1957-02-04

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on January 29 last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to table the correspondence between the federal government and the government of the province of Ontario regarding hospital insurance. I wish to let the house know that copies of this correspondence, in English and in French, will be deposited with the Clerk of the house at three o'clock this afternoon, this to coincide with the time when the correspondence will be made public by the premier of Ontario in the legislature of that province.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Mr. Green:: Could we have an explanation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act in two ways: First, to authorize the corporation to provide insurance for certain transactions for which there has been a considerable demand of late and, second, to allow the corporation to set up reserves for possible losses in calculating taxable income.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



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 making the necessary amendments under the Criminal
Code, to provide penalties against owners or operators of all diesel-powered vehicles or railway engines for failure to equip said vehicles with some suitable device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move this resolution because I feel that diesel and gasoline fumes are a definite menace to the health of the nation, especially so in districts of concentrated population. This is the third time I have had this resolution on the order paper. Its wording is changed somewhat from that of last year because of the fact that the government felt-and as I admitted myself at the start of the debate-that the matter would come more rightly under provincial jurisdiction. However, afterwards I was told that it is definitely under the jurisdiction of this federal authority. 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 not contaminated. We have organized and paid for expensive water systems that assure us of a plentiful supply of pure water. There have been heated debates on the question of whether our drinking water should be fluoridated to prevent tooth decay. But until quite recently practically nothing has been done about the air we breathe. It was brought out forcibly by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) last year in this debate how important to the human body is the air we breathe. While a person can do without food-and I am quoting his words- for three weeks and can do without water for approximately three days, he can do without air for only approximately three minutes. In some parts of England the cause, effect and cure of smoke pollution is now a high school subject and radio and television programs have aroused the public with regard to smoke prevention. This is a lead which should be followed elsewhere because not until everyone is his own smoke inspector will city air be fit to breathe. Although this resolution deals specifically with diesel fumes, I should like to discuss for a few minutes the possible effects of high concentration of exhaust fumes from gasoline-burning engines.
It is a well known fact that the mileage per gallon of gasoline decreases considerably in stop and go city traffic. At cruising speed

Health and Welfare
about 250 parts per million of the total exhaust is unburned 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 your motor, it goes up as high as 5,000 parts per million. That is the reason for its being in such high concentration in heavy city traffic. It is generally conceded that about 7 per cent of gasoline is unburned, and this figure could be increased to about 8 per cent or 9 per cent through further evaporation from the carburetor and fuel tank.
This problem is one which we must face in the near future as the number of motor vehicles increases in Canada, and the number is increasing very rapidly. Then, far more important, is the fact that deadly gases are emitted with the exhaust fumes. One of these gases is known as carbon monoxide, and with which the average motorist is only vaguely familiar. We may attribute this lack of familiarity to the fact that they cannot smell it, taste it, feel it or hear it. Yet, within a very few minutes, it is capable of reducing the mental functions of a driver to a point where the co-ordination of muscles and the ability to react properly in the operation of the vehicle is below even the minimum requirements for safety. Carbon monoxide in a concentration of .02 to .03 will cause headaches; from .04 to .07, unconsciousness; and from .08 to .1, death.
Unlike some poisons it does not allow the human to build immunity to it over a period of time. Repeated exposures, particularly to attacks of acute poisoning, result in increasing susceptibility to the gas and cause 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 because it causes inefficiency in the driver. At some time or other all of us have experienced a condition of sleepiness while driving our car. We have also perceived odours from our own car and from cars in front of us. We have experienced headaches, dizziness and sometimes carsickness. Whenever any of these symptoms occur while you are driving, consider carbon monoxide.
I have an article here put out by the motor vehicle research and written by Arthur J. White, who is the director of that research board, on carbon monoxide. The article is headed, "I'm just a steering wheel," and I think it is appropriate to quote it at this time.
I'm ju-t a wheel. A steering wheel. And you're my captain. Behind me you're the lord and master of a miracle. You can make me take the kids to school. You can turn me down the sunny road toward town. With me you can guide your goods

to the market place . . . you can rush the sick to be healed . . . you can go in minutes to places hours away. You can do magic.
Yet, in the blink of an eye, in the tick of your watch, I can turn deadly killer. I can snuff out the life of a kid still full of life-maybe your kid. I can twist a smile into tears. I can wreck and cripple and destroy. I can deal out death like the plague. And I'm no respecter of persons. A child, a grandmother, even you, my friend . . . it's all the same to me.
I'm sensitive. I respond instantly to the hands you give me. Give me calm hands, steady hands, careful hands . . . and I'm your friend. But give me unsteady hands, fuzzy-minded hands, reckless hands . . . then I'm your enemy, a menace to the life, the happiness, the future of every person, every youngster riding, walking, playing.
I was made for pleasure and usefulness. Keep me that way. I'm in your hands. I'm just a steering wheel and you're my captain. Behind me you're the lord and master of a miracle . . . or a tragedy. It's up to you.
Bear in mind that death from carbon monoxide is not restricted to tightly closed garages when the motor is running, but collapse can occur when cars are parked with their motors running or, in some cases, even while they are travelling along the highway. There have been many cases. Only this morning there appeared in the Globe and Mail a report of the death of two people in a motor car just north of Toronto. It is not an isolated case at all. Many of them come up every week. It is safe to assume that carbon monoxide has contributed a great deal to many accidents heretofore classed as unexplained. To substantiate this, the California highway patrol checked 1,007 automobiles while on the open highway and found that 30 cars contained concentrations of this gas in excess of the maximum safe limit. The conclusion of the survey showed that 3 per cent of the cars tested were found to have carbon monoxide in such quantities as would give a driver a headache or cause sleepiness, weakness, impaired judgment and decrease the driving ability over a period of several hours, and that no automobile, regardless of the age or anything else, is free from the p-ssibility 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 times to rule out as much as possible the dangers of this lethal gas that is an apparent part of our present day motoring.
In the same magazine article that I quoted a short time ago, Mr. Speaker, are contained some of the things that one should particularly take cognizance of if he is the owner of a motor vehicle. I quote:
One excellent rule to follow in reference to the exhau~t system of an automobile to prevent the pos~ibility of its failure is to renew the muffler and tail pipe, with complete inspection of the

balance, at 35,000 miles or every two years of operation. The cost involved in this procedure is not excessive in any respect and will, without question, minimize the possibility of failure.
We must bear in mind that our automobile produces one and one-third gallons of water for every gallon of gasoline it consumes. This water has a direct effect upon the entire exhaust system, the same as water has effect upon iron or steel.
However, we have another agent coupled with this water, in the form of corrosive gases that accelerate the rotting and eroding of the entire exhaust system.
We must also bear in mind that the salts and calcium chlorides used on the road attack from the exterior the entire exhaust system that is exposed during normal driving.
All of us at some time or other may have inspected our fire wall in our engine compartment during the installation of some accessory. We have noted that the manufacturers have placed rubber grommets and rubber barriers between the driver's compartment and the engine compartment for two reasons. One, to reduce the possibility of any control wires and tubes causing excessive vibration and annoying sounds. Two, these have been placed there also to prevent any fumes from the engine compartment entering the driver's compartment.
It is not good safety pactice to drill any holes through this fire wall without making sufficient provisions for the prevention of entrance of exhaust gases or fumes of the engine.
Floor boards should be carefully inspected for breaks, erosion and the loss of knock-outs (placed in the floors of some cars in anticipation of the installation of a special accessory). Inspection should not be confined alone to the actual floor boards but under the seats should be inspected also for these conditions.
Inspection of weather stripping in the trunk compartment should also be taken into consideration and replaced if failure has occurred. The floor of the trunk should be inspected also for erosion, cracks, et cetera.
The foregoing may appear on the surface to be a great deal of trouble for the average motorist to go to in reference to his automobile. However, a simple question asked by the motorist of himself would give him the answer. "Whose health is involved and whose life is in danger?"
If that condition exists on the open highway, what is the situation in areas of highly concentrated traffic? Tests have been taken in those areas and on a busy street concentrations of .09 per cent have been found during a period of high temperature and humidity. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that just a few moments ago I quoted .09 per cent as the percentage which would cause death and a concentration of this percentage has been found in city streets during high traffic periods. No wonder the busy housewife often comes home from a shopping trip downtown with a splitting headache.
Unlike the gasoline engine the diesel operates normally with excess air. The fuel is injected into the cylinder and is ignited by virtue of the temperature and pressure 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, unlike the gasoline motor. Under certain conditions of operation,
Health and Welfare
however, both smoke and aldehydes are evolved. The latter are quite noticeable in high concentrations because of their pungent odour and eye-irritating characteristics. I am sure I do not need to describe this to any hon. member who has walked down the street in any large city where diesel busses are used because he will be quite aware of this fact if he has been at any time in the situation I referred to. 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 that occur in varying amounts depending on several other factors such as the fuel, the air ratio at which the engine is operating, the design of the engine, the 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. The most dangerous gas in diesel fumes both with regard to injury to health and the amount produced is the 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 1.0 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 fatality in the same length of time. In the case of carbon monoxide it is from .5 to 1 per cent and in the case of oxides of nitrogen it is .07 per cent. This is an indication of the danger to health from the exhaust gas of diesel motors in comparison with the exhaust from gasoline motors.
I have here some of the conclusions taken from a publication called "The Atmospheric Pollution Problem in Canada" written by Dr. Morris Katz of the defence research chemical laboratories, Ottawa. Under "health aspects" on page 6 it states this:
The acute effects of unrestricted air pollution on public health have been demonstrated unpleasantly but conclusively in three air pollution disasters-namely, the Meuse valley in Belgium 1930, Donora, Pa. 1948, and Poza Rica in Mexico 1950.
The chronic effects of air pollution are not so clearly defined. Nevertheless the frequent occurrence of eye irritation during smogs in the Los Angeles area and statistics on the increase in the death rate from respiratory disease during fogs in industrial communities in England represent evidence which cannot be ignored. In Canada. Barrett and Kay have considered the loss of sunshine and decrease in ultravoilet irradiation as

Health and Welfare
contributing factors in the occurrence of deficiency diseases such as rickets. However, some authorities claim that the chronic effects of air pollution have never been demonstrated conclusively.
The Donora report has stressed the significance of a synergistic effect in air pollution whereby the combined influence of a number of toxic contaminants occurring simultaneously may be far greater than the additive effect of individual contaminants. The health panel at the U.S. technical conference of May, 1950, concluded that pollution of the atmosphere is associated with a frequent and apparently increasing occurrence of acute and chronic diseases, involving especially the respiratory tract and the skin.
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 is presently available. With regard to this equipment, I have here a booklet entitled "Recent Developments in Atmospheric Pollution" by Dr. Katz again. This is report No. 148 which was published in May, 1954, and I quote:
Recent devices for protection and control in the Los Angeles area include a charcoal filtration unit for home air conditioning and a proposed filter and catalyst to remove aldehydes, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and other objectionable effluents from the exhaust gases of automobiles, busses and trucks.
Air pollution will be of increasing importance in planning of cities and industrial communities. Meteorological and topographical factors will be taken into account in community planning in relation to location of industrial and residential areas. Industry will be decentralized and, in certain areas, residences will not be allowed too close to certain types of heavy industrial operations. Industry will be protected against the unreasonable encroachment of residential developments and vice versa. Certain types of industry will be permitted to use only certain land areas based on the ability to control objectionable contamination. Zoning of areas will include more extended use of land for public parks, gardens and wooded areas to prevent overcrowding of sources of emission.
Most hon. members have followed behind a diesel truck or bus on the highway, but I will wager that they either passed it as soon as possible or slowed down to let it get far enough ahead so the fumes did not bother them. Most diesel trucks are now equipped with high exhaust pipes but I am doubtful just how much good such high exhaust pipes on these trucks are because unfortunately at high speeds the fumes come down over the back of the truck to car level and enter

through the air vents in the front of most new cars. Most motorists realize that the air vents should be closed especially when following a diesel truck or any other truck on the highway or in areas of dense traffic, but how many people bother to do so until the odour becomes noticeable. That may be all right in the case of diesel fumes but remember that 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 of such fumes every time a bus passes them. These fumes are quite noticeable also to passengers in buses, especially at stops when the doors are opened. Most passengers on diesel power 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 fumes, but what do they do about it? They complain and grumble but accept it as part of present day living. This situation will be so accepted until public opinion is aroused to the point where governments are forced into action.
I could quote from many articles on this subject. I should like to refer first to the speech I made last year on January 30, as found at page 660 of Hansard, where some can be found, and I have others here to which I should like to refer. In the Ottawa Journal of June 9, 1956 a very interesting article appeared, one that was most heartening to me because it was headed, "New 'Fumes' Regulations Aimed at Diesel Trains." I will not read the whole article but at one point it has this to say:
Mr. Martin states: "At the request of the board of transport commissioners, a complete revision has been undertaken of the regulations and orders dealing with the control of atmospheric pollution from railroad operations of companies subject to the legislative authority of parliament."
Specifically, the department of health and welfare has drafted a revised order No. 18 for the board of transport. The draft has been sent to the railways to see what they think of it.
The principal amendments to order 18, circa 1908, will be the incorporation of restrictive regulations for the emission of diesel fumes. It is suggested too that the new regulations will apply to all of Canada, rather than Ontario only.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, that article was very heartening to me because it appeared shortly after the resolution had been before the house last year. On checking through the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year ended March 31, 1956, I am discouraged by the amount of space given to this subject. There is not quite a page and no particular mention is made of diesel fumes. As a matter of fact, very little is said except with reference to industrial dusts. I agree that the department has done a considerable

amount of work in the Windsor-Detroit area for which Dr. Katz deserves a good deal of credit. I should like to refer to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 19, 1955, headed, "Windsor Air Pollution Study May Help Fight Smoke, Smog." The article deals with an interview with Dr. Katz at the Seigniory Club, Quebec and reads in part as follows:
The results oi an intensive study of air pollution in the Detroit-Windsor area may be the means of improving and broadening the health programs of any city, Dr. Morris B. Katz of Ottawa said Tuesday.
Under his direction, a five year investigation, first related to the smoke nuisance from great lakes vessels passing through the Detroit river, has been carried out.
Then further on:
We are studying all toxic materials, whether from smoke pouring from the plants of industry or from exhausts of automobiles.
As I say, I commend the government for the work that is being done but I must say I do not think they are doing enough and are not doing it fast enough to cope with the problem that exists in Canada today in the large industrial areas. Here is another article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 11, 1956. It is headed, "Polluted Air Boosts Lung Cancer", and is written by the United Press science editor, Delos Smith. It reads:
The newest scientific contribution to the controversy over what is responsible for the remarkable rise in lung cancers makes an impressive case against the polluted atmospheres of industrialized cities, and lets cigarette smoking off the hook.
Further on there are these words:
In New Zealand the white population came from one place, the British Isles, and so its members are similar in background and racial stock. The native born population is descended from Britishers who went there no earlier, for the most part, than a hundred years ago, which neatly eliminates another variable.
David F. Eastcott, assistant director of the national health institute of New Zealand, began his study with the total of cancer deaths among white New Zealanders from 1949 through 1953. He divided these between whites who were native born and whites who had been immigrants.
Now he had two sets of figures. He divided each set according to the site of the fatal cancer- stomach, lung, prostate grand, breast and so on. Then he was ready to compare the two sets. For no site except one was there a statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between native born New Zealanders and the immigrant New Zealander.
The one exception was lung cancer. For all immigrants, the chances of dying of lung cancer were 30 per cent higher than for the native born. For immigrants who went to New Zealand when 30 years old or older, the chances were 75 per cent higher.
"Moreover", added Eastcott in his report to the technical journal, the Lancet, "it is the same for women as for men and is consistent at all ages over 35 and for all the principal parts of the country."
Health and Welfare
Further on it reads:
Eastcott was emphatic-for a statistician. "The conclusion follows that immigrants from Great Britain to New Zealand are affected by their former environment and that this effect is related to the length of exposure in that environment", he said. His findings were "in keeping with what is known of the mode of action of the carcinogens, cancer causing chemicals, isolated from the atmospheres of industrial cities."
There are many other articles from which I could quote but I do not want to take too much time. However, there is an editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 19, 1956. It refers to the committee on air pollution of the Ontario legislature and reads in part as follows:
The committee on air pollution of the Ontario legislature reports that smoke and smog in their various forms cost the people of this province about $120 million a year-which is as much as they are currently spending on highways. The difference is that in the one case they have greater convenience to show for it. In the other, all they have to show is a series of inconveniences running all the way from dry cleaning bills to-probably- lung cancer.
I have articles and editorials from the Brantford Expositor, the Peterborough Examiner and many others which I could quote but I think that is unnecessary. There can be no doubt now that diesel fumes are a contributory factor in causing lung cancer. I would venture to suggest that there may be some connection between the increased incidence of heart conditions and the increase of carbon monoxide in the air. Many people are concerned about this problem as evidenced by the number of articles and editorials appearing in the press. The situation will become more serious with the terrific increase in the number of motor vehicles. I want to express my appreciation at this time to some of those who have assisted, encouraged me, and supplied material.
They include Gypsum Lime and Alabas-tine, Canada, Limited, at Caledonia; Mr. Hulme of the Brantford Expositor; Dr. Morris Katz, chairman of the Canadian section of the technical advisory board on air pollution; and Dr. O. H. Warwick, executive director of the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
I am sure that all hon. members in this house will realize the danger of this condition and I trust they will support this resolution.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under
ordinary circumstances I would have waited until later on in the debate to participate but, for personal reasons, I must leave the house shortly. In view of the obvious relation between this motion and the Department of National Health and Welfare I thought that at this time I should say a few words as



S26 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Health and Welfare
indeed I did last year. A careful perusal of the resolution in the form in which it is now presented by the hon. gentleman I think will indicate that my colleague the Minister of Justice will have an interest in the matter as the resolution has been amended this year to provide that there should be necessary amendments under the Criminal Code to provide penalties against owners or operators of all diesel powered vehicles or railway engines for failure to equip such vehicles with some suitable device to render harmless, poison gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines. The Minister of Justice will deal with this aspect of the problem but I should like to deal with those aspects which are of special concern to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
As I said last year, the resolution presented by the hon. gentleman serves to underline the increased attention which is now being given by health authorities to problems in the field of environmental health. As the hon. gentleman himself well knows, for many years now the Department of National Health and Welfare as well as provincial and local authorities have carried out measures to safeguard human health by ensuring the safety and purity of drinking water, foods, drugs and insecticides. As a matter of fact, the Food and Drugs Act is possibly the oldest continuing statute that comes under federal control and it deals with many aspects of the problems which have been included in the fields covered by the resolution presented by the hon. gentleman. As he himself has noted, more recently problems relating to the air we breathe have come under the surveillance of governments, both national and provincial and in some cases municipal; and in the case of the United States and Canada the matter has received some measure of international attention.
Air pollution, of course, has been an inevitable accompaniment of industrialization and the growth of our large cities. My hon. friend made reference to the work of Dr. Warwick, formerly director of the Canadian cancer institute. I do not know that I would be justified in drawing the conclusions that he has drawn but I can say that under the national health program funds have been put at the disposal of the national cancer institute and, through it, to the various medical centres in Canada to undertake research in respect of the matters from which he has drawn such strong deductions.
As he himself has pointed out, in the Detroit-Windsor area the Department of National Health and Welfare in co-operation with the Ontario department of health, the department of health of the city of Detroit

and the board of health of the city of Windsor carried out one of the most extensive investigations into the relation between air pollution and human health ever undertaken anywhere. This was a study that lasted over a period of years. It represented pioneering efforts and the results of the study, which are now being carefully assessed, we trust will yield information of value to health departments everywhere. It may be that, as a result of the information which we acquire from this study that is now being undertaken in both countries, it will be possible for us to make certain assessments about the environment in which we live, particularly in industrial centres.
The subject matter of the resolution introduced by my hon. friend, however, relates to one aspect of the over-all problem of air pollution-what I have been saying has been in reference to general aspects of the whole problem of pollution-and this problem, I may assure my hon. friend, as he well knows, is the matter of considerable study and attention by the officers of the occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, who, in conjunction with experts in several universities in Canada, have been giving careful and devoted attention to this matter. There is no doubt that the operation of diesel engines in certain situations, especially in mining operations, in tunnels and in more or less confined spaces, represents a danger to health. The control of this hazard in such cases is usually achieved by the installation, as I indicated last year, of adequate ventilation facilities. In stationary type engines the exhaust gases must be removed by piping into appropriate exhaust gas ventilators or ducts for disposal of such fumes. It is possible that the operation of such vehicles or engines in the open atmosphere may constitute a hazard to public health in the areas of dense traffic and population. My hon. friend will be interested in knowing, if he is not already aware of the fact-and I am sure he is-that at Harvard University, considerable studies are being carried out in this general field.
This phase of the problem, in addition to what is being done at Harvard, is now, as I indicated last year, under intensive investigation in the Los Angeles area, and also by the automotive industry in both Canada and the United States. Last year I said it was under investigation only in the United States but since the matter was discussed here steps have been taken and the industry is now engaged in studies of this problem.

The waste products of internal combustion engines include unburnt fuel or hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, aldehydes and oxides of nitrogen, as well as carbon, soot, tarry material and other products, including water vapour. I do not know whether my hon. friend mentioned water vapour but my technical officers advise me that that is the fact.
I am further advised that the theory has been put forward 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 irritations and other health effects that have been observed, and some crop damage sustained in the Los Angeles area.
My hon. friend, in this connection, spoke of cancer and I hesitate to speak too firmly on that aspect because conclusions will be drawn from what I say. However, researches that are being carried on carefully take into account the possibility, as was done in the case of other suggested provocations having to do with the alleged cause of lung cancer. It is known that in the immediate vicinity of diesel engine exhaust the concentration of aldehydes and oxides of nitrogen may be sufficient to produce considerable eye, nose and throat irritation; that is a known fact. The other is conjecture, and as my hon. friend nods, he will indicate that a conjecture is possibly more freely open to him than it is to me because of the technical advice which, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, I must act upon. But I do suggest it is important for us to realize that we can give false directions by drawing conclusions that may possibly be understandable but which, in the absence of control, it is best, certainly from my point of view, to leave to the research scientists.
Various control methods to meet the problem which my hon. friend properly mentions have been suggested, and suggested for the reduction of the toxicity of the various gases from internal combustion engines. These include systems for treating exhaust gases, such as catalytic exhaust converters, which we discussed last year, after-burners, absorbers, condensers and filters. Likewise, other proposals concern systems which modify engine operating conditions such as manifold vacuum control, deceleration fuel cut off, ignition timing control and recycling of exhaust gases and fuel injection.
I feel it is only right to point out that objectionable visible smoke and fumes may be reduced greatly by improved maintenance
Health and Vfelfare
practices and here the municipality and industry itself have an opportunity to make a contribution to this important problem, a problem that is becoming increasingly important with the number of large cities that are being created in this country and with the increase in population of the cities now in being. In this connection my hon. friend will be interested, as I know the house will be, that there is under way an investigation by the automotive industry itself covering such proposals as a change in the design of cylinder combustion chambers, carburetors, and intake manifolds. The research centres of at least two of the large automobile companies are making very serious efforts to deal with this particular problem in their own factories, and are pooling their research, their evidence and their conclusions, with the people in my own department and with others who are likewise engaged in these problems in Canada.
It has been shown in both field and laboratory tests by the Los Angeles air pollution control district that approximately 7 per cent of all fuels used by automobiles are discharged unburnt into the atmosphere. Of course, this does constitute the greatest single source of hydrocarbon loss in that community, and I presume as well in other areas. The fact is that, notwithstanding the urgency, notwithstanding the importance of the problem, I am adviced by my officers that no success has yet been achieved in securing the development of a control device suitable for controlling the emission of exhaust gases from automobiles.
John Alpheus Charlton: That is from gasoline engines?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Now, 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 solution for the removal of aldehydes and oxides of nitrogen. Several companies in both this country and the United States, and 1 believe in the United Kingdom, are experimenting with what are called catalytic systems for more complete combustion of exhaust gases and also with various types of after-burners. But the fact is that this work is still in the experimental or developmental stage, and much more study and research will have to be continued 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 smog and visible exhaust fumes by proper maintenance practices, the development of effective controls for exhaust gas and waste products is

Health and Welfare
contingent upon the success of studies now in progress. The air pollution study to which I directed the attention of the house a moment ago, I think, does serve as a pattern of what can be done, at least statistically to indicate the extent of this factor as a problem or as a causation in ill health. It may be that once the studies on the air pollution project have been completed, we will be in a better position to form certain deductions. But that remains to be seen. I have tried to hasten the conclusion of this study, but our scientists require that their work be done carefully. I have no doubt that when it is done it will prove to be a tremendous advantage, not only in a particular area but throughout the world.
I am not dealing with any of the legal aspects of this problem. These will be dealt with by the Minister of Justice. I would point out to my hon. friend, and I do this not because we are seeking to escape responsibility in a matter of this sort, because no one would want to take refuge behind the division of constitutional powers: if this is the way to do it and we have the power, well that is one thing. I assume that during the course of this discussion there will be some suggestion that this is the case. The Minister of Justice will have to deal with that aspect of the problem in the light of the division of powers provided under the British North America Act. Then, we will have to give consideration as to what is thought to be the most effective way of dealing with this problem, but I would not want to suggest that we are the only ones in Canada who are concerned in this problem.
On the research side I suppose, in terms of government and because of the special facilities we have in the Department of National Health and Welfare, we are perhaps well set up to give this proper attention. On the administrative side, however, it would be wrong for me to suggest that the only interested agency is the Department of National Health and Welfare. This problem is receiving careful consideration by the department of highways in Ontario, the government of Ontario and the Ontario legislature. My hon. friend will recall that the Ontario legislature set up a committee to deal with this very problem. I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter recently with that committee which I understand is about to make specific recommendations on this very matter to the Ontario legislature in current session. It may be that the information they will produce will prove to have a further clarifying and supporting value.
I should point out that since this resolution was discussed last year certain further steps

were taken in addition to those that had already been enumerated by me when I spoke on the motion which my hon. friend had put forward. Since that time our department has acquired from the international joint commission additional assistance in the form of the services of an expert in the field of air pollution to further intensify our study and efforts in this particular field. In addition to that, officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been given the opportunity of rendering, I think, rather important advisory assistance to the board of transport commissioners in the revision of existing regulations governing atmospheric pollution from railway steam and diesel locomotives under various operating conditions.
As I said a moment ago, since we discussed this matter last the Ontario legislature has acted by setting up a committee of its members to investigate this whole problem; but all of these developments, positive as they are in character and encouraging as they are on that account, nevertheless do not alter the basic fact that we have not yet found an effective way of dealing with gases emitted by diesel engines and other vehicles. In spite of that fact, as my hon. friend knows, the department has for long been interested in this problem; our interest is centred in the work of the occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare which was set up in 1946 specifically for this and related purposes. Therefore I can assure my hon. friend and the house that in so far as our department can we shall continue to keep fully abreast of all the developments in a field which we must assume, generally speaking, in the absence of full proof, could have and probably does have, a very great effect on the levels of public health. As long as there are these possibilities it must remain the continuing concern of departments of health, national and provincial, of organizations like the world health organization, to look upon this as one of the subjects which must engage their most vigorous attention.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister permit
one question? He says there is no way now of dealing with the diesels. How can he make that statement when it has been proven beyond any doubt that these diesel motors which are used under ground-it is true there is ventilation-with scrubbers have proved to be very satisfactory in taking from the fumes the harmful ingredients? That has been successful. Why cannot these same scrubbers be used above ground as well as under ground?


Mr. Marlin:: My hon. friend is assuming
the validity of the premise which he has established. There can be, of course, only one answer to that. If the premise is right then of course it must follow, but I make two points. First of all, it has not been accepted as a scientific fact. Second, if it were so, there is the question of the power of the federal government at the present time to deal with matters of that sort. I have purposely kept away from the latter so that the Minister of Justice could deal with the constitutional and legal aspects.


John Alpheus Charlton: The United States department of mines say it is accepted.


Murdo William Martin: We had the same thing last
year.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my support to this resolution. It has taken in possibly a greater area and assumed a wider scope than I thought it would when I read it on the order paper.
Of course, this entire matter of air pollution is also very timely, and is occupying the brains of our best research men and women in different parts of the world. However, when I read this resolution I was thinking more of the mechanical side of it and mechanical attachments on motors in operation to protect the operators and the riders or occupants of cars, or those in the immediate vicinity of the motor at the time of operation.
The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has covered so much territory and given so much information on this subject that I find it rather difficult to have very much to say. However, carbon monoxide in so far as motor cars and carriers are concerned is certainly recognized and described as the stealthy killer. It not just car operators who are concerned. Tractor operators on farms are subject to a certain amount of danger in the continuous breathing of air that has become polluted by slight traces, and in some cases heavier traces, of this deadly gas.
In the open air, of course-and this is where ventilation comes into the picture, of which we have heard so much in the last few minutes-the danger is not so great; but continuous emission of small amounts of this gas does have a harmful effect on tractor operators and others operating vehicles in the open air. The sad part of this, in so far as car operation is concerned, is that it is not just the operator who suffers. Every occupant of the car is faced with the same danger and the same injury as the driver himself or herself. This brings up, of course, 82715-59
Health and Welfare
the mechanical attachment which makes dangers from carbon monoxide of very little importance in the operation of cars. As a garage man and operator of some years' standing I have been greatly concerned about the carelessness of car operators and car owners when it comes to the matter of having mufflers on their cars in tip-top shape. We know that a muffler is not 100 per cent effective, and we know that plugging every hole in the fire wall and in the floor boards and making car bodies practically air tight are not effective, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it would go a long way in preventing the casualties that we continuously read of in the papers of this country.
I too, read the article in the Globe and Mail to which the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand referred, and it is certainly a tragedy.
It is a common occurrence and the part that particularly struck me was the last line or two of the article wherein it stated that the owner and operator of the motor vehicle took his car to a garage on Saturday. The garage was busy and the job had to be put off and arrangements made to have it done at a later date. The job referred to was the installation or repair of a muffler. Here we have a case where a man knew it was dangerous to drive his car and yet he said, as so many others say, "Oh well, I have driven it this way for a certain length of time and surely a few more days won't hurt", and so we read what happened on Saturday. He took the car out on the road and he and his lady friend paid the supreme penalty by asphyxiation due to his carelessness in not having the muffler repaired when he knew it was faulty. It is these things I am thinking of when I rise to say the few words I intend to contribute to this debate with regard to the need for the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code in some manner whereby it will be considered an offense if any person operates a car which he knows is not completely equipped with the attachments that modern engineering has proven to be if not wholly at least in some measure effective. And so I would strongly add my plea to that of the hon. member who has just spoken. I realize that the Department of National Health and Welfare, together with other welfare and health organizations throughout the world, is taking a great interest in the study of the great problem of air pollution, but as I said I am going to confine my remarks to the smaller field of the operation of motor vehicles by individual owners and drivers.
In connection with garage work one can go a little further. It is not an uncommon thing to see a mechanic working on a car with the

Health and Welfare
motor running at full blast in a garage which provides little space for the workshop, the doors and windows closed and the deadly fumes escaping into the air. I must confess that on more than one occasion I have been guilty of this and my mechanics have also been guilty and I have personally suffered the headaches and discomforts which follow such exposure. Many of us will have had a similar experience and despite this we continue to take chances of that kind. In our garage as in most garages we have provided what is looked upon as a safety measure. We have long hoses to conduct the fumes from the exhaust of cars to the outside. We realize this will alleviate the possibility of danger to a large degree but that is something that should be made compulsory under the criminal law of Canada. That is one of the things I would think of in asking for amendments to the Criminal Code.
In the same vein those following in the wake of diesel cars on the highways are forced to breathe the fumes that are given off from these motors. This subject was carefully and widely covered by the previous speakers but I would like to point out that in cases of this kind we are forced to inhale the fumes from these diesel motors. As we all know, these fumes contain the residue of chemicals, particularly tar, to use its common name. Tar is not burnable and at the present time a controversy is raging as to the effect it has on stimulating the growth of cancer. It is rather generally admitted that tar is an irritant that will cause cancer. I am satisfied that today mechanical gadgets are available which in large measure can remove the harmful chemicals from exhaust fumes, and although they may not render their inhalation absolutely safe, in large part they remove the danger from exposure to noxious fumes.
We are well aware of the struggles the municipalities are having in order to make the air we breathe purer and we are aware of the smog menace in our coast cities. These dangers are being studied by authorities throughout the world. This forces upon us the realization that greater sums of money must be spent on research work in order to bring the matter of air pollution under control. I strongly endorse the recommendation that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) bring in amendments with teeth whereby under the Criminal Code it will be compulsory for every operator of motor vehicle, whether it be diesel or the common gas combustion type, to apply to his vehicle all the features developed by mechanical engineering today and approved as being at least partially effective in obviating the danger of

asphyxiation. I would also like to see an amendment made to the Criminal Code under which it would be necessary for garages to employ the regular type of ventilation hose wherever a car is operated in a closed space. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton). I congratulate him on bringing this resolution before the house for a second time, and while it is true that our population in Canada is 16 million and we have many large open spaces, yet we are developing industrial areas where air pollution is constituting a problem. In congratulating the hon. member I wish to say that I consider he is doing some pioneer work in bringing this resolution before the house. Increased traffic and the development of industry are producing a condition where air pollution is becoming a menace and possibly jeopardizes health.
Mention has been made of an amendment to the Criminal Code, and in considering this matter one must remember that smog and smoke produced by industrial firms has usually been dealt with by municipalities under nuisance by-laws, but with the growth of population this is becoming increasingly important and more difficult to control. The traffic on the streets and highways in areas where the population has grown is steadily increasing, and some measure of control will ultimately have to be taken in order to deal with the matter. If the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has done one thing, I believe he will be responsible for stimulating more research into the menace of noxious gases and smog and some research may be conducted into means whereby the problem can be dealt with effectively. I am not sure just how far medical research has been carried in the relation of cancer to air pollution.
One sure thing is that these conditions do not make for better health in the country. If there is a cause for the increase in lung cancer, research might very well be carried on into the conditions described by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand. We are aware that cancer is caused by irritation and there is irritation present under these conditions.
I feel there is a field for research as described by the hon. gentleman. This matter should receive the careful consideration of the house and research should be carried on as suggested in an effort to find means whereby these obnoxious gases and smokes may be cleared out of the air. It is true that there are only 16 million people in this country with its vast area and these conditions do not

exist all over the country. However, there are concentrations of these obnoxious gases and smokes in certain areas, particularly industrial areas, which are causing trouble. There is no danger in other parts of the country because the concentration is not heavy enough to affect public health.
I am glad the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) brought up the question of mufflers. Hardly a day passes, particularly during the winter season, but some person is killed by carbon monoxide poisoning due to a faulty exhaust pipe on the car. I think something should be done in connection with the sale of used cars to the public. Such cars should be checked thoroughly in order that this menace may be eliminated. Something should be done about it.
There should be a greater awareness on the part of the public of the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning. As I said, research will have to be carried out to find possible means of preventing these conditions, especially in the industrial areas of Canada. Research will have to be carried out to devise something that may be attached to engines in order that this may be stopped. If the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has done nothing else today he has made us aware of the existing menace and the need for research into conditions that exist at the present time.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Batilefords):: Mr. Speaker, while I am aware of the many dangers which have been pointed out by the hon. member who introduced this resolution I had hoped that during the course of his speech he would have indicated some method that might be adopted to remove the menace created by these gases. I should like to support the resolution but I do not see how I can, considering the way it is worded. I am ready to support the whole idea of doing something to protect the public against these gases. The resolution reads:
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 making the necessary amendments under the Criminal Code, to provide penalties against owners or operators of all diesel powered vehicles or railway engines for failure to equip said vehicles with some suitable device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines.
The reference to some suitable device is what sticks me. If the hon. member had indicated that there was in existence a device which had the backing of scientific people as being suitable, then probably I could have supported the resolution; but for us in this House of Commons to ask the government to amend the Criminal Code so 82715-59i
Health and Welfare
that people may be fined who are operating these vehicles unless they equip them with a suitable device is not only putting the cart before the horse, it is putting it so far ahead that we are really getting ahead of ourselves.
The whole problem needs research. Our research people should study the matter. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has said, this problem is being studied not only in this country but in other countries throughout the world. When our research people and scientists come up with a device which will do away with the menace-created by these gases, then I submit will be the time to think about finding ways and means of making its use compulsory on all vehicles.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr
Speaker, this resolution points out the Importance of private members' resolutions, the' importance of having a day set aside for the discussion of matters which sometimes do not fall within the scope of the federal legislature. While direct action cannot be taken in connection with many resolutions, they do have the effect of bringing matters before the public which perhaps do not seem to be of great importance but which do receive wide publicity when discussed in a legislature such as this and sometimes eventuate in some authority or other taking the initiative and doing something about it.
There is no doubt that air pollution is becoming a serious matter. In southern Ontario where industrialization has caused a great concentration of people with a tremendous use of machinery and motor vehicles the air is being seriously polluted. In Vancouver this year there was almost a three-week period during which the smog was so dense that almost 100 per cent of the air flights had to be cancelled or delayed for many hours.
I understand that the scientists have determined that while the waste effluents from internal combustion engines were not the entire cause of this smog, that there were other contributing factors such as a stratum of warm air, nevertheless the gases and smokes from diesel and automobile engines as well as furnaces did play a very great part in creating the condition. A thorough study must be made, and the sooner this is done the better it will be for the health of our people generally.
Of course this is one of the prices we must pay for progress. In the days of the horse and buggy the air was always more pure, but then again statistics show that the life expectancy in those days was much lower than it is today.

Health and Welfare
With the improvements in industrialization and general health care and with better food, life expectancy has been greatly increased. As time goes on we are undoubtedly going to face the possibility of air pollution from the effluent of atom-powered motors, engines, hydroelectric installations and so on, but even with such times approaching undoubtedly life expectancy will also increase with the general improvement in health standards, et cetera. The national health program will, of course, be fully effective by that time and will go a long way toward improving the health of the people of Canada. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has referred to mufflers on automobiles.


Mr. Hansell:: Okanagan-Revelstoke.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod). It appeared to me he was under the impression that mufflers had some effect in purifying the exhaust from automobiles. Perhaps I am mistaken in my understanding of what he said. If so, a reading of his remarks in Hansard will indicate whether that is correct. At any rate, the purpose of a muffler on an automobile is simply to dissipate the irritating noises. The exhaust pipe is the important factor, and without mufflers I think that passengers in automobiles would be less likely to be disturbed by gases coming into the interiors of their cars. A muffler has no effect whatever in purifying the gases. Certainly mufflers, if any, on diesel engines are completely ineffective.
The fact that the exhaust pipe on a diesel-powered truck is in some cases pointed towards the sky and rises above the body of the truck in no way dissipates the gases. The vacuum immediately behind a large truck is so strong that it sucks the gases back on the roadway. One does not care to have the experience too often of following behind a large diesel truck. Normally the drivers of trucks are courteous and make every effort to let a passenger car pass. Generally speaking, however, they travel at the full limit allowed by the various provincial laws and therefore one often has to travel for many miles behind one of these large trucks.
This fact points up something I have felt to be somewhat improper about our whole transportation system. Large trucks travel for many hundreds, even thousands, of miles alongside rail lines and in most cases the railways can operate much more cheaply. A diesel locomotive with two units will cross the prairies hauling 100 or 125 40 or 50 ton cars. Each diesel truck has one motor,

one or two men on the truck and carries not more than 20 to 40 tons of freight. It requires a great deal more motive power to carry the same amount of freight hauled by diesels on the steel rails where once the train is in motion very little extra power is required.
We are discussing suggested legislation to provide for the purification of exhaust gases, but there are other poisons we overlook which are absorbed by millions of Canadians every day, every hour and every minute. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has introduced a resolution many times with regard to cigarette smoking. We just laugh off the warning that cigarettes or tobacco are injurious to our health. Some individuals smoke a package or two packages of cigarettes a day and in all probability do themselves much more serious harm than through breathing the fumes from a car, a diesel locomotive or a truck.
I think we have to keep these things in perspective, and the federal government particularly should not rush into amending the Criminal Code and putting in it provisions which we would find it impossible to administer and enforce. When the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) was speaking I wondered whether he had in mind that in operating a diesel tractor on the windswept prairies it would be necessary to put something on the tractor to purify the air because, with the wind blowing, the air there is probably as pure as it can ever be and an installation such as suggested in the resolution would be completely unnecessary.
The resolution certainly has its merits and I would be disposed to support it if I felt that its implementation would mean that we would be able to administer the legislation.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is to be congratulated on having brought to the attention of the house a problem which while not too serious yet in most parts of Canada is becoming more and more serious in some, a problem with respect to which we here owe it to ourselves and to the nation to take steps beforehand so that by the time it reaches really serious proportions we will have worked out some solution to it. We are in the fortunate position, however, that there are many places on this and other continents where the problem is encountered to a very much more oppressive degree than in any part of Canada.
The hon. member who introduced the resolution I think was right when he said that our first task is to ask ourselves what the nature of the problem is. The problem

is really a question as to the degree of concentration of diesel and other automotive exhaust fumes which, if encountered in sufficient degree of concentration, will cause trouble.
In reference to this problem one point that I want to establish is this. One of the main purposes in consolidating the Canadian Criminal Code was to reach a condition under which Canadians would know they were not guilty of any crime at all unless it could be found within the confines of the code and that we should keep to a minimum the number of crimes defined in our Criminal Code.
I am one who profoundly believes that it is quite improper to cure a problem that is capable of any other kind of solution by passing a law and saying that from such and such a date a certain act shall be a crime. I think such procedure is improper because it is first of all wrong in principle, and because in most cases that method is an extremely clumsy way of curing the problem; and I cannot think of any case in which it would be more clumsy than it would be in the present case which we are debating. If the problem is a question of the degree of concentration of diesel or other automotive exhausts, then I suggest that there are varying degrees of concentration across Canada, and that in very few places in Canada will the degree of concentration be sufficiently intense to cause trouble. I suggest that it would give rise to a rather absurd situation if we should make it a crime under the Criminal Code, as has been suggested, for a man to drive a diesel truck across the prairies with the prairie winds blowing and where the degree of concentration of his exhaust is manifestly, on the face of it, quite incapable of causing any harm to anyone. If we were to consider the enormous variation of circumstances under which an offence of that character could be committed from British Columbia through to Newfoundland I think we would find that in perhaps 99 per cent of the environments in which the problem of harmful exhaust gas could arise at all, the degree of concentration of the exhaust that would be involved would harm no one and therefore should not cause the owner of the vehicle to be declared a criminal.
In this, as in all matters, we must first consider the nature of the problem, second the nature of the solution and then, if that solution involves the passage of a law, the level of government at which the solution should be applied. When we are attempting to protect the people of Canada from a concentration of automotive exhaust fumes, surely we should confine our legislation to those areas in which the degree of concentration is likely to be of some danger to the
Health and Welfare
public. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it would be quite absurd to say that it was a crime throughout the whole of Canada, in the terms of the resolution, for the owners or operators of all diesel powered vehicles or railway engines to fail to equip said vehicles with some suitable device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines. For it would be the absence of the device which would be the gravamen of the offence and the fact of the matter could be that, even without the device, the vehicle's exhaust gas would hurt nobody.
It therefore seems to me that the steps which have already been taken by the authorities in Canada constitute the intelligent approach to this problem.
As my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated, his department has for some years past been conducting experiments to determine whether public health is adversely affected by fumes from diesel engines, whether on railroads or highways; and that so far there is no conclusive evidence to show that public health is being adversely affected. I submit that there is therefore no foundation for amending the criminal law so as to make failure to have a device upon an automotive engine a crime.
If there are places-as I believe there are, as in greater Montreal, greater Toronto, Winnipeg perhaps, Vancouver and other centres of population and perhaps on the Queen Elizabeth highway, although that may not be the case-where, in the interests of public health it is necessary that automotive vehicles should be so equipped, it seems to me that there are already existing provisions in the provincial statutes that enable this problem to be taken care of. For example, the public vehicles act of Ontario, which is Revised Statutes of Ontario, chapter 322, provides in section 24 that the lieutenant governor in council may make regulations:
(k) prescribing the condition in which public vehicles shall be kept and prescribing the equipment to be carried by public vehicles and the condition and location in which the equipment shall be kept.
The lieutenant governor in council has merely to pass an order in council under this section, an existing section of the Ontario act, to say-if it is considered wise to do so- for example that all diesel automotive engines operating within Toronto or in whatever cities they wish to add or upon certain highways, shall be equipped with a suitable device.
Then we come to the point which the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) has raised, namely that in our preliminary research upon this thing we must get to the stage that we can affirm that we have

Health and Welfare
something more than "a suitable device". For the problem to which the scientific men are addressing their attention at the present time is that of finding out what is a suitable device. My information is that they have not yet found out what a suitable device is.
It therefore seems to me that it would be wrong for even the lieutenant governor in council in Ontario to make it an offence for an automotive vehicle not to have a device attached to that automotive vehicle until it is established by fairly conclusive scientific evidence that some person knows what would be a suitable device to attach. We should not pass any laws until the proper scientific foundation has been laid for those laws; and that when they are passed, they should take the form of provincial laws tailored to meet the needs of the particular community in which this type of problem is encountered. Otherwise, if we do not do that, if instead we pass an amendment to the Criminal Code we might find ourselves in the absurd position where some automotive operator on the western prairie, with not even any habitations within three or four miles, could be held up and condemned as a criminal for the crime of not having his vehicle properly equipped when it would be perfectly apparent to everybody that the exhaust of his vehicle or that of 20 such vehicles in that particular area could not cause the least harm to anybody.
Now, as I have said the public vehicles act of Ontario makes that provision. Then there is another statute in Ontario, the public commercial vehicles act of Ontario, chapter 304 of the revised statutes of that province, which authorizes the lieutenant governor in council to make regulations. Subsection (k) reads:
Prescribing equipment to be carried by a public commercial vehicle and the condition and location in which the equipment shall be kept.
A "public commercial vehicle" is defined to mean a commercial motor vehicle or trailer operated on a highway by, for or on behalf of any person for the transportation for compensation of goods.
In addition to that the Ontario legislature, in line with the argument which I have been trying to present for the last few moments, has accepted its further responsibility in this regard by setting up a committee which, for the past two years, has been engaged in the study of this problem of air pollution including the effect of diesel engine fumes upon public health. This committee still has that subject matter under consideration. It has not yet reported to the Ontario legislature. It therefore seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that apart from all other considerations it would be singularly discourteous on the part of parliament to speak in relation to a subject
[Mr. Garson.l
matter which is peculiarly the responsibility of the Ontario legislature, by dealing with it in the Criminal Code, an inappropriate statute, while the whole matter is under consideration of the proper legislative body at the proper level of government.
Now, that being so, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I cannot support my hon. friend's motion. I do not think it would be appropriate, until the concentration of population was much greater than it is in most parts of Canada at the present time, to have any amendment to the Criminal Code to make it a crime not to have an attachment of this sort upon automotive vehicles. On the other hand, I am in entire agreement with the mover of the resolution that there are areas in Canada in which it is not only appropriate but essential that automotive vehicles should be so equipped as soon as it is possible for the scientists to tell us that there is, in existence, equipment which is practical, which will operate upon a moving vehicle and which will neutralize the poisons which are put into the atmosphere by both diesel and automotive engines. The reason why I have some doubts upon the score as to whether there is conclusive knowledge upon this subject is that there are in the world places like London, England, for example, and Los Angeles where, from time to time, they have visitations of smog which I am told is due to a high degree of pollution of the atmosphere by automotive and diesel exhausts and industrial effluents.
I should have thought that in places like London and Los Angeles, where the problem is very severe and where their revenues are very substantial, they would not have been deterred by any problem of governmental responsibility from a massive effort to find a solution to this problem; and their solution would be of value to us in respect of our much lesser problem in Canada. My suggestion would be that we should see what the committee of the Ontario legislature brings forward after it completes the consideration it has been giving to this matter.
We also should consider that, so far as diesel locomotives are concerned, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 290 of the Railway Act authorizes the board of transport commissioners to make orders and regulations generally providing for the protection of property, and the protection, safety and accommodation of the public, and of the employees of the company in the running and operation of trains, and the speed thereof or the use of engines by the company on or in connection with the railway. My information is that the board of transport commissioners for some years has been

considering and conducting experiments to determine whether orders of the character of those suggested by my hon. friend's resolution are necessary. So far, the board has not seen fit to make any regulations under this paragraph.
Now, these bodies whose immediate responsibility it is to deal with questions of this type are as yet not willing to make recommendations to their parent bodies. Hence I do not think it would be proper for us to pass a law making a crime non compliance in Canada with that which they are not as yet prepared to recommend. For that reason, I must oppose this resolution.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, as to the question of whether or not scientific investigation has yet established that there is a menace from these exhaust fumes, or whether there is a device capable of dealing with them, I am not qualified to speak and do not intend to discuss that subject at any length. However, with regard to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), he suggested it would be untimely to adopt this resolution because it would mean passing laws in the absence of certain knowledge on this subject, and also in the light of the fact that at least one provincial legislature has a committee studying the whole subject. It would, of course, be discourteous, as the minister put it, and probably unwise, if in fact the state of the scientific knowledge is as he describes it, to pass a law at this time without further ado.
But as the minister knows, and indeed as he has properly said, in considering amendments to the Criminal Code it is necessary and desirable to obtain the opinions of the enforcement authorities who are the provincial attorneys general. For that reason, in practically every case, certainly since I have been here and quite properly since the minister has been Minister of Justice, when any amendment to the code has been contemplated there have been just those types of consultations with the provincial authorities.
The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) is not suggesting that such a practice should be departed from. All he is asking is a proper expression of opinion from this house on the desirability of taking that type of action to implement the opinion of the house by certain proper steps, one of which would be, in the light of a careful assessment of the scientific information on the part both of this government and of the provincial authorities, to hold a consultation with the provincial authorities on the type of device and the terms of the statute or the amendment to the code that may be passed. I do not think that part of it should be any
Health and Welfare
fatal obstacle to the resolution being adopted by this house, but it was with some other features of the minister's remarks that I wanted to deal particularly, because I submit with respect that on reflection he would himself agree that the difficulties he has raised are not really such obstacles to the adoption of the resolution as he suggested they should be.
If I may deal with them in the reverse order in which he raised them, one of the latter points he made and one to which he appeared to attach a great deal of importance was that it would not be desirable in fact to deal with this by federal statute, but that it would be desirable rather to leave it to provincial legislatures to deal with in the light of the existence or otherwise of areas of congestion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that it would not be desirable to deal with it under the Criminal Code, which of course is a federal statute.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was one of the minister's objections which I shall come to; but he did say, I think, not in so many words but certainly by implication in his remarks, that this is a problem which in its acuteness or existence would in fact vary from place to place, and that it should therefore be dealt with by provincial legislatures as and when they felt the need to deal with it arose and as and when they felt they had the answer-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: at their disposal. However, I do not think that is quite such a compelling argument as the minister suggested, for this reason. I have already said that a consultation with the provinces should certainly take place before any such amendments to the code should be enacted. But it seems inevitable that action to deal with this problem is going to affect the equipment of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, and I suggest it is undesirable that mandatory equipment on vehicles should be dealt with in different ways in different areas; that in one area it should be a compulsory requirement that a certain type of equipment be upon a vehicle and in others it should not. A motor vehicle now travels from area to area, and a car driver is going to run into numerous difficulties when he suddenly finds he is in an area where an exhaust protection device is necessary, whereas in the area from which he started no such device was necessary.
I suggest, therefore, that it is desirable where it can be done, as in this case it can be, without infringing upon provincial jurisdiction and autonomy that laws regarding the

Health and Welfare
safety equipment on cars should, so far as possible, be uniform across the country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question at this point?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To take a concrete example, is he arguing that because it may be necessary to have trucks equipped with this device in Ontario, which trucks travel from Ontario, we shall say, through to Alberta and in doing so go through Manitoba, that therefore it is necessary that all the truck owners in Manitoba should have to equip their trucks in that way even though they do not travel out of Manitoba?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker; I am going to deal with that when I come to this question of making exceptions. I suggest it would be very undesirable that otherwise innocent motorists from Manitoba, where such devices are not necessary, should suddenly find themselves in Ontario and all unknowingly commit some offence against an Ontario statute which requires such devices. It would be desirable, if this can be done, to have the law applicable to the whole country for the reason and on the basis of the principle I have suggested.
Then the minister dealt earlier in his remarks with the problem he has just raised, namely the difficulty of making a law of general application which will in fact be sensible because conditions vary so widely from place to place; and that, to quote the example used, it would be folly under the Criminal Code to require a farm tractor operating on the wind-blown prairies to carry such a device. Well, surely, the minister has had experience with making exceptions and incorporating them in a statute. I should think the simplest possible way to deal with that problem would be to say that this law shall not apply to tractors while operated exclusively on the farm or the property of the owner. These problems do not form insuperable obstacles. The statute is not going to be drafted in a moment; I would expect it is going to be drafted after consultation with provincial authorities, and after taking all these considerations into account.
I come back again to the point I made at the beginning, namely that this is a resolution asking the house to express an opinion as to the desirability of taking action along certain lines so as to deal with a problem that all speakers have agreed is of mounting importance. Where a general solution adopted after such consultation is found not to be applicable in certain instances, or within certain specific limits, then those instances 
or those limits can be excepted by a very simple paragraph or subclause in the amending statute.
I just come back to the minister's first point. He said he felt that in general it was undesirable to pass a law and say that after such and such a date a certain act will be a crime. He was there dealing with the question of whether this should be dealt with under the Criminal Code; but the first general principle he laid down which he stated he would follow in considering the desirability or otherwise of this resolution-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend but I really did not say that. What I said was that I was opposed to passing an amendment to the Criminal Code saying that after such and such a date a certain act would be a crime, which act in many, if not in most, of the areas of Canada was obviously not a crime in any sense of the word, not a crime in the sense of being mala in se, not a crime in the sense that it should be prohibited or mala prohibita.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There, of course, we get back to the argument as to whether or not this is a danger to public safety.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And whether is is a danger to public safety depends upon the concentration of the contamination.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is arguable, and that is going back to the question of scientific data that may or may not be available to establish its effects; but all speakers have agreed that the problem is one of mounting importance, and that in certain areas not confined to one province it has reached proportions that require action.
As I understood it, referring to the recent consolidation of the code, the minister did say that an attempt had been made to bring within the scope of one statute and to define all these acts the commission of which would be crimes. Where a problem such as this arose in connection with acts which are now going on, with respect to circumstances applicable today which were applicable yesterday and which will be repeated tomorrow, it did not seem to him to be a sound thing to pass an amendment to the code saying that after this date those acts will be crimes. I think is is unsound to be too ready to amend the Criminal Code to deal with particular situations-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but I do not think it is unsound to amend thd Criminal Code to deal with general situations-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Even if they are innocent?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and I do not think we could ever adopt it as a general principle that you should not pass an amendment to the code saying that an act will be a crime from tomorrow on simply on the ground that it was not a crime yesterday. That is not a valid objection because, of course, that would be to say in effect there should be no progress; that we refuse to recognize inventions which change the circumstances under which we live and therefore make it possible for people to act in a manner different from the manner in which they acted yesterday. In fact many amendments to the code were made necessary by the invention of the automobile, and other amendments to the code have been made necessary in large measure by the increasing speed at which automobiles can now be driven.
It is perfectly sound to argue that further amendments to the code may be necessary because of the danger to public safety represented by an increasing number of automobiles on the highways and streets of Canada. I am quite sure there will be many other developments in the future which will make necessary amendments to the code, or new departures from it. That is not to say they should be undertaken lightly, and I am not criticizing the minister for wanting to be fully convinced that the action under the Criminal Code is sound and desirable and a satisfactory solution. I would suggest, however, that we must never approach the problem from the point of view that an amendment to the Criminal Code per se is undesirable.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has brought forward here a problem which does require attention and some action, and because it seems to me that it would be most desirable in cases of this kind that the action taken should be uniform across the country- because danger to health or safety is as vital in one part of the country as in another-and because I believe it is a proper resolution to suggest that the government should consider the possibility of taking this action by amendment of the Criminal Code, which means of course that it will be in consultation with the provinces and after proper consideration of the scientific data available, I hope the house will agree that the resolution should be supported.


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members of the house realize we are dealing with a very important question. I think too there will be a general feeling that the importance of this question is such that it would be 82715-60
Health and Welfare
desirable if the house could make some decision this afternoon that would bring a little closer some way of dealing with this problem of poisonous fumes emitted by diesel engines.
My colleague the hon. member for The Battlefords has already pointed out certain difficulties that present themselves to us as far as this resolution in its present form is concerned, and the Minister of Justice has underlined some of those difficulties. In view of the stand taken by the Minister of Justice one would assume that if a vote is called on this resolution its chances of passing in its present form are not the best.
As I say, the subject is of such importance that I think the house generally would like to see something better than just a discussion and then the rejection of the resolution. Therefore in a few moments I intend to suggest an amendment to the resolution which I would like to offer in the hope that the alteration proposed by my amendment might make the resolution acceptable to all members of the house. If that is the case then at least some kind of favourable, positive decision can be made by the House of Commons today.
The problem, as we see it and as has already been stated by the hon. member for The Battlefords, is that it does seem somewhat difficult to write it into the Criminal Code that it is an offence not to equip vehicles with a device which is not yet definitely known to be available. There may be some devices that some people feel are available and do the job, but these devices are not referred to in the resolution. I would suggest that because of the very vagueness of that part of the resolution it is a little premature to make the failure to have some unnamed suitable device an offence under the Criminal Code.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, that greater attention should be paid to this problem. I agree with my friend the hon. member for Kamloops that it would be well for the federal government to discuss this matter with the provincial authorities. I think it might be discussed between the Minister of Justice and the provincial attorneys general. I think it might also be discussed between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the provincial ministers of health across Canada. We think also there should be intensified research into this whole problem, and it is along that line that I think the house could unite this afternoon.
It is obvious that we cannot obtain unity in the house on the proposal made by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, containing as it does a specific reference to the

Health and Welfare
Criminal Code; but I do feel that we might be able to achieve unity on the proposition that research in this field should be intensified. Toward that end, Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the resolution be amended by deleting therefrom all the words from the words "making the necessary amendments" to and including the words "for failure to equip said vehicles" and by substituting therefor the following words: "intensifying research to find ways and means of equipping diesel-powered vehicles or railway engines".
Now, Mr. Speaker, having moved the amendment in this form perhaps I might indicate just how the resolution would read if my amendment were accepted. It would read as follows:
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 intensifying research to find ways and means of equipping diesel-powered vehicles or railway engines with some suitable device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines.
I regret that I have not a number of copies of the resolution, because we have prepared it while the debate has been proceeding, but I have one for Your Honour and I sent one across the way, and I would be glad to supply one to my friend the sponsor of the original resolution.
The hon. member for Kamloops has commented on the fact that my amendment restricts the subject to diesel-powered vehicles or railway engines. I felt I should do that since that is the wording of the original resolution.
I offer this amendment in the best of faith and in the hope that hon. members on all sides of the house will agree with the proposition I have tried to lay down. I think it would be unfortunate for the house merely to take a negative position with regard to this important issue. It is obvious that the house cannot be expected to give a majority vote to the proposition offered by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand in the form in which he moved it, but we might agree unanimously on the proposition that consideration should be given to the advisability of intensifying research in this field. It is in that spirit that I move the amendment which I have placed in Your Honour's hands.


Mr, Garson:: My hon. friend was good
enough before he moved this amendment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Before I put the amendment I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to follow me rather closely, because I think it is my duty to see that according to my

views the wording is appropriate. His amendment commences with these words:
That the resolution be amended by deleting therefrom all the words from the words "making the necessary amendments".
Does the hon. member mean:
All the words from and including the words "making the necessary amendments".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: With the hon. member's permission I will include the words "and including" because I think the resolution will then read much better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be quite satisfactory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the resolution be amended by deleting therefrom all the words from and Including the words "making the necessary amendments" to and including the words "for failure to equip said vehicles" and by substituting therefor the following words: "intensifying research to find ways and means of equipping diesel powered vehicles or railway engines".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre was good enough before moving his amendment to send a copy across to me with the suggestion that perhaps the government could accept the amendment. As indicated in his remarks, he hoped by his action to secure a unanimous decision of the house in relation to the resolution as amended in the way he is now suggesting. I thought I had made it clear in my remarks, as had the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his, that the department of health, the transport board and the legislature of the province of Ontario have not, through any evidence that has been presented to us, been remiss in the research which they have carried on or in the attention they have given to this matter.
One effect of my hon. friend's resolution would be the implication that these bodies in some way or other have not been carrying on research which was sufficiently intensified up to the present time. I am not by any means an expert in the field of research into this subject but I would think that sort of imputation was undeserved. As I pointed out in my previous remarks, this problem of pollution is found to an infinitely greater degree in many other parts of the world than anywhere in Canada. It is found to a very critical degree in many cities outside of Canada.

It was not so long ago that we read in the newspapers that the whole city of Los Angeles and its environs had been tied up completely, with a discontinuance of business and everything else, by a smog which made any kind of human activity impossible and rendered ill hundreds of its citizens. I do not like to accept the imputation that any Canadian researchers are at fault and that it is possible for them to intensify their research and produce some solution to this problem, when many large cities in the world as well as other countries have had the best researchers they could command deal with this same subject matter yet have not come up with any adequate solution, any more than we have.
So far as my hon. friends of the Conservative party are concerned in relation to this amendment, it seems to me it would be rather embarrassing for them to support it. For if the amendment be correct in its language then there is no foundation whatsoever for the introduction of the resolution; for in such case we are being asked to amend the Criminal Code upon the basis of an inadequate amount of research and an inadequate consideration of the whole matter.
For that reason I suggest respectfully that it might be better to continue this debate a little bit longer to see if we can get a little more wisdom shed upon it by others who are perhaps more capable of shedding it than I. I do not accept the suggestion that the consideration which has been given to this matter by a committee of the Ontario legislature, by the transport board and by the federal department of health has been inadequate, that it can be intensified, that it can be increased. I do not think that is supported by any evidence that has been brought forward by any hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister think a
scientist who has not solved a particular problem would feel it was a criticism of the woi'k he had done up to a given point to say that he should work still harder to try to find a solution?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I certainly do. I think if he was asked to intensify his work the only possible interpretation that could be put upon that would be that he was not working very intensely at the present time. I do not think that is true; I do not think that is warranted. If my hon. friend is seeking unanimity by his amendment I think there is other language he could use.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister suggest some other language?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I will. If you will give me a moment I will be glad to.
82715-60J
Health and Welfare


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to work out another amendment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend can feel quite free to go ahead with his remarks, as it will not bother me at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: hesitate to interrupt again, but perhaps I should point out that if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra speaks now it would not be competent for me to recognize the Minister of Justice the second time in the same debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that he substitute the word "continuing" for "intensifying".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should not say this, but it seems to me there is not a great deal of difference in the meaning of the two words. Indeed, a scientist who would be offended by one would be offended by the other, but I doubt if either word is offensive. If changing the word "intensifying" to "continuing" will make the amendment acceptable to the Minister of Justice, I shall be happy to make the change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the unanimous understanding of the house that by consent the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East be reworded by striking out the word "intensifying" and substituting therefor the word "continuing"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: In
that case it has been moved as an amendment by Mr. Knowles, seconded by Mr. Winch:
That the resolution be amended by deleting therefrom all the words from and including the words "making the necessary amendments" to and including the words "for failure to equip said vehicles" and by substituting therefor the following words: continuing research to find ways and means of equipping diesel powered vehicles or railway engines".


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question. Is he accepting the amendment with that change?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am accepting the amendment for debate, certainly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think that is your function, not the minister's. I understood that the minister was prepared to accept the amendment if I made that change.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am accepting it in the sense that after it has been discussed I for my part am quite prepared to support it.

Health and Welfare


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is prepared to support that amendment I presume his followers will be prepared to support him, and there is not a great deal-


Mr. Stick:: You are presuming a bit too much.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member says I am presuming a bit too much, but judging by the experience of the last four years I think I am not presuming a great deal.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order, this is a private member's resolution, of course, and I do not think it is proper for me to undertake to commit all my colleagues with respect to a private member's resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you were going to oppose it you would certainly hope they would all support you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, but I really have no right to bind anybody other than myself. So far as I am concerned I will vote for it with that amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, to get down to the question before the house, we all agree that this is a matter which merits very careful consideration by the authorities, federal, provincial and municipal, and also by the industries concerned. I suggest that with the amendment that has been moved attention is now focused on research, and in that field the dominion has accepted an increasing responsibility over the years.
The particular question of research into the menace caused by these fumes can be very well undertaken by the national research council. Nothing has been said about the council thus far, the emphasis having been placed on the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have no doubt that department has also been giving consideration to the question, but to what extent research of this kind has been undertaken by the national research council I cannot remember.
I was on the special committee last session which dealt with the work of the council. We were all very favourably impressed by what we heard, and I believe the passing of the resolution in its amended form will provide considerable incentive to the national research council to undertake work that will lead to the solution of the problem. Under these conditions members on this side of the house do not wish to be technical. All we are anxious to do is focus attention on the question itself, and I think the debate as it has been carried on this afternoon will have that effect.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: We will be very glad to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before we come to a final decision. I am sure we are all anxious to hear the hon, member for Brant-Haldimand, who for two years in succession has brought this matter of great importance to the whole country before the house. I remember that after a rather prolonged discussion last year we came to some kind of amicable decision at the end whereby the hon. member withdrew his resolution rather than press it to a vote. This time, by a sort of three-way peacemaking job, we seem to be reaching some kind of basis for agreement.
As far as I am concerned, I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is quite wrong in his assumption that members on this side of the house always follow automatically whatever cabinet ministers say in the case of private members' resolutions. I certainly do not think the record of the last three or four years will bear that out. We have always been encouraged to do our own thinking on these matters, and I can cite notable examples such as the women's equal pay bill, the check-off bill and the paid vacation bill, when we used our own independent judgment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the question of advance polls the hon. member voted one way last year and the other way this year.


Elmore Philpott: Surely my hon. friend should be the last man in the house to raise that argument. In the first year I was one of the 11 who voted for his measure whereas 254 members did not vote to support him. As far as switching votes is concerned, after giving the matter mature consideration for one year I decided that the hon. member was not justified in seeking to have the bill passed and I voted the other way, but he forgets that the whole Social Credit group voted against him last year while they voted for him this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think I should draw to the attention of the house that speeches at the moment should be directed to whether or not we will vote for the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Elmore Philpott: That is quite correct. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will conduct himself accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has the floor.


Elmore Philpott: With respect to the question of pure air and polluted air, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand remind the house again today that it is not only a matter of pollution from diesel engines but pollution from all sorts of agencies. I noticed that once again today he brought up the question of lung cancer and cigarette smoking. All over the world scientific authorities are giving more and more attention to the question of health and polluted air. On January 5 of this year there was an authoritative article about the relation of smoking to lung cancer in the British medical journal, which indicated that a person who smokes 40 cigarettes a day has a 70 times greater chance of getting lung cancer than a non-smoker. I do not know whether we would all agree with the solution recommended in the article, because the conclusion arrived at seems to be that the way to cut down the incidence of lung cancer is for everybody to quit smoking cigarettes and go back to chewing tobacco.
Be that as it may, in my opinion more and more interest is being shown in the question of air pollution, and the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is certainly to be congratulated for bringing it before the house. Those of us who live close to the big cities of Canada see very striking illustrations of the deadliness of some of these gas fumes along the main highways, because it is obvious that adjacent to our great highways even the evergreen trees die wherever traffic is heavily congested and such fumes are present in heavy density.
I think the subject of air pollution is one subject to which every intelligent person in the country should give close attention. Even in Vancouver, where we hardly ever have a fog, it was only a matter of a month or two ago that we had that really deadly thing, a smog. I know that for whole days afterwards the papers devoted columns and columns to explaining how we happened to get that upside-down air.
On the precise suggestion that we have before us, may I say this, I confess that I have sat here all afternoon and listened to this discussion, and I hoped that we would not be obliged to have a vote on the original motion moved by my hon. friend because it seemed to me that the general sense of this house is favourable to the purpose which he is trying to achieve. However, a good many of us have serious doubts about the exact method he is using to advance his idea. It seems to me that the compromise suggestion which has now been made and which has been at least tentatively accepted by the Minister of Justice-I do not know
Health and Welfare
whether it has yet been accepted by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, but no doubt we shall hear about that-is a much more sensible proposal indeed.
I for one would judge that there could be no great objection if there should be in the Criminal Code some kind of clause making pollution of the air a crime. In fact, although perhaps I am wrong in this, it seems to me that even as the code now stands there are clauses that could be held to make pollution of the air a crime. It seems to me there could be in the code a general provision making pollution of the air a crime but that there could be a provision, under either the provincial authority or the municipal authority, for applying that provision in the appropriate places.
I think this whole question is one of profound importance to the people. If we are really interested in methods of improving health; if we are now going ahead with these plans for hospital and health insurance and other measures to improve the health of our Canadian people; and if we are all willing year after year to spend more and more money on trying to restore to health those of our people who are in ill health, I certainly think it is only common sense that we should do everything within our power to take steps to preserve the health of the people. Certainly clean, pure air is one of the prime necessities for the good health of the people. I therefore hope we arrive at an agreed solution on this proposed amendment. I hope the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand can see his way clear to accept the amendment, and that we can get a unanimous decision on this matter.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Vancouver South I have been listening with some interest to this debate as it has progressed this afternoon, and I thought I might like to say a few words of my own before it concluded, as closely related to the subject matter under discussion, I think, as that of lung cancer, about which the hon. member for Vancouver South was speaking. Actually what has prompted me to rise in my place in this connection is the use of certain words by the Minister of Justice when he was speaking earlier this afternoon. During the course of his speech he made reference to greater Toronto, greater Montreal and greater Vancouver.
When we are discussing this question of the pollution of air which has prompted the hon. member, in introducing this resolution, to suggest the need to pass a law to make it a crime, I think it might be profitable

Health and Welfare
to think for a few minutes about the root cause of this air pollution. I suggest perhaps it might be just as well if someone were to suggest that when we speak of greater Toronto, greater Montreal and greater Vancouver, we are using that word in a rather incorrect sense. If we were to think a little more about using some of the thousands of unoccupied acres we have across this country for people to live in, instead of having them all huddled together in these metropolitan jungles, we might be coming a great deal closer to a logical solution to this problem than we are by suggesting an amendment to the Criminal Code.
I realize that I have some freedom to speak on this subject-perhaps more than my friend the hon. member for Vancouver South would have-because I happen to come from an area where we can still get a sniff of pure sea breezes once in a while. Though I must say that even on Vancouver island I am at times worried about the increasing congestion in some of the areas of that part of Canada which I think even the hon. member for Vancouver South would agree approaches as close to paradise as does any part of this country.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that a resolution of this kind has been brought forward this afternoon serves to drive home the idea that what is needed in this country is much greater attention to social planning than we have had heretofore. As well as giving immediate attention to the problem of research, as is suggested by the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we should also be giving greater attention to the problems that are creating the pollution which is referred to in the resolution. That might in the long run be a much more important and sensible point of view from which this parliament could approach this problem.
In his speech the Minister of Justice set forth very well the fact that the incidence of this problem on the prairies in his own province of Manitoba, where someone may be operating a diesel truck along a country highway, is not very great; and that it is only when we allow ourselves to be overcome by this idea that in the size of our cities there is in some way a degree of greatness; when we are swept away with the approach of self-aggrandisement which the administration of some of our cities seem to take to this question, that we multiply the kind of problems that arise with respect to air pollution and a good many of the other social problems that beset us.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this resolution. The resolution as amended does not appear to leave much room for debate. The original resolution stated:
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 making the necessary amendments under the Criminal Code, to provide penalties against owners or operators of all diesel powered vehicles or railway engines for failure to equip said vehicles with some suitable device to render harmless, poisonous gases emitted from the exhaust of such vehicles or engines.
That was a definite resolution, Mr. Speaker, but when we leave out all the words after "amendments", between the word "amendments" and "for failure" and place in their stead the words "intensifying research to equip said vehicles with some suitable device", etc., then the only thing we have to debate there is whether we want the research department to continue with this kind of project.
I am sure the national research council are concerned with this tremendous problem and have been working on it. I am sure they do not need a resolution of this house to keep them at work. We are all in sympathy with the problem with which the original resolution intended to deal. We all commend the hon. member of Brant-Haldi-mand for focussing the attention of this house upon the problem.
We all know that pure air is as essential to good health as pure water. It is logical to assume that we should take whatever measures are possible or necessary to ensure that our air will remain pure, just as we are trying to ensure the purity of our water. We have become increasingly conscious, I think, of the dangerous results to health from an excessive concentration of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere and the possibility that they might, in some way, be related to the increase in the incidence of lung cancer.
The thing that struck me about this resolution is that the hon. member has confined it mainly to diesel-powered vehicles and railway engines. Well, diesel-powered trucks or cars are not the only means of putting an excessive concentration of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. The internal combustion of hydrocarbons in the combustion chamber of an engine is just a matter of burning these hydrocarbons under pressure with a specified amount of oxygen.
The same thing happens when we burn gasoline, and the same thing happens in our furnaces. The only difference is that in the furnace the combustion does not take place under artificially increased pressure.

In my opinion the confining of the resolution to diesel motors does not seem a very adequate way of dealing with the problem. When we pass a resolution of this house to make it an offence for the owners of diesel-powered trucks or diesel-powered cars or railway engines not to equip their motors with a device to render the exhaust harmless, that certainly must presuppose that such a device exists. If no such device is in existence, then there is not' much sense in passing a resolution requiring people to use it.
We know that in certain places in the world, for example in London, England, and in Los Angeles, U.S.A., as was mentioned earlier, this problem is present to a much greater degree than in any part of Canada. Surely the people must be working in this direction of trying to find some sort of device to render the exhaust gases harmless. Especially would one expect to find such devices in rich areas like that of our neighbour to the south or some of the European cities where this problem is much more intense than it is here. If these people had discovered such a device, surely we would have heard something about it. Until we are certain that such a device is actually in existence, is being manufactured, and is available, then it does not seem right for us to pass a resolution which would penalize people for not doing something which it is impossible for them to do.
The other question that occurred to me in connection with this resolution is, if such a device were available why should it be made mandatory only for diesel vehicles? Why should it not also be made mandatory for other motor vehicles, for lighting plants and for the ordinary home furnace? These things burn diesel oil and put the same poisonous gases into the atmosphere that we get from the diesel trucks. If such a device were available, even then, before we pass this resolution, I think we should be very careful not to impose a heavy expenditure upon people in localities where it is not necessary. In the province from which I come we do not have this particular problem at all. In fact when I first read the resolution my reaction was that I wish we did require a measure of this sort in the area of the Atlantic provinces. However, we do not.
Even if such a device were available, I doubt whether it would be right for us to impose that extra expense on the owners and operators of vehicles in localities in which the devices were not necessary. Diesel engines are not used only to propel motor cars and trucks. In my province they are used also to propel fishing vessels. We are encouraging the fishermen to change over to
Health and Welfare
diesel-propelled boats instead of using gasoline motors because of the saving in the cost of operation. Furthermore, in most of the smaller settlements where you do not have hydroelectric power the only means of getting current is from dynamos which are driven by diesel motors.
One of our handicaps in Newfoundland in industrializing our fishery is the lack of cheap hydroelectric power. We have to get our electric power from diesel-operated motors. The cost of operation of the fishing boats, the cost of operation of the lighting plants and the fish processing plants might be greatly increased if they were compelled to conform to a law such as is envisaged by this resolution.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this does not appear to me to be an adequate way of dealing with the problem. We know the problem does exist, and it would not be right for us to pretend that it does not. In some places it is a problem of immediate concern which requires some sort of action, or the best action we can take, to overcome it; but the particular type of action suggested in this resolution is not, so far as we know, within the realms of possibility.
The only suggestion I can make is that those places which have so much industrialization that the air is getting polluted should shift some of their industries down to the eastern provinces, where we have plenty of fresh air, and where it will be a long time before it gets to a state of pollution.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not wish to have an amendment such as this written into the records if perchance it should not be entirely in order. He is a member who does keep the records and books straight on every occasion, and I hope he will not feel that I am opposed to the resolution or to this amendment when I suggest some doubt as to whether or not the amendment comes entirely within the rules of the house.
My understanding of an amendment is that it must not have the effect of negativing the motion. Citation 341 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, reads as follows:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
The motion calls on the government to take definite steps which would culminate in legislation being passed requiring certain individuals to do certain things, namely to instal preventive devices on the exhausts of diesels in order to take out injurious exhaust gases and other things. The amendment

Health and Welfare
simply asks that the status quo be maintained and that we continue to do as we are doing. The original motion would have the effect of disturbing the status quo to some extent.
However, I do not think it is of very great importance, Mr. Speaker; and if you choose to rule that it is entirely in order there is a matter I overlooked in my earlier remarks that I should like to bring to the attention of the house. However, I would first like to have your ruling as to whether you think the amendment is entirely in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If what the hon. member for Kootenay East has raised is a point of order on the basis of citation 341 of Beauchesne's third edition, may I ask that consideration be given to citation 338, which is on the same page. It reads in part as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.
I submit that is what the amendment does, Mr. Speaker. It presents to the house an alternative proposition which is partially opposed to the original question. I would add further that a straight negative vote against the original motion would not produce the result that the amendment produces, namely that of affirming that there should be a continuation of the research into the finding of ways and means to equip diesel-powered vehicles with a suitable device. I submit that Your Honour will find the amendment in order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has already done so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member for Kootenay East did not press his point too strenuously because, while I realize there is some validity in what he has said, I am of the opinion that the amendment would be in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member must be pleased. Now he can make his speech.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that I just wanted to make sure that I would be in order in speaking a second time. I do not at this moment question your ruling, but I do still stand by my suggestion that an amendment should not have a negative effect.
The matter I had intended to speak about on the original motion is the fact that here in Ottawa, where I have been living the greater part of the time for the past eight

years-and there seems to be every indication that I shall be here for some time yet- they have decided on a progressive program to eliminate street cars from their thoroughfares. I understand the intention is to instal diesel buses. Apparently the resolution moved last year by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand did not have a very great effect upon the administrators of civic affairs in this city.
I have had occasion to ride three types of transportation in Ottawa. Undoubtedly the best, the most comfortable and the least noisy -though I cannot say the most efficient, but certainly the speediest of the three types- is the trolley bus.
They operate on several runs in the city, and appear quite efficient. Hydroelectricity is moderately cheap in the area, and the vast St. Lawrence development will provide further amounts of this power. I feel sure the board of control or the Ottawa Transportation Commission have some reasonable arguments as to why they should change over to diesel buses, but one determining factor should be the question of noise and air pollution.
I would suggest that the Ottawa Transportation Commission read thoroughly the arguments presented by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and see if they cannot alter their opinion regarding the change-over they have in mind. It is not only the pollution of air outside the buses that is objectionable, but inside the buses themselves there is almost invariably a strong odour of diesel fumes. On the other hand, trolley buses are completely free of fumes and are noiseless and extremely comfortable. If the authorities are taking cognizance of the dangers inherent in diesel exhaust surely this city is the very place that should give an example.
We have trolley buses in extensive use on the west coast. As a matter of fact, in most cities the buses are entirely electrical. There are buses which come in from rural areas that tend to pollute the air, but electric trolley buses have proven highly satisfactory. One of the early objections to the use of trolley buses was that they were too noiseless and crept up on people, catching them unaware, and that therefore they were dangerous. That is not a sound argument against the use of trolley buses. There are means of warning pedestrians and automobile traffic of the approach of a bus other than exhaust noises. I recommend to the city of Ottawa that they give careful consideration to the debate which has taken place here this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John Alpheus Charlton: Just before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words. There seems to be considerable misunderstanding in the house today. I am sorry anyone would suggest that I would place a resolution on the order paper without having in mind something in the way of a cure for this situation. I believe it was the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who suggested we were being asked to pass something and did not know what we were doing. He said it is impossible to pass a resolution here concerning a problem and not offer some solution to the situation.
On January 30 of last year I dealt with the solution at some length. I would ask the hon. member to refer to the debate that took place on that occasion, as reported at page 664 of Hansard. At that time I described a device that has been used underground for a considerable length of time and is accepted by the United States department of mines and by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys here. If this device can be employed underground to render harmless the diesel fumes, then I suggest it would be practical for use on the highways of this country.
I am very grateful to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his remarks this afternoon. I was pleased to learn of the nature and extent of the research into air pollution being carried out in the Windsor-Detroit area. I did not realize the full extent of that research program.
The minister also said that the resolution dealt with only one aspect of the air pollution problem. I grant that, and the very reason I referred specifically to diesels is that to my knowledge there is no device available that will remove harmful carbon monoxide from gasoline engine exhausts. There is, however, the device I have described which renders diesel exhausts harmless; therefore I specifically referred to diesel exhausts in the resolution, knowing there was a device available for installation on diesel engines.
The minister also suggested there was no proven solution to this problem. I believe that on reflection the minister will realize that in a good deal of the material that is available there is evidence proving the successful use of this device underground, and perhaps he could agree with me that this device would be just as useful on our highways.
The hon. member for The Battlefords said he would support the resolution if a suitable device was suggested. I do not know if he was in the house when I made my speech last year or when I opened my remarks today, but on both occasions I described the device that is available.
Veterans Affairs
I am glad to learn that the Minister of Justice has seen fit to accept the amendment. Certainly one would be less than fair if he did not accept the amendment, because it simply means that we continue the research that has been taking place regarding the device for diesel-powered vehicles or railway engines. In order to meet the convenience of the house I will accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alpheus Charlton: In doing so I fully realize that the amendment emasculates the resolution; nevertheless if the house is willing to accept the amendment I will go along, because I feel the resolution has served a useful purpose in that it has brought the danger of the situation to the attention of the public, and I am thankful that this debate has taken place.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the advisability of amending standing order 65 (1) by inserting therein, immediately after subparagraph (1) the following new subparagraph: "(m) on veterans affairs to consist of 50 members, 15 of whom shall constitute a quorum".
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I begin my remarks now I am going to be able to speak for only seven minutes; do you mind calling it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to set up a permanent committee on veterans affairs every year or every session when the other committees of the house are set up. To the man on the street this resolution may look rather complicated, but some of my lawyer friends have checked it and they tell me it is correct. I realize how lawyers can disagree on legal points, but I think this resolution is quite all right.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest departments of the government,

Veterans Affairs
and it is only reasonable that it should have a committee associated with it. There are committees of the house which are not particularly important, but the veterans affairs committee would be important. Perhaps it might not be needed to sit every year, but it would always be there when needed. Veterans organizations and veterans generally would feel more secure if they knew they had the right to go to their member of parliament and have their case reviewed or dealt with by a committee of the house.
Some may say, what is wrong with things as they are? That may be all right for the present, but what of the future? In the short time I have been here we have had three ministers of veterans affairs. First there was the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie; then there was the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), followed by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). All those gentlemen were professional soldiers, and they knew the problems of the veterans from experience. But how long are we going to have men of this type holding the portfolio of veterans affairs minister? I personally hope it will be for a long time, but as the years go by the situation will change and most likely we will have a non-veteran minister or ministers.
A minister who has never seen active service can never be expected to understand the problems of the veteran the same as one who has had that experience. As time passes the administration can get farther away from the purposes of the acts which have been passed. After a number of years the people administering such legislation may forget the purposes and the reasons for the legislation and why it was passed. Our veterans, including those of world war I and world war II, constitute a significant proportion of the total Canadian population. Their problems are considerable and require constant attention. These problems could be dealt with much more effectively if the veterans had an opportunity to bring them before a standing committee through their members of parliament.
Furthermore, such a committee would facilitate the presentation of veterans problems by the Canadian Legion and other recognized veterans organizations in Canada. Often in the past there have been times when there has been no committee on veterans affairs, with the result that important problems affecting veterans and their families did not receive the proper airing to which they were entitled. The Department of Veterans Affairs acts in an administrative capacity in dealing with veterans problems. Competent as the department may be in this role, the fact is that our veterans require additional attention

which is beyond the scope of the administrators in the department.
Then there are the important matters of pensions and allowances which can be met only by appropriate changes in the veterans legislation. A standing committee could give frequent study to the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act as new developments arose to justify changes in the legislation. As it is now, the veterans affairs committee is set up only on the initiative of the government to deal with special matters. The members of parliament therefore are handicapped by not having up to date information pertaining to veterans and their problems. If a permanent committee was established and if it sat every parliamentary session, parliament would be in a much better position to determine when changes in veterans legislation were required.
I feel sure that a veterans affairs committee dealing with these matters from year to year would be able to see that the legislation passed for the benefit of the veterans was maintained and used for the benefit of the veterans. Only by having a permanent veterans affairs committee of the house which can keep the administration and the legislation close to the needs of the veteran are we going to get the kind of administration the veterans should have.
I move this resolution in the hope that the government will give it consideration in the near future. I could say a lot more about this resolution, but I know other hon. members will want to express their views on such an important matter as the setting up of a veterans affairs committee of the house. As the time allotted to this debate is limited I shall refrain from going into detail.
I hope the minister will be able to convince the government of the need of a standing committee on veterans affairs. I am trying to set a good example, and have made my remarks brief so the minister will have an opportunity in the short time during which this matter will be under discussion to get the views of hon. members, not only on the government side but on all sides of the house.


Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on this motion and to indicate the support of hon. members of this party. The resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk to set up a permanent committee on veterans affairs is not something new. While it may not have been the subject of discussion before on private members' day, it is a matter that has often been raised by individual members both in the house and on many occasions before the special committee on veterans affairs.

Each year members receive briefs from the large veterans organizations, and in addition they constantly receive communications from veterans organizations in their ridings. Many receive copies of resolutions passed by Legion branches in their ridings, all advocating that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs.
It has been the custom for a number of years for the Canadian Legion to present a brief to the government each November, and each time a brief is presented it contains many important recommendations covering a very wide range of topics. They deal with important matters and issues affecting thousands of Canadian veterans both male and female, and their dependents. Therefore it would seem to me that no more suitable course could be followed than for the annual Legion brief to be referred to a standing committee on veterans affairs each year.
The brief submitted by the Legion last November, which no doubt has been read by many hon. members, covered a very wide range of topics. To itemize them briefly, it dealt with national defence, pensions, conditions not recorded on enlistment, revised rates for dependent parents, increase in pension to certain dependent parents, retroactive awards, debts due to the crown, supplementation to Canadian rates, war veterans allowance, veterans of world war I, widows of allied ex-servicemen, supplementation for orphans pensioned under the Canadian Pension Act, and the equity in a home, among other matters. In my opinion the Legion made very fair and reasonable recommendations with respect to these matters.
I am not suggesting that their brief will not receive every consideration from the minister and the officials of his department but, after all, there are in the house between 75 and 100 members who have seen service in different branches of our armed forces, and they are able to bring to such a committee a great amount of valuable experience. As far as I know I have never heard the present Minister of Veterans Affairs or any other minister of veterans affairs advance any reason or suggest any ground for objecting to a standing committee on veterans affairs. As we all know, at the present time there are quite a number of standing committees of the house, and if you review the records you will find that some of them have not had a single meeting in whole sessions.
As has been suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk, if we had such a committee its members could study the Legion briefs and bring to the attention of the committee the various matters involving veterans that come to their attention in their ridings. Today there are a large number of statutes
Veterans Affairs
having to do with the welfare of veterans and their dependents. This simply means that all the legislation affecting veterans should be constantly under review with the hope of improving it, amending the various acts so as to bring their benefits more in line with present day conditions and also removing from the present legislation anything that may work a hardship or injustice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is a large spending department because of the substantial expenditure in pensions and war veterans allowances and, as was so well put forward by the previous speaker, it would appear most reasonable to me that there should be a standing committee for the department. I do not think the minister should take this suggestion as indicating in any way that there is anything wrong with the administration of the department. I think he should take the view that members of all parties in the house want to help the minister and provide the very best possible legislation for Canadian veterans.
Before this short debate is over I sincerely hope the minister will indicate that he will accept the resolution and is willing to recommend to the government the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Wesiminster):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are very happy that the hon. member for Selkirk has seen fit to introduce this resolution at this time. I sincererly hope the minister, as suggested a moment ago by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, will be willing to accept the resolution in the spirit in which it is put forward, for I am quite sure from my past experience as a member of the special committee on veterans affairs that the resolution should be and probably will be supported by members on all sides of the house.
I hope to follow the example of the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me so far as time is concerned, and I shall enunciate briefly some of the reasons why I feel it is desirable to set up such a committee. I consider that the Department of Veterans Affairs is just as important as any other department, and under these circumstances it would seem to me that we should have a standing committee in the same way that we have standing committees on miscellaneous private bills, marine and fisheries and other matters.
It is true that the special committee on veterans affairs is not set up each year, but it is also a fact that some of the standing committees do not sit during each session of parliament. There are frequent occasions when special cases arise which can be dealt with in the committee. Those who

Veterans Affairs
have been members of the special committee on veterans affairs will recognize that from time to time we do have cases involving special problems to bring to the attention of the minister and the representatives of his department. Actually such cases are dealt with best in a committee where we can speak directly to some of the members of his staff who are more familiar with these matters.
I was somewhat surprised, however, to hear the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution suggest that one must be A veteran in order to understand veterans problems. I disagree with that suggestion. I will say this, however. It may be desirable to have members who are veterans on this committee that he suggests setting up. I trust I am not misinterpreting his suggestion, but I feel that if a standing committee is set up, certainly the best way to get some of the other members of this house who are not veterans to understand veterans problems is to have some of them on the committee. In that way they will get more familiar with the problems faced by veterans.
I am sure the house will agree with me when I say that those members of the special committees on veterans affairs who have not been veterans are certainly not those who held up legislation in so far as assistance to veterans is concerned. I believe this is also true of the members of this house. There are many non-veterans in the house, and they are certainly not opposed to veterans legislation merely because they are not veterans; nor are they opposed to it because they are not too familiar with the problems faced by veterans.
I also feel that the veterans as such must feel they are being placed in a secondary position by the members of this parliament who do not see fit to give them, with regard to a committee on veterans affairs, the same standing as, let us say, the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, most of which are divorce bills. I do not think we should subject people who have served this country as well as have the veterans to being placed in the awkward position of having it suggested or even implied to them that they are not of as much importance as divorce cases, and that therefore we will not have a standing committee on veterans affairs for them. The same thing applies to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I realize that these committees are necessary, but I definitely would agree with the hon. member who introduced this resolution that it is most essential and desirable that we should have a standing committee on veterans affairs. We in this group will support his resolution.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, before the minister speaks I want to submit a few ideas that might possibly alter what he is going to say. However, I want to make it clear at the outset that I am giving my complete moral support to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk. After thinking the matter over carefully, and having myself been privileged to serve on two of the veterans committees in the present parliament, while I realize a good many of the arguments there are on the other side, especially the argument that there are too many committees already and that at certain times of the year we all have more committees than we can attend, nevertheless it seems to me that on balance the advantage is definitely on the side of having a permanent standing committee of this house on veterans affairs, if for no other reason than that it would tend to remove any suggestion of discrimination there might be in the minds of some of the veterans of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that in my opinion Canada has now and has had for a good many years the best all-round veterans legislation of any country which I have been privileged to study. I think our veterans legislation is better than that of any other country I know of. I think it is better than even that of our great, good and rich neighbour to the south, namely the republic of the United States of America. One reason it is good, I believe, is that we have always had in this house a large number of people who were intimately acquainted with veterans problems and who kept in touch with them. We have had a sensitive public opinion throughout the whole of Canada. We have had an alert press; and of course we have had vigilant veterans organizations who themselves are on the job. The whole thing has combined, I think, to give this country the best veterans legislation of any country in the western world.
I can remember what was said in one of the very few but very fine speeches made by the late hon. member for Halton, the late Miss Sybil Bennett. In a brief speech one day-one of her rare speeches in the house- I can remember she said what a thrill it had given her to see how all the parties in this house treated veterans legislation on a completely impartial basis.
I am not going to say that my own experience in veterans affairs committees has been quite that fortunate. I say that in the veterans committee there have been times when some people played politics; and for all I know, if we had this veterans committee as a standing committee, if it sat in election years perhaps people would have more of the same

tendency to play politics that they had at other times. But on balance I do not believe that is a valid objection. I have watched them in action and noted members like the hen. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), whom I have always seen in the veterans committee being absolutely fair and impartial, not grinding any political axe, even when he has to be fair to the government.
I believe those precedents would be carried out if we had the veterans committee set up as a permanent institution to sit if necessary from year to year. I am not convinced that even if we had a veterans committee set up as a permanent institution, it would necessarily have to sit every single year. But even if it had to sit to deal with only a few minor matters, I believe it would be useful as a discussion agency in order to bring out the points that need bringing out.
I would not want anyone to run away with the idea that because I am in favour of this resolution suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk, I am even implying that there is any lethargy or indifference on the part of the government, and certainly not on the part of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. To the best of my memory I do not recall within the last 25 or 30 years our having a bad or indifferent minister of veterans affairs, but in all honesty I believe we have never had a better Minister of Veterans Affairs than we have right at this moment.


An hon. Member:: That is a political speech.


Elmore Philpott: I would recall that just a year ago we had the review of the disability pensions for the lower income group. So, Mr. Speaker, while there may be some reasons on the other side to which I certainly will listen with attention and respect, for what it is worth I want to give my moral support to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk.
I think Canada has great reason to be proud of her long standing record in veterans legislation. If we do nothing more than go through the pages of the Parliamentary Guide and read the brief biographies of the distinguished people who sit in this chamber and who occupy other great, responsible positions in the life of Canada; if we examine the record to see how many of those fine public servants have been the sons of people who lost their lives in the first world war or lost their capacity to earn as a result of service in the first world war but who nevertheless were able to get the proper training to enable them to become what they have become, I believe we all have reason to be proud of the legislation which is on our statute books.
Veterans Affairs
I believe also it would be in keeping with the spirit of this house and the spirit of the present government, if we were not content to just have it good but were constantly on the alert to make it better if it could be made better. In my opinion the resolution as proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk would make it better.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: First I should like to compliment my learned and gallant friend, the hon. member for Selkirk, for introducing this resolution. It gives us an opportunity to have a discussion of a very important matter. I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver South for the very great compliment he paid me a few minutes ago. I agree with him that our veterans legislation will compare favourably with any other veterans legislation in the world. There is a reason for that, and I will go into it more fully later.
I am sure the minister welcomes this resolution. Reading the press recently one finds that the main slogan of the government at the present time, and for certain reasons, is national unity. I am sure, following that idea through, the minister would be glad to unite the members of this house on a nonpartisan basis into a committee to assist him and his department in the handling of the difficulties that face his department and the veterans organizations in the future. I am sure the minister will welcome this committee, because it affords an opportunity to share responsibilities in a matter that is beyond the realm of politics. I believe most of the veterans in Canada, and most of the members of this house who are veterans, do all they can to keep veterans problems outside the realm of politics.
Perhaps the reason our legislation can compare favourably with that of any other country in the world is that very early in the last war the government set up a veterans affairs committee for the purpose of opening up the old acts as they applied to veterans of the first war, and relating them to the new forces. This was a committee to develop a program of pension adjustments, veterans allowances and so on, with respect to the new forces. The committee could initiate ideas and recommend a rehabilitation program. The committee sat continuously and was not, as it has been in the last several years, merely a committee to examine legislation.
During the past several years the committee that has been set up has been limited to the examination of certain legislation the government was introducing. The committee was powerless to make amendments, but could make recommendations that were tabled

Veterans Affairs
in the house. The committee which related the old acts to the new forces and expanded them had a rather free hand. I know, because I sat on that committee all during the war. It was a process of continual study, amendment or expansion of the acts and the development of a whole rehabilitation program that had to do with demobilization, education, the Veterans' Land Act and all the rest of them. It is for that reason our legislation was hammered into the shape it was when the war finally finished.
I believe if I were the minister of veterans affairs I would be quite pleased to get a committee of that kind to share responsibility with me. The pension commission and others who administer different acts under the minister's department should welcome this committee. They have many administrative difficulties that are not understood either by members of the house or the public. If we had a continuing committee people would be able to come to us and point out their difficulties. Most of the members of this house have opinions which would be of great benefit in considering legislation that is being demanded. So far as I am concerned I have always taken the position this is a nonpartisan problem, and if there are demands made which I think are unrealistic or cannot be supported by the facts-and I think this applies to most members of the committee-I have had no hesitation in saying so. I am sure that with all the books the minister has in front of him he has come prepared to give us the legal arguments and the reasons why this committee should be welcomed with open arms. I am quite sure he is going to do that.
If one takes a look at the brief that was presented to the cabinet in December, 1956, by the Legion, one finds it indicates the need for a continuing study of veterans problems. There is no doubt that the Legion officials did a lot of research in the preparation of that brief, but at the present time most of the members of this house are not in a position to say whether or not those demands are reasonable or economic. There are many demands for changes in the Pension Act, such as the dependents' pensions. Apparently someone did some work on the percentage difference between wages that were paid at the time these acts were set up and the increases that have taken place in wages since, to indicate that the rates paid today, based on the formula that was adopted at the time the acts were set up, are completely out of line. The War Veterans Allowance Act, the matter of permissible earnings

those things have all been gone into again, and there are many demands in the brief.
I believe there are two departments of government that absolutely need a continuing

committee, one of which is veterans affairs. Veterans affairs is going to be a continuing problem as long as anyone in this house lives. There is no finality to it. If the country is going to prosper and we are going to have twice as much money to spend in 1980 as we have today, as the Gordon commission suggests, then veterans legislation has to keep pace with that. It is not going to remain static.
As I say, there is no finality to this problem. There should be a continuous study made by members of this house, in co-operation with the members of the commission, if the members of the house are going to be informed sufficiently to vote according to the social and economic values of the problems facing them.
Unless we have the opportunity of studying the matter there is not much chance of a person in this house passing an intelligent vote on the problem.
About the only way that I see it can be done is through a veterans affairs committee. In that committee there would be available to the members experts from all branches of the department. The department is in housing today, and in land settlement. It is handling great social and economic problems. A terrific job is being done by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I think the minister needs help. I believe the people in all branches of the commission who have the responsibility of making decisions on veterans affairs have a right to inform members of this house as to the difficulties of administration, and to get the understanding co-operation at least of the members of the house.
An odd time in that committee you will find a member or two who wants to make capital out of its deliberations. That is a very small percentage of the committee. Many subjects are discussed, and no matter what kind of group you get together you find one or two who just do not play the game according to the rules, but it is a very small percentage. My experience on the committee has shown me that it is as non-partisan as a committee of this house could possibly be. So far as I am concerned it has always been the desire of the committee to help the veterans, but to be reasonable and understanding with respect to demands made on the public treasury.
I believe the permissive earnings and the war veterans allowances are burning questions. These questions need a lot of study. I believe the government has been unrealistic so far as that particular legislation is concerned. Then there is the matter of expanding the War Veterans Allowance

Act to include England as a theatre of war for world war I veterans. They are running out. There is still a large number who should be receiving the war veterans allowance. There is discrimination as between the younger and the older veterans. These are matters that should be, and I believe could be, ironed out by a committee.
As I said a moment ago, and I want to reiterate it, with the development of this country forecast for the future, with the advance in income and the increase in the standard of living, if the veterans-and there is a large number of them today-are to go forward and enjoy a share of that prosperity there has to be a continued study and revision of the acts having to do with veterans, in order to keep the veteran in the same relative position as he is today with respect to incomes and standards. The only way to do that is by constant study and revision and the application of increased rates to acts that have to do with the welfare and the future of veterans.
I have been deliberately brief in my remarks, because I want to give the minister a chance to advance to his own colleagues all the arguments he has at his disposal as to why the government should give him some assistance by passing some of the responsibilities of his department on to the members of the house. In that way we may lighten his burden a little. It would enable the staffs who administer the different acts to get the opinions of members and others about their difficulties, so we may have some understanding of what they are up against.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as you know suggestions have been made in this house for several years and by members on all sides that a standing committee on veterans affairs should be set up. That request has been made not only in the house, it has also been made by the different veterans organizations across Canada. For example, at the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion, which was held in Vancouver last June, this resolution was adopted:
Whereas the government has not seen fit to appoint a committee on veterans affairs during the present session of parliament;
Whereas problems are continually arising concerning the Pension Act, War Veterans Allowance Act, et cetera;
Be it resolved that this convention make representations for the appointment of a permanent standing committee on veterans affairs to which all such problems would be referred.
I believe the time has now come when this action could be taken, and I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be in a position this evening to announce that the
Veterans Affairs
government has changed its stand on this particular question, and that from now on we can have such a committee. You see, Mr. Speaker, the request is not made in a frivolous way; it is made because the only way the veterans problems can be dealt with fully and adequately is by having a committee of this house which meets every year.
The practice in the past has been to set up a special committee only when there was significant veterans legislation coming before the house. For example, last session there was no such committee, although there were two or three minor bills having to do with veterans affairs. This year there is no hint that there will be any legislation having to do with veterans at all and, of course, there is no hint of a committee. But whether or not there is legislation-and I regret very much if there is to be none at this present session-such a committee could do valuable work.
I do not intend to go over the arguments which have been put forward already this evening in a very capable way by different hon. members, but there are these facts to remember. The veterans are affected by a variety of statutes of this parliament. For example, there are the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans' Land Act. In addition to these and other statutes there are regulations passed under the act setting up the department, which are of great importance. For example, there are the treatment regulations under which all the veteran's who go into hospital have to come in order to get their hospitalization.
Then there are a tremendous number of Canadians involved. I suppose the veterans of the two world wars and their dependents would number well over a million. The number may be much larger than that. These veterans and their dependents are affected in a very personal way. It is not as though there was something more or less indirect in it. Their whole lives are affected directly by this legislation and by these regulations.
The veterans of Canada have been very fortunate to be represented for many years by organizations which are thoroughly responsible and statesmanlike. Take for example the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada, which is composed of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, the Canadian Corps Association, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War Blinded, War Amputations of Canada and the War Pensioners of Canada. All these organizations, as everyone in this house will admit, have dealt with the problems facing the veteran down through the

Veterans Affairs
years in a statesmanlike way, and they are doing so today. They feel, however, just as hon. members of the house feel who are asking for this committee, that the problems are changing continuously. There is always a need to meet some new situation which is arising. It is mainly for that reason we urge tonight that there should be set up now a standing committee on veterans affairs.
We have the example, Mr. Speaker, of the standing committee on external affairs. It took some years to get agreement for the setting up of that committee, but it has functioned in a successful way from the start. The estimates of the Department of External Affairs are referred to that committee every year. The minister appears and gives evidence, as does the deputy minister and various other officials of the department; in fact I think any official of whom the committee members request an appearance. Furthermore, legislation is referred to that committee. Your Honour will remember that two years ago the international river improvements bill was referred to the external affairs committee and dealt with there in a very efficient manner.
I see no reason why the same thing could not be done in establishing a standing committee on veterans affairs. Each year the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs could be referred to that committee, and legislation could also be referred. Not only could officials be heard, but we could also have representatives from these veterans organizations who have always been invited to appear before the special committees. There is no reason why they could not appear just as well before a standing committee each year. If this course were followed the result would be to keep the veterans legislation up to date and, as some hon. members have mentioned, it would assist in rectifying any mistakes.
Further, I think it would help to keep the administration of these acts human. I am not contending tonight that the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs are not human in their dealings with the veterans, but it would help to keep that spirit prevailing throughout the whole department in the branches from coast to coast if we had a committee meeting every year dealing with the different problems.
Finally, I suggest that by setting up a committee we would give parliament its proper place in connection with veterans affairs. Parliament has not been drawn into the picture as fully as it should have been, because there has only been a committee established infrequently. If there is to be no legislation concerning veterans this year it will mean there can be no improvement in the benefits
TMr. Green.]
for the veterans of Canada and their dependents until 1958. If unfortunately that is to be the case, then I hope this parliament in its dying days can at least make sure that from now on there will be a standing committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Selkirk, which in effect asks for the establishment of a standing committee of this house on veterans affairs. I am always interested when I follow the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in these debates, because he and I got cold feet together in the same trenches about 41 years ago. Little idea had we at that time that we would be pleading in this house in support of a resolution of this nature.
I support this resolution for three reasons in particular. The first is that as a result of my 12 years' experience in this house and my experience over that period in the special committee on veterans affairs when it was sitting, I am convinced of the need for this standing committee to which the recurring problems of veterans and their dependents can be referred. Anyone who served on that committee throughout that period realizes that' the amendments made to legislation since 1945 resulted largely from the representations made by the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations, and the consideration given to those representations by that committee.
My second reason for supporting this resolution is that the Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans Associations and the organizations of which it is composed have a very close knowledge of the needs of veterans and their dependent's in this country. At repeated national, provincial and local conventions of these organizations resolutions have been passed urging the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. That opinion was expressed again at the last national convention of the Canadian Legion, when a resolution was adopted in almost similar terms to those adopted in previous years, asking the government to establish a standing committee on veterans affairs.
My third reason for supporting the resolution is one advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. That is because the veterans and their dependents represent a very large segment of the Canadian population. I would say, as the hon. member did, that well over one million people are involved in this question, and we have a particular responsibility to those people. Veterans and their dependents in Canada are

entitled to particular consideration by hon. members of this house and the government.
The present veterans legislation is excellent, I know. As I have said before, our legislation in Canada is possibly the best total veterans legislation in the western democratic world. I realized that very much when I was in Great Britain last summer and had the opportunity to discuss this matter with some of the former high command of the British army, who were very complimentary about our legislation in Canada and critical of the legislation in existence in Great Britain. Certainly we should do this. We are in a land rich in natural resources and with a relatively small population. To do what we have done for veterans and their dependents throughout the years has been much easier for us in Canada than it would be for a country like Great Britain during that time.
We have no criticism of the officials of the department. I have had a great deal of experience with the officials of the various branches of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have always found them courteous and willing to do all they could for the veterans within the terms of the law and the regulations. We do believe, however, that because veterans problems are naturally in a fluid state due to changing conditions and circumstances, there should be an opportunity to review these questions before a standing committee of this house at least yearly.
To prove that contention I will indicate the number of resolutions that were passed on various aspects of veterans legislation at the last' dominion convention of the Canadian Legion.
Mind you, these resolutions come from the branches of the Canadian Legion, from the branches of the national council of veterans across Canada. They flow from the local branches to the provincial commands to the national conventions, and they are the result of people in the various communities, other veterans, appreciating the difficulties of the veterans and their dependents and the deficiencies in the present legislation, and the need for amendments to correct the situation.
What do we find? At the last dominion convention of the Canadian Legion there were 22 resolutions submitted seeking amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, some of somewhat major importance and some of somewhat minor importance. They were submitted because of the belief that the legislation required amending in order to adequately serve veterans and their dependents.
Veterans Affairs
There were 20 resolutions submitted with respect to amendments to the Canadian Pension Act and dealing with various aspects of that important piece of legislation, which is indeed an excellent act. Those were sought because of changing conditions and circumstances, and the fact that from year to year it is found that certain aspects of the legislation do not work correctly and do not give the veterans the justice they deserve. Consequently, at the last dominion convention of the Canadian Legion there were 20 resolutions submitted calling for amendments to the Canadian Pension Act.
Then there were 21 resolutions dealing with the treatment of veterans and the treatment regulations, a most important aspect of veterans affairs legislation. The conditions, circumstances and problems in connection with treatment are constantly changing, and because of that we had these 21 resolutions presented to the convention.
Then we had five resolutions dealing with problems of the imperial veterans, something which needs serious consideration. Hon. members of this house representing all parties have advanced pleas on behalf of certain imperial veterans, and because of that we had a recent amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act which brought under the legislation those imperial veterans who had resided in Canada for 20 years.
There were five resolutions presented at the convention dealing with rehabilitation problems. As the date of the second world war recedes the number of resolutions of this character are lessening, but regardless of that fact there were five resolutions dealing with rehabilitation problems affecting the veteran.
Then there were two resolutions dealing with amendments to the Veterans' Land Act. Why? While this legislation is effective and is serving a great purpose, experience and changing circumstances prove the need for some amendments.
Then there were five resolutions adopted with respect to the armed forces and civil defence. Those resolutions were put forward by local branches because the members understood the problems of men presently in the armed forces. There were eight resolutions dealing with the Canadian civil service, seeking to correct certain things which need correcting. There were over 30 resolutions dealing with miscellaneous problems which were of particular interest to veterans and their dependents, such as the Last Post fund, headstones for veterans, Remembrance day and so on.

Veterans Affairs
When such a large number of resolutions were presented to the last dominion convention of the Canadian Legion recommending amendments to veterans legislation, it would surely indicate the necessity for a standing committee of this house to review the legislation, to hear representations by veterans organizations, and to make recommendations to this house. If we can have a standing committee of this house to deal exclusively with the problem of providing ourselves with provender in the restaurant, which I think is a somewhat minor matter compared with the problems of veterans and their dependents, surely we are justified in asking for a standing committee on veterans affairs at this time.
We have a number of standing committees which meet only rarely. I have been a member of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters since 1945, and it has never met during that whole period. That committee is supposed to deal with important problems, and I have suggested repeatedly that it should meet. The committee on mines, forests and waters deals with natural resources, in which I am very interested; but here we have human problems affecting large numbers of Canadians and which occur from day to day, from week to week, from month to month and from year to year.
We on this side of the house, and on the other side as well, who are urging the establishment of this standing committee on veterans affairs do so because we believe the problems of the veterans and their dependents deserve the consideration of this house through the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. As one or two speakers have mentioned previously, the Department of Veterans Affairs is a very important department. Its estimates this year are somewhat over $250 million, which indicates the importance of the problems that exist across this country.
In conclusion I urge the minister to give consideration to supporting this resolution, the purpose of which is to try to get this government to accept its full responsibility by the establishment of this committee to meet the problems of veterans and their dependents which arise from year to year.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak only briefly on this matter. My first words shall be of congratulation to the hon. member for Selkirk upon introducing this resolution. I have not had the advantage, as have many of the previous speakers, of having sat on the special committee on veterans affairs, but over the years I have been closely connected with
[Mr. Herridge.l
the educational features of some of the programs initiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and I think I know something of the problems that exist.
I do not intend to repeat the eulogies that have been fairly general about the administration of the department and the excellence of the legislation. As I listened to the arguments advanced by my colleagues I tried to discover what particular difference there was between a standing committee and a special committee on veterans affairs, which latter committee is called from time to time as its services are required. On the whole I think a case has been made for a standing committee. The concluding sentence or two of the previous speaker indicated that there are a great many veterans and dependents who are affected by the regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and because there are so many of them and because their problems are so numerous a standing committee of this house was required.
Frequently we as members receive various resolutions from the branches of the Legion.
Not so long ago when I made a speech in the house in favour of increases in disability pensions as against increases in war veterans allowances I recall that, to use a slang expression, I got my tail in the gate, because I suggested at that time that if so many of the recipients of war veterans allowance were in fact affected by war service they should be getting disability pensions, and I still think that is correct. It is because there are problems of that kind which could be discussed more fully and adequately in a standing committee that I support the motion advanced tonight.
It has been stated that it would be an education for non-veterans to be on such a committee. I quite agree; but I suggest that in all fairness veterans are perhaps more competent persons to be selected for that committee. I said I was going to speak briefly, and I believe I have done so. I simply say that on balance I think a standing committee is what we should have. I point out to hon. members that it is not certain that a standing committee would necessarily be called to meet at every session of parliament, but it would give an opportunity to the minister when legislation is introduced to refer such legislation to a committee already in existence; therefore I support the resolution.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, as time is somewhat limited I am going to be very brief in my remarks. I support fully the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs. I believe if such a committee were allowed to investigate any

branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs year by year, and to hear briefs from veterans organizations, the committee could and probably would remain a truly non-partisan committee. I have been a member of veterans affairs committees for the past 20 years, and in my opinion the veterans affairs committees of recent years have not been nearly as non-partisan as they used to be.
During the war, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South stated, we had a committee that sat year by year, and it was given the responsibility of formulating a veterans charter around a number of draft bills. That committee was truly a non-partisan committee. Our one objective was to get the best charter we could for the veterans. I do not remember at any time any one party trying in any way to seek political advantage over another. But, unfortunately, after the war the government's policy with regard to a veterans affairs committee changed. No longer were we given a veterans affairs committee with wide open terms of reference. We were limited to very narrow terms of reference. Consequently, as soon as the committee met its members started to fight and wrangle in order to try to get the terms of reference extended, and so before the committee had sat for more than a few days it had become extremely partisan.
In my opinion the best way to prevent that happening would be to set up a standing committee on veterans affairs with wide open terms of reference, so it could deal with any branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Then once again I think we would have a truly non-partisan veterans affairs committee.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the hour is getting late, but even at the risk of repeating statements already made I think it is desirable that, within the time limit, as many members as possible express their views on this most important resolution and let the minister know that on both sides of the house there are members with experience on the special committees of the past who believe that now is the time that a standing committee on veterans affairs should be established. It is for that reason, to add my voice to the arguments already put forward, that I rise to announce that I support the resolution.
I have only one possibly new point to submit. I believe, now that all our veterans are getting older and are finding conditions more difficult, that the setting up of a standing committee would raise the morale of many of these older veterans, because they would
Veterans Affairs
feel that they had a group of members of parliament who were making a special study of their problems and would be available so that they could present their particular points of view to the committee. I am not suggesting that every individual veteran with a problem would appear before the committee, but the veterans have their organizations, and through the representatives of those organizations they would be able to appear before the committee.
I am not going to take any more time, because I hope other members will speak. I hope the minister will explain his position, and that his reaction will be favourable.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Why not let the minister speak?


John Horace Dickey: I have listened to the discussion of the resolution with great interest, as I have listened to similar discussions of similar resolutions in past sessions. Not having had the opportunity of participating in any of the previous debates, I am accepting the suggestion and perhaps invitation of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and am rising to state my sincere views on this question. Having listened carefully to the arguments that have been presented, I must say that frankly I cannot agree that any proof has been presented that a standing committee on veterans affairs would make any substantial or constructive contribution to the handling of veterans problems by parliament.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned a number of reasons why he thought a standing committee would be a good idea. I tried to follow his reasoning, and a good example of it was that if parliament had a standing committee to operate the restaurant m order to provide, as he stated, comestibles for ourselves, we should have a standing committee on veterans affairs because it was a very much more important matter. I think that is a good example of the kind of argumentation that has been put forward in support of the resolution.
Of course the facts are that the reason for having a committee on the restaurant has nothing to do with its relative importance to any other problem in the country, whether local or national. As all hon. members know, the reason we have a committee on the restaurant is that there is nobody else to run the restaurant of parliament but parliament itself.
I think it is stretching logic and credulity to a great extent to make the kind of argument the hon. member made, namely that

Veterans Affairs
the fact that we had a committee on the restaurant in some way or other indicated that we felt that the provision of food for ourselves was more important than the matter of veterans affairs. The importance of veterans affairs has been recognized by all members of this parliament and by all parties in this house. I think service on the special committees on veterans affairs has been one of the real privileges enjoyed by a number of the members of this house. I know their privilege of serving on those special committees has been jealously guarded by the members concerned, and that many other members in this house would have felt it an equal privilege and would have wished the opportunity of giving similar service.
The membership of these committees has always been made up of members who are in fact veterans with military service either in world war I or world war II. In this debate it has been suggested that this exclusive membership is perhaps not necessary. I think the fact that the special committee has been made up wholly of veterans has been of advantage to the veterans in this country, because the members of that committee, themselves being veterans, have brought to their work in the committee specialized knowledge of the nature and real extent of the individual problems of veterans which we can hope to solve by providing the appropriate kind of legislation to deal with those problems.


An hon. Member:: Is that not a good argument for the standing committee?


John Horace Dickey: The argument I am making will be obvious, I think, even to my hon. friend, when I have completed it.


Mr. Churchill:: When are you going to
complete it?


Mr. Bell:: It is already obvious.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the resolution passed by the Legion?


John Horace Dickey: I think my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is the last member of this house who should point the finger of scorn at anybody for boring this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Sit down and give me a chance.


John Horace Dickey: The fact is that the membership of the special committees has been exclusively veterans-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Horace Dickey: In my experience it has been.


Thomas Miller Bell: That shows how much experience you have had.


Mr. Casselman:: If the hon. gentleman had been listening, he would have heard an hon. member say it was not.


John Horace Dickey: My experience with the membership of these committees is that all the members have been veterans. I think that is proper and justifiable in the case of special committees. As all hon. members know, the membership of special committees is a matter which is given particular attention by the whips, and great care is taken to see that the membership of special committees is the best that can be secured.
I do not think it would be justifiable to apply a similar principle to any standing committee of this house. I think the membership of standing committees should be open to any member who wishes to serve on them and whose membership on such committees is convenient to the particular group in the house to which he belongs. I think in all probability a standing committee would lose much of the quality that the special committees have enjoyed.
All members with great unanimity and, I think, with equal justice have spoken of the veterans charter which was to a large extent the result of the work of the special veterans committee, the excellence of the veterans legislation we enjoy in this country, and the program we have for veterans welfare. To hon. members who have been supporting the idea of a special committee I should simply like to point out that this excellent position, this situation which they have all cited with some satisfaction and pride, has been achieved without the necessity of a standing committee which they now appear to try to suggest is essential for a continuation of this program. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the very proposal they have put forward and some of the grounds on which they try to justify it disprove their argument rather than establish it.
What would be the utility of a standing committee in this parliament? It has been suggested that it would give an opportunity for representatives of the Canadian Legion and other veterans groups to make representations and submissions. May I point out that these groups have for many years been making annual submissions and representations to the cabinet. All members of this house receive copies of these representations. There is certainly no validity in the suggestion that the contents of these submissions would be any more readily accessible to members by reason of a standing committee, rather than their getting copies of these submissions which are annually made to the cabinet and the excellent information that the Legion and

other veterans organizations make available to every member of this house.
Several hon. members have spoken of the excellent administration of the department and the manner in which veterans problems have been dealt with by the various branches of the department and the Canadian pension commission. Certainly it has been my experience, Mr. Speaker, that any information I or any other member of the house desires is readily available by asking the necessary question in the house or by correspondence with the department. No additional information would be available to any hon. member through the sittings of the standing committee. I have also found that when members proffer advice to the department, that advice is carefully taken into consideration and, if found appropriate, is acted upon.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested that a standing committee was the proper place for matters of veterans affairs to be discussed. I do not doubt that, if there were a standing committee, it would be an excellent place for the discussion of matters relating to veterans. But, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the best place and the proper place for members to express their views in connection with veterans affairs is in this house, and not simply in a committee of this house.
Parliament itself provides all the opportunities that any hon. member opposite could reasonably ask for expressing his views. The hon. member also said that he thought a standing committee would ensure the continuity of the humanitarian approach by officials of the department. I, for one, see no sign of any tendency for that humanitarian approach, to which he paid tribute, to weaken in any respect.
I do not know whether my experience as a member of this house has been much different from that of any other member, but as I listened to hon. members opposite I was thinking that it seemed to me what they really had in mind was a standing committee to provide a forum where individual problems with respect to the administration of veterans legislation would be dealt with. I submit, Mr. Speaker, if that is what they have in mind, that is not the proper function of either a standing committee or a special committee of this house.


Howard Charles Green: Nobody suggested that.


John Horace Dickey: If the hon. member will read what I said he will find I did not say he did suggest that.


Mr. Hodgson:: Are you suggesting that?
Veterans Affairs


John Horace Dickey: No, but I am saying that the argument the hon. members have been making is open to that interpretation. Certainly I know that in my experience as a member here I find I spend a great deal of time considering individual veterans problems. I find that the minister and the officials of his department, and all those who deal with the problems of pensions in the pension commission, are always most co-operative, very ready to consider individual problems, and to deal with them in the fairest and most generous way they possibly can. I, for one, feel that the establishment of a standing committee would not provide any constructive addition to the facilities that are given every member of this house to deal with veterans problems, either as individual cases or as matters of general policy and general legislation.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in a position to agree with hon. members who have said they have come to the conclusion that this is a resolution that deserves support.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: The
senior member for Halifax, who has just taken his seat, Mr. Speaker, has been humming and hawing and saying nothing for the last 20 minutes in an effort to talk this matter out. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, we would have no more of that sort of thing. The arguments in favour of the standing committee have been put forward year after year and have never been refuted by any member of the government, including the senior member for Halifax.
Certainly, I am not going to put myself in a position of holding this matter up by talking it out. I shall not, therefore, repeat the many arguments, I think irrefutable arguments, which have been put forward in favour of a standing committee of this kind. I would simply ask all other members to take the same course of action and let this question come to a vote.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I am going to take the advice of the hon. member who just took his seat and take a very few minutes to say something in support of this resolution. I might make a similar comment to the one he made concerning the speech of the hon. member for Halifax. In fact, the only time I was in the province from which the hon. member from Halifax comes, I saw a most remarkable sign in the station. It said, "Bore will arrive at 3.52".
There has been no argument yet advanced against the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs, except the implied argument that it would be an embarrassment to the minister and the government. I suggest to you, sir, that we who come here as

Veterans Affairs
spokesmen for the veterans of Canada as well as the general public should not be worrying our heads about embarrassing the minister or any of his colleagues by the establishment of such a committee. I cannot imagine how any member of this house is going to go back and face an audience of veterans and tell them he voted against this measure or helped to have it talked out.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Unlike the senior member for Halifax, I shall support the resolution. The veterans are our first citizens, and as such should have our first consideration at all times. I am sorry to say this has not always been the case in this house. I am not a veteran, so I would not expect to be a member of that committee. However, I have had a lot of work to do for the veterans. When I came here in 1940, about 75 per cent of the work we had to do in this house was for returned men, because they were coming back from the war and had to be rehabilitated. It was for that reason that I had a lot of work to do for the veterans.
I cannot understand why the Minister of Veterans Affairs objects to this standing committee. It would help him and it would help the house arrive at correct solutions for many of these problems. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house, because I should like to see a vote on the resolution. I had some things I wanted to say, but in order to permit a vote to be taken on the resolution I would reserve my remarks for a later time.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk, who sponsored this resolution. I think the debate in the house tonight has been very constructive, but I am only going to take a few minutes because I know there are other members who want to speak. I should like to compliment most sincerely the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think this minister, who goes about his work unobtrusively, is nevertheless one of the most effective ministers we have in the cabinet. I think this whole house should applaud the minister for the excellent work he has done.
The point I should like to raise is that the establishment of a standing committee does not necessarily mean it will be sitting at every session. For example, I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West pointed out that the committee on mines, forests and waters has not met in 17 years. I, Mr. Speaker, am a member of the radio and television committee, and certainly I think all hon. members will admit that committee has been very active. Yet it is a special

committee which is set up during a legislative period, and is not a standing committee. A special committee can always be convened and legislation can always be referred to it, or it can hear anything that comes up pertaining to a special subject. I believe that has been overlooked by some of the hon. members opposite.
I am happy to see that all members of the house have paid tribute to the magnificent program for veterans which we have in this country. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to it as excellent and possibly the best total legislation for veterans in the western world. I am fully in agreement-and this is a non-partisan point- and I think everybody in this house is proud of what this government and this house have done for veterans in this country.
Certainly it would seem that, particularly in the matter of education, the veterans have been treated extremely well. Last year I referred to the fact that between 1942 and 1955 some $220 million was expended to assist veterans, which amounts to an average of about $16,900,000 every year over that period. This is only one particular facet of assistance to veterans. One needs only to mention the war gratuities and, of course, the last thing this parliament dealt with was the war veterans allowances.
I think my job as a member of this house, Mr. Speaker, is to do everything I possibly can for veterans and for the veterans in my riding; because certainly, as the hon. member who just took his seat said, the veterans deserve absolutely the best. They offered their lives to preserve our way of life. If I thought this resolution introduced by the hon. member would add to that I would think it could be supported. But, Mr. Speaker, as I say, certainly a special committee can be convened at any time. I think all members will agree that the veterans legislation of Canada is the best in the world. As I say, it is non-partisan. We all know that; we all agree. I would think the minister and the department are to be complimented most highly, in that the procedure we have now is the best possible way of handling the affairs of veterans.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief. I did not want to speak on this because the previous speakers for my party have given their views very well on behalf of the veterans, and have said that their problems should be attended to without any delay.
The last speaker spoke as if nothing could be improved. The veteran finds himself in the position that prices are rising and he is not thought of at all. All we want today is

to have a committee to which we can appeal at all times on behalf of the veterans of this country. We do not want a special committee; we want a permanent committee that will be there all the time. We must realize that the cost of living is rising for the veteran. Those who are on pension are not receiving adequate pensions, and we should have a committee to deal with it immediately. A permanent committee should be set up to deal with the problems of every pensionable person in Canada, the aged, the crippled and the blind. They are waiting for election day. The government in power may do something two days before the election, but in the meantime the veterans can starve to death. That is their attitude. We want a permanent committee for those who cannot defend themselves.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief. I know the minister needs only five minutes to rise in his place and say that he and the government intend to endorse this resolution. Therefore I do riot think he needs every minute. However, I hope the sample of whitewash and red herring that came out of Halifax does not represent the attitude of the government toward this resolution, because if it does I am sure it will be most bitterly resented by the veterans of Canada.
When the senior hon. member for Halifax states that parliament presents any reasonable opportunity for discussion I believe I can readily deny that. This session of parliament is not meant to provide the veterans of Canada, or their spokesmen in this house, with such a reasonable opportunity. With all the problems of Canada the veterans and other problems which are urgent and pressing are relegated to the background, and we shall not be able to discuss them before the plug is pulled and we shall be asked to face an election. A standing committee of this house, as is proposed by this resolution, would be able to deal with all the usually reasonable representations of the Canadian Legion. They would not have to deal only with the proposals of the government in regard to veterans problems.
I think while the committees in the past have done excellent work they have always been handicapped in that it was the government that decided what field they might take into consideration. The over-all attitude of the people of the country and of hon. members to the very reasonable demands the Canadian Legion has made for many years now is one of sincere sympathy, and I feel that a standing committee could render great
Veterans Affairs
service and more closely examine the many complex problems the veterans face.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this resolution of the-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And in support of it.


Hugues Lapointe: -hon. member for Selkirk I wish first to thank him for the very kindly words with which he approached this subject. I was somewhat reminded, Mr. Speaker, of my days at college when one was taught what was intended to be the principles of rhetoric. They advised you to start making your plea with very kindly words and references to the one to whom you addressed yourself. This was called oratory precaution. It was meant to soften him up and get him to accept more easily the logic of the arguments which you would put forward afterward. I must say that the hon. member for Selkirk made a very fine attempt at this procedure, but unfortunately I cannot say that I found in his argument the substance which would justify the resolution he has put forward as it now reads on the order paper.
This, Mr. Speaker, does not mean by any manner or means that the usefulness of a parliamentary committee on veterans affairs is the least bit denied. These committees have existed ever since parliament met after the years of the first world war, and it is without doubt true that the legislation pertaining to veterans which is now on the statute books of Canada is the result of the deliberations, discussions and serious study of the various committees on veterans affairs since those days.
Furthermore, this legislation, to which hon. members on both sides of the house referred as an example of good, generous legislation for returned men, undoubtedly must at times undergo changes as circumstances change. The policy of the government has always been that if and when it was evident that circumstances had changed that should bring about amendments to veterans legislation, this legislation was referred to a special coiti-mittee on veterans affairs. This has been the practice of this parliament right along.
Now, as to the value of the committee, I think everybody on both sides of the house is in agreement, and I would be the last one ever to suggest that this practice should be done away with. Therefore in my mind the question to decide, following the introduction of this resolution, is whether the interests of the veterans and their welfare would be better served in this parliament if the parliamentary committee which is called upon to

Veterans Affairs
study the legislation brought forward in this house were a standing committee rather than a special select committee, as has been the practice heretofore.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that in the speeches made tonight no one has brought forward any substantial argument to prove that a standing parliamentary committee would have served the purpose better than the special committees have, and that is simply because such is the parliamentary procedure in this house-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to set up a
special committee this year?


Hugues Lapointe: I am attempting to continue my remarks. I know my hon. friend who interrupts keeps the house long enough when he rises to his feet, and I wish he would allow me to complete my comments.
What is the procedure of the house under the standing orders as we have them? Standing order 65 is the one that deals with standing parliamentary committees. It sets out that at the commencement of every session the house shall form what we call a striking committee to determine the membership of the various standing committees. Then it proceeds to enumerate what are those standing committees, of which there are 12 in this house, the balance being joint committees with the other place. That is all, Mr. Speaker, that exists under this standing order.
I certainly wish to be corrected if my interpretation of the parliamentary procedure is wrong but these committees are nothing more than agencies of this house. They have no authority to do anything whatsoever, to initiate any legislation or to pass on anything, unless it has been referred by this house; and the authority they possess is given by this house. It was given this year on January 24. This is the practice which has always been followed in this house and is part of our established practice.
After the report of the striking committee enumerating the membership of the standing committees is brought forward-it is usually th^ practice to have the government whip do this-the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, moves:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
These are the words which give authority to parliamentary committees, and a motion in this language can be found at page 589 of Hansard for January 24, 1957.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are better on the rules this year than last year.


An hon. Member:: Shut up.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I did not hear my hon. friend.


Mr. Marler:: It was not very important.


An hon. Member:: Listen and you will learn.


Hugues Lapointe: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, a standing committee in itself has no power which a select committee does not have. Unless this house refers a matter to a standing committee the fact that it is established under a paragraph of standing order 65 does not give it any authority, nor does it give the members of this house any guarantee whatsoever that the committee will meet. It particularly does not give any veteran in this country a guarantee that any representation he wishes to make to this house will be heard, because a committee cannot meet unless the house refers a matter to it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? Why would it not be possible to have a committee like the standing committee on external affairs?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on external affairs meets because this house refers something to it. Is it not the fact that standing order 65 states that there will be a standing committee on external affairs which gives it authority. It is because standing order 65 having stated there will be a standing committee on external affairs, this house then decides to refer certain matters to it. Unless the house did make this reference and decide upon it, the external affairs committee would not sit. It would have nothing with which to deal, and could not legally discuss anything.


Howard Charles Green: Why could not the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs be referred to a standing committee on veterans affairs, in just the same way as the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are referred to the standing committee on external affairs?


Hugues Lapointe: They can be referred to a special committee on veterans affairs just as they could be referred to a standing committee.


Howard Charles Green: But they never have been.


Hugues Lapointe: The point I am trying to make, and it does appear that I am endeavouring to do so in vain as regards certain hon. members opposite, is that up until now no one has brought forward any argument to show that by amending standing order 65 in order to have a standing committee on veterans affairs added to the present list of 12

standing committees, such a committee would be of more value than a special committee.
I would like to remind my hon. friend that all the rules and standing orders of this house were studied and thoroughly looked into by a special committee on rules and standing orders which was presided over by Mr. Speaker. On this committee members from all sides of the house and from every party were represented, and my hon. friend himself sat on that committee.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no, he did not.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I was under the impression that my hon. friend had sat on that committee at one time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You threw away all the
rules last year, anyway.


Hugues Lapointe: I can say, however, that
many hon. members on the other side of the house and some of those who have been arguing in favour of the establishment of this standing committee on veterans affairs were members of that special committee set up by the house to study, inquire into and consider the rules and standing orders of the house, and make recommendations as to what amendments should be made. I believe the report of that committee was brought down at the beginning of the 1955 session, and the present standing orders under which we operate in this house are the result of the deliberations of that committee whose report was unanimous. This committee on rules and standing orders studied every rule including what was then standing order 63 and which is now standing order 65; the numbers were changed at that time.
Veterans Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the rule concerning ten o'clock closing?


Hugues Lapointe: At no time did the committee make a recommendation to the effect that standing order 65 should be amended to provide for the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. The matter was thoroughly examined by representatives from all sides of the house, some of whom sat on the veterans affairs committee. The report was unanimous, but no mention was made of establishing a standing committee on veterans affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the point; the committee reported only on those things on which we were unanimous.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Could we have the business
for tomorrow?


An hon. Member:: There is no one to
give it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was announced on Friday last. Is there any change?


Hugues Lapointe: I was not here last Friday
but to my knowledge there is no change from the last announcement that was made. There is no change; the business will be the same as that announced on Friday night.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
962
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 

IMMIGRATION STATISTICS, HALIFAX, 1956

Mr. Balcom: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada through the port of Halifax in 1956?
2.	How many of these immigrants were Hungarians?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	40,510.
2.	608 were Hungarian refugees.



TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING, N.S.- FEDERAL GRANTS

Mr. Balcom: What grants have been given Nova Scotia, during the year 1956, in aid of technical and vocational training?
Answer by: Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):
Following are the federal government contributions in respect of programs operated under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act in Nova Scotia for the fiscal year
1955-56:
Training of unemployed	$ 166,125.71
Youth training, including
student aid	 43,345.66
Training for disabled persons .	6,504.68
Apprenticeship training	 58,100.41
Assistance to vocational schools,
annual allotment	 106,000.00
Vocational correspondence
courses	 744.30
82715-61J

965

Tuesday, February 5, 1957