the benefit under this resolution would be $13.50. This benefit would apply in a rather scattered form only to taxpayers who had to meet a particular medical situation. It would not have the merit of universality. In connection with the figure of $13.50 I would also like to point out that the tax reductions announced by the finance minister last year took no account of the previous tax reductions and provided tax relief for the person, married without dependents, earning $3,000 a year-comparing 1956 with 1954-to the extent of $20, compared with $13.50. That tax relief was available to everybody, and was available without the expense to the crown of examining every particular item of medical expense in the vouchers that would naturally end up with the examining officials in tremendous volume.
I think hon. members are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, of the basic principle that guides anyone when considering most carefully introducing into the Income Tax Act a very special feature that would exempt each and every form of medical expenditure. I mentioned that alternatively we have always placed general reliance on the basic personal exemption. What is allowed in this particular exemption is something that is considered unusual.
If every dollar of medical expense, dental expense and expenditures for drugs is to be allowed to the fullest extent as an exemption from gross income, and if those expenditures are of a normal nature and not of an unusual or hardship nature, I would ask hon. members what is the difference between allowing those and the suggestion that everyone should be entitled to put forward in detail the personal expenditure for clothes to keep one's family warm, the analogous expenditures on clothing or milk, food and the other necessities which constitute the normal expenditures of the average taxpayer.
In addition to that, although I deny that there is any failure to recognize in the health field the other difficulties which are encountered by taxpayers, I would point out there are also other hazards which sometimes provide unusual hardship. I could mention losses by taxpayers from fires, floods, tornadoes and

things of that kind. Contrary to what is done in the health field, there is no income tax recognition of these forms of personal catastrophe and unusual personal expense.
I repeat that we generally consider that it is a simplification and it is orderly to concentrate for tax purposes on a basic exemption. I repeat that in this country that basic exemption is more generous to the taxpayer than is available in almost any country with which I am familiar, and certainly in any that could be compared with Canada in its economic life.
As has been said in past years, apart from the decision the house may take on this motion this particular question is bound to be considered by all those who are giving attention to the budget in the ensuing weeks. Hon. members have made reference to a development in 1952 in this house when there was a concentration of attention on the word "consideration" contained in a similar resolution and when the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance said that as it was customary to consider each and every representation from all over the country prior to the presentation of the budget, he felt it was difficult to say that a House of Commons resolution stating that the house would like consideration to be given to a matter of this kind would be turned down by a majority vote.
Hon. members know it was made perfectly clear at that time that consideration would be given to the problem. Consideration was given to it. The then minister of finance and the parliamentary assistant, in subsequent speeches in this house, made that perfectly clear. But at the time the resolution was being considered those sponsoring it were emphasizing the word "consider" and the word "favourably" was not in the resolution. I remind hon. members that on many occasions subsequently opposition members have made reference to that result.
Despite the fact that consideration had been given as the minister assured the house it would be given, just because it was not consideration that resulted in a decision which the sponsor hoped for, I recall that the leader of the sponsor's party felt that he was justified in moving a vote of want of confidence in the government. As I say, on many occasions this matter has been referred to.
There is a difficulty in which hon. members are placed at the moment, particularly those who support the government. This resolution in its broad terms and representations concerns individual items of drugs and other liberalizations of the section which will be receiving attention. If hon. members were

to review the history of resolutions of this kind I think they will agree with me in this statement. I have no doubt that if the final result as announced in the budget was not completely to their satisfaction, they would have a great deal to say about the lack of consideration shown by the government, and what they might even think was some form of indifference to or lack of consideration for this house. I point out that fact to all hon. members.
I think it has been traditional that British parliaments do not consider that collectively they are in a position to move resolutions that affect the balance of ways and means. If hon. members, in advancing a motion of this kind, feel that it is obligatory for the government to accept the resolution fully, may I say this. I have indicated that it involves a revenue loss of $50 million. If this form of tax relief is given in this field, hon. members will realize the simplicity of the statement that it might deny relief in another field. Last year and in previous years I indicated what I thought were better forms of tax relief, provided on a better basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall make my remarks as brief as I can, so that if your decision on the yeas and the nays is not in the affirmative and a vote must be taken, we shall not have to take up too much of the supper hour.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance has once again given us a review of the government's position with respect to this matter, and he has tried once again to set out the government's defence for not yet having removed the floor with regard to medical expenses. He started off by reminding us that this form of tax relief was first introduced in 1942, becoming fully effective in 1943, because of the abnormally high taxes which were in effect at that time. He makes a great deal out of the fact that income taxes have gone down considerably since then. He is correct in that statement. However, what he overlooks is the fact that medical expenses have gone up considerably since that time. A new situation has arisen with regard to medical expenses. Although it may have been a novelty to introduce this kind of tax relief in 1942 or 1943, we feel that it is a necessity today.
The parliamentary assistant makes a great deal out of the use of the word "normal" and 67509-44
Income Tax Act
contends that there are certain medical expenses that should be regarded as normal, even as food and clothing, and therefore should not be given special consideration in the matter of income tax deductibility. Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because not one of us would contend that every last article that some people might regard as medical expense-every last aspirin tablet, if you like -should be included; it is precisely for that reason that we feel that those medical expenses which the department does allow should be accorded deductibility right from the very first dollar. That is one way of dealing with the problem. If you cannot cover every last kind of expense, surely the kinds that are allowable should be allowed right from the first dollar.
I am interested in the extent to which the parliamentary assistant has raised the figure of what this proposal would cost. For the last year or two it has been said it would cost $35 million to $40 million to remove this floor. Today he said it would cost $50 million or $60 million. Of course prices are going up and medical costs are going up, and it may be that it would cost a bit more.


William Moore Benidickson: And wages are going up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the parliamentary assistant also, having given those figures, goes on to say that if that much money is to be given to the Canadian people by way of tax relief, the government is obliged to consider what is the best way in which to give that relief.
Well, the fact of the matter is that $30 million or $40 million or $50 million given as general tax relief spread over the whole population is such a small amount per week to the average taxpayer, such a few cents, it is not worth nearly as much as it would be to have the knowledge that in the case of medical expenses there would be more substantial relief. I submit that those who would not get 3 or 4 cents a week off their general tax because the money was not used for a general reduction would feel it was worth more to have the knowledge that in the event of high medical expenses the full amount of those expenses could be deducted for income tax purposes.
The parliamentary assistant to the minister gave the example of an income taxpayer at the $3,000 level for whom taxes had been reduced, if I took down his figures correctly, by $45 from 1952 to 1956. The parliamentary assistant gave $175 as the income tax in 1952 and $130 as the income tax in 1956, or a reduction of $45. This only underlines my point. At the $3,000 level that is a total tax reduction in four years of only 86 cents per

Income Tax Act
week, or a little over 20 cents per week per year. At the lower levels the reduction is even less than that.
The parliamentary assistant makes a great deal out of the fact that there are two million people in the working force who do not pay income taxes and therefore would not get any relief from the proposal I make. I do not know why he brings up the fact that in this country, which the Liberals boast is rolling in high gear, there are two million people in the working force whose incomes are so low they do not pay income taxes. This means that if they are single they are earning less than $1,000; if they are married without children they are earning less than $2,000; if they are married and have two children, they are earning less than $2,300 a year. I suggest it is a blot on the government of the day that it should allow, in this so-called fast rolling economy, so many people to be living on incomes as low as that.
The parliamentary assistant raised again the question of the way in which the resolution is worded, and the way in which a resolution such as this has to be treated by the government. He knows as well as anyone that a private member cannot word a resolution in such a way as to require the expenditure of money. All a private member can do is present a resolution that states the advisability of considering such a proposal. Most of us still feel that if the house as a whole approves of a resolution in those terms there is at least a moral obligation on the government to consider the matter, and to consider what very clearly must have been the views of the members when they passed such a resolution. I think it is well that once again we have an opportunity for the government to ascertain how members generally feel on this question.
The parliamentary assistant said there was one new item in the picture this year. I have already referred to it. It is the proposal made last week by the federal government at the conference with the provinces on the question of health insurance. As I have already indicated, I welcome the steps that have been taken. Naturally I do not believe the government's proposal goes far enough in this important field, but it goes a little farther than I thought this slow government might move by 1956.
The fact of the matter is that if the federal government's proposals come into effect in full there is still left for the individual Canadian the whole range of his doctor's and dentist's bills, a whole gamut of medical expenses that he will still have to pay on

an individual basis. Helpful though this proposed and welcome hospitalization scheme will be, there is still a wide range of medical expenses that will fall upon the individual, which still makes necessary the kind of consideration in respect of income tax that this resolution calls upon the government to give.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the house to support this resolution asking for the removal of the 3 per cent floor with regard to the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting aside a week to be known as the little people's safety measure week.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce this resolution. I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will take it into consideration in his usual way, and I am not in the least concerned whether it goes to a vote or not so long as the Minister of National Health and Welfare considers it favourably.
Accident Prevention
I think this resolution is long overdue. When one looks at what has been happening to the children of Canada in the last few years -even the last few weeks-one will say it is high time that publicity be given to the need for the protection of our children.
We now have weeks for different things. We have a week for wild life, and in passing I should like to pay my tribute to men like Jack Miner who did so much to protect wild life in Canada, which work is being carried on by his family at the present time. But wild life, important as it is, fades into insignificance when compared with the lives of the boys and girls. Their lives are deathless and eternal.
I know we have many great things in Canada of which we are very proud. We have the greatest wheat growing fields in the world. We have the greatest wheat handling elevators in the world. We have the longest railroad in the world. We have the greatest fresh water lake in the world. We have the greatest mines in the world. But these fade into insignificance when compared with the lives of our boys and girls.
I have a chart here from which I obtained some vital statistics. It has a good deal to say about the death of children of various ages. For the whole of Canada in 1954 there were 124,520 deaths. Of this total there were 20,000 between the ages of 10 and 14, more than all older folk. I would like you to note that according to this chart almost twice as many boys as girls died or were killed in accidents at a young age. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would allow this chart to be placed on Hansard. It has to do with the deaths of males and females under 14 years of age.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Did the hon. member indicate the source of the table?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I obtained it from the bureau of statistics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to place this table on Hansardt


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The chart is as follows:



DEATHS BY SEX AND AGE, CANADA AND PROVINCES, 1954

[Stage Direction]
a>
co
Ages	Canada	Nfid.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.All ages	T	124,520	2,916	966	5,692	4,286	33,169	44,515	6,719	6,323	7,520	12,414M	72,140	1,696	531	3,222	2,463	18,668	25,050	4,055	4,001	4,778	7,676F	52,380	1,220	435	2,470	1,823	14,501	19,465	2,664	2,322	2,742	4,738Under 1 year	M	7,969	335	55	340	376	3,032	2,019	385	432	510	485F	5,872	226	40	228	288	2,329	1,498	250	276	372	3651 year	M	545	25	2	33	21	223	110	23	26	40	42F	453	18	1	17	23	186	105	18	23	24	382 years	M	304	8	1	13	16	99	82	20	17	17	31F	236	5	2	6	12	95	59	16	a	16	143 years	M	232	8	2	12	7	83	64	12	11	15	18F	140	1	11	7	45	32	5	17	10	124 years	M	195	5	1	9	9	69	59	12	7	13	11F	139	6	1	5	11	54	36	9	4	7	6Total under 5 years	M	9,245	381	61	407	429	3,506	2,334	452	493	595	587F	6,840	255	45	267	341	2,709	1,730	298	331	429	4355 years	M	174	6	2	8	10	68	51	9	2	9	9F	112	3	1	3	4	43	36	6	2	9	5M	162	5	9	6	66	46	5	2	14	9F	80	3	3	6	27	23	2	2	10	4M	135	4	8	9	52	36	5	7	4	10F	95	7	7	35	27	6	4	7	28 years	M	117	6	1	6	7	39	43	4	4	3	4F	68	3	1	5	2	27	17	2	4	2	59 years	M	108	7	1	4	7	35	31	8	5	7	3F	52	3	1	1	19	13	3	1	6	5Total 5-9 years	M	696	28	4	35	39	260	207	31	20	37	35F	407	12	2	19	20	151	116	19	13	34	2110 years	M	101	4	1	2	5	39	29	4	3	9	5F	49	1	4	4	16	13	3	2	2	4M	96	3	6	5	37	25	5	7	6	2F	54	5	1	2	2	20	17	1	1	5M	68	2	4	6	23	13	4	2	6	8F	29	1	1	10	9	1	2	3	2M	85	4	6	4	27	25	6	3	7	3F	45	1	1	1	13	12	2	4	3	8M	89	2	6	4	29	26	5	5	6	6F	45	1	1	1	2	18	9	3	3	4	3Total 19-14 years	M	439	13	3	24	24	155	118	24	20	34	24F	222	9	2	8	10	77	60	10	12	12	22All other ages	M	61,760	1,274	463	2,756	1,971	14,747	22,391	3,548	3,468	4,112	7,030F	44,911	944	386	2,176	1,452	11,564	17,559	2,337	1,966	2,267	4,260
to
[Stage Direction]
*1
o
o
[Stage Direction]


o
as
w
Accident Prevention

There are many different causes of accidents. One is drowning. There are not many members in this house who do not know of a danger spot for little boys and girls. I can remember that one of the first things I had to do in Fort William was help Dr. Cook to give respiration to a little fellow who was drowned in the Neeking river. At the rear of the houses on the river there was nothing but a few willows to protect the boys and girls from drowning. On another occasion I saw a man sitting on the bank of Mosquito creek as I was coming in from the country on a Sunday afternoon. I asked, "What is the matter with you?" He said, "My boy went in swimming there," and you could not see a ripple of water. There was nobody to protect him or take him out. We got him out some time after.
Another cause of a good many accidents is cars and trucks. A little fellow will run out where you do not expect him to run. Sometimes accidents are caused by boys hitch-hiking on the rear of a car, or in the wintertime sliding behind the car. Many accidents occur when children are crossing the street. I can remember, not a great while ago, when a four-year old boy in Fort William ran out in front of a street car at a corner and lost his life.
Another outstanding cause of death of children is negligence and ill treatment by parents. When a father or mother indulges in drinking you might say they are not responsible, but they are responsible when the children suffer. Sometimes they leave them in an automobile while they go to a picture show or to a beer parlour. I must express my appreciation to the police of Fort William, because whenever they find a car with little children locked inside they take care of that car. Another thing children should be advised to do, especially little girls, is to be very careful in speaking to strange men. The tragic result of this has been seen in the past few days.
Another cause of accidents is fire. Sometimes this is the result of using matches; sometimes there are other causes. It is very difficult to save little children when a house is on fire. Another cause of accidents is the use of bicycles. When you are driving a car it is difficult to avoid a boy who swings out on a bicycle. Sometimes he will have another boy or perhaps two boys on the handlebar.
It is very difficult to protect the lives of those children. We know something of the importance of advertising. If the proper authorities in Canada would advertise a week for the protection of little folks it would go a long way to help. Fort William showed its
Accident Prevention
appreciation of the importance of advertising. Our chief of police and city council kept advertising the prevention of accidental death in Fort William for 629 days; now it has started again, and we hope the period will be longer this time.
A week for the protection of little folks should be advertised through our teachers, through our school boards, through our city councils, through our police forces, through our service clubs, through our churches and by means of women's auxiliaries.
I know the government showed its interest in the protection of little folks when it passed the Family Allowances Act. That is one of the greatest things that has ever been done to help the children of Canada. Some people think the allowances should be increased. I believe the minister would like to increase it, too, if he could get the means to do so. Another thing that is going to very much help the health and protection of little children is a new plan for health insurance. This health insurance will be of more benefit to children under 14 years of age than it will be to those over 14 years of age, because the death rate is so much higher.
Children's patrols and police patrols are doing good work in helping to protect the children at crossings. I noticed in the press today that the birth rate in Canada reached a new high in 1955; 442,000 in 1955 as compared with 435,000 in 1954.
I am not going to labour this very much longer, but I will say this. We can protect the lives of our boys and girls. We can protect their health, but we have to do something else. It is not sufficient to teach them how to earn a living; we must teach them how to live and how to honour their fathers and mothers, how to respect their Queen and country and to worship their God and serve Him daily. We must instil these ideas into their hearts and minds.
I place this resolution before you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will ensure that we have in Canada a week devoted to the protection of our little folks, because nothing in this country in the way of wealth or potential compares with our little boys and girls. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking to this resolution, or any idea that it would come to debate tonight. However, I do not think we should allow a motion of this kind to be discussed without the house expressing to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) its sincere appreciation for his efforts in relation to this resolution.

Accident Prevention
I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat has won a place in the heart of each of us, as has his very lovely wife who listened tonight from the gallery as he spoke. As all hon. members know this resolution is just the culmination of the principles by which the hon. member has lived in both his private and public lives. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that any one of us has to speak in favour of this resolution which has been brought forward with such sincerity by the hpn. member for Fort William.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. member who has just taken his seat has indicated, the resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Fort William is one that understandably makes a strong appeal to all sections of the house. The hon. gentleman has on several occasions directed our attention to matters of consequence, and he has used the vehicle of private member's day to bring to our attention some of the things he feels have importance, notwithstanding the fact that sometimes the practicality of the suggestion may .be open to question.
I well remember the hon. member for Fort William anticipating many matters that later were adopted in other jurisdictions of government in this country, although the subject matter was discussed in this house long before it became law in these other areas of government.
The hon. member tonight directs our attention to a resolution which suggests that in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of setting aside a week to be known as the little people's safety measure week. In doing so the hon. gentleman directs our attention to the fact that one of the greatest causes of death in this country is' the negligence of many drivers of motor vehicles.
The hon. gentleman, of course, is aware of the interest which now exists in trying to curb fatal accidents in Canada. This interest is the result of the initiative taken by a former colleague in the government, the former minister of national defence, Hon. Brooke Claxton, whose well known qualities of leadership caused a national organization with provincial branches to be set up to determine whether or not the heavy fatal accident toil in Canada could be somewhat abridged and arrested. I am sure that the hon. member, having directed our attention to this problem tonight, will find that whatever support can be given to this national safety movement formerly headed by the ex-minister of national defence is one of the effective ways of meeting the objective which he himself has in mind.

I may tell my hon. friend that the government of Canada is giving consideration to some measure of financial assistance along with the provinces to a safety campaign. Whether or not the government's policy will be finalized along the lines indicated remains to be seen, but I merely mention this interim consideration to indicate to the hon. gentleman the government's interest in this problem. I should also point out that the question involved is one which, under our constitution, properly resides with the provinces, and the provinces would be very jealous of any action on our part that would interfere with their constitutional rights.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: Well, my hon. friends on the other side of the house are laughing-


Mr. Coldwell:: No. no.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure if we were to interfere with the rights of the government of Saskatchewan my hon. friends would be the first to bitterly and vigorously complain.


Mr. Slewarl (Winnipeg Norlh):: Not if it is
a progressive step.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says not if it is a progressive step, but my hon. friend knows there have been many occasions when interference with provincial sovereignty has caused my hon. friend to rise with great alacrity and offer opposition.


Mr. Argue:: Bring in health insurance.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says bring in health insurance. My hon. friend does not like the fact that the government has already taken the initiative in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister knows that the opposite is the case.


Murdo William Martin: I was not directing my remarks to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I am referring to my smiling friend who is sitting behind the leader of the C.C.F.-[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: Oh; Mr. Knowles?


Murdo William Martin: the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), the young member who sits behind him and who on occasions finds it extremely difficult to restrain himself. '


Mr. Herridge:: Would the minister permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is it not a fact that this government passed an act which provided for

a national wild life week? Does that not interfere with the constitutional rights and jurisdiction of the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to come to that. My hon. friend is quite right in saying what he did but there is a vast difference between wild life in the woods and the kind of wild life we have on our highways. The point my hon. friend makes is indeed an important one and brings me back to the real subject at issue-


Hazen Robert Argue: Take a bow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: and that is whether or not we should set aside a week to be known as the little people's week.
I think the point we really want to emphasize is that not only one week should be devoted to this worthy purpose, but that every day every Canadian should think of the safety of our young people.
I commend my hon. friend for this resolution. I would ask him to join with me in recognizing that we want every day to be observed in the way he suggests. Having brought this matter to the attention of the house so forcefully and with such vigour, I am sure he will feel that his purpose will have been well served.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word or two on this resolution. I feel that this objective is something that is worth while. May I say that I think the Ontario government has gone about the matter in the right way. In connection with the school safety patrol they now have an officer who goes from one municipality to another. That officer was a traffic officer who was trained in Peterborough. His name is Don MacKay. He is an excellent man for the job. He is a good talker, and he can speak to the children. He loves children. That safety patrol, such as we have here in Ottawa and in various municipalities around the province, composed of children trained by officer Don MacKay and the police in the various cities, has saved thousands and thousands of lives.
There is, however, one thought that came to me today when I was driving here from Peterborough. While I was coming through the outskirts of Ottawa a. youngster was crossing the road. He never saw to the right or to the left because of the fact that he had on a high collar which was like blinkers on a horse. He could see only in front of him. I think it is wrong for a child to be bundled up so he cannot see to the right or to the left. In some of the states to the south of us they are extremely strict about these highway school signs, and they keep them on
Accident Prevention
the road all day long and all night long. When you come to one of these signs and it says, "Ten miles an hour", if you go 11 miles an hour you get a ticket; or if you approach one of those signs faster than, say 20 or 25 miles an hour the person on patrol will wave you down and tell you that you must not pass that sign and go through that section at a speed greater than 10 miles an hour.
Mention has been made of the health plan. The Minister of National Health and Welfare mentioned it tonight. The dominion government-this government here-have been forced into the health plan by the Ontario government, as they have been forced into the disability pension plan and other plans of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; the premier of Ontario was the one who brought forward the subject of health insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; he was the one who brought it up for consideration. Now this government is trying to make hay while the sun shines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a point of order. If the hon. gentleman is going to discuss this matter in the vein he has now indicated, I would suggest to you that he is clearly out of order. It is true that I mentioned the subject, but I did so only because there had been a chirp from under the gangway.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I chirped only because the minister chirped, and I did not want him to get in the last chirp.


Elmore Philpott: Before the hon. member for - Fort William withdraws his motion, Mr. Speaker, may I say how happy I am to give moral support to my old friend. With regard to the means of applying his resolution, I think he cannot go far wrong if he consults privately with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because there is no man in this whole country who knows how to put over a good idea better than does that minister.
May I say how happy I am from my seat here in the House of Commons to give what support I can to my old friend the hon. member for Fort William. When I first met him 20 years ago, when I helped to elect him first to this House of Commons, I found that he and his wife were just as much beloved and respected in the city of Fort William then as they are now in the halls

Accident Prevention
of this parliament building, not only in this chamber but in the other place. When the hon. member picks a cause like the safety of the young children of Canada, it seems to me it is typical of his whole career.
I was trying to think tonight of other people who had done good work in this regard. I remember that in 1928, when I first went as a young editorial writer to what was then the Globe-that was before it fell into a gold mine and became the Globe and Mail-we had in our circulation department a bright young man whose name was C. George McCullagh. I refer to the late C. George McCullagh, who later became publisher of the combined paper. Of the many good things C. George McCullagh did when he became a rich and powerful publisher, I do not think in his lifetime he ever did anything finer than what he did on the old Globe back in the twenties, when he went all over central Canada promoting what was called the Just Kids safety club. The whole purpose of that club was to teach- -children to look both ways before they crossed- the street.
I should just like to say that in bringing forward this resolution in such a fine way, it seems to me the hon. member for Fort William has done again the same kind of service that he has been doing all his life. Perhaps with the indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I tell a little story about the hon. member for Fort William, which I heard for the first time when he was elected in Fort William in 1935. Mr. Speaker, another government was in power at that particular time. Of course those were days when we had scores of thousands of unemployed people traipsing across this country because, as you will recall, those people had to go through Fort William.
They told the story of a modest clergyman who had worn his old black coat so long that it had turned green with age. Finally one day one of his congregation took him in and bought him a magnificent new black coat. About 10 days later the gentleman who had made the purchase saw the same clergyman on the street wearing the same old coat which had turned green with age. When he asked the clergyman the reason he received this reply: "You see, I met one of those boys off the train who had no job and no coat, so I gave him mine".
That clergyman, Mr. Speaker, was the same gentleman who tonight introduced this resolution designed to help save the lives of the children of Canada, namely the hon. member for Fort William.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I do not want to take up any time, Mr. Speaker, except to join with those who have spoken in

favour of the general principle of a safety week in the interests of saving the lives of boys and girls. When I first read the resolution on the order paper some week or so ago and saw that it contained the proposal to set up a week known as little people's safety measure week I said to myself, "I think I will have to get in on this, because I am a little man, and it is about time somebody paid some attention to us little people." The group of Social Crediters here thought likewise.
I believe we are all in favour of the principle involved. I do think, however, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not up to his usual form in speaking extemporaneously on this matter and introducing the constitutional angle on it. He may have a point there, but I feel he was straining a little to make any sort of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just point out that when this was mentioned two years ago, two different provinces took exception.


Ernest George Hansell: What I was going to say was this. If it were desired to have anything of this nature on a national scale, I doubt very much whether it would be practical to refer it to the provinces. There is another way. I think the hon. member who introduced the resolution had in mind bringing the subject to the attention of the public and those organizations that may be concerned. I feel that is an admirable thing. There are organizations throughout Canada, national in scope, that could very well bring about a further consciousness of the need for a safety week for boys and girls.
We have our Y.M.C.A., Y.W.C.A. and various organizations interested in young people's work. We have our churches. We have our service clubs. I have noticed when listening to the radio that many of these organizations, and I believe many radio stations by courtesy, have announced over the air the necessity for being careful when one is driving. I do not know that the radio stations pay particular attention to the boys and girls, but they have rendered a service in that respect. I see no reason why some of these organizations could not do work along that line. It may cost a little money, but I am quite certain that this house would be willing to vote them some sort of grant. We make grants to other organizations. The amount of money would not be great, but we could support them in this way.
We have our health week. We have fire prevention week. We have brotherhood week. I believe we have crippled children's week, and as has been announced tonight, national wild life week. Soon we are going to run out of weeks. I feel we are all in agreement

with the principle here, and I would urge that organizations who are interested in young people's work take a cue from the discussion tonight and project themselves a little further to bring about the desirable objective set out in this resolution.


Ray Thomas: I believe the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) gave the reason I sat down so quickly, Mr. Speaker, when he rose. Since he is the little fellow in our group, I thought he should be the one to speak for the little people. As the hon. member for Macleod pointed out, we certainly agree that some sort of educational program should be put forward to educate the younger children of the country about the dangers they have to face every day.
I want to make one observation to the minister, one which came to me while he was speaking about the constitutional aspect of the resolution. I thought possibly his department could print a pamphlet of some description, written in a manner that would be understood by the younger children and perhaps printed in the style of a comic book, which the pre-school children could have read to them by their parents.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not seen the pamphlet we have distributed?


Ray Thomas: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to send it to him.


Ray Thomas: I would urge a pamphlet of that nature that could be read by the younger children. I would appreciate it if the minister could advertise that, to let the different organizations know and have them made available to the children.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to say a few words in support of the general principle of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Fort William. As the hon. member for Macleod said a few moments ago, it is to be hoped that some of the safety organizations in the country may obtain guidance from some of the remarks made this evening.
I do not want to take more than a moment or two, but I should like to refer to one aspect of safety for children. The particular aspect to which I am referring is a safety measure for children under 16 years of age who ride bicycles on our streets. As hon. members know the number of automobiles, particularly in urban areas, has greatly increased since the end of world war II. In fact they have increased at a far greater rate than road facilities. In addition, because of the increased standard of living in this country and the increased amount of money available, far more
Accident Prevention
children ride bicycles than formerly. I believe all hon. members have had experience at one time or another with children around 10 or 12 years of age who ride bicycles and who pay little attention to the rules of the road. They duck in and out of traffic; they pass cars on the right and they come out without warning. It is not their fault, they just do not know any better.
If these children are going to drive vehicles * on the street, they should have some instruction in the school or in the home. It is to be hoped that these organizations who are interested in this sort of thing will consider this aspect of the matter, because children on bicycles on busy streets of our cities at noon hour and after four o'clock are a great danger, not only to themselves but to motorists. I think this problem could be overcome by a program of education, explaining to the children what they should and should not do when they ride bicycles.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: I should like to say a few words on this important subject of saving the lives of the children of Canada. Every day in the newspapers we read that fires and highway accidents have taken a toll of our children. I commend the mover of this resolution for having introduced this important subject here.
I suggest that the best method of instituting a week such as that envisaged by this resolution would be through the school teachers. Then the children could be told of the dangers of crossing streets, riding their bicycles when it is dark, or walking along roads. I would think that if during one week the teachers of this country told the children what to do and what not to do to protect their own lives, we should benefit a great deal from such a campaign.
I congratulate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) for having given us this opportunity of expressing our views on this subject tonight.
(Translation) :


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have paid close attention to the remarks of the various members who have taken part in the debate on that very important question of the safety of our young children, and I add my congratulations to those they have offered the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).
In general, the discussion has been mainly on the highway or street safety for children who are riding their bicycles or walking along the road. But I believe we should lay more stress on the safety measures that could be taken to save the lives of our young children at home. As a matter of fact, the appalling number of young children who

Human Rights
have perished in recent fires should prompt us to ask the authorities and the different parish or city organizations to undertake an education campaign wherever possible but first of all among parents. For, according to the papers, many of those tragedies occur while parents are away from home, having left their children in the care of some other child of 12 or 14, and even quite often, of a 10 year old baby sitter. An educational campaign should therefore be launched by public bodies and various organizations for the benefit of parents.
The national week suggested by the hon. member for Fort William should be favourably received by all. It should, of course, be a voluntary and country-wide campaign, in order to stop this plague which, for the past few years, has taken far too many lives.
Again, I congratulate the hon. member and hope his resolution will arouse the people of Canada. This campaign should, moreover, be carefully prepared for its purpose will consist in educating not only the children but, first and foremost, the parents themselves. That, to my mind, is where we should start.
(Text) :


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks n.ow he will close the debate.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the sentiments expressed by hon. members. The outstanding need of course, is the advertising of the dangers that confront our boys and girls. I am not going to ask for a vote because I do not think if would do a bit of good. It would not help us get any further, because the minister has already promised to consider it. I want him to consider it favourably without a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. gentleman is asking to withdraw his motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Major James William Coldwell: That, in the opinion ol this house, consideration should be given to the taking of whatever steps 
are necessary to amend the British North America Act so as to include therein the following heading and sections:
"XII Human Rights
148.	Notwithstanding anything in this act, it shall not be lawful for the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of any of the provinces to make laws:
(a)	Abridging freedom of speech and expression, or freedom of religion, or of the press or other means of communication or the right of lawful assembly, association or organization.
(b)	Depriving any person of life or liberty by arbitrary or abusive measures, or denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
(c)	Requiring or imposing excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment or exiling Canadian citizens.
(d)	Subjecting any person to unreasonable interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence.
(e)	Subjecting any person to arbitrary arrest or detention or denying to any person the right after arrest to be informed promptly of the charges against such person and to trial within a reasonable time or to be released.
(f)	Suspending the right to habeas corpus or depriving any person of a fair trial or the right to be represented by counsel.
149.	The rights provided in section 148 shall be enjoyed without distinction of race, sex, religion or language and the right to vote in any election of members of parliament of Canada or the legislative assembly of any province shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, religion, language or sex.
150.	The rights conferred by sections 148 and 149 hereof of this act shall not be deemed to abridge any existing right of any person."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to take part in the debate on the resolution which the hon. member for Fort' William has just withdrawn because I told the whip that I would proceed with this resolution tonight, and I regard it as somewhat in line with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Fort William, because both of us have in mind certain freedoms. One of those freedoms which the hon. member for Fort William has in mind is the freedom of children to walk and ride safely along our streets and public highways. That indeed, of course, is a freedom not covered by the resolution I am moving, but nonetheless it is a very real one for the children of our country. Consequently, while I was very much in favour of the resolution, I did not want to prolong the debate by participating in it.
About a year ago, Mr. Speaker, I moved this resolution in the house. It is in precisely the same terms as the resolution I moved on that occasion. At that time we had what I thought was a very worth-while debate, but we came to no conclusion. On this occasion I am hoping that those who participate in the debate will keep the purpose of this resolution in mind. That purpose is that sooner or later, we may write into the constitution of our country, the British North

America Act, a new section, or new sections, worded as I have them here. Therefore at this stage I should like to read them into the record. They are as follows:
"XII Human Rights
148.	Notwithstanding anything in this act, it shall not be lawful for the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of any of the provinces to make laws:
(a)	Abridging freedom of speech and expression, or freedom of religion, or of the press or other means of communication or the right of lawful assembly, association or organization.
(b)	Depriving any person of life or liberty by arbitrary or abusive measures, or denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
(c)	Requiring or imposing excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment or exiling Canadian citizens.
(d)	Subjecting any person to unreasonable interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence.
(e)	Subjecting any person to arbitrary arrest or detention or denying to any person the right after arrest to be informed promptly of the charges against such person and to trial within a reasonable time or to be released.
(f)	Suspending the right to habeas corpus or depriving any person of a fair trial or the right to be represented by counsel.
149.	The rights provided in section 148 shall be enjoyed without distinction of race, sex, religion or language and the right to vote in any election of members of parliament of Canada or the legislative assembly of any province shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, religion, language or sex.
150.	The rights conferred by sections 148 and 149 nereof of this act shall not be deemed to abridge any existing right of any person.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that section 150 is placed in the resolution so that beyond peradventure it would not be considered that the sections that precede it in any way limit the rights that have been established by law, by custom or by precedent to the citizens of Canada generally over the years.
Throughout the long history of the fight for human rights and freedom we have found from time to time the necessity of putting into writing the rights or the privileges that had been obtained or attained in former years by means of precedent. If we look through the pages of our Canadian history, as well as the history of the country from which we derive so many of our freedoms, Britain, I think we shall find that this is so. Often certain rights were established by custom; then later on it was thought wise by the people of the country and by the representatives whom they elected to their representative institutions, whether they were the parliaments of medieval times, the parliaments which followed the overthrow of the Stuart kings at the end of the 17th century, or more recently, to confer certain rights of representation and of voting upon various groups of people in our own
Human Rights
country and in the country from which we derive so much of our inspiration and so many of our institutions.
I might remark to the house that from time to time in this country over the years the right to vote has been limited by the action of legislatures because of race or religion. I only refer to measures that have been adopted by this parliament since I have been a member of this house in order sometimes to restore rights that had been abrogated, or to ensure rights that had been taken away by other legislatures.
It was not so long ago that persons professing a religion which caused some of the wilder men and women in that religious group to do things which were not in conformity with the manner in which we expect our citizens to behave-I refer of course to the Doukhobors-found that the right to vote for members of the parliament of Canada was based upon an enactment of the legislature of British Columbia. Because the province of British Columbia denied that group of people that right, they were denied the right to vote for representation in this parliament. I know of cases where the people on one side of the family were of Doukhobor descent and those on the other side were descendants of United Empire Loyalists; yet they were all denied the right to vote because they were said to be, and legally were, the descendants of Doukhobors.
I think it is wrong that this kind of thing should be done in connection with persons professing a certain religion, even though some disobey the law, provided the majority are law-abiding as is the case with the group I have just mentioned. In my own province of Saskatchewan we have large populations in some areas of people of Doukhobor origin, Doukhobor religion and Doukhobor descent. I venture to say that there are no more law-abiding citizens, there are no citizens who are becoming better integrated into our society in Saskatchewan than some of the descendants of those Doukhobor settlers who came to this country just before the dawn of the present century.
Consequently when any group of people are denied the right to exercise what we regard as the fundamental and basic rights of citizens, not only their rights but the rights of all citizens are to some degree endangered, because we never know when the denial of those rights may be extended to other groups within the community. Only a few days ago I was reading in the new issue of what is perhaps now the national magazine, Maclean's magazine, an editorial dealing with another religious group in one of our provinces which may be denied the right to hold

Human Rights
property as we understand that right. The editorial remarked that recently a group of municipal representatives in the province of Manitoba had approached the Manitoba government with the request that legislation be enacted similar to that which had been enacted in the province of Alberta several years ago to prevent people who professed a strange religion, who were considered to be a strange people, the Hutterites, from extending their holdings of land and establishing colonies I think within 40 miles of any existing colony.
The writer of that editorial pointed out very properly that if that kind of request were granted by the government of Manitoba -I say at once that the writer of the editorial was of the opinion that it would not be granted by the present government of Manitoba-it would constitute an infringement of a right which is implicit when we as a national parliament invite people to come to this country. When we allow people to come to Canada under our immigration regulations, if they are law-abiding people we should permit them the same basic rights as* the rest of us possess. No one will deny that the people to whom I have just referred are law-abiding.
In moving a resolution of this description. I have these recent matters and examples in mind. Then, too, I have noticed legislation recently introduced in one of the provinces in connection with the newsprint industry that might-I do not say it will-be used to limit the freedom of the press, that might be used indeed to stop the publication of a newspaper or a magazine which the authorities in that province did not like, which was violently opposed to the provincial regime. I say at once that I do not know that the legislation would be used for that purpose, but the obvious inference on reading the legislation is that it might be so used.
Then some years ago we had legislation, which was denied by the courts and the federal government, for the limitation of the freedom of the press in the province of Alberta; I refer to the provincial act of 1937.
Consequently it seems to me that we should have such rights of citizenship clearly set forth in our constitution. This resolution if accepted would write into our constitution some of these basic rights which are not written in at the present time. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) may say that the preamble of the British North America Act provides these rights, or perhaps by inference, custom or precedent there is an enjoyment of them; but I think I have already indicated several examples which would show that

these rights which are surely national in scope are not always respected by provinces and legislatures.
I am happy, of course, that from time to time our courts do interpret the constitution in such a manner as to safeguard some of our basic rights. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in connection with the violation of a home by the police in a neighbouring province is a case in point. In that instance the final legal authority in this country, the Supreme Court of Canada, ruled that provincial police had acted in violation of the constitutional rights of a man who was holding a religious service in his home. They ruled also that in confiscating the literature and the Bible and deporting the man across the boundary they were infringing one of the basic rights of Canadian citizenship. So I say that from time to time our courts protect us by the interpretation of the law and the constitution.
Then, of course, there is undoubtedly discrimination as between individuals, sometimes on account of racial origin. It is very deplorable that in this province of Ontario, while the provincial legislature did pass an act making it an offence to discriminate against an individual because of his colour, that law has still been defied in one or two of the smaller places in Ontario and once or twice, indeed, I believe even in the city of Toronto. Racial discrimination does occur from time to time.
The Minister of Justice may say again, like the Minister of National Health and Welfare in another connection, that this might be considered as under provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, of course, some colour is given to that argument by the fact that several provinces have on the statute books legislation forbidding such discrimination. But it seems to me that we should have that protection as an inalienable right of our Canadian citizenship as such; not a right because we are residents of the province of Ontario, through a provincial act; or of the province of Saskatchewan, because of a provincial act; or of any other province because of a provincial act. We should have it as a constitutional right written into the constitution within a bill of rights.
That, as I have said, is one of the purposes of this resolution. Sometimes I have felt that even under our federal authority our immigration department has from time to time discriminated against persons who have come here, sometimes indeed ostensibly to do one thing when they may wish, having been here for some time, to remain to do another. I have felt that simply because they were of a different race or a different colour, they

have been deported. Of course I may be wrong in my judgment; I may be erring in that opinion; none the less that is my opinion, and I think it has been shared by a good many people who have looked into some of these cases in our country.
When we look around the world we see how from time to time in various other countries the rights of individuals have been abrogated or limited by the rise to power of persons who have no sympathy with human rights and fundamental freedoms. I know it will be said-perhaps the Minister of Justice will say it when he takes part in this discussion-that if you look across the sea, to the United Kingdom for example, you will find that the rights enjoyed by the people there are not embedded in a bill of rights, that they stem from a number of acts and a number of precedents.
Some of the precedents have been created by the courts. I have in mind at the moment the right to liberty of the individual, which was not originally set forth in any law but was expressed by Lord Mansfield. When it was brought to his attention that a negro-I have forgotten his name, but I think he was called James Somersett-was in slavery in England and was to be taken away again into slavery by his owner, the judge said something to this effect, "The air of this country is free, and he who breathes the air of this country must enjoy freedom." He ordered that slave to be set free. There was no bill of rights in the sense that I am discussing a bill of rights. There was no act of the British parliament which ensured to that individual the right to life and liberty, but he had that right by the judgment of a court. Subsequently the freedom of slaves was decreed by parliament.
It may be said, of course, that in the great country to the south they have written into their constitution a bill of rights; but you have only to look at what has happened there, particularly in the southern states recently, to realize it has not meant all that the persons who wrote that bill of rights intended it to mean when they wrote it into the constitution. However, I do not think that alters by one jot or tittle the fact that the writing into our constitution of a bill of rights of the description I have had the honour to place before the house tonight would imbed in our constitution, in the minds of our people, those basic rights of citizenship that are set forth, and give protection.
From time to time, of course, within recent years we have had the denial of the very first freedom I mention here; freedom of speech and expression. Under all sorts of
Human Rights
local enactments, sometimes municipal laws, persons who wished, shall we say, to conduct a religious service in the street were stopped from doing so; not only ordered to move on, but sometimes even arrested for causing obstruction.
Freedom of speech is a very precious thing which we enjoy under the constitution, and it should be specifically written in. Some of us have had the pleasure of strolling on an evening up to Hyde park corner and hearing the freedom of speech there under the protection of the law, in the person of a policeman. I remember when I was there in 1944 and the buzz bombs were coming over London, three Canadian friends and I walked one evening up to Hyde park corner, and we heard an agitator denouncing the war, denouncing the prime minister and the various political parties supporting the war, and calling the young men and women standing around fools for believing that the war was being fought for human freedom and human rights. Yet the policeman saw to it that the speaker was not interfered with.
That seemed to me, at least, to be going a very long way in freedom. None the less, because that freedom exists I believe that the rights of individuals in the United Kingdom and the institutions of that country are probably safer from violent overthrow than the institutions of almost any country in the world-not that I think that our own institutions are now in any danger in that respect. Freedom of speech and of expression are among the basic rights of the individual as is, of course, freedom of religion. Canadians belonging to one religious denomination regard people who attend religious services of other denominations not only with equanimity but with esteem and understanding, and that is a precious quality in the society in which we live.
I have already mentioned freedom of the press and of means of communication. I should also mention, of course, that right that has been secured after many years of struggle, the right to organize, the right to associate, and the right to express oneself with one's fellows through an organization and in association with people of like mind.
I have outlined other liberties in this resolution including freedom from cruel or unusual punishment. I do not think punishment of this kind is inflicted by any of the courts in this country. I do not know of a case in recent times which has brought a sentence of cruel or unusual punishment. I have sometimes thought, however, that the sentences meted out might have been more severe than was perhaps warranted by the crime; but even those punishments could not be characterized as cruel or unusual.
6S4

Human Rights
Within our own lifetime we have had instances of arbitrary arrest and detention, and within my experience in this house there have been instances of the denial of the right of the individual after arrest to be informed promptly of the charges against him and to be given a trial or released within a reasonable time. I am not going to go back and discuss in any detail the arrests that followed the Gouzenko episode, but I have always regarded what happened then as something of a blot on our Canadian jurisprudence, because some of the people who were picked up for questioning were held incommunicado, were not given access to legal counsel and were not charged with any crime. Although some of them were subsequently brought before the courts, found guilty and sentenced, others who had been treated in the same manner were found innocent. In that case, at least, there was a denial of justice of which most of us feel ashamed when we look back upon it.
Another right is that of habeas corpus. How often we have heard habeas corpus mentioned; yet I suppose there is no right we enjoy to which we are not heirs because of the descent of our constitution from that of Britain. The right of habeas corpus is the right of an individual to demand the production of someone who is under arrest, so that he may be brought before a proper court and given an opportunity to plead.
These are some of the rights I should like to see written into our constitution. It may be said, of course, that those rights are not in danger. However, tonight I have mentioned some of our rights which have been in danger or have actually been denied from time to time. It might be argued that the inclusion of these rights in the constitution of our country is wholly unnecessary, but I do not think so. Who knows what conditions may exist in this country at a future date? We have seen strange movements arise in some of the most progressive countries of the world. I know that 20 years ago I would not have thought it likely-indeed, I was going to put it more strongly and say I would not have thought it possible-that that democratic country in central Europe which was established after the first great war under President Masaryk would fall under dictatorship and become a totalitarian country. I would neither have thought that likely nor, as I said, possible; but that has happened. We do not know but that a group of individuals who would abrogate some of our basic freedoms-freedom of speech, of association, of the press, of religion and the freedom to vote
fMr. Coldwell.]
without regard to race, creed or colour

might obtain a sufficiently large following in the country to deny us the rights that go with Canadian citizenship.
It may be said, of course, that even if we write these freedoms into our constitution, such a group would set it aside. That may be true; none the less the very fact that these rights were written into our constitution and were regarded as basic rights would make it more difficult for them to dispense with those rights. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am again moving this resolution, not because I expect the Minister of Justice to accept it tonight in view of what he said last year, and not because I expect the house to adopt it if the minister opposes it tonight, but because I hope it will continue to be moved either by myself or by someone who may come after me until such time as a section somewhat like this is written into our constitution and becomes part of the permanent written constitution of this land.
I have sometimes been twitted because of the fact that I have given lectures in the past in which I said that I preferred an unwritten constitution to a written constitution. However, this is a country consisting of provinces, and it has a national, federal parliament. Consequently we had to have a written constitution. I would have been very happy indeed if the fathers of confederation had followed the inclination, shall I put it that way, of Sir John A. Macdonald and been able to establish a unitary form of government in this country. That was impossible, of course, because we had provinces that differed in their civil law, their conception of property rights and their desire to control- and quite properly-their educational facilities. Hence we could not have that. But I am quite sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the members of the government would have found the country much more easily governed had this been a unitary state instead of a federal state.
Because we are a federal state, I think it is more important that we should have written into our constitution a bill of rights of this description, so that we might not only limit our own power to abrogate the rights of citizenship within the provinces, but so the provinces should not have the right to abrogate the basic rights of national Canadian citizenship within their jurisdictions. So this resolution, if it became a bill which was introduced and passed, would limit the power of this parliament to deny any citizen any basic right, and by the same token it would also deny to legislative assemblies the right to abrogate any such right.

Incidentally, may I say this. I note that some legislative assemblies are now calling themselves provincial parliaments, and that certain premiers of provinces are now calling themselves prime ministers. According to my reading of the British North America Act, I thought there was to be one parliament of Canada; and by the same token I should think there would be but one Prime Minister of Canada. I make that comment incidentally, because this innovation has struck me as another one of those attempts to lower the prestige of the Prime Minister and of the parliament of Canada by placing the legislative assemblies and their premiers on the same level as that of the parliament of Canada and the office of the first or principal adviser of Her Majesty the Queen within Canada.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the house for giving me its attention again. I may say that I did not come down here tonight expecting to move this resolution. However, I discovered that there were some who expected me to move it. Their resolutions coming next, I found that I would have gravely embarrassed them if I had failed to move this resolution. I am therefore commending it to the Minister of Justice and the house. If not tonight or if not at this session, I hope that on some future occasion, even in some future session, such a bill of rights will be adopted and become part of the accepted constitution of this great, free land which we want to maintain in freedom and in peace.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who has just taken his seat said that when he came down to the chamber tonight he did not expect to be moving this resolution. I did not expect either that he would be moving it or that I would be replying to it. I listened, as I always do, with great interest to what the hon. gentleman had to say. After listening to him and agreeing with 90 per cent of the letter of his speech and with 100 per cent of its spirit, I have come to the conclusion that we think remarkably alike on this subject.


Major James William Coldwell: I think so, too.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Those points upon which we differ could perhaps be resolved more quickly if, instead of confining our discussion on this matter to debate in the house, we were to get together for an hour some time. Either he would convince me that I was wrong on those points on which I differ with him, or vice versa I might hope to convince him that he was wrong.


Major James William Coldwell: Let us have a try some time.
Human Rights


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; I should be happy indeed to do so. My hon. friend says he is a great admirer of the institutions of Great Britain and of its constitution, using that word in the large sense. He has instanced some cases which exemplify the way in which the British constitution protects the life and liberty of the British citizens.
With great respect may I say this-and this is one of the points whereon we differ-that I do not think the basis for his admiration is in all respects precisely correct. It is not because, in the case having to do with freeing of the slave, the judge reached the decision he did; it is not because of the existence of Magna Carta or of the bill of rights of 1688 which my hon. friend-I am sure unintentionally-rather left with us, or attempted to do so, the impression that it was the same kind of bill of rights which he is now asking us to accept.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no; I would not leave that impression.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that.


Major James William Coldwell: Quite the contrary.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend whether, for the purposes of our present discussion, the essential characteristic of the British constitution is not that all these hard-won liberties which the British people have acquired over the centuries can be changed overnight by an act of parliament if parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, sees fit to do so. My hon. friend has spoken in terms of great praise of this political and constitutional system of Great Britain. There is not a syllable of the praise he enunciated which I would not endorse with all my heart.
It is because of the fact that I endorse his sentiments that I deprecate that he of all people in this house should seek to change an essential characteristic of the Canadian constitution which we have inherited from Great Britain, namely the principle of the sovereignty of parliament, and in its stead to adopt the type of bill of rights which they have in the United States constitution and which, if I understood him correctly this evening, he himself does not admire in all its parts.


Major James William Coldwell: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Does he consider the analogy between the constitution of the United States and the constitution of Britain-the one a written constitution and the other an unwritten constitution-to be a sound analogy? We have a written constitution.

Human Rights


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will permit me to say so, I think he misses the real point entirely. It is not a question of whether the United States constitution is a written one and the British largely unwritten so much as it is a question of whether, in a British democracy, we the people have sufficient confidence in our own judgment as democrats and sufficient confidence in our own legislative assemblies that we are not afraid to trust ourselves and our children, and our representatives in parliament to reach wise decisions. If we do not trust them, and if we do not trust the processes of democracy in our country, then we shall seek to restrict and hedge in the powers of the elected representatives of the people, as is done in the United States constitution.
On the occasion on which this matter has been discussed previously I attempted to make the point that if we could look around us in the world and see any written constitution such as that which as my hon. friend advocates restricts the powers of its legislative assembly, and if we could see that in practice it really protected the liberties of the subject, then I would say by all means adopt it. But I suggest to my hon. friend that he will look around the world in vain for any country whose constitution is restricted by a bill of rights which provides even a fraction of the protection of human rights and liberties that we are very proud to possess in the British countries, and specifically in Canada.
Now, my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar has referred to the British North America Act, and correctly, because that written statute is the main part of our Canadian constitution. He will see that in the very first paragraph of the preamble to that statute it says:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:
I say, Mr. Speaker, that following the passage of that imperial act it is a matter of history that in this country we have enjoyed all the traditional freedoms of British people. We have enjoyed them, if the comparison is not an invidious one-and certainly my hon. friend will not say it is invidious-to a far greater extent than those same freedoms have been enjoyed by any country anywhere in the world under the type of written constitution with a bill of rights which he would like to foist upon us.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says that the difference between our country and Great Britain in this respect is that Great
[Mr. Coldwell.l
Britain-he is quite right in this-has a unitary government, while in this country we have a federal system in which the total powers of government are divided between those which have to do with the national or federal government at Ottawa, and which are under the authority of this parliament, and those which have to do with the provinces, and which are properly under the control of the various provincial legislatures.
He said it is because of this division of authority that we should have in our constitution the same principles which they have in the United States constitution, whereby the successfully rebelling citizens of the United States colonies withheld from their national congress and state legislatures certain rights which they, the people, hold unto themselves and have not seen fit to bestow upon the national congress and government or the state legislatures and governments. If we are going to follow my hon. friend's advice in this matter, our problem is that of transforming the British principle of the sovereignty of parliament and provincial legislatures in the federal state of Canada in the form in which it was created by grafting upon our Canadian constitution, with its divided authority between Canada and the provinces, a bill of rights characteristic of the United States system. I say to my hon. friend with great respect that far from the fact that our constitution is a federal constitution being a good reason why we should adopt this suggestion of his, the very opposite is the case.
He says in his resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the taking of whatever steps are necessary to amend the British North America Act so as to include therein the following heading and sections:
Let me point out to my hon. friend what we should have to do in order to take the necessary steps referred to in the language I have just quoted. As we all know, under the British North America Act the entire powers of government in Canada have been divided up between those matters which are specifically assigned to the provinces as being of more provincial and local character, and those specific powers which are assigned to the dominion parliament. In addition, there is a general power assigned to this parliament to make laws relating to all those matters which are not specifically assigned to the provinces.
The very first power which was assigned to the provinces when the British North America Act was passed was:
1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant governor.

My hon. friend, who is anxious to see that there should be included in the British North America Act some restraint upon the scope of the powers of the provinces in order to make it impossible for the provincial legislatures and governments to do some of the things which have been done and which he deprecates, might be well advised to address his arguments to the provincial legislatures in question themselves. They have the power to change their constitutions as long as they confine it to matters which are of purely provincial concern, and do not attempt to deal with the office of lieutenant governor.
The hon. member will recall that back in 1949 this parliament took the power, which we had not previously had, to pass laws dealing with all those matters which were of purely federal concern. But after we had done so, the British North America Act still dealt with a third class of matters, namely matters of joint concern to the federal parliament and the provincial legislature. In respect of that third group I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while it is true the parliament at Westminster throughout the years has seen fit to pass amendments to the British North America Act upon the receipt of a joint address of the Senate and the House of Commons, it would be politically difficult, if not unthinkable, that a responsible federal government should introduce such a joint address into the Senate and the House of Commons as would abrogate in any way the powers of the provincial governments over matters of joint concern unless the provinces concurred in that action.
I should think that, having regard to the fact that over the years the courts have unanimously held that the provinces acting within the sphere of their authority are just as sovereign as this parliament, it would not contribute very greatly to the political or constitutional harmony of this country if we in this parliament were to take it upon ourselves to follow the advice which I am sure my hon. friend either urges or implies by his resolution and by the speech with which he has supported it.


Major James William Coldwell: Before the minister leaves that point, will he permit a question? If he argues, as he does, that the preamble to the British North America Act gives certain rights that British citizens enjoy and that we in common with British citizens enjoy, then is it true to say that the provinces have no right to deny any of those rights to Canadian citizens? Since they have done so, is that not one reason why we should write into our constitution the protection that by inference is in the preamble of the British North America Act?
Human Rights


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, Mr. Speaker. With great deference to my hon. friend, if he will forgive me for saying so, I say it is a misunderstanding of some of these points, such as the one he just made, that causes him to have the desire to move the resolution he has moved tonight.
If I understand his question correctly, I should say this. The principle of the sovereignty of parliament, which is one of the cardinal principles of the British constitution, became the right and privilege of this house in respect of matters under its jurisdiction, and of the provincial legislatures in matters under their jurisdiction. Hence, much as we may regret it when cases arise such as my hon. friend mentioned, they fall within the principle of sovereignty of parliament of the British constitution and of our own constitution. It is within these principles that these acts that my hon. friend mentioned are passed. The only way in which this can be prevented-and he is perfectly right on this point-is by attaching to our constitution, both for the provinces and for this parliament, the same type of restrictions that he himself says are unsatisfactory in their operation as part of the bill of rights of the United States constitution.
My contention is, as it has been on previous occasions, that with all our Canadian constitution's faults, and they are not many; with every fault that my hon. friend can name, the provisions we have in the British North America Act are so superior to any of the types of bills of rights that my hon. friend can bring forward that I do not think we should compare them as being in the same class.
I grant you that on paper it sounds very impressive to say that no man shall be deprived of his property without due process of law; but I am sure my hon. friend's idealism would get a great shock if he were to look at the law reports and find in them many public utility cases in which the citizens invoking this provision of the bill of rights were large power corporations which said that they could not be brought under the type of act that my hon. friend himself might think was a very good act to pass, upon the argument that it was not within the power of that legislature to pass a law that took away from that power corporation the least part of its property or rights unless the matter were put before some court, and there disposed of by what they argued was due process of law.
My hon. friend has made reference to certain cases that he thinks are regrettable. I am now expressing solely my own views. Perhaps it is desirable, if we are engaged

Human Rights
in a life and death struggle with people who are bitterly opposed in every respect to every political concept that we hold dear, we should not shackle our own legislative powers to deal with any emergency that might arise in such time of war. For all of the abuses that may have arisen in that respect in countries like Great Britain, Australia and Canada, that have this principle of sovereignty of parliament, I am sure there are dozens of abuses that could be cited in other countries with bills of rights; where for example the right to vote is guaranteed to millions of citizens who have never received it. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I find it rather hard to understand why my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar should be urging what, in my view, is so foreign to those views which I have always 'understood him to possess.
I am sure he and I share together a very deep-seated admiration and respect for all the political institutions of the United Kingdom which we have inherited in the British North America Act, and which today are one of our greatest treasures. It would be a matter of the very greatest regret to introduce anything into our constitution which would make it less like that of the great country from which we inherited it, and more like those with constitutions containing bills of rights with whose operation in real life we are all so familiar.
On the last occasion on which this was discussed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will recall that I read into the record what I think without question, as those constitutions go, was perhaps on paper the most admirable extant. It is one of the most recent. The scholars who drew it up could examine those that existed before and bring down a really perfect protection for the liberties of the citizens.
As he will recall, on that occasion it sounded so good that one hon. member thought it was something prepared under the auspices of the United Nations. Actually it was the constitution of the Byelorussian republic. The hon. gentleman can see from this that it is all very well to draw up those constitutions on paper, but so far as the actual protection they give to citizen John Doe when his liberties are invaded, if we reflect for one moment we shall realize at once that that protection has to come from the invocation of the law by the law enforcement authorities that may result in an action before perhaps not a high court judge but merely a police magistrate. And so far as John Doe is concerned at that particular juncture, the protection of his liberty will not be one bit better than the interpretation by that magistrate of the law
tMr. Garson.l
that is applicable to his case. If the law enforcement authorities are strongly opposed to the law that they are being asked to invoke, they will invoke it with something less than enthusiasm. The results for John Doe may be as if that law had never existed. If my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar thinks this is an exercise of my imagination I say, look at thousands of cases that have arisen under these bills of rights such as he advocates, and see if that is not the case in actual fact.
Where are the franchises which millions of citizens should have had and which for decades they have not enjoyed? Why is that, if it is not because there is no machinery or no organization to which they can go to have their rights under these bills of rights enforced? Therefore when my hon. friend brings along his motion and says we need this bill of rights because we are a federal state, that we should embark upon an application to the imperial parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act, in order to take away or abridge those powers of the provinces that I have mentioned here of amending their own constitutions, and to take away or abridge or limit in many ways their present powers over the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law, to interfere with their jurisdiction over property and civil rights, are we to be so naive that we should think that after we have done that, we can go back to those same provincial governments and legislatures which cherish their powers and jurisdiction just as much as we do ours in this parliament; these powers over which we shall have run roughshod and we can then go back to them and ask if they will enforce those new laws that we have passed?
Therefore when my hon. friend says that because we have a federal state, that is the reason we should seek this change, I say to him that if we have any practical political sense whatever we will know that where there is this division of authority between Canada and the provinces it is of supreme importance that any change we make in our constitution will carry the judgment not only of this parliament and this government but of all the provincial authorities who have to enforce any changes that we may seek or get.
As regards the ideals that my hon. friend has set up, we are not in disagreement. I do not think a safety razor blade could be put between his views and mine as to the importance of the civil liberties of the individual. I think the difference between us is that I personally do not think there is any use trying to bring about a new heaven on earth unless

we pay some attention to the methods by which we are going to do that. All I have ever attempted to reply to a proposal such as that of my hon. friend in this same sort of context in which we are debating tonight, is this. You wish these principles protected. They are protected now by the British method. But you say we should protect them by the United States method. Let us then look at what we have to do in order to import this United States method into our Canadian constitution.
When we come to that point it has seemed to me-I have stated this on previous occasions-that it would be an act of very great unwisdom indeed if we should attempt in this parliament or under any federal auspices to take away any of the rights of the provinces, even if we thought they should be taken away.
For I put this to my hon. friend. Once you have this division of authority between the central government and the provincial governments in a free federal state-this does not apply to the U.S.S.R.; it applies to" Australia, where they have these problems to just as great or a greater degree than we have them here-if we are going to seek for any practical solution to this matter of a bill of rights, the only way in which we can find it is if we seek it in co-operation with the provincial authorities. For as long as they retain under our constitution, which my hon. friend admires so much, the exclusive authority over the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law, we are going to be dependent upon their actions for the effectiveness of any changes in the law we make by securing a bill of rights.


Mr, Knowles:: Would the minister permit a question? Is he not aware of the fact that the resolution as worded leaves entirely open the question as to how the amendment to the constitution may be brought about. If he will read the resolution he will note that it differs from other resolutions which usually ask that the government give consideration to something. This is put in general terms "that consideration should be given to the taking of whatever steps are necessary."


Mr, Garson:: I had noticed that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not the minister introducing an extraneous consideration?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is not extraneous at all. If I have a few minutes to finish my remarks, I would refer again to what I have said on previous occasions. While these are variations on the theme-I try to keep my theme exactly the same-the theme is that there is no
Human Rights
objection at all to examining my hon. friend's suggestions in this country, but the only effective way in which they can be examined is by the federal authorities in concern with all the provincial authorities examining them. No other way is effective. That is what I ventured to suggest on previous occasions and that is what I suggest on the present occasion.
I admit that the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is well taken, but in order to fill in this gap in the resolution, and perhaps in my own remarks, I say that we must act together if we are going to accomplish any proper or satisfactory results.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question? Has the government given consideration to the resumption of the federal-provincial conference on constitutional questions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not given consideration to a resumption of the federal-provincial conference on constitutional amendments. That had to do entirely with the method or means by which we might bring into existence in Canada, without resorting to the imperial parliament at Westminster, the means of amending our Canadian constitution entirely in Canada in a way that was approved by the federal parliament and certain suggested alternative numbers of provinces.
Whether it might be difficult to arrive at a method of amending the constitution in Canada, it might still be possible to deal with the distinct problem or point which has been raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and reach agreement with the provincial authorities concerning the insertion of a bill of rights in our constitution. If the provinces approved this it could take the form of a request to the imperial parliament to pass an amendment to the British North America Act under our present method. It was in that sense that I was saying in reply to the interjection made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and to the mover of this resolution, that this is a matter that could be given consideration, but only satisfactorily by joint action of the federal and provincial authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, the house will stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. I take it that the Minister of Justice has concluded his remarks.


William Earl Rowe: May I call it ten o'clock?


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Argue: How many income tax (a) inspectors; (b) other officials, have been employed in each province in each of the years 1951 to 1955?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
(a)	(b)
No. of Assessors	and Special Investigators	No. of	other Employees	as at	31st December	as at	31st December	Province	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955Prince Edward Island	14	14	14	15	18	26	36	53	55	49Newfoundland 	12	15	18	17	18	26	19	18	21	20Nova Scotia 	63	76	75	76	77	171	148	145	145	139New Brunswick 	44	43	45	49	48	110	110	110	112	103Quebec 	621	447	465	466	474	854	784	763	814	796Ontario 	849	743	816	917	952	1743	1922	1955	1954	1868Manitoba 	142	121	129	141	134	161	187	196	170	177Saskatchewan 	133	116	124	142	141	199	190	198	208	192Alberta 	159	139	146	164	173	224	223	249	272	271British Columbia	198	173	173	205	208	286	317	343	360	341Yukon Territory 	1	1	1	1	2	3	3	3	3	2
Tuesday, January 31, 1956