1929-02-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) presented the first report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations as follows:
Your committee recommends that 750 copies in English and 250 copies in French of the evidence to be taken, and of papers and records to be incorporated in such evidence, be printed and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. McINTOSH moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. KENNEDY:: t
1.	During what years was Peter Tomkins, of Grouard, an employee of the government of Canada?
2.	What positions did he hold during these years?
3.	What salary was he paid during each year of such employment?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Indian Affairs:
Fiscal Year-Wages Paid
1878-79: asst.-farmer, Duck lake agency, 3 months at $20, $60; 1880-81: farm labourer, farm No. 8, Duck lake agency, $323.20; 1881-82: farm labourer, Duck lake agency $326.92; 1885-86: interpreter, $90; 1887-88: interpreter, Poundmaker's res., 11 months to April 30. $330;	1888-89. labourer, Poundshould not be done, provided it is understood maker's and Little Pines res., 5 months, $150;
Questions

1889-90:	labourer,	Battleford	agency,	12months to June 30, S360; 1890-91: labourer, Battleford	agency,	12	months	to	June	30,$360; 1891-92: labourer, Battleford agency, 12 months to June 30, $360; 1892-93: labourer, Battleford	agency,	12	months	to	June	30,$360; 1893-94: labourer, Battleford agency, 12 months to June 30, 8360; 1894-95: farmer, Battleford	agency,	12	months	to	June	30,
$360; 1895-96: farmer, Saddle lake agency, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $420; 1896-97: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $420; 1897-98: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $420; 1898-99: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $420; 1899-1900: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $480; 1900-01: farmer, Whitefish lake res.,
11	months to May 31, $440; 1901-02: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 13 months to June 30, $520; 1902-03: farmer, Whitefish lake res.,
12	months to June 30, 3 m. at $40. 9 m. at $45, $525; 1903-04: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $540; 1904-05: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 12 months to June 30, $600; 1905-06: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 11 months to May 31, $595.76; 1906-07: farmer, Whitefish lake res., 10 months to March 31, $609.24; 1907-08: farmer. Whitefish lake res., 3 months, 8 days to July 8, incl $246.78. Resigned July 8, 1907.
Department of the Interior:
1.	July 9, 1907, to March 31, 1908, subagent of Dominion lands, Lesser Slave lake, Alta., $1,092.74; 1908-1909, sub-agent Dominion lands, Lesser Slave lake, $1,500; 1909-1910, agent Dominion lands, Grouard, Alta., $1,500; 1910-1911, agent Dominion lands, Peace River, Alta., $1,500; April 1, 1911, to February 29,
1912,	agent Dominion lands, Peace River, Alta., at $1,700, $1,558.28; August 4, 1924, to March 31, 1926, temporary game warden, Wood Buffalo park, Fort Smith, $70 per month, plus rations; April 1 to September 20, 1926, Wood Buffalo park, Fort Smith, 875 per month, plus rations.
2.	Answered by No. 1
3.	Answered by Nu 1
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Department:
1.	1912-13.
2.	Special constable, Royal North West Mounted Police.
3.	$35 per month and rations from 1st of October, 1912, to 30th of April, 1913, and $40 per month and rations from the 1st of May,
1913,	to the time of his discharge on the 4th of July, 1913.

Public Works Department:
1.	Employed on the government telegraph service from December 18, 1922, to April 7, 1923.
2.	Relieving lineman at Grouard, Alberta.
3.	$135 a month.


IMMIGRATION-BRITISH HARVESTERS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: By whose authority and under what legislation did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Winnipeg on September 5, 1928, (a) prevent British harvesters from leaving the waiting room of the Canadian National Railway; (b) seek to prevent a member of the British House of Commons from entering said waiting room?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: (a)	At the request of the superintendent of Canadian National railway police, and section 17 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, chapter 160, revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
(b)	The police were simply obeying the instructions of the railway and immigration officials to prevent the British harvesters from leaving the room, so that railway and steamship tickets might be issued without delay, and to allow no unauthorized person to enter the room. Anyone without written authority would have had difficulty in entering the room in this case.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is it a fact that due to loss of large paper carrying contract involving reduction of revenue of upwards $300,000 per annum, the British Columbia-California service of the Canadian National Steamships is now operated at a considerable loss?
2.	Is it a fact that this trade is heavily oveT-tonnaged, adequate service being provided by other Canadian vessels as well as American
vessels?
3.	In view of the above conditions, is it the intention of the government to withdraw the above service and put such government vessels on other routes calculated to build up new trade out of British Columbia ports?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The management of the Canadian National Steamships state that owing to the reorganization of the Crown Willamette Paper Company, who were owners of the Pacific Mills, and their new connection with the Pacific Steamship Company, the contract for the carriage of paper from British Columbia to California has been transferred to that line. As this paper formerly provided the Canadian National Steamships with the bulk of their southbound cargo the service has since been

Unopposed Motions tor Papers
temporarily carried on at a loss, but the situation is being canvassed with a view to finding other profitable employment for the Canadian National Steamships which hitherto operated in the aforementioned service.
2.	Existing tonnage conditions may only be temporary, and it may be possible to secure other business for the Canadian National Steamships in lieu of the paper contract which has been lost; if not, then it is the intention to sell the steamers.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


FLIN FLON TOWNSITE
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What arrangements have been made for the handling of the townsite at Flin Flon?
2.	Is it the intention of the department to turn this over to the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1 and 2. The mineral rights in the lands comprising the townsite at Flin Flon have been disposed of under leases issued under the quartz mining regulations, and the lessees have the right to utilize such portion of the surface as they may require for the purposes of their mining operations. The matter of the disposal of the remainder of the townsite is still under consideration.


MR. J. T. JOHNSTON, WATER POWER BRANCH
Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	Who requested Mr. J. T. Johnston, head of the Water Powers branch of the Dominion government to go to Winnipeg in connection with the disposition of the Seven Sisters falls site?
2.	What instructions were given to him in the
matter?
3.	On whose authority did he collaborate with Dr. Hogg?
4.	What authority did Mr. Johnston have to submit a series of questions to Dr. Hogg as to whether the Seven Sisters falls should be developed under public or private ownership?


Charles A. Stewart: 1 to 4 inclusive. At the request of Premier Bracken, Mr. J. T. Johnson, Director of Water Power and Reclamation, Department of Interior, visited Winnipeg to place at the disposal of the provincial government all physical and technical data required for the consideration of the Seven Sisters falls matter under review. Mr. Johnston did not collaborate with Dr. Hogg other than to supply data as above mentioned, nor did he submit any questions to Dr. Hogg as to whether the Seven Sisters falls should be developed under public or private ownership.


NATIONAL GALLERY AND SUPREME COURT
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to provide extra accommodation for the National Gallery of Canada?
2.	Is the government aware of the urgent' necessity for providing fireproof building for the library of the Supreme Court of Canada?
3.	Is it true that no special building has ever been provided for said library, but that it has, since its inception in 1876, been housed in a former workshop?
4.	Does not the government regard this collection of valuable books, some of them irreplaceable, as of as much importance as the works of art in the National Gallery?
5.	Will an amount be placed in the estimates to provide a new library building for the Supreme Court?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1 to 5. The necessities of the National Gallery and the Supreme Court of Canada have been receiving consideration, and some provision has been made for more adequate accommodation for the former. Such further provision as may be deemed necessary will be announced in due course.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: For a return showing the quantity of book paper imported into Canada since tariff item 1060 became effective, and the proportion of such paper upon which the drawback of 80 per cent of the duty has been claimed.


BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS-HYBRID GRAIN TICKET
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams. and	other	documents. passing
between the Board of Grain Commissioners and farmers in the province of Alberta, in relation to the use of the so called hybrid grain ticket.


Edward Joseph Garland: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams. and	other	documents. passing
between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Department of Trade and Commerce, in relation to the so called hybrid grain ticket.


RURAL MAIL-BOISDALE-SHENACADIA
Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence. and other documents, in possession of the government, in connection with the rural mail route No. 1, between Boisdale and Shenacadia.

Unopposed, Motions jor Papers
alberta wheat pool	NATIONAL HIGHWAYS


Mr. BRADY:: For a copy of the agreement between the Alberta wheat pool and the government of Canada, for the lease of the government elevator at Prince Rupert, as -well as any correspondence relating to or leading up to said agreement.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. ERNST moved:: For a copy of the agreement between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, respecting the operation of the railway line between Halifax and Windsor Junction in the province of Nova Scotia.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Since this motion appeared on the order paper the other day, I have made inquiries and I find that the Department of Railways can discover no record of any existing agreement. What I understand is that the matter is now the subject of negotiation between the Canadian National Railways and the Dominion-Atlantic Railway, which, I believe, is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Perhaps my hon. friend, under these circumstances, will withdraw his motion.


William Gordon Ernst: I do not wish to press the
motion if no information is available, but the railway in question is a part of the old Intercolonial railway and is directly under the control of the department. The Canadian Pacific Railway are operating trains over that section of line and they could not operate them without an agreement. And that is what I want. The minister said a few days ago that the matter was one of which the department had no record, if it formed a part of the Canadian National system. As I say, however, it is a part of the old Intercolonial system, which is still under the control of the department.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall I say "dropped" or
"stand"?


William Gordon Ernst: I wish the minister would
let it stand.


Mr. DUNNING:: I am content to let the motion pass; the only answer I can make is the one I have given.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kellner:
Whereas the need for establishment of national highways is greater than in 1919;
And whereas in that year the Dominion government recognized its responsibility in the matter by a substantial grant, which grant is now exhausted;
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisibility that a further federal grant be made to cover the next five years' development of highway construction.
Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: When the house adjourned at eleven o'clock on Monday evening, I was pointing out the great benefit that had accrued to the people of Canada through the vote of 820,000,000, passed by the government in 1919, to assist in the construction of highways. There is no doubt that to this vote was attributable the good roads movement which has progressed from that time to the present and has spread throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. During the intervening years the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, with which I am most familiar, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the establishment of permanent highways, but in spite of this fact the demand increases and will continue to increase, because our highways have taken the place of our railways for both passenger and freight traffic, at least up to a distance of one hundred miles. At the present time it is absolutely impossible for either the provinces or the municipalities, who assume a part of the burden in Ontario, to keep pace with this growing demand for improved roads. Altogether apart from that, however, there is an increasing demand for a permanent national Canadian highway from coast to coast. There is no doubt that this will come in the near future, and there is little doubt that it is necessary at the present time.
It seems to me absurd that after the expenditure of so much money a Canadian travelling from the city of Ottawa to Manitoba must pass through the United States. It is quite true that in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec we have large, sparsely settled sections where it is difficult and expensive to build and maintain a highway, and under the present system the provincial government must provide every dollar of the amount necessary because in these districts there are no municipal organizations. If a railway company wishes to gain the benefits of the Railway Act it only has to prove

National Highways-Mr. Arthurs
that its proposed line is for the general benefit of Canada. A railway company cannot secure a charter for an interprovincial or international line except from this parliament, and in the past we have spent millions of dollars in bonusing these railways, especially in their earlier days. So I contend it is just ^s rational and as reasonable that this government should give considerable assistance to the establishment of the national highway which has been proposed. In the country to our south there are at least three classes of highways: first, the national highways, to the construction and upkeep of which the federal government makes a very substantial grant; second, the state highways, which correspond to our present highways in Canada and, third, the county roads. There is a good precedent, therefore for a grant of this kind on the part of the federal government.
Earlier in the debate something was said with regard to the tourist traffic. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the tourist traffic is a direct offshoot of the good roads movement. There can be no doubt that every dollar expended on the construction of good roads brings a benefit directly or indirectly from the tourist traffic. The annual value of this traffic to Canada has been estimated at from
8200,000,000 to 8300,000,000, and I think that is a very moderate estimate. In fact if, as the Minister of Finance stated the other night, these tourists consume 15,000,000 pounds of butter annually, the value of that traffic must be considerably greater than $300,000,000. The chief benefit from this tourist traffic is derived by this government and not by the provinces. It may be true that the cost of maintaining the roads is partly borne by the tourists, but it is idle to say that even a large part of the gasoline tax in Ontario is paid by the tourist traffic, and I think upon reflection the Minister of Finance will withdraw that remark.


Mr. ROBB:: I was speaking of all Canada.


James Arthurs: Even so, I think my statement applies to all the provinces. Personally I very much regret that the minister has taken the stand that he will vote against a grant of this kind, and I think the reasons he advanced in support of his position can be easily answered. In giving his reasons for refusing to renew this grant, he said:
In 1919 we had not quite realized the enormous debt of the country; we had not realized that every year the amount of money required for pensions would be increased; we had not realized that in 1928 we would have to write off some $16,000,000 which the returned soldiers claimed they had overpaid in the purchase of land and equipment for their farms.
I would like to point out to the minister that in 1919 we had various other obligations which did not prevent the government of the day from making this grant. In 1919 we were still1 paying out large sums as a direct result of the war, not only in pensions but in other ways as well. For instance, in that year we paid out to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment the sum of 845,869,064, largely for the hospitalization and care of our then returning soldiers; we paid out $26,004,461 for pensions; $2,886,156 to the Soldier Settlement Board; $346,612,959 for demobilization; 817,945,119 for cost of loans incident to the war, and 8107,527,088 for interest on the public debt, which, after all, has not increased so greatly. Contrast this with the statement made by the Minister of Finance that he is unable to make a grant, no matter how willing he might be, because, forsooth, the wounded pensioners of the war were receiving $2,000,000 more this year than they received last, year and because he had to write off $16,000,000 in bad debts. Bad debts have been written off before on many occasions; it was done in connection with seed grain in the west. In spite of these large sums paid out by the government in 1919, however, they were able to make this grant of 820,000.000 for good roads; they were able to make a grant of $10,000,000 for technical schools; they were able to make a loan of $25,000,000 for housing schemes and a grant of 81.000,000 a year for the special assistance of agriculture.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? He says the government were able to make all these grants, but did they not do so at the expense of the public accounts? Did that not increase the national debt and make for deficits?


James Arthurs: According to the usual statements of the Prime Minister when he returns to parliament we always have a surplus rather than a deficit, and we have had surpluses since 1921.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Since we have been in power.


James Arthurs: And before that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Arthurs: Look at the public accounts. I do not know that it is necessary for me to go further into this matter, Mr. Speaker; I have just one more word. When the Minister of Finance was speaking Monday evening he seemed rather annoyed because certain members on this side of the house, including myself, were pressing for a grant
286	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
of this kind, and he called us to task by asking if we were sent here to protect the Dominion treasury or whether we were here in the interest of the provinces. He said to me personally:
Is my hon. friend here in defence of the provinces or is he speaking for the federal treasury ?
I am here for both reasons. I do not think a grant of this kind would injure the federal treasury in any way; they would get a full return for the money expended. I am here to do what I can for the provinces in this matter, and in the matter of provincial rights, but I am here also to represent the constituency of Parry Sound. I believe I am voicing the sentiments of, not fifty per cent but ninety-nine per cent of the people of that constituency in supporting this measure, and I am confident that that is the feeling all through the country at the present time.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: That was not considered in passing the old age pensions bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend mentions the obvious in that regard. I said a few moments ago that this problem-and I am not now discussing it from a partisan point of view -is always present to a greater or less degree in a federally constituted state. I am endeavouring to point out where a general application of this principle would tend to lead us in our constitutional relationships with the other governing entities in this country.
There is another taxing body in all our provinces, and that is the municipality. Many of the provinces themselves do not make grants for road construction within the limits of incorporated' towns and cities. There, again, it is a question of who shall colleet the taxes. The provinces in their wisdom and in

National Highways-Mr. Dunning
the discharge of their constitutional functions create municipalities. To those municipalities they give taxing powers with respect to the people within their borders, and having given them taxing powers they impose upon them certain responsibilities, among which usually is the responsibility for the building of roads within the areas of the municipalities. No one would argue for a moment that we should establish the principle that every province should as a matter of right and as a matter of good business share in the cost of building roads in their own large cities. Canada has grown away from that. Why? As a matter of practical political economy it is necessary to work these things out on the basis of who can best and most economically collect the taxes and administer the expenditure of the moneys in connection with the particular activity under discussion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Is the minister not aware of the fact that Ontario does pay a part of the cost of roads through certain municipalities and incorporated villages?


Charles Avery Dunning: It may be that the province of Ontario bears part of the cost, as other provinces do, of roads through the smaller municipalities, but I venture to say that Ontario does not bear any portion of the cost of construction of roads in the large cities;
I should be very much surprised to learn that that was the case. Generally, at all events, the principle I am endeavouring to advance is a principle which has been generally recognized in Canada. Of course, there are exceptions to it just as there must always be exceptions to the general principle as applied to the relations between the provinces and the Dominion.
With respect to the resolution before the house, the discussion on it has scarcely followed the terms of the resolution itself. Several speakers have referred to the necessity of national highways. The resolution itself deals, I take it, with the former scheme of federal aid to highways, which has just recently come to an end. May I point out that there is an important difference between these two things?


James Arthurs: The resolution reads,
"national highways."


Charles Avery Dunning: But it also asks, "that
a further federal grant be made to cover the next five years' development of highway construction." Some of the addresses, most of them in fact, that have been made to this house on this resolution have had to do with the construction of national highways. May I, with all respect, point out that it would 78594-19
be difficult to describe the recent federal aid scheme as the development of a system of national highways. In every province the development is described as a system of provincial highways, more for the purpose of developing roads within the province, at the same time keeping in mind, I admit, the necessities of interprovincial communication, but going much further in its area of development than any purely interprovincial or national scheme of highways would require it to do. In fact in all the provinces, under the terms of the federal aid scheme, by agreement entered into between the provinces and the Dominion, the moneys were expended far and wide within the provinces upon a system of provincial highways, which only incidentally were national highways in the sense of providing national accommodation for travel from coast to coast.


Mr. CLARK:: Is it not a fact that all
those highways were actually approved by the Department of Railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes.


John Arthur Clark: Consequently it was only a
matter of supervision on the part of that department that was required to make them national highways.


Mr. KELLNER:: I would ask if the Minister of Education-pardon me, the Minister of Railways-sees anything in this resolution that precludes the possibility of building national highways.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thank my hon. friend
for the compliment implied in the title which he has just bestowed upon me.
Answering first my hon. friend from Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Clark), I was not in any sense criticizing the former scheme, but rather discussing the difference between that scheme and what has been described by members in discussing this resolution as national highways giving inter-provincial communication. The development of the former scheme was not controlled, in so far as location was concerned, by the Department of Railways and Canals except to this extent, that the scheme provided for an agreement to be entered into between each province and the federal authority covering the locations^ for main provincial highways within the province, and the interpretation put upon that by successive ministers of railways and successive governments was that the Dominion was for the time being assisting the provinces in the development of a system of provincial highways, which only incidentally between points on the borders of the province, where they
REVtbED EDITION
290	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Dunning
linked across the province with the development of similar systems in another province, could be considered national highways. But I would point out to my hon. friend that if the Dominion government in connection with the old scheme had been concentrating upon the idea of national highways, it would undoubtedly have insisted upon a higher standard of road, particularly in the western provinces, and upon the confining of the expenditure sufficiently to provide a good hard surfaced interprovincial road or roads, instead of, as is the case, the building of a high standard dirt road. Naturally the desire of the provinces that came under this scheme was to make the money go as far as it would in solving provincial rather than mterprovincial or national problems.


Mr. CAHAN:: Why not solve the interprovincial or national problems now?


Charles Avery Dunning: I forget just what was
the question asked me by my hon. friend from Athabaska (Mr. Kellner).


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I asked if the minister
could see anything in this resolution that would preclude the building of interprovincial or national highways.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly not. My hon. friend is most broadly generous in the terms of his resolution. He would by virtue of it have funds granted to build highways anywhere in Canada. That is what his resolution means, if it means anything, and that is one of my complaints against it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not confine it, then, to interprovincial or national highways?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is rather getting ahead of my thought. I shall come to that phase of the matter in a moment.
It was the experience under the former scheme that a number of the provinces did not signify their willingness to enter it until some years after it was inaugurated. The province from which my hon. friend the mover of the resolution comes did not see its way clear to respond to this scheme until some years after its inauguration. I am not blaming the province of Alberta for that. The reason advanced at the time, if my memory serves me correctly, was that the province of Alberta was not then in a financial situation which would enable it to take advantage of the federal aid scheme. That is one of the objections registered by the provinces generally to this type of federal aid, with a string on it, as they describe it. They would rather have consideration given by the federal

authorities to an increase in the free subsidies provided for by the pact of confederation.
Now I come to the national highway system, considered apart from a scheme of assisting the provinces to build provincial highways. Undoubtedly the discussion in Canada of the desirability of providing a coast-to-coast highway-I prefer to use the singular with regard to it because of our magnificent distances and what would be involved in agreeing to provide two, three or four national highways- undoubtedly, I say, the possibility of being able to travel on a good road wholly within the borders of our own country does strike the imagination of the Canadian people.
But I do submit, sir, that the development of the idea, if at any time undertaken as a national matter, would be fraught with great difficulty in reaching an agreement with the provinces respecting it-great difficulty as to route, as to places it would touch and as to places it would leave on a side road; and fraught also with difficulty respecting its construction and maintenance provided there was any arrangement made between the two constitutional authorities. I believe if we ever do build a national coast-to-coast highway, it will in the nature of things have to be a national undertaking. Judging from experience with the former scheme, I do not believe it will be practicable to undertake such a national highway by agreement with the provinces.


James Arthurs: If I may interrupt the
minister, has he had any information as regards the working of the Federal Highway Act in the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The highways branch in the Department of Rail-wa3fs and Canals has a record of most of the grief in the experience of the United States, and also of most of the good results which have accrued. There is no doubt at all that in connection with any development along this line we would, by studying the experience of the United States, be able to learn a number of things which it would be wise for us to avoid. I gather that this is what my hon. friend has reference to. The problem which I am discussing has been particularly acute in the United States, that is, the difficulty in reaching arrangements involving both federal and state authorities with respect to the location and so forth of national highways.
However, in relation to any proposal to build a national highway at federal expense we must consider it in a transportation sense. During the past couple of years greater expansion and development in business have

National Highways-Mr. Dunning
occurred in Canada than for many years before. There never was a time in the history of this country when the demands upon us for transportation expenditures were as great as they are to-day, in order to keep pace with the development and expansion of the natural resources of this country. I have on the order paper now provision for a branch line program for the Canadian National Railways, involving the expenditure of some $28,000,000 within the next three years.
In connection with that also, may I point out that our great railway systems are finding that as they build branch lines for the development of our natural resources, of business and of manufactures, the increasing traffic on those lines brings them face to face with a constantly increasing and relatively unproductive form of expenditure in the enlargement everywhere of terminal facilities. In Canada we have as yet experienced only a few of those terminal problems which in the United States have cost hundreds of millions of dollars each to solve. In Toronto we have faced the situation at very great expense. Montreal unquestionably is a place where we must face it, and face it in a large way in the very near future. In fact, it is very necessary as a matter of transportation economics, of public safety and public convenience right now. I mention those two cities only as instances of the fact that the building of branch lines with their resultant traffic and the development of traffic on existing lines, main and branch, is increasing at all times the terminal problems for our transportation companies.
Now, this parliament is responsible for providing money to carry out developmental work in connection with one of the two chief transportation institutions which we have in this country, and more and more we are appreciating what that means. True, at the present time the Canadian National railway enterprise is earning a fair rate of interest on a capitalization of pretty close to one billion dollars, but we have a great deal more than that invested in it, and it is necessary for us, in order to discharge the obligation which rests upon a great railway, to spend during the next number of years increasing amounts not only upon branch lines and other necessities of that kind, but also upon terminal facilities to take care of the very largely increasing traffic of the country.
In that connection may I point out, too, in relation to the national highways aspect of this debate, that in Great Britain and in many parts of the United States to-day one of the major transportation problems arises through motor truck and motor bus corn-78594-19J
petition on through highways with the railways. One of the very difficult economic problems of transportation in the old land to-day is that very problem. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that because of the possibility of the problem arising we should abandon the idea of having a national highway. I hope my hon. friends will not put those words into my mouth. But I do say we must always have regard to our over two billion dollar investment in railways in providing for the development progressively over a period of years of a form of transportation which will tend to reduce the possibility of our railways earning their own way. That is a matter not so much of the propriety or the desirability of national highways; we are all agreed on that. I think everyone would agree that it would be a good thing for Canada. Rather it is a matter of the time when it should be undertaken in relation to the tremendous investment which w'e now have in a form of transportation which thi. country simply cannot do without, which we must maintain and which we must provide the finances for as necessary from time to time.
So while I will have to vote against the very general terms of this resolution, I do appreciate the raising by my hon. friend from Athabasca (Mr. Kellner) of the question of national highways. And I draw a- clear distinction between national highways connecting the provinces and highways under the federal aid scheme, which enabled the provinces to build highways all over their own territory. I repeat, I draw a clear distinction between the two, and I think there is merit in this house keeping constantly before it the desirability at some time in the not distant future-I will go that far-of evolving a system whereby we may have a national highway from coast to coast. But in putting those considerations before the house, considerations of a purely economic character, I desire again to emphasize the very great interest we have in the existing form of railway transportation, the very great expenditure to which we must be committed within the next few years in its development, and generally the situation in which Canada finds herself in that regard.
Finally, I would repeat to those hon. members who are pleading for the provinces in connection with this matter that the provinces themselves at the Dominion-provincial conference stated that they are opposed to the type of Dominion grant which carries with it certain conditions which the province must comply with by way of expenditure itself in
292	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Manion
order to earn it. All the provinces of Canada argued for an increase in the general subsidy, which of course would be a part of their own general revenue and subject to provincial legislation.


Peter McGibbon: Have the3r ever refused a grant?


Charles Avery Dunning: A number of the provinces did refuse the grant for a number of years after it came into effect.


Peter McGibbon: But for a different cause.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not as a matter of principle.	[DOT]


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but coming from a great section of northern Ontario which has been brought into the discussion, and which forms the gap so often referred to between the east and the west, I feel I should not be doing my duty if I did not say a few words on this important question.
As I listened to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) speaking this afternoon at some length-indeed, at much greater length than he usually speaks when he wishes to convey an idea-I found myself wondering whether he was not trying to drown the whole idea in words. It seemed to me that he was illustrating the old saying that language is given us to hide our thoughts, because every now and then there cropped up in his remarks the admission that the resolution was a good one, that national highways were important, and that in the not distant future it would be necessary for us to have such highways. But for some reason he intimated that he would vote against the proposition. I must confess that to me his remarks were not as lucid as they usually are when he is explaining any question on the floor of the house.
That section of northern Ontario extending from Sudbury on the east to the Manitoba boundary on the west-a distance of some 700 miles-forms the gap so often spoken of, the crossing of which by a national highway would do much to link up the east and the west. That gap is crossed by the railways, but it is not crossed by motor highways which are so necessary to-day. Last year I had the pleasure of motoring from Ottawa to my own home; but my experience was somewhat similar to that of other hon. members who have spoken this afternoon: it was not possible to motor on Canadian roads; I had to go by way of Chicago and 
Duluth. To-day you can motor from Ottawa as far as Sault Ste. Marie, but from Sault Ste. Marie to the head of the lakes there is no motor road; if you wish to go from Sault Ste. Marie to the head of the lakes you must go through the United States. There are between the Soo and Winnipeg some veiy good farm roads over short distances of twenty-five, thirty and even fifty miles, but there is a wide gap between the head of the lakes and Winnipeg and this must be crossed by entry into American territory. That 700 miles from Sudbury to the Manitoba boundai-y is an exceedingly difficult stretch-the most difficult, possibly, with the exception of the passage across the Rocky mountains. The building of that section would certainly be an enormous advantage and it should be assisted by the federal government. There are some national viewpoints which transcend provincial or municipal points of view such as have been discussed at some length by the Minister of Railways, and we must not overlook the fact that the population of that area is too sparse to help materially in the building of the road. Even the rich province of Ontario, the most populous province, can hardly afford, without Dominion assistance, to build the highway across that great section of territory, which for the most part is rocky. The highway would have to be built over a good many obstructions. It is hardly correct, by the way, to describe that section of country as a barren waste. Not that anyone has so described it in this debate, but I have heard a good many people speak of it in those terms, and I wish to correct that impression; it is far from being a barren waste. While that area is as great as France and England put together, it has a population of only 200,000, but it has a great many resources in pulp wood and lumber, in mines and fisheries; much of the mining wealth dug up from the bowels of the earth in this country is obtained from that northern section of Ontario. With Quebec and British Columbia, that section of the Dominion forms the great pulp and paper and mining area of Canada.
I wish to point out that there is to-day a highway leading from the head of the lakes to Duluth, one of the most magnificent highways on the North American continent. It runs for a distance of something over 200 miles, and by the expenditure of a little money-a start is being made by the provincial government in this direction-the Canadian side of the road could be made as desir-

National Highways-Mr. Clark
able a highway as that which is now open to use on the American side. That, however, will not solve the difficulty that exists at the present time and which was so well described by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in his speech, namely, the difficulty of linking up east and west. To-day you can motor from the maritime provinces right up to Sault Ste. Marie, and, to a large extent, from Winnipeg through to the Pacific coast, although I do not believe the road across the mountains is such as to render motoring easy just yet. My hon. friends from British Columbia correct me; someone says it is. I was in British Columbia this year, when I was informed somewhat differently; I was told that it was not easy motoring at the present time. However, I am glad to be corrected in this respect, and it constitutes an even greater reason why the Dominion government should take the national point of view in regard to the building of a national transcontinental highway, seeing that there is so little left to be done. In other words a transcontinental highway is already largely built, except the section across northern Ontario, the section which it is necessary to construct in order to bridge the gap between east and west. The government might well bear in mind that not only does this section contain immense resources in pulpwood, lumber, mines and fisheries, but that it is one of the greatest sporting centres on the whole North American continent. Through hunting and fishing it is being made the playground of a large portion of the central United States, and the building of such a highway as is proposed would make for a marvellous increase in the tourist traffic, which is worth to us to-day from two to three hundred million dollars.
May I observe here that the imagination which the national government displayed away back in 1867, at the time of confederation, has been something of which we might well be proud, when we think that the fathers in those days foresaw the necessity of building the Canadian Pacific Railway from the east across to British Columbia, although at that time there were only ten thousand white people in that province. And largely for sentimental reasons our forebears insisted upon the linking up of the maritime provinces with central Canada through the Intercolonial railway. The government in power in Canada in our day, whether the present administration or its successor, must exercise its imagination on the same scale and extend motor traffic throughout the country. The government, I submit, should assist the province of Ontario
financially to construct that highway across northern Ontario so as to make it possible for Canadians to motor, entirely within their own country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Minister of Railways might well give serious consideration to this point, and later in the session introduce some sort of legislation looking to this very desirable end.


John Arthur Clark: The Canadian Highways Act passed in 1919 clearly recognized the principle of federal aid to provincial highways, and that principle has not altered to-day; in fact, it has been very much accentuated by developments since 1919. As a consequence of that act many agreements were made between the provinces and the federal government for the construction of roads. I might refer to my own province of British Columbia; twenty-three separate agreements were made between that province and this government for the construction of highways measuring altogether some three thousand miles. Although these agreements were consummated, there have been actually constructed only about three hundred and sixty miles of road. A little more than one-tenth of the total authorized. The grant to that province for this purpose has been spent, the grant being only 81,250,000. It is infinitesimal when you consider that the Dominion of Canada in constructing that portion of the Canadian Pacific railway which they constructed in the province of British Columbia destroyed a road built under the regime of Governor Douglas, which has cost the province over
82,000,000 in the last three years to replace.
I might mention at this point that as far as British Columbia is concerned I am quite certain that not only the government but the people as well will Wellcome the extension of the Canadian Highways Act. I have listened to the premier of that province on many occasions speak of the great difficulties which confront his government in the construction of highways because of the peculiar physical characteristics of the country, and I have heard him publicly urge the extension of this act and the granting of further moneys by the federal government towards the construction of highways. So as far as British Columbia is concerned there will be no quarrel with this government if that act is extended for another period of five years, but in view of the growth of this country I would urge a very much more substantial grant than $20,000,000. As an example of what might be done I would refer the government to what is being done in the United States. In that

National Highways-Mr. Clark
country the federal government are granting annually over 365,000,000 for the construction of slate roads, and, for that purpose, have granted an amount in excess of $900,000,000.
What has been the effect upon this country of the construction of those roads? As my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) pointed out, if he wants to take a holiday trip he is obliged to go south of the line for good roads. I believe the official figures show that the value of the tourist traffic to Canada last year was about 3276,000,000; I wonder how much tourist traffic is being taken away from Canada by good Canadians going across the line and spending millions of dollars there when they might go to the greatest playground the world has known. I refer to the Rocky mountains in British Columbia and western Alberta, and I believe that Canadians would gladly go there if roads were constructed to permit them to do so.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are many sound reasons on which the federal government might base a grant for the construction of roads. Consider harbours, for example, for which the federal government is indisputably responsible. Access to these harbours must be provided, and at present that access is being gained over roads constructed by the provinces and the cities. Grants might well be made in order to assist in providing access to these harbours, wharves and docks. Then the value of Dominion lands and Indian reserves has been enhanced through the construction of roads by our cities and provinces. 3 might point out to the Minister of the Interior that there is an Indian reserve in the city of Vancouver for which I believe he is asking $800,000, the value of which is wholly dependent upon the growth of the city of Vancouver and the roads surrounding it. I might just add that I think the price is absolutely exorbitant; I may have something further to say in this connection later on. Then consider the public services generally, the Post Office Department for example; the delivery of rural mail and in fact the delivery of mail in the cities could not be carried on without these highways built by the cities and provinces. Then there is the Department of National Defence, and I am afraid many members of this house will think I am going beyond the point in saying that roads are necessary for national defence. For those who do not believe in national defence I would suggest that the roads would be very useful for them in case trouble arose and they did not want to defend themselves; such roads might provide a means of escape.


Mr. POWER:: The other chaps could follow up too easily.


John Arthur Clark: I think my hon. friend would find that in this country there would be enough men left to block the advance of the other fellows.
Then I would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that last year these roads constructed by the provinces resulted in an increased revenue to this country. The customs duties on automobiles, tires, accessories, and so on amounted to some $19,000,000; the sales tax amounted to about $3,800,000 and the excise tax to about $2,600,000, a total revenue of some $25,000,000 resulting from the importation into this country and the sale of automobiles. That is $5,000,000 more than the total grant made under this act. Surely some part of the increased revenues being collected by this country might well be devoted to the construction of better highways throughout Canada.
The Minister of Railways has spoken of the danger the highways may be to the Canadian National Railways. I would like to point out that far from being a danger these roads are fast taking the places of branch lines. The necessity for the construction of branch lines has been cut down tremendously by the trucking which goes on over provincial highways, which act as feeders to the main lines. In my own province I can show the minister some lines which have been closed altogether, and while there may be some danger to local traffic there are advantages in that Canada would be relieved of a great deal of capital expenditure in the construction of branch lines.
We had a park recently established in this city from which one may catch a glimpse of the east block of the parliament buildings; that park cost Canada almost $3,000,000. I believe if the Minister of Finance were to sit down and seriously consider the relative benefit to Canada of that park and the benefit of highways I think he would agree that to the people of Canada generally the highways which could be constructed for $3,000,000 would be of much greater advantage.
There is one other aspect of this question which refers peculiarly to my own province, and I believe British Columbia has a claim which is not shared by the other provinces of Canada. I believe that we have a pact with the federal government under which this government is bound to build a highway from the eastern boundary of British Columbia to Port Moody, the original terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway. I recall to the government that in 1868, when negotiations for confederation were developing, it was an essen-

National Highways-Mr. Simpson
tial of union that the federal government should build a wagon road across the province of British Columbia, and although that stipulation was not contained in the terms of the union there was a protest from the province of British Columbia which was carried to the foot of the throne. As a result of that protest Lord Carnarvon was appointed to settle the disputes between the federal government and the colony of British Columbia, and in 1874 both the province of British Columbia and the federal government agreed to abide by his decision. On November 17, 1874, in a communication to Lord Dufferin, then Governor General of Canada, Lord Carnarvon said:
The wagon road and telegraph line shall be immediately constructed: There seems here to be some difference of opinion as to the special value to the province of undertaking to complete these two works; but, after considering what has been said, I am of the opinion that they should both be proceeded with at once, as indeed has been suggested by your ministers themselves.
No action was taken by the federal government, and in the following year, 1875, Lord Dufferin visited British Columbia. In the city of Victoria he was met with an arch across the street bearing the words "Carnarvon terms or separation." He refused to pass under that arch, but subsequently delivered a considered address in which he made this statement:
My only object in touching upon them (the Carnarvon terms) at all is to disabuse your minds that there has been any intention upon the part of Mr. Mackenzie, his government, or of Canada, to break their faith with you. The promised wagon road will necessarily follow, pari passu, with construction of the railway.
As a matter of fact, that wagon road was not constructed but, as I said before, a road which was built under the regime of Governor Douglas was actually destroyed by the federal government in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This road has been replaced during the last three years by the province of British Columbia at tremendous cost.
Nothing has happened since confederation which has altered the responsibility of the federal government. I have examined the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin, dealing with the claim of British Columbia to the Peace River block, and there is nothing in that to indicate that this claim of the province has been dealt with. I have also examined the statute-the Settlement Act, 1884-which was supposed to have settled certain differences between the province of British Columbia and the federal government,
but all this act deals with is the negotiations between the governments of Canada and British Columbia relative to the Vancouver Island railway, the Esquimalt graving dock and certain railway lands of the province. There is nothing in that act, or in any other settlement, which deals with this federal obligation for the construction of a wagon road across the province of British Columbia.
I urge upon this government that they take into serious consideration the carrying out of this solemn agreement made at the time of and subsequent to confederation, known as the Carnarvon pact. I would also urge special consideration to that province because I believe its situation is unique. Owing to its peculiar mountainous character it is most difficult and expensive to construct roads, I believe the most expensive construction in Canada. The Dominion of Canada will be more than repaid for any highway constructed through that province because of the beauty of the mountains of British Columbia and the western part of Alberta. There is no playground in the world which offers such advantages as does this one in western Canada.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that this is an asset which cannot be depleted. You can sell this scenery year after year, and it will be a source of undying revenue if the people of this country will only grasp their opportunity. I believe the resolution before the house has great merit, and the government might readily accept it and extend it materially.
Mr. THOMAS E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):	The resolution under discussion
urging the advisability of extending further federal aid to the building of highways is one which I think should receive the favourable consideration of this house. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), when speaking on this question on Monday evening, stated that the reasons for making the grant back in 1919 had been justified by the results which had followed. If the reasons advanced for making the grant at that time have been justified by the results, why should we not make a further grant today? The minister also stated that the tourist trade increased as good roads were extended, and I agree with him in that respect. As an example, I might refer to a condition that obtained in a city in my own constituency. Sault Ste. Marie is situated on the border across the St. Marys river from a city of the same name in the state of Michigan. In that state they have some splendid highways, towards the construction of which the federal

National Highways-Mr. Simpson
government of the United States has contributed very liberally. For many years there have been a number of tourists motoring up over these highways to the Michigan city but, owing to the fact that the roads were not very inviting on the Canadian side of the border, very few crossed over.
Northern Ontario is large in area, and while the provincial government have been generous in the voting of moneys for the building of roads through that sparsely settled country, they have found it necessary to give their attention first to the roads required by the settlers and have not been able to complete the highway as quickly as they might otherwise have done. Of late years they have been spending considerable money on this highway runnning from Sault Ste. Marie down through Sudbury, North Bay and on to eastern Canada. As a result of the improvements made to the highway, during the last two years tourists have been crossing over at the Canadian Soo in ever increasing numbers. Hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of additional cars have crossed over to go into the beauty spots of northern Ontario, to enjoy fishing in the many lakes and rivers of that section. Many of them, after spending some days or weeks there, motor down through old Ontario, and thereby leave considerable money in this country. We have no record of the number of cars admitted to Canada for touring purposes during the year 1919, but we have the record for 1924 and subsequent years. In 1924 we find that at all the ports of Canada 1,822,874 cars were entered for touring purposes. In 1928 it is estimated that 3,645,000 cars were entered for touring purposes, the number being doubled in the short space of four years. As the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) has stated, and as shown in circular No. 9 issued by the Highways branch, the amount of money estimated to be spent in Canada by tourists in 1927 was upwards of $276,000,000, or an increase of $73,000,000 over the previous year. As the number of touring cars entering Canada in 1928 is estimated to be over 500,000 more than those entering in 1927, it is quite reasonable to assume that the amount of money spent in this country by tourists would well exceed $300,000,000. Surely this is a matter of supreme national importance.
The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) referred to the different methods of taxation in the provinces and in the Dominion, but in looking up the figures we find that the provinces collected in 1927 in registration fees for automobiles, operators' and chauffeurs' license fees and in gasoline tax 
$19,674,505; but the federal government, as the hon. member for Burrard stated, collected in import duties and excise taxes on automobiles that were constructed to use these roads, and many of which would not have been sold if the roads had not been improved so as to make it possible for the automobiles to use them, the sum of $25,470,011. If the federal government collects in one year $5,000,000 more than it expended in the period of ten years for highway improvement, surely it is not too much to ask them to reconsider the question of continuing the grant.
Another reason that might be advanced in favour of an extension of the grant is this. The federal government is interested in the settlement of the rural sections of the country, and the thing that will have the greatest influence in keeping the people on the land is to provide them with good roads. Someone may say: That is certainly a provincial matter. I will admit that concession lines and so on are provincial matters, but the point I want to make is this, that if the federal government will give assistance towards the construction of interprovincial or national highways, the provincial governments will have more money left to build good roads out to the settlements where the farmers have settled on the land.
My last point, but in my opinion by no means the least, is one that has already been mentioned and has been dwelt on particularly by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), namely, the importance of the completion of a transcontinental highway. We have motor roads completed now, fairly passable, some of them in a much better state of repair than others, from the Atlantic to a little beyond the city of Sault Ste. Marie in northern Ontario, but there is that link from there on to the Manitoba boundary, or possibly nearly to Winnipeg, that has to be completed in order to obviate the necessity of tourists crossing over and going through the United States for the purpose of reaching western Canada. In my judgment, the completion of this trans-Canada highway would have a greater influence than anything else in cementing and binding Canada together into one solid confederation. In addition to that, it would prove, as the hon. member for Fort William has said, a great attraction for tourists, as that whole area is dotted with innumerable lakes and rivers teeming with fish. Tourists come over to Canada now, as far as they can get with their motor cars, and spend a considerable time in that section. Some of them have built hunting lodges, and if this national highway were completed, a

National Highways-Mr. Brady
great many more tourists would visit Canada and spend their time and money in this country. I suggest that the government, particularly the Minister of Finance, should give further consideration to the question before finally deciding that the grant should not be continued.


James Charles Brady: Mr. Speaker, the few words that I shall say upon this resolution may advance the debate a little and if that be the case I think I shall be justified in speaking on the resolution. The government must be well aware that throughout western Canada, comprising not merely the prairie provinces, but also the Pacific province of British Columbia, there has not been during the past three years a chamber of commerce, or a board of trade, or a union of any corporate body of men assembled for the purpose of solving the problems of the country, that has not brought in a resolution of some sort asking for the continuance of federal aid to highways. I refer now to the western provinces of Canada. The maritime provinces are likewise concerned in the matter and it might be illuminating if at this moment I read the remarkable words of one who is now in the high position of Postmaster General in the government (Mr. Veniot). I refer to the words used in 1925 by the then premier of New Brunswick on that memorable occasion, February 24th, when he headed a delegation to the Prime Minister of Canada in regard to this very resolution and an extension of time for federal aid to highways. This is what I should like the house to hear:
Premier P. J. Veniot, of New Brunswick, tvho headed the delegation, told the federal government, which was represented by the Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr. Graham, and the Hon. Doctor James King, that a moral responsibility attached to the federal government to finish the work begun in 1919. He also urged an extension of time so that the provinces could earn their federal aid grants. Other members of the delegation endorsed the remarks of Premier Veniot.
If a few years ago the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) and the government of which he is now a member, saw the importance of extending federal aid in the matter of building roads in his province and throughout Canada, surely by no stress of necessity and by no force of logic can he now join and vote with the hon. Minister of Railways, who says that he will oppose this resolution if it is brought to a vote. I think that the first thing we should do is to distinguish between what are facts and what are theories.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the other day most carefully and cautiously advanced arguments as to why he did not consider it advisable to reestablish federal aid foi highways, but his arguments were such I believe as not to convince the great mass of the people of Canada, who are anxious to solve the problem of settlement in the far distant and sparsely populated parts of this great country. Public opinion is absolutely in favour of federal aid for highways. When I was up in Alaska last year, the western vanguard of the great republic to the south, what did I find there? I found that the United States federal road commission had established a complete program of road building for Alaska, and the work has progressed to such an extent that one can now travel by motor hundreds and hundreds of miles even into the " Great circle," the land of the midnight sun. I understand that in 1927 alone the sum of one million dollars was spent in the development of roads in that territory.
I am not claiming consideration at the present moment merely for northern British Columbia, for example, where there is at the present time the greatest need of decent trunk roads to connect up with the transcontinental highway. Anybody who has travelled through the great province of British Columbia must realize that the government of that province will be faced with a very great task, not only for the next few years but for many more years to come in the building of roads and trails for the development of that province, but they are now to be deprived, by the refusal of the hon. ministers who have spoken on this resolution of even the chance to get cooperation and assistance from the federal government in what is the most vital necessity confronting that province and this Dominion to-day, namely the development of roads.
I have some figures here as to the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada. In 1904 the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada was 535; in 1926, that number had grown to 836,794, and I believe that in 1929, there will be at least 1,000,000 motor vehicles registered in Canada. What does that prove? That road development is the key to Canada's progress. Is is possible that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways do not appreciate the intrinsic value of those western provinces, and their great importance as a source of revenue, which to-day are struggling under difficult conditions, and which now seek assistance from the federal government in what, after all, is really a matter of federal obligation? The Minister of Finance prac-
29S

National Highways-Mr. Carmichael
tically said that the roads in Canada are fine; in other words, that we are simply-bringing to the attention of the government by this resolution a minor issue. Ontario and Quebec, the two oldest provinces in Canada, have at this moment half the population of Canada, and not only that, but they are now so well established that they were in a position to take over between them half of the $20,000,000 grant under the Canada Highways Act for the development of their roads, Ontario having taken $5,750,000, and Quebec $4,750,000. British Columbia's share, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) pointed out, was $1,250,000.
The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is trying to solve the problem of keeping our people in Canada and attracting others to come to this country, and of attracting tourist traffic, which undoubtedly is one of our great revenue-producing agencies in Canada to-day. I cannot see how the Minister of Immigration can refuse to vote for this measure; for the building of highways throughout Canada is very closely connected with a successful immigration policy. The two things cannot be separated, because one leads to the other.
Speaking on behalf of the province of British Columbia and of the prairie provinces, and I am sure of every other province, except perhaps the two older provinces, I say that this vote will be watched with the deepest interest by the people of every province from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It will be concrete evidence as to whether or not the government of this country have the vision to see to it that every aid and incentive shall be given to develop this country and to settle it, and to keep within its borders the people who are already settled here. Thousands more will come once it is proclaimed that Canada has a program of road development, because good roads are, after all, the arteries of all the progress of civilization. If we are to believe what great economists say, England commenced the greatest period of her development under an extensive road-building program. Last year Quebec and Ontario were able to attract millions of tourists because of the excellence of their roads. I challenge any member from those provinces conscientiously to refuse to come to the aid of these younger provinces which to-day demand that consideration which the older provinces have had, and which public opinion is behind.
Therefore I trust that the right hon. Prime Minister will influence the mind of the hon. Minister of Finance, and the hon. Minister of Railways, so that despite the statement

that the provinces can look after their own roads, the government will see to it that not merely will they give federal aid towards the construction and up-keep of interprovincial roads, but that they will undertake the construction of a national highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is of considerable interest not only to members of the house but to Canadians generally. A portion of the resolution does not appeal to all members with the same force. It asks that the federal grant be continued to cover the next five years' development of highway construction, and this makes it appear that there would be duplication of jurisdiction in relation to that expenditure as between the federal and provincial governments. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) pointed out the objection to such procedure, and stated that any work to 'be undertaken, if it were to be transcontinental in character, should be handled entirely by the federal government.
I do not wish to enter very far into this discussion, 'but I should like to put on record a resolution which I have received from the Kindersley lodge of the United Farmers of Canada. This will give the house an idea of how the farmers out in the country view this subject. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas tourists to our country leave considerable revenue,
And whereas the highways of Canada, especially those in the prairie provinces, are such as to discourage tourist traffic.
And whereas the government of Canada has expended large sums of money on our national parks, but has made little or no provision in the matter of highways for the people to get to them,
Therefore be it resolved that we ask the federal parliament to pass the necessary legislation to contribute fifty million dollars out of the public treasury to be distributed among the provinces on a mileage basis for the purpose of constructing a hard-surface highway throughout Canada.
J. Stanley Hickson,
Secretary.
The point has been emphasized so many times in regard to the magnitude and importance of our tourist traffic that it is scarcely necessary for me to dwell very long upon it. We are all aware that Canada has peculiar attractions for the American tourist. We can offer him picturesque scenery, invigorating climate, and opportunities for hunting, fishing, and so forth, and best of all we have that thousand-mile stretch of Christmas trees and rocks stretching from eastern to western Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we had a through highway for tourist traffic

National Highways-Mr. Kaiser
the already large revenue therefrom would be increased possibly fifty per cent or more. It has been stated that that traffic brings to this country in excess of two hundred million dollars annually. If that could be increased by fifty per cent, the expenditure of a few million dollars on a trans-Canada highway would be a very profitable investment for the Dominion. But there is not only the tourist traffic of the United States, there is interprovincial tourist traffic as well. From my own district several citizens have on various occasions motored to Ontario, but to reach their destination they have been compelled to go through American territory, and of course they had to leave some of their money with our American friends. It would be a great step in advance if Canadians motoring from the west to the east could travel on an all-Canadian highway.
Then we have several national parks. Only last summer one was opened in the northern part of Saskatchewan near the city of Prince Albert. A considerable portion of federal money is expended on such projects. I might mention also the national park at Banff. Surely it would be a wise and profiitable investment on the part of the Dominion to build a highway over which our eastern friends could travel to western Canada and view those beautiful parks.
For those reasons, sir, the resolution as worded does not particularly appeal to me. It leaves the way open for a sort of collaboration between the federal and provincial authorities. To overcome that objection I more this amendment, seconded by Mr. Speakman:
That the last ten words of the resolution, namely, "to cover the next five years' development of highway construction" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"to construct as expeditiously as possible from coast to coast an all-Canadian highway."


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the position taken by the government on this question. I am doubly surprised at the attitude taken by the speaker who stated the position of the government; I refer to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). As member for Regina his policy is to my mind absolutely incomprehensible. If I returned to Oshawa, the home of the automobile industry, and did not raise my voice in favour of the construction of good roads, I do not think my chance for re-election would be very good. Regina, represented by the Minister of Railways, secured one half of the industry from my city during the last summer, and how any man representing a city
with a large automobile industry engaged therein can stand up in parliament and vote against good roads is an inconsistency quite beyond my comprehension.
With regard to the argument that the Dominion government is not obliged to grant money for the construction of good roads by reason of some language to be found in the British North Ameripa Act, let me observe this. The automobile is a comparatively new thing in this country; it came into existence since the act was passed in 1867. If the British North America Act were being drawn up to-day, I am satisfied that the founders of Canada would ask the Dominion government to contribute towards the construction of roads throughout the entire country. The automobile, being a new class of vehicle, and the kind of highway necessary to make possible the use of that vehicle being so vea-y different from anything contemplated at the time the British North America Act was passed, the cost being so great, the undertaking would undoubtedly be regarded as a national work.
I have observed a tendency in the last number of years about which I desire to say a word. The British North America Act provides that matters specifically assigned to local legislatures shall be taken care of by those bodies, while matters not specifically assigned to the provinces shall fall within the purview of the Dominion government. Now strange to say, in respect to necessities that have arisen since confederation-necessities that could not possibly have been foreseen at that time-the Dominion government is quite willing to leave the responsibility to the provinces so long as any cost is involved. Let me cite one or two examples.
Take first the matter of public health. At the time of confederation the only reference to public health was the provision that the matter of quarantine should be left to the Dominion. But public health as we know it to-day is something that was not considered at confederation, and in this connection the provinces have taken off the hands of the Dominion millions of dollars of expenditure which the federal government should have undertaken. Take again the transmission of electricity; this is something that was not contemplated when the act was drawn up, and the provinces have taken it over. The province from which I come has spent S250,-
000.000 developing electrical current for transmission to the people of Ontario. This matter was not specifically referred to in the British North America Act and so the province has

National Highways-Mr. Denis
to look after it. If you look closely into these matters you will find that the argument is all in favour of federal responsibility. And they involve tremendous sums of money. But if there is no cost attached to any new undertaking, if some nice jobs can be had, some commissions appointed for favoured friends of the government,-the radio, for example-then, of course, the Dominion willingly takes it over. The federal government in these cases take this attitude:	"We will run it; it does
not cost any money but there is room for a few appointees". In matters which have comie along since confederation new in character, and in which money is involved, then the Dominion passes the responsibility on to the provinces. Now we come to a case that calls for the expenditure of some money and in regard to which there may be some doubt as to whether the provinces should undertake that expenditure, or whether the Dominion government should assume it, and the spokesman of the government says that the federal authorities will leave it to the provinces. When the money for this cause was originally voted everyone considered it a good thing; but to-day, when there is a universal demand that the Dominion government shall continue the grant for the construction of good roads, and particularly in those sections of Canada that do not enjoy this benefit, we find objection being raised.
Nothing prompts me more to say a word in favour of the motion than this. On two occasions in the last ten years I have been over the prairie country, and I am delighted to think that this resolution should come from the member of a western constituency. The great need of the west is ready and easy intercommunication, and no other means known to-day will provide this So efficiently as the construction of good roads. No part of Canada needs these roads more than the great western country, and for that reason, if for no other, I submit that the government should continue the grants they have been giving and make further reasonable expenditures for the purpose suggested by this resolution. The government can spend money in other directions without ever offering an excuse. We on this side of the house can point out wherein the government might save millions of dollars which could be devoted to the construction of good roads. Take for example the annual expenditure of $135,000 in Washington. Capitalized, that would represent in time four or five million dollars, and it would be far better for Canada to have a less conspicuous and less costly legation in 
Washington and spend the money in providing good roads. By this means we could entertain the Yankees, when they came here, to much better advantage than by asking them to take a look at that $500,000 mansion which we built in Washington. I intend to support the resolution.


Mr. SPENCE:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DENIS:: M. l'Orateur-


David Spence: Who has the floor? I have been on my feet so often, and so many have spoken ahead of me, that the speech I had prepared has all gone.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member for St. Denis has the floor.


David Spence: I do n-ot wish to appeal
against your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but for an hour I have been getting up on my feet; I have been on my feet about ten times.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be
brief in my remarks. I am opposed to the resolution under consideration because, to my mind, it is unconstitutional. The Dominion parliament should not be called upon to vote money for the construction of roads. This is within the realm of provincial legislatures. It is before the provincial legislature that the fine speeches of the hon. member on your left, sir, should have been delivered. I am in favour of good roads, in this agreeing with all the speakers who have preceded me. As to the province of Quebec, it does not apply to the Dominion parliament for the necessary funds to build its roads. We are blessed with fine and good roads, entirely paid for by the province and we have an easy access to the other provinces. If trade and social intercourse have not always been in the past what one might have expected, the blame cannot be thrown on our roads.
If, sir, certain provinces have not the money to build good roads, they should, in my opinion, take other means to obtain it and not attempt to have unconstitutional measures adopted by this parliament. I would rather advise them to ask for an increase in their subsidies. That would be the best way out, a truly constitutional procedure to obtain the necessary funds needed for the construction of their good roads. Quebec is in no way disposed to foot the bill for the building of roads which are not within its limits. It succeeded in building its roads with its own money, let the other provinces do likewise.
I entirely agree with the hon. Minister of

National Highways-Mr. Spence
Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I approve without reserve the arguments which he has set forth. He was absolutely in order, and in my opinion this resolution should not receive the approbation of this house. For my part, I am strongly opposed to it.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the splendid support given this resolution, but I notice that it is coming particularly from this side of the house. I have been waiting patiently for hon. members opposite, and particularly those from Saskatchewan, to support it also; many of them believe in the good roads movement, but they are sitting there muzzled, as it were.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


David Spence: I do not think that is unparliamentary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


David Spence: Very well; I will substitute the words " they are struck dumb." I would suggest to the government in all seriousness that since this is not a political question the whips withdraw and allow hon. members opposite to vote for once at least in the interests of all classes.
The Minister of Railways usually makes a good defence when he gets on his feet; I admire him for his ability, but today I think he demonstrated that he did not know much about good roads. He tried to defend the government for not making federal grants to highways; he compared the obligations of the present government with the obligations that existed in 1919. Everyone knows that a great deal more money is coming into the federal treasury to-day than was the case in 1919, because we are paying heavy taxes on everything. There was also some mention of constitutional relations, but we can forget all about that because it is only quibbling. Then the minister went on to say that the provinces did not contribute to the construction of good roads in the smaller incorporated town and villages. Later he willingly took that back because he found he was in error, and he said that statement referred to cities at least. So you can see that his arguments are not sound.
Then the minister went on to say that at some time in the near future he might give some support to a federal or national highway, but he said the great trouble then would be in negotiating with the provinces. Let me tell him that I know of no difficulty he would meet in that respect; the provinces
will be only too glad to relieve themselves of the burden of keeping up some of their present highways. In the construction of a highway from Halifax to Vancouver many hundreds of miles of excellent roads could be included without any construction cost to this government.
Years ago the townships built the roads, as you all know, and it is not many years since the provincial governments took over certain highways. I happened to be on a good roads commission in 1911-


Mr. VENIOT:: My hon. friend refers to the townships building roads. That applies only to Ontario, I presume, 'because that was not the case in my province.


David Spence: That was done in Ontario. First the townships built the roads; then the counties started road construction, and commissions were appointed to spend the money of the different municipalities and the contributions of the provincial government. Then the provincial government came along and took over many miles of roads built by these commissions, such as the Toronto and York Highway Commission of which I was a member, and made them provincial roads. So if the federal government wishes to build a national highway from coast to coast I am sure the provincial governments will be glad to hand over such portions of their roads as are needed.
It is not often that I am in entire accord with hon. members to my left, but in this case they have my hearty support, Having been connected with the good roads movement for many years I know the necessity for good roads and the advantage they are to the country. Away back in 1911, when the good roads movement started in Ontario, 1 think first in the county of York, our plea to the people was that we had to make life congenial for the farmer. At that time hydro was being developed and discussed and we contended that these two things, electric light and good roads, were in the interests of the farming community in order to keep the farmers on the land. That applies today, because it is very hard to keep men on the farms, and good roads and electric light and power are necessary if they are to be kept where they belong. Of course I do not mean to infer that farmers should not be in this house.
The other day the Minister of Finance was complaining about resolutions of this kind being introduced at this time of the session advocating high and perhaps extravagant expenditures, while later on the members pre-

National Highways-Mr. Spence
senting these resolutions would criticize the government for making extravagant expenditures. To my mind this is not an extravagance. We who are supporting this resolution are trying to induce the government to spend money in a way which will be of the greatest advantage to all classes in Canada. The Minister of Railways has presented a program of branch line construction in connection with the Canadian National railways which to my mind is not nearly so necessary as a program of good roads. He knows that to-day the buses of this country are carrying more passengers than the railways are carrying, particularly on short hauls of from 20 to 120 miles, and the trucks are doing the same in connection with package freight. A short time ago the Minister of Railways mentioned the money spent on the Canadian National and other railways, but it does not matter how much money has been spent in that way because to-day the people want to ride on rubber on good roads, and the railways will have to comply with the wishes of the people. The railways themselves are largely responsible for this situation, because in the past and particularly during the war and immediately before the war, they would give no service at all to the people. I well remember that I was instrumental in bringing a deputation to Ottawa at one time in connection with the railway operating between Niagara Falls and Toronto. If the engineer or conductor happened to be in a bad humour he would leave a couple of hundred case.s of strawberries lying on the siding at Clarkson, Bronte or some such place along that line; they would be left in the sun all day to spoil, and we had to arrange for trucks to come from the city of Toronto and travel perhaps thirty or forty miles to bring in these shipments. In those days the railways were run by the men who worked them and not by the management.
We all know there is reckless expenditure here every year in connection with wharves, breakwaters and so on; I think hon. members opposite will admit that. They have to do these things to please the members of their own party; they have to hold certain ridings, and this sort of thing goes on. Sometimes, in fact, they do these things for members on this side of the house, but at all events there never have been such reckless extravagances as we have seen in this house in connection with wharves, breakwaters, and things of that kind. On the Atlantic coast, I think they have a breakwater at every little market garden.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go easy.
[Mr. Spence.}


David Spence: I do not blame you for getting them, because others are getting things somewhere else, but we poor individuals who live in the centres of population are paying the piper and getting very little of anything.


Mr. MARCIL:: You are getting quite a bit in Ontario.


David Spence: I contend there could be a great saving by taking the money expended for the construction of wharves and breakwaters and putting that money into good roads. I claim the debt of Canada could be wiped out by good roads. The province from which I come has spent barrels of money in building good roads, and their program for this year is just as extensive as it was last year but it is all coming back with interest. The more good roads the more tourists, and the more tourists the more money. When the money comes into the country it stays here and benefits the country. In the urban centre, where I happen to be one of the commissioners, we have never built a bridge or road or anything of that description where the expenditure did not come back to the people through increased assessment. I would not say this would apply to districts such as those around lake Superior, but good road building is a necessity.
The tourist traffic is increasing every day and as long as we have good roads for tourists to travel on they will come here. Of course there are other reasons in Ontario why we have so many coming from the United States: they come here to make themselves happy and enjoy life, which they cannot do in their own country.
As the motion has been amended by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), I do not know just which I am supporting, but I am willing to support either one of the two or both, I am such a believer in good roads.
If the government hear the wishes of the people by allowing the house to vote as they feel like voting-take off the whips-I am sure they will consider this resolution favourably. I would suggest that when they start to build this federal highway from Halifax to Vancouver they consider it as an experiment. There have been millions of money wasted in building certain types of road that will not stand the particular climate in which they are built. There are many classes of asphaltic pavement, and also concrete and brick, and more money should be spent on research along this line. If the government are going to undertake the building of a federal highway, I would suggest that they use dif-

National Highways-Mr. Cantley
ferent types of asphaltic pavement so that the municipality could benefit by the experience of the Dominion government. It would be a great benefit to the municipality if they could see which type of asphaltic pavement was the best, because there is a great diversity of opinion to-day as to which is the best. I am not going to advocate any particular class of material, nor would I advocate a solid concrete road in a country like Canada where our climatic conditions are so severe, but there should be a substructure of at least twelve to fifteen inches if you are to have a road that will last for any considerable time; one that can be retopped as required.
I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I hope the government will give consideration to this matter and ask the members sitting on the back benches to vote as they wish, and let us have at least one vote in the interests of all classes in this country.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I
have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on this question. I am particularly pleased to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in his place, because he has the reputation of being the first maritime member of any government who delved seriously into the question of road improvement. So far as I know all that he did in that connection has been to his credit.
I was somewhat surprised at the attitude taken by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) for he did not show that familiarity with and knowledge of the matter which he usually does when dealing with important matters.
The government of Nova Scotia took advantage of the act of 1919 as soon as it was possible to do so, and their road board exhausted within a reasonable time the amount placed at their disposal. I speak with some knowledge, due to the fact that my friend the late Hon. R. M. MacGregor induced me to join the first highway board created in the province of Nova Scotia. That board, supposed to be non-partisan, consisted of three Liberals and two Conservative's; the Hon. Percy C. Black, the present Minister of Highways and myself being the black sheep. I only refer to this because of the fact that it gave me an intimate knowledge of affairs m connection with the Nova Scotia provincial roads.
We have between 20,000 and 22,000 miles of highways in Nova Scotia, which is a larger road mileage in proportion to population than any province in the Dominion. I doubt if any state in the union has anything like the
mileage of roads in proportion to population. Of course, that means the burden of expenditure is also excessive in proportion to our population.
The Minister of Railways I think was a little in error in his statement in regard to the conditions. Certain conditions were imposed and had to be complied with before the roads came within the provisions of the 1919 federal act. We in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick complied with those provisions, as the Postmaster General well knows. The department set certain standards of construction so that the expenditure was safeguarded in that respect, which is a very important matter.
I am not particularly interested in the question of a national highway, although we have in Nova Scotia a stretch of three hundred miles representing the distance between Sydney and Sackville on the New Brunswick boundary which is part of what, will ultimately become a national highway. We see a good many cars from Ontario and Quebec in Nova Scotia. We also have large numbers coming in from the United States, although we have not the liquid attraction which brings many of them to Ontario and Quebec; they come for other reasons, and we are glad to see them.
I referred to our large mileage in proportion to population. Last year the government of Nova Scotia spent, through the highways department, about $1,000,000 for maintenance alone. The cost of maintenance of our roads is increasing every year, and it is bound to increase due to the greatly increased motoi traffic, both passenger cars a.nd motor trucks. When our people in Nova Scotia and the other eastern provinces see the large amounts that are voted in this parliament for the improvement and beautification of Ottawa, it causes them seriously to think. In view of the fact that the amount voted some ten or twelve years ago was in the main wisely spent and productive of good results and was a great help to the maritime provinces and, I believe, to the other provinces as well, the government should extend the provisions of the act. It certainly did good service. Without it some of the older provinces, particularly the mari-times, really cannot maintain their roads in the condition in which they should be and in which the people of those provinces are entitled to have them. Federal aid we must have and should have now, not at some future date.


Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I found myself in general agreement with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) this afternoon when he was advocating a national highway. I would not want it to be

National Highways-Mr. Cahill
thought in the house or anywhere else that I was not favourable to the construction of good road's generally. But while I agreed with the hon. member for Bow River in advocating a national highway, I could not sgree with him in his conclusion to vote for the resolution, because it would not bring about the desired end. I am not any more in favour of the amendment except in a general way, than I would be of the resolution. Ordinarily, legislation that is created out of a discussion in the house in a hurry, through an amendment, is not very good legislation. The people generally throughout Canada would, I think, be very glad to see a national highway constructed from ocean to ocean and I think the government would be just as agreeable to that as any person in the country. It would be the means of opening up a great prospect to our Canadian citizens. If our people in the east who are now emigrating had an opportunity of driving their cars through to the west, they might find in the west opportunities that would be of as great advantage to them as they might find by leaving the country. A national highway would be one of the greatest assets, after the construction of our railways, that we could have.
But I do not agree in a general way with the sop handed to the provinces. I think it was the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) who said this afternoon that the principle had been adopted by parliament. My recollection of the matter is that in 1919 the party sitting to the right of the Speaker to-day were unanimously opposed to that resolution granting $20,000,000 as aid to highways throughout the provinces, and I will take the same ground to-day. The aid that was then granted was spent by the provinces on short roads varying from a mile to five, ten or twenty miles in length throughout the various provinces. That is not I think, the object of the people of Canada. What they want, what they would agree to, would be a national highway built on 3ome basis of cooperation between the provincial governments and the Dominion government. I cannot quite agree with the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) that this road would have to be maintained or operated by the federal government. If there were cooperation in the construction, with an understanding that the provincial governments would maintain the ro<ad as they are now maintaining their highways, we would secure the desired results without having the federal authority in any way conflicting with the provincial authorities.
I would be sorry to see a vote on this resolution. I think we are generally unanimous
[Mr. Cahill.)
in our opinion that a national highway would be beneficial to the country. Many members of parliament would support a special grant towards the construction of such a highway, but it has not been the policy of this party in the past, in my experience, to hand sops to the provinces. Most of those were originated by my hon. friends opposite and they may have Whatever glory may come from them.


Peter McGibbon: It might be well to copy
from us.


Frank S. Cahill: When my hon. friend gets
on this side of the house he may continue it. Copying his attitude is not good business. I cannot support the resolution, nor can I support the amendment, but I am strongly in favour of the development of a national highway from ocean to ocean in Canada. I trust that those who are interested in and who advocate good roads throughout the country will have the matter taken up and discussed at some of the annual conferences of the roads departments of the various provinces and an endeavour made to arrive at a conclusion that will be satisfactory and beneficial to everyone.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Believing that at this time highways are needed in Canada perhaps more than heretofore because means of communication are essential to the welfare of any country, I am in favour of the government granting to the provinces a subsidy to be used for the construction of roads that would make it easier particularly for those on the land, who are making practically the national income, to market their produce. I am not in favour at the present time of a Canadian national highway. Our railways are just beginning to pay their way and a national highway, as things stand at present, would interfere with their earnings. I believe the need of the country, particularly in western Canada, where there are no road materials any better than sand, gravel and clay, is a subsidy for the construction of roads into the outlying districts of those provinces, roads which would feed our railways. I believe that is'the only reasonable attitude for the government to take. We need that; the settlers need it, and it would help the railways to increase their earnings.
I have sometimes thought the whole of the carrying trade should somehow be placed under one great corporation. Where railways are not warranted, a highway is sometimes a necessity, and provincial highways should be constructed in conjunction with the national system of railways to give means of access to all parts of the country. A national highway

National Highways-Mr. Evans
will serve only a particular class, namely the tourists who come here for a little while in the summer. Tourists who come from the United States will not want to go from east to west in our country; they will want to go north into the wilds in order to enjoy themselves in that bracing air and amuse themselves by fishing and so on. There is a need for highways in the provinces and I hope the government will see fit to grant a subsidy for that purpose.


Peter McGibbon: I rise to give my support to this
resolution, coming as I do from one of the great tourist sections of Canada which is intimately connected with good roads and which has seen more or less the financial benefit that follows a system of this kind. I support the resolution on another ground, that advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the house the other day when he said that it was the duty of government to increase the happiness, contentment and prosperity of our people. Looking at rural Canada, I know nothing that will contribute more to the peace, happiness and prosperity of the people than three things. First, good roads, which has been the subject of debate here this afternoon and on previous occasions. Second, rural telephones, which puts one neighbour in contact almost every minute of the day with his friends and neighbours. Third, rural mail delivery, the task which has been committed to my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking him publicly in this house for being considerate of the requests which I have made of him. I might also inform him that it is my intention to come to him again with more and even greater requests than I have made of him in the past, and I expect to be met by that genial smile and that cordial welcome which he has always accorded me in the past. Consequently, with these three ends in view, which I think will increase the happiness, content and prosperity of the people of rural Canada, I have very much pleasure indeed in supporting the resolution.
I cannot possibly agree with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I am very much surprised that one who, coming to this house with such a reputation as he had, has .failed to grasp the significance of a resolution of this kind. He hides behind that old excuse which is so often trotted out in this house, the British North America Act. I could not help but agree for once in my life, and I did it with considerable diffidence, with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) when he said that the British North America Act might yet sound the deathknell of confederation. I should be very sorry to see that, because I realize that the British North America Act is the backbone of our constitution and one of the safeguards of our people. But who sixty years ago could forecast the conditions that we have in this country to-day? As my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) has pointed out, the automobile industry was not in existence at that time, and when the great burden was placed upon the provinces of building and maintaining the roads of this country, I am sure it could not possibly have been conceived at that time what a great burden this would ultimately become. In fact, I am one of those who believe that that burden is too great to-day for any province in the Dominion to carry successfully, and too great a task for the provinces to undertake in the manner it ought to be undertaken in the interests of the people.
Moreover, this government has in the past, as no doubt it will in the future, invaded the revenue-producing fields of the provinces. The federal government has, for instance, tapped the income tax field, which rightly belongs to the provinces, while at the same time the provinces have no new sources of revenue to tap to meet their burdens, which are daily becoming greater until to-day they are almost unbearable. Consequently I say the time has come-and if it has not come now it certainly will be reached in the very near future-when the Dominion government should come to the assistance of the provinces in carrying on these great works, which, after all, are in the interests of the citizens of all Canada.
I support this resolution for another reason. I support it on business grounds. When we look back and see how a business that ten years ago amounted to nothing is contributing to-day at least $25,000,000 to the exchequer of Canada, and distributing among the pockets of our people $276,000,000 a year, thereby increasing their prosperity, we do not need to have very much vision to realize that in the not distant future, possibly within the next ten years, that business will double and treble and quadruple, so that the revenue received by the exchequer will amount, not merely to $25,000,000, but probably $50,000,000 or $75,000,000. I submit that no business man and no business institution whose business was growing to the extent I have indicated would hesitate to lay plans for the enlargement of plant to take care of that greater business which there was every reason to anticipate.

306	COMMONS
National Highways[DOT]-Mr. McGibbon
From that point of view therefore it is good business for the government to support this resolution and to spend, not merely $10,000,000 or $20,000,000, but $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 on the building of good roads, spread over the next ten or fifteen years.
I support this resolution also on national grounds. As has been stated here this afternoon, with greater facilities for communication established between east and west there will develop a greater national spirit and harmony in this country, producing a more contented and a happier people.
I support the resolution for still another reason. We know that to-day one of our great problems is that if immigration, and we know also from our experience in the past that one of the difficulties in connection with immigration has been the finding of employment for those who come here. As we look back over our history we find that the most prosperous years we have had from an immigration standpoint have been almost invariably associated with some nation-wide work, such as railway building, which provides employment for the new settlers in the off season of the year and enabled them to make money enough during the dull season to carry them over their first few years in this country. This national highway scheme would provide employment for our immigrants at certain seasons of the year.
I also support this resolution in the light of history. We know that many of the countries of the world that are most prosperous to-day were in difficulties some years ago. I have been told by natives of the state of California, for instance, that before the tourist traffic was developed that state was so poor that it was almost on the point of bankruptcy. But now, with the enormous increase in tourist traffic to that state, it is one of the most prosperous in the union.
There is still another reason why I support this resolution. We are living alongside one of the big countries of the world, a country with 110,000,000 people, a country with which we are in constant communication, a country to which we owe some $2,500,000,000. I submit, as was pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) the other day, that the revenue to be derived from the tourist trade will help to keep the Canadian dollar at par, and to maintain our balance of trade at the favourable point it is at to-day; and furthermore, the more Americans we have come to this country, and the more they 
intermingle with Canadians and the more Canadians intermingle with them, so much better will be the spirit of goodwill existing between the two nations, a consideration which is so essential to our national life and to our prosperity.
I have enumerated only a few of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I support the resolution of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner), who I think deserves the thanks of this house for bringing this matter to the attention of parliament. If this resolution is not voted on and carried into effect at this time, I have no hesitation in saying that in the not very distant future this government will have to take up the burden of developing a national highway system in the Dominion of Canada. That is necessary in order that Canadians may know their country, in order that they may know each other, and in order that they may be prosperous.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) appeared to be very anxious to raise objections to this resolution. Of course you can raise objections to any proposal; but I submit it is the duty of governments to overcome difficulties, not to create them, especially when it is in the interests of the people that those difficulties should be overcome. I cannot treat some of his objections seriously. For instance, I cannot conceive it possible that, say, the province of Ontario would turn down a grant from the federal treasury to build roads, even though there were strings attached to it, for such a grant would in turn relieve the province of certain obligations. The only legitimate objection that occurs to me is that the government responsible for raising money should be responsible for spending it. That objection, however, has not been raised either by the government or by any of its supporters.
A good proportion iof the memhers to your right, Mr. Speaker, come from rural ridings where roads are almost as essential as daily bread, and to me it is an interesting sight to watch them sitting there and allowing themselves to be led by the Minister of Railways practically in silence to oppose this resolution. I think I can speak with a good deal of confidence when I say that not one of those members represents the opinions of the people who sent him to this house.


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

Questions
Thursday, February 21, 1929