1949-11-28

CANADIAN VESSEL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 216, to encourage the construction and conversion of vessels in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to encourage the construction and conversion of vessels in Canada. The assistance will take the form of accelerated depreciation. Owners who construct or convert vessels in Canadian yards will be entitled to write off their ships in three years if they so wish. The vessels to which the legislation will apply are those as defined in the Canada Shipping Act.


Mr. Green:: Is there to be legislation
providing aid to the shipping industry, as distinguished from the shipbuilding industry?


Lionel Chevrier: This legislation deals with ships as defined in the Canada Shipping Act, and applies to shipbuilding.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Church:: 1.	Has the government made any representations to the city of Ottawa with respect to the erection of bus shelters along the routes of its transportation system within the present city limits?
2.	If so, with what result?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


OIL AND GAS PIPE LINES
Mr. Winkler:: 1.	How many pipe lines are bringing oil and/or
gas from the United States into Canada at the present time?	,
2.	How long have they been in operation?
3.	How much oil or gas has entered Canada by these sources in that time and what is the estimated value?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1 and 2. (a) Two bringing oil: Montreal-Portland pipe line-1941.	The Transit and
Storage Co.-1912.	(b) Two bringing gas:
Dominion Natural Gas Co. (Buffalo)-1925. Union Gas Co. Windsor connection with Detroit-1947.
3.	Oil-Statistics are not compiled by separate means of transportation. All oil statistics are grouped together regardless of whether they are imported by a pipe line, tanker, tank car or truck.
Gas-Imports-Gas for cooking, heating or illuminating imported by pipe line from United States:
Calendar	Value
year	M. cu.ft.	$1948	
404,046	238,7421947	
432,530	252,7721946	
368,067	239,0811945	
345,983	233,3091944	
270,725	182,1391943	
232,106	157,8441942	
197,103	135,2561941	
172,552	117,4711940	
130,342	91,9761939	
114,396	75,3801938	
133,062	87,3111937	
114,275	74,7991936	
83,802	54,1121935	
78,213	51,5381934	
77,859	50,7651933	
75,895	54,2151932	
120,840	91,234


RAILWAYS
Mr. Church:: 1.	What weekend excursion rates on Canadian railways will be available for the coming Christmas holidays?
2.	What will be the charges for berths, lower and upper, and other sleeper accommodation during the Christmas season?
3.	Will they be the same as other years?
4.	By whose authority have such rates been established?
5.	Has the board of transport commissioners approved of them? If so, when?


Mr. Chevrier:: Questions


RADIO RECEIVING LICENCES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many prosecutions were taken, by provinces, since the first of January, 1949, for alleged neglect to take out radio licences by private persons?
2.	What is the average fine levied in each province?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Prince Edward Island, 139; Nova Scotia, 578; New Brunswick, 199; Quebec, 1,137; Ontario, 4,238; Manitoba, 517; Saskatchewan, 255; Alberta, 363; British Columbia, 147.
2.	Prince Edward Island, $1.90; Nova Scotia, $3.30; New Brunswick, $4.80; Quebec, $2.45; Ontario, $2.70; Manitoba, $3.90; Saskatchewan, $4.65; Alberta, $4.15; British Columbia, $2.80.
Only cases for which complete reports have been received in the department are included in this return.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Does the national film board collect any tax on their showing of pictures?
2.	Does the national board film pay any business or property tax to (a) the federal government; (b) the provincial governments?
3.	If so, what amount was received from this source during each of the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 by (a) the federal government; (b) the provincial governments?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


THREE RIVERS, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Are the alterations for the Three Rivers, Quebec, post office being done on a cost plus arrangement or by contract?
2.	If by contract, who are the contractors?
3.	What is the amount of the contract?
4.	Were tenders invited for this work? If so, when?
5.	What are the names of those who tendered and what was the amount of each tender?
6.	When is this job to be completed?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	By contract.
2.	Romeo Martel, Three Rivers, Que.
3.	Amount of contract, $668,270. Additional work authorized, $4,160.
4.	(a) Yes, by public advertisement; (b) tenders due May 18, 1949.
5.	Romeo Martel, Three Rivers, Que., $668,270; L. Massicotte & Careau Limited, Cap de la Madeleine, Que., $679,850; Rosaire Dufresne, Three Rivers, Que., $735,188; Jos. Renaud, Limited, Three Rivers, Que., $737,-

312; Frs. Jobin Inc., Quebec, Que., $738,349; G. A. Gruninger & Fils, Three Rivers, Que., $748,261.
6.	Date of completion, December 2, 1950.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dechene:: 1.	Did the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Mines and Resources purchase a residence at St. Paul, Alberta, recently?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	What was the price paid for that property, and to whom?
4.	Upon whose recommendation was this transaction made?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes; in the year 1948.
2.	For use as a residence for the Indian superintendent of Saddle Lake agency.
3.	$7,500 to Mr. Wilfrid Aubin, St. Paul, Alberta.
4.	Purchase was made upon the recommendation of the regional supervisor of Indian agencies, Alberta, following a decision by responsible officers that the superintendent should reside in the town of St. Paul.


MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	On what date did the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley cease to be minister of justice?
2.	Who was the minister of justice from the date noted in question 1 until the present Minister of Justice was sworn in?
3.	Who was the acting minister of justice from November 15, 1948, until January 31, 1949?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	June 30, 1948.
2.	Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent was appointed Acting Minister of Justice with effect from July 1, 1948. On September 10, 1948, he was appointed Minister of Justice.
3.	Hon. Joseph Jean.



FOOTBALL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Before the orders of the day are called I rise on a question of privilege. Before I got down this morning, which was reasonably early, some very thoughtful persons placed upon my desk this miniature coffin, which bears the single word "Calgary." The only thing they omitted to inscribe was, "Not dead, but sleeping."
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Montreal club on their splendid win, and the people of Montreal on their fine

sportsmanship in connection with that event. In saying this, however, I exclude one person, the one who yanked my hat off my head and disappeared with it in the traffic. The hat is gone forever. I wish I could give this coffin to that man so that he could put the hat in it; for it is only the hat that is gone.


Mr. Cruickshank:: As a westerner, Mr. Speaker, I have an extremely unfortunate financial duty to perform. It arises as a result of Saturday's football game. I cannot see the member in the house to whom I owe the duty, so am I exempt from performing it?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of an article in the New York Times, to the effect that a bill has been passed in the United States congress, known as the Magnuson bill, which bill was signed last week by President Truman, providing for the immediate location survey of a railroad route from Prince George, British Columbia, to Fairbanks, Alaska, and for early provision for the construction of that railroad, of which some eleven hundred miles will be on Canadian soil.
Is the minister in a position to say what negotiations have taken place with the United States government, and what is the present position of those negotiations?


Lionel Chevrier: This question, or one similar to it, was asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on November 18, and he gave an extensive reply.


John George Diefenbaker: I am aware of what he said.


Lionel Chevrier: In the course of his reply he stated that no appropriation had been passed for this purpose by the United States government; that if and when such an appropriation was passed, and if and when that government made representations to the Canadian government, those representations would be carefully considered. To that statement I have nothing to add.


John George Diefenbaker: There have been no further negotiations?


Lionel Chevrier: None that I am aware of.


FEED GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: Owing to the fact that in most parts of eastern Canada
Inquiries of the Ministry we are short of feed grain, could the Minister of Agriculture give us an assurance that sufficient supplies will be available at the lake ports so that the many farmers who have cattle and hogs on the feed lots will be able to have that livestock ready for market?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The only answer I can give is that every effort is being made to have sufficient feed grain available in eastern Canada. Whether it will be available at the lake ports or somewhere else, the hope is that grain will be available for the feeding of livestock.


TRADE WITH BRITAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Canadian contract with Great Britain for supplying 80 million dozen grade A eggs expires in approximately four weeks, and that there are 580,000 poultry farmers in Canada who are concerned about future markets for eggs, will the minister make a statement as to the prospects for the renewal of at least part of this contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member was kind
enough to send me a copy of his question. It should be stated that the position in relation to the food contracts is about the same this year as it was at this time in each of the last two years. This is the third year in which discussions with Britain about food contracts have continued until about the middle of December; the understandings were reached about that time in the two preceding years. The position is exactly the same this year, in that we are still discussing contracts with Great Britain for eggs, bacon and cheese. We are not in a position to make any announcement as to the actual amount, or what arrangements may finally be made. We are hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be made.
Canada's position with respect to fao plan FOR SURPLUSES
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Will the Minister of Agriculture make a statement about Canada's policy with regard to the FAO plan to take care of world food surpluses? Some disturbing press reports have been noticed concerning the minister's statement in Washington.

Trans-Canada Highway


James Garfield Gardiner: I may say that the meeting of the FAO is still continuing. So far as I know, no decision has been reached as to the plans the nations represented are going to follow. So far as the position of the government and my own position is concerned, I made a complete statement last Thursday which, if the members of the house desired, could be placed in full on Hansard. It would, however, take a considerable portion of Hansard, because it was a thirty-minute speech. It could not be interpreted by the one or two sentences that have been published in the press, particularly since some of the papers left words out of the statement sent to them by the Canadian Press.


Mr. Coldwell:: Could the minister table a copy of that speech, so that the members could have access to it?


James Garfield Gardiner: That could be done.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROVISION FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 194, to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in moving second reading of the bill entitled "An act to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway".
Hon. members will understand that this legislation is enabling in character, in that it seeks authority for the federal government to enter into agreements with the provincial governments toward the construction of provincial highways which will join at various provincial boundaries to form a continuous road across Canada from one coast to the other and, as such, constitute a trans-Canada highway.
This project has been envisaged for many years, and it is considered that the time is now appropriate to proceed with it. When first contemplated it was conceived as a highway from Halifax to Vancouver, but it is now proposed that it shall extend from Victoria, on Vancouver island, to St. John's, Newfoundland, and also embrace Prince Edward Island.
The highway, when completed, will remain the property of the respective provincial governments, who will assume their normal highway responsibilities with respect to it, such as maintenance and snow removal. In effect, therefore, this legislation will enable the federal government to assist provinces in highway construction.

Nearly all provinces are already heavily engaged in highway programs, and it would be difficult for most of them to assume alone this additional work without some financial assistance. Moreover, the completed highway will have a national aspect in that it will serve to link all provinces, and will enable Canadians to travel from one end of Canada's mainland to the other on Canadian soil by hard-surfaced road. As such, it will play a part in the national economy. Under the circumstances it would appear justifiable for the federal government to contribute up to half the total cost, as the bill indicates.
It is considered, however, that the highway would not be national in scope unless all provinces participated, without which participation the federal government would not be justified in providing this measure of assistance. It was for this reason that we have felt obliged to inform the provinces that the federal government's contribution is being made by reason of the national aspect of the problem, and its participation is contingent upon all provinces entering into agreements with the federal government.
A dominion-provincial conference was held last December, under the chairmanship of the then minister of mines and resources, to discuss this project in a preliminary way; since that time a considerable amount of work has been done by way of working out details and arriving at general agreements with respect to broad principles. Since the project was transferred to the Department of Reconstruction and Supply in March, 1949, officials of the department have visited every province, including Newfoundland, and have had discussions with provincial officials concerned. Subsequently, in August and September, I visited the provinces and discussed policy aspects of the problem with provincial ministers in all provinces but Alberta, where the time at my disposal did not enable me to discuss this problem, but the points have been covered in an exchange of correspondence.
Out of these technical and policy discussions developed certain principles which it was considered might form the basis of ultimate agreements. Moreover, the officials of the department have had discussions with appropriate officials of the public roads administration of the United States, while I, as well as the department officials, have had discussions with the Canadian Construction Association, the Good Roads Association, and other interested organizations, all of whom have been most helpful.
Accordingly, early in September I was able to forward to each provincial government a document containing a number of points which had previously been discussed and

which I hoped might ultimately form the basis for agreements which would enable the project to proceed. Some of the suggested terms of agreement were as follows:
(a)	that the highway should be a modern, first-class, hard-surfaced road, following the shortest practicable east-west route consistent with the needs of the provinces and Canada as a whole;
(b)	that the provincial government would be responsible for the selection of a route in conformity with this definition;
(c)	that except in national parks, the province would arrange for the execution of the work;
(d)	that the highway, when completed, would remain in each province the property and responsibility of the province;
(e)	that the federal government's contribution would be in respect of a two-lane, modern highway;
(f)	that the federal government's contribution would be on the basis of fifty per cent of the cost to the province of completing the highway;
(g)	that an additional contribution would be made on a fifty-fifty basis of the costs to the province for those portions of already existing highway which would be included in the trans-Canada highway;
(h)	that the highway should be completed within a period of seven years;
(i)	that all ordinary maintenance costs during or after the period of construction would be the responsibility of the province;
(j)	that tenders and specifications for contracts would be subject to review by the federal government;
(k)	that inspection of the highway and audit of costs would be the privilege of the federal government.
Suggested standards were also placed before provincial governments, including a width of pavement of 22 or 24 feet, and a minimum right of way of 100 feet. It is recognized, however, that there will of necessity be variations to meet local conditions, and it is emphasized therefore that the various technical specifications were put forward only as suggestions. However, it is our opinion that wherever it is feasible and practicable, the width of the hard-surfaced portion of the road should be 24 feet. Intensive studies have been made, especially in the United States, which confirm what is almost self-evident, and that is that no features of a highway have a greater influence upon the safety and comfort of driving than the width and condition of the surface, especially if the volume of traffic is heavy and moves at a relatively
Trans-Canada Highway high rate of speed. Many authorities hold that to permit the desired clearance for commercial vehicles a 24 foot pavement is required.
However, all provinces have been building paved highways for many years and have developed standards which presumably meet their needs adequately, and no attempt will be made to impose upon them specifications which are unsuitable for their purposes.
Speaking generally, all the foregoing suggestions were well received by the provinces. There are certain points in which various provinces differ, and there are technical details still to be worked out. Moreover, there is the important matter of route. Some of the provinces have already defined their routes, in accordance with the general definition; but others have not, because of an expressed desire not to proceed to that stage until the federal government's legislation is approved. This seemed like a reasonable view, and we have therefore not been pressing for a decision. However, no province has indicated that it does not wish to proceed with its share of the project.
Hon. members will note that the bill incorporates most of the suggestions I have placed before the provinces; but I should like in particular to say a few words more about the financial aspects.
It is estimated that the total cost of the highway of approximately 5,000 miles will be of the order of $300 million, and the bill provides for the payment of the federal government's share up to a maximum of $150 million. This averages approximately $60,000 per mile for new construction as well as highway already built. Where the problem is one of new work, the approach is relatively simple, and the federal government will agree to pay one-half the total cost, on the basis set forth in the bill. Hon. members will see that where highway already constructed will form part of the trans-Canada highway, the federal government is seeking authority to pay to the provinces half the total cost to the province of the construction of that part of the highway. This will have the effect of making the federal government's contribution toward highway remaining to be completed considerably more than fifty per cent.
Let us take, for example, a province where $20 million would be needed to complete the highway, and where that province has already spent $8 million on portions of highway which will be part of the trans-Canada highway route. The federal government contribution to the new construction would be $10 million plus fifty per cent of costs previously incurred,

Trans-Canada Highway or $4 million, for a total contribution of $14 million. If the province applies this contribution of $4 million against the cost of completing the highway, federal money in the $20 million expenditure would amount to $14 million, or 70 per cent. On the other hand, the payment for roads already constructed may be applied elsewhere, as determined by the province, but it is my hope that the provincial governments will use it in such a way that the maximum amount of development and the maximum amount of employment will result.
It is natural to expect that the federal government's assistance to provincial governments with respect to this project will be compared to the federal government's assistance to highways in the United States. I would point out, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that there is no wide difference between the United States formula and that contemplated in the bill before the house. In the United States the federal government appropriates certain moneys for highways, and it is allocated to the various states in accordance with a formula which takes into account population, area, and total mileage; but once the allotment has been determined, it is required that the state match it dollar for dollar. The more money made available to any one state by this formula, the more of its own money that state is obliged to commit. Any unused portion of a state's yearly allocation does not accrue to the state but is returned to the federal treasury if not expended on a dollar for dollar basis during the year.
Some hon. members have a tendency to estimate how much money would have been advanced to the various provinces if the United States type of program had been adopted in Canada years ago. In almost the same breath they say that the provincial governments concerned will not possibly be able to meet the financial commitment required of them by this bill. These two views would appear to be contradictory and to overlook the fact that the provinces would have been obliged to match the federal advances dollar for dollar.
Furthermore, I have heard the criticism that a two-lane 24-foot highway is not adequate and that we should be guided by United States practices in this regard. I would point out that the 24-foot two-lane highway is accepted as adequate for most highways through rural areas, and it is noteworthy that in the United States 95 per cent of the rural highways are of the two-lane 24-foot type.
As I indicated previously, there are still some details to be worked out; but these, too,
[Mr. Winters.!
have been a matter of discussion with provincial governments, many of whom have felt that a number of points should be held in abeyance until the federal government has received legislative authority to proceed. It seemed desirable, therefore, that we should go ahead with the legislation and then invite provincial governments to attend a conference of officials and technicians for the purpose of discussing all matters of technical detail, with a view to resolving all such points to the mutual satisfaction of the provincial and federal governments. As I recall, this point has been put to all provinces, either verbally or in writing, and they have agreed; I therefore propose to proceed accordingly.
When the technical details have been resolved, I propose to ask the provincial governments to sign formal agreements with the federal government so that the project may go forward.
Most provinces have expressed a desire to proceed with the construction of the trans-Canada highway in 1950. I propose, therefore, to move forward with the remaining phases so that all outstanding matters may be resolved and agreements signed in order that provinces will be enabled to proceed with the work in the early spring.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Before we move forward this measure, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he can now lay on the table of the house the correspondence with the provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia. I do not think it will be possible for us to deal intelligently with this important matter, involving an expenditure of $300 million federally and provincially, unless we know under what conditions the different provinces will enter into the agreement. I would ask the minister to table this correspondence. If he is not in a position to table the correspondence with Nova Scotia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. member that if he is asking a question he should be brief. If he is speaking to the motion, of course he has forty minutes.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to get an answer from the minister, if I can.


Mr. Speaker:: A strict interpretation of the rules would of course mean that the hon. member had spoken to the motion, but I think he merely intended to ask a question.


Robert Henry Winters: The answer to the question is that I still have not received permission from these provinces to table the correspondence.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister a definite refusal?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for
Cumberland desires to speak now, I have no objection.


Percy Chapman Black: I want an answer.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this bill is described as "An act to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway." Everyone in the house is in favour of the construction of a trans-Canada highway, and no doubt everyone in the house also believes that the dominion government is the only authority that can take the lead in bringing about the construction of such a highway. But in the view of the official opposition this bill is very disappointing. I propose to outline some of the reasons why we are disappointed with the terms of the measure. Perhaps I can best begin to do so by dealing with the situation in the province of British Columbia.
We are remote from Ottawa; we are farther away than any inland province, and for many years we have been tremendously anxious to have a trans-Canada highway. As conditions are at the present time, most of our vehicular traffic goes north and south. If a person in British Columbia goes for a drive he goes down to the state of Washington or to the state of California. A very small percentage of our people drive east to Alberta. If they do drive to Alberta or to eastern Canada, the route followed is almost invariably first of all down to the United States, and then on one of the great United States highways until they are south of the destination, when they drive north into Canada.
For us the United States tourist is of great importance. The states to the south of us are wealthy, and a great many of their people like to drive north; therefore the highways in British Columbia mean a great deal to that province. Because of the mountainous nature of the province we have always been faced with high costs in building roads. The need for help finally became so great that in the early thirties, during the regime of the late Lord Bennett, assistance was given by the federal government for the building of a trans-Canada highway around what is known as the Big Bend of the Columbia river. Help was also given on the roads leading from the United States boundary up into the national parks. I believe the same sort of assistance was given to the province
Trans-Canada Highway of Alberta on the road leading into Waterton national park and through that park up to Banff.
There has been one bad feature about the roads in the national parks, which of course are the responsibility of the dominion government. Restrictions have been placed on the use of these park roads by trucks. I sometimes wonder whether these restrictions are not placed on the roads to help out the railways by preventing freight trucks from going from British Columbia to Alberta over park roads. Whether that is so or not, the fact is that traffic has been impeded by reason of federal regulations in respect to the park roads.
For many years in British Columbia we have believed that there should be a national highways system, not just one trans-Canada road, and that it should include feeder roads from the United States. We realize that such a system could not be completed in a day, but we contend there should be a master plan for a national highways system toward which the dominion and the provinces could be working. That, of course, is what is being done in the United States. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) intimated this morning that his new plan is the same as the United States plan; but I would point out that there is one great difference, namely, that in the United States they have a federal aid highways system- not just one road.
The minister said further that Canada's new road was to be as good as they have in the rural parts of the United States. I do not think that is good enough. I hold in my hand a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in 1948, when he spoke at Kamloops, British Columbia. The quotation is taken from a newspaper dated September 10, 1948. The minister said:
I am going to keep on advocating the building of a great national system of highways which will make it possible for the Canadian people to travel from one end of this country to the other.
On September 11, 1948, at Nelson, British Columbia, the minister told five hundred people that Canada needs a national highway system and that it should be built and maintained by the federal government. He said further: "All Canadians must fight for such a system. You'll get a southern highway a lot faster if you ask to get all-a system of highways-built, than if you ask for one."
It is evident that the Minister of Agriculture has lost out in this decision. But he is not the only one who believes there should be a national system. That is the first reason for our being greatly disappointed by the present measure.

Trans-Canada Highway
Another disappointment is that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply cannot tell us today where the route is to go. One would think that after all these months and years the government would have some idea as to what the route is to be. We are asked to pass the measure without having that information.
I have read the letters passing between the dominion and seven of the provinces, and from those letters it would appear that as yet there is no decision concerning Nova Scotia. We have not had the papers from Nova Scotia. It would appear that in New Brunswick the provincial government is advocating a route which would go to the city of Saint John, while the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is telling them they cannot have one.


Robert Henry Winters: No; that is not correct.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I suggest that hon. members read the correspondence for themselves. If the minister does not say in his letter that they cannot have one, he certainly gives a pretty broad hint that he is not going to help with a route to Saint John. Perhaps he has changed his mind in recent weeks, but the letters so indicate.
We do not know what the route is to be in the province of Quebec, nor do we know what it is to be in Ontario. Correspondence with Manitoba has not been produced, but judging from the letters from Ontario and Saskatchewan there is not much doubt as to where the route will be in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


Mr. Warren.:: Would the hon. member work on Ontario to have the trans-Canada highway follow the Ottawa valley?


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position to decide where the road should run in Ontario; but were I the minister I hope I would not bring in a bill without knowing what the route was to be across Canada.


Mr. Bradelie:: Get the province busy.


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear that interjection.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I said the hon. member should get the province busy.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot hear it even yet. Probably it does not amount to much.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member does not want to hear it.


Howard Charles Green: From the correspondence with Alberta it would appear that in that province the road is to run from Walsh on the eastern boundary, and thence up through Calgary and Banff, including the national park at

Banff. Correspondence from Alberta indicates that there has been some tentative agreement between Saskatchewan and British Columbia to that effect. However, the correspondence with British Columbia has not been tabled, therefore one has no way of being sure. From the correspondence with Alberta it would appear that the route is to be as I have indicated. This would mean that it would follow the Big Bend from Golden, around to Revelstoke and Kamloops, and down the Fraser canyon to Vancouver.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: The minister nods his head; therefore I take it that is correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I presume the hon. member agrees as to the possibility of building a trans-Canada highway 24 feet wide; would he agree that it is possible to have a 26-inch pipe line through Canada?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Fraser Valley knows how I feel about pipe lines.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes; I do know, and I want others to know it; that is all.


Howard Charles Green: 
George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Howard Charles Green: Ontario and Quebec have spent large sums on the highway, and they will be entitled to get back far more money than Saskatchewan and Alberta, and perhaps British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot get the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) to agree with me all the time, but in any event that is my opinion.
To sum up, the bill is disappointing rather than encouraging, and this after a period of waiting of over fourteen years. I suggest that the reason the bill is in these terms is that the government is stalling on this matter of a trans-Canada highway. It is being used as

Trans-Canada Highway a project to provide for employment in hard times. I suggest that that is the reason why we have a bill of this kind. I can see the fine hand of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in nearly every line of this bill. When the minister was asked about the trans-Canada highway last year he made this reply, as reported on page 5497 of Hansard of June 19, 1948. The former member for Portage la Prairie asked the question:


Mr. Miller:: Is there among the future unemployment relief projects or programs of the government any blueprint for the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Howe:: If we see any sign of widespread
unemployment we will proceed to make a blueprint. But at the present time we have not a blueprint and we do not think one is necessary.
On August 10, 1948, the then minister of mines and resources, Mr. MacKinnon, made a speech about the trans-Canada highway, and a press dispatch of that date is headed: "Trans-Canada highway years away: Mr. MacKinnon." Then there was the Liberal convention, and I understand a resolution concerning the trans-Canada highway was put through. The next step was a conference with the provinces which was called in December, 1948. I have here a dispatch from the Vancouver Sun describing the conclusion of the conference. It reads:
Ottawa, December 16-The dominion-provincial trans-Canada highway conference came to an abrupt and unexpected conclusion Wednesday night with provincial delegates experiencing a frustrated sense of little accomplishment.
And again:
The meetings were closed to the public, and the only official statement following it, from the chairman, Mines and Resources Minister J. A. MacKinnon, talked vaguely of "very satisfactory progress'' and hoped that "a start would be made in 1949" on a national highway system.
This airy optimism was at variance with the statements from provincial representatives, who blamed the federal government for coming into the conference with no proposals or program.
In March the then minister of mines and resources handed over the trans-Canada highway project to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In the spring session we were told that there was to be a trans-Canada highway bill, but it did not appear on the order paper until more than two months after the house began its sittings, the date being April 8. Nothing was done at that session. Then during this session we heard a significant statement from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he delivered his budget speech and said that the magnitude and timing of the trans-Canada highway was to be given very careful consideration, intimating that the government was not in any great hurry about the highway.
The resolution preceding this bill appeared on the order paper two months ago, but was

not called until a week ago, and we are now considering the bill itself in the dying days of the session. This all reminds me of a moving picture of a horse race shown in slow motion. That is how the ministry have been moving with this highway program. They have effectively stalled it over the whole year, although no one in this house or in the country has stated opposition to the measure.
I repeat that all the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been in the background; he has had the idea that this should be an unemployment relief project. If the government does not change its tactics in regard to this measure, we may find that development of the trans-Canada highway will be dragged along as slowly as possible.
Even now the government is half-hearted about it and obviously ill prepared. I do not believe the minister has a suitable staff to supervise the construction of this highway; and expert supervision is required. Millions of dollars can be saved by way of specifications if the dominion government has an experienced staff checking on the construction of the highway. Now the departments are to be reorganized, and the next few weeks or months will be spent juggling around the branches, one of which will have to do with this trans-Canada highway. We have an item in the estimates-not in the main or supplementary estimates, but in the further supplementary estimates-for the trans-Canada highway; the only vote I can find. It is item 889, providing $25,000 for preliminary engineering work and studies in co-operation with the provinces concerned. This does not look like speedy action on the highway in the near future. Obviously there is no master plan, no blueprint. The minister does not even know where the road is to go, and no clear-cut policy is being presented to this house, even after all the delay.
The official opposition are disappointed in this measure. We will support it on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread, but we shall not be content until there is a federal-aid highways system in Canada. This house and the people must not accept the measure which has been brought down today as the final word in the construction of a trans-Canada highways system. We urge that there be no more delay. It is a disgrace that Canadians should have had to wait until 1950 to get action on a trans-Canada highway. Great opportunities have been lost during the fourteen years this government has been in power-opportunities for Canadians to know their country and their countrymen in the other provinces; opportunities for developing Canada; opportunities for extending our means of carrying both goods and passengers.. Just think what would have been the effect

on transportation costs if years ago we had provided a trans-Canada highway-the effect not only on freight rates but also on passenger rates; great opportunities have been lost for expanding our tourist industry; all because this government would not take the lead.
In connection with this project for a trans-Canada highway system, vision is required. The people of Canada have the vision of a national system. What is required is vision here in the House of Commons. I believe we should have before us at all times the vision of Canada as one of the great nations of the world, with a population of fifty, seventy-five or a hundred million people. The bill we are considering today just does not fit in with that vision in any way at all.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, with the principle of this bill we are in agreement; but coming as I do from Nova Scotia I am not satisfied that any member from that province, with the exception of the minister, can say that he is prepared to have this bill pass in its present terms. I say that because negotiations for a trans-Canada highway have been going on in this country for a long time, and a great deal of work has been done on that highway in Nova Scotia. To what extent it is completed, or what work is still necessary there, we do not know; and until such time as the premier of Nova Scotia is prepared to make available to members of this house the correspondence between his government and the federal government I do not think any hon. member from that province-and there are ten of them on the other side of the house -is in a position to say that the arrangement set out in this bill is satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia.
Why that correspondence should be considered secret is something I cannot understand. And when the federal government takes the attitude that it cannot make known to this house exactly what are the views of the provinces in this respect, I am led to believe that something is the matter. Why should British Columbia, Manitoba or Nova Scotia take that position? If their proposals are fair and reasonable, or if their objections to the action the federal government is taking have some basis in fact, why should they not be prepared to give that information to members of this house?
This is not a provincial project; whether the premiers of the provinces I have named like it or not, this is a national project. Most of the money will be made available by the federal government before we are finished with this highway, and already a great deal of money has been spent on it by the provinces. That money belonged to the taxpayers,
Trans-Canada Highway not to the premier of our province and his little cabinet. So before I come to a decision on this bill I want any information that may be in the hands of the minister on this matter, and the correspondence that has taken place between this government and the government of Nova Scotia.
I do not understand why the department should take the attitude that it should withhold the correspondence, because, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, there is no law compelling it to do so. There is a law or practice under which that is done with respect to correspondence between this government and a foreign government, but otherwise it is a question of courtesy on the part of the minister. There may be times when it is necessary to withhold correspondence; some premier may write a letter he would be ashamed to have tabled in the house, and under such circumstances perhaps it would be only fair that the minister should withhold it. But this is a straight business proposition; and before I commit the people of Nova Scotia to the payment of fifty per cent of the cost of this trans-Canada highway, 1 want to know what value there is in it. I want to know to what extent Nova Scotia is to be reimbursed for what it has spent already on what will be part of this trans-Canada highway-and a good deal of money has been spent there. Much of the highway construction has been completed in that province; but apparently we are not going to get that information.
The attitude of the government would lead us to believe that correspondence between this government and the provinces has not been tabled previously in this house. This is not so. Many times I have sat in my place here and heard a motion go through for the tabling of correspondence with the provincial governments on many matters. Just at random I picked out one. I wanted to get as close to the maritimes as I could, so I have one which had to do with correspondence with the province of New Brunswick- and on a much more ticklish subject, mind you, than the trans-Canada highway. It will be found at page 4492 of Hansard of June 23, 1947. It is a motion by the member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), which reads as follows:
For a copy of a resolution moved by the minister of agriculture in the province of New Brunswick, and all correspondence which passed between the provincial minister and the federal Minister of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture, regarding a fair price on potatoes under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.
That motion passed unanimously, and it has to do with prices. If the position had been taken that such a disclosure would

Trans-Canada Highway place the importer or exporter of potatoes in New Brunswick at a disadvantage with his competitors, there would have been some basis for the argument that the correspondence should be withheld. But the motion passed unanimously. Today, when something having to do with the future is brought forward, something which has to do with the spending of public funds in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia and is vital to the people of those provinces, we are told we cannot see the correspondence.
I am not blaming the minister; he is only a cog in the machine. All he can do is carry out his orders, but I do not think the members of this house should submit to it. I do not believe any member should sit here and say he is going to commit his province to an expenditure of fifty per cent of the cost of this trans-Canada highway, and to the maintenance of that highway, when someone behind the scenes has decided the route by correspondence. The member does not know whether, from a business standpoint, the route is suitable to the province.
I am opposed to this measure until such time as we have an opportunity of seeing the correspondence. I cannot see any reason for holding it back. I might agree with every word the correspondence contained, but I would have to look at it. The government of Nova Scotia is presided over by one man, and he has no right to take the position that the correspondence is not to be tabled. I believe every member from the province of Nova Scotia has a right to see that correspondence. While I approve the principle of the bill, I am going to vote against it until I have heard from the people of Nova Scotia with regard to the project.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: This is the first opportunity I have had of speaking on this subject at this session. I have spoken on it on other occasions, but I believe I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say a few words about it today.
Let me say at once that I believe the minister deserves a great deal of credit for bringing the subject of the trans-Canada highway forward at this time. The question is not a new one in Canada; in fact I believe it has been discussed at every session since I came to this house in 1935.
One of the amazing things that I have noticed on my trips to Ottawa is the lack of a national highway. As I have travelled on the Canadian Pacific railway on my journey to Ottawa I have been amazed to see that sections of highway around the head of the lakes are practically completed. When I say practically completed I mean that there are

sections of five, ten, or fifteen miles that are completely graded and gravelled; yet there is no connecting link between those sections.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Oh, yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: The bridges are not even completed.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have been over it.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member must have had some wonderful means of transportation, or perhaps we are talking about different sections of this highway. I am talking about the sections that are built along the C.P.R. track in the province of Ontario, north of the great lakes. It seems to most people in Canada that this national highway would have been built long ago had it not been for the influence that the railways have been able to exert on those in high places. That should not be permitted, and work on the highway should be commenced as quickly as possible. Therefore I wish to congratulate the minister upon his doing the proper thing. The sooner the road is completed, the better pleased the people of Canada will be.
There is no question about it, sir; we need a trans-Canada highway. Possibly I have travelled the road between Ottawa and the west coast oftener than any other member of this house, with the exception of the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I have travelled the road between Ottawa and Alberta no less than fourteen times, and sections of it more often than that. I believe I have a knowledge of road conditions. It is extremely embarrassing for a Canadian, Mr. Speaker, who desires to go to Vancouver, Alberta, or Saskatchewan, to have to go through the United States and then back up into Alberta or wherever he is going. It is embarrassing to have the United States authorities say to you: "Well, why did you come this way?" You must tell them that Canada has not a proper road. Then they laugh, and rightly so, to think that a nation as great as Canada cannot afford a national highway. It is a national disgrace, and the minister deserves a great deal of credit for introducing the subject now.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I am of the opinion we should have an all-weather, hardsurfaced highway across Canada. There are not many of the national highways in the United States that are four-lane highways. Most of them are two-lane highways, so I cannot criticize the government too strongly about that at the moment. I say "at the moment" advisedly. It is a good start; but when the government is negotiating with the provinces, provision should be made now for obtaining a right of way which would permit the construction of a four-lane highway. I do not believe it will

oe very long before sufficient traffic will be moving on the all-Canada route, particularly in certain sections of the country, to make it necessary to have a four-lane highway. Once the right of way is obtained, it is exceedingly difficult in many places to get a greater width. It would be more efficient and more businesslike to provide for a right of way sufficiently wide to take care of a four-lane highway, so that when the time arrives there will be no difficulty in widening the highway.
Every province is going to benefit by this highway across Canada. I am sure that the people of Alberta will benefit greatly by an east-west road. There is one road now running north and south across our province, and another road is under construction. Before very long we hope to have two complete highways running north and south. These will act as feeder roads to the main trans-Canada highway going east and west. I believe that is true of every province of Canada.
It will be an asset to the people of every province to have this trans-Canada highway. It will be a great tourist attraction, or at least it should be, to a great many people in the United States. It will be a direct benefit to those in the states directly south of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, because tourists will come up into those provinces and cross over the western provinces on a good all-weather hard-surfaced highway.
The trans-Canada highway should be of great importance in the matter of defence. This factor also should be borne in mind when the highway is being built. It is one of the reasons why a moment ago I suggested that when we are acquiring the right of way we should make provision for a four-lane highway.
If the highway is handled properly, it will be an asset also for trucking. I want to mention that particularly because anyone who has travelled the highways in the United States will have noticed the tremendous amount of trucking that goes on over their national highways. In fact in the United States trucking has become such big business that special roads are being built between large centres such as Detroit and Chicago; these are four-lane highways on which left turns are not allowed; if you wish to turn left you must first make a right turn and then go under a subway. These roads are called express highways and are used for the swift movement of motor vehicles of all kinds, including the automobiles of tourists, but particularly the heavy trucks.
Trans-Canada Highway
We must bear in mind the fact that this road of necessity will be used for trucks and trucking. The government would show exceedingly good judgment if they left this road free for trucking and did not bring it under the control of the board of transport commissioners. One of the reasons why the United States has made such great progress is that free enterprise has been allowed to operate. It is true that if trucking is permitted it is going to affect the railways a great deal, but the railways will have to modernize themselves to cope with the competition which is bound to come.
My mind goes back to the time when we enacted legislation in this house giving the railways an advantage over trucking in the agreed charges; that legislation put trucks at a great disadvantage. Now we are to have a national highway, and if we are to hamstring the trucking business and make it conform with all the desires of the railways, it seems to me that we shall retard the progress of this country rather than advance it.
I was interested in reading an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, November 23, 1949. It is headed: "Present brief in behalf of truckers." Speaking about the competition of trucks and railways, it had this to say:
The trucking industry yesterday told the royal commission on transportation there is "discrimination against highway transport in Canada."
Opening its submission before the three-man body investigating national transportation problems, the Canadian Automobile Transportation Association entered these complaints:
1.	Commercial truckers are barred from the haulage of feed grains from lake ports to inland points on which the federal government pays a subsidy to farmers under a feed-grains assistance policy.
2.	A ban on through hauls by way of national parks against commercial motor vehicles is "intended to protect the railways."
3.	Commercial motor vehicles are not given fair treatment on the Canadian National Railways ferry linking Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. A previous complaint to this effect had been made by the island government.
4.	Trucks are barred from carrying most forms of alcoholic liquor from the United States into Canada.
John Magee of Toronto, executive secretary, delivered the brief for the C.A.T.A., which represents federations in six provinces with a membership of 5,000 trucking firms.
Five thousand trucking firms is no small business; when you consider the amount of haulage that is done by these trucks, you will see that it is exceedingly large business. The proposed trans-Canada highway is to traverse national parks. If the federal government in the future takes the same attitude that it has taken in the past with regard to trucks passing through national parks, then of course they hamstring the trucking business. Trucking on the national highway will just be negligible, because obviously trucks cannot go from one province

Trans-Canada Highway 10 another on the trans-Canada highway if they are not permitted to travel through national parks. The present attitude of the government is that they will not permit this haulage to go through national parks. The railways therefore have a decided advantage over trucking. This situation leaves them in a position to dictate charges. We have the same thing now under the agreed charges, where the railway can go to a large company and say: We will haul your freight, provided that we haul it the year round. To large companies such as Eaton's which bring a great deal of freight from the east to the west and have to go north of the great lakes in the wintertime, the railways say: If you do not give us your business all the year, we will not haul it for you in the wintertime.


Mr. Hatfield:: They cannot do that.


Charles Edward Johnston: They do it; make no mistake about that. Under the agreed charges, they do it. That is one of the reasons why our transportation system has been so bad. If we make the condition the same on this national highway, it will be a bad thing for Canada. I think that particular business should be left entirely free and competitive. The railways will just have to modernize their facilities in order to meet the change in times.
Let me say a word about the construction of the national highway. The undertaking that the minister has gone ahead with is no easy thing; it is no simple matter to construct a highway that will stand up. The minister is proposing, at the outset I hope, to build a two-lane highway; that is a good start. I hope he will take into consideration the suggestion I have made of providing for a four-lane highway when the right of way is acquired.
The minister expects there will be about 5,000 miles of highway-and I would assume that judgment is sound-with a total cost of about $300 million, the dominion's share being about $150 million, the federal government to assume fifty per cent of that cost. I am of the opinion that some provinces-and at the moment I am not speaking about Alberta-will not be able to take advantage of this proposal if they have to put up fifty per cent of the cost. We in Alberta of late have been fortunate in obtaining additional revenues through the expansion of the production of oil. But it must be remembered that oil is a depleting asset, and those in charge of the business affairs of that province are well aware of that. Some of the other provinces are not in so fortunate a position. If these other provinces find themselves unable to take advantage of the fifty

per cent to be paid by the federal government, and cannot complete their section of the highway, it just means that the highway will be ineffective, because no one is going to travel from here westward to Winnipeg on a hard-surfaced road and then not be able to go any farther owing to the fact that that province was not able to build its hardsurfaced highway. They will go from here to the United States thence to the Canadian west, and leave in that country the money they would otherwise spend in Canada.
The minister estimates that about sixty per cent of the 5,000 miles is already hardsurfaced. He may be correct on that but I am a little sceptical. I think the sixty per cent is a little too high. From here east most of the highway would be hard-surfaced. Whether it is in sufficiently good condition to be used as a trans-Canada highway I am not in a position to say; but certainly from Ottawa west nothing like sixty per cent is hard-surfaced.
The minister spoke of a hard-surfaced top of 24 feet. That would probably be about the average of the hard-surfaced tops of United States highways. But there is one provision I have not seen in the bill, Mr. Speaker, which I think should be considered. When a hard-surfaced highway is built, for safety reasons if for nothing else there should be a four-foot gravel surface on each side of the hard surface so that trucks or cars, if they have a flat tire or have to pull off the road for any other reason, may be able to do so, in safety. This is one of the greatest criticisms I have of hard-surfaced roads, particularly in western Canada. I speak now of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. On nearly all of these highways there is no place by the side of the road to which you can go to make necessary repairs. It is a very serious thing. It would be safe to say that on these hardsurfaced roads at least fifty per cent of the fatal accidents are caused by cars parking on the hard surface. In the regulations that the government are submitting to the provinces they should of necessity make provision for a four-foot gravel section on each side of the highway. I see the minister nodding his head. I presume it will be included in the regulations, and it is a worth-while thing.
Let me come to another aspect of this question, namely, the maintenance cost. The federal government is not undertaking any obligation at all for maintenance. When the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) spoke on this question he referred to the fact that in Alberta we are saddled with a provincial debt which was created by

borrowing money to build roads and highways. Many of the roads which were built thirty or forty years ago are completely gone, but we are still paying for them. Since the Social Credit government came into power in Alberta every foot of highway that has been built in that province has been paid for. I do not care how good a road you build, it is going to deteriorate. The minister says that this program is to last for seven years. I venture to say that if this national highway was started tomorrow, by the time it was completed, at the end of seven years, sections of it would have to be rebuilt, depending on the type of soil that you must travel through. This is a major consideration in building a highway. I see the minister shaking his head the other way now. Nevertheless it is a fact that in some sections of the country, depending upon the soil texture, the road will deteriorate faster than in others. I do not care what kind of trans-Canada highway you build, in at least twenty years some major repair work will have to be done on it. The provinces will not be in a position financially to take care of that maintenance in addition to paying fifty per cent of the actual cost of construction.
In all fairness it seems to me that the federal government should assume at least a portion of the maintenance cost, having in mind the fact that within seven to fifteen or twenty years sections of the road will have to be rebuilt. I have never seen a highway yet -and I have travelled over a great number of them-either in Canada or in the United States, parts of which had not to be rebuilt from time to time. I know of one important highway in the United States, forty or fifty miles of which were built four years ago, and last year they were tearing up the whole surface and rebuilding it. They had probably run into some very poor soil, and that section of the road was not standing up as well as other parts of it. What will be the position of the provinces in circumstances such as these? That kind of repair may well be classed as maintenance or upkeep. Neither the maritime provinces nor the western provinces will be in a position financially to carry out these heavy maintenance charges in certain sections.
I do not think I should say a great deal at this time as to the route of the trans-Canada highway. I know that many suggestions have been made to the minister as to where the road should go. It seems to me that when you are building a road like this the governments and people of the provinces should be just about as good judges of the route as anyone can be. Consideration will have to be given to many problems. Certainly one of the 45781-1494
Trans-Canada Highway important advantages of a national highway will be its attraction of tourists. When tourists come to a country to spend their holidays they want to see something. Among the most worth-while attractions in Alberta are Banff and Calgary, of course, as well as Lake Louise and the icefields. These are attractions which cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the world, and if you have no highway there, you are going to lose business. When I say the route should be left to the good judgment of those in charge of the provinces, I mean just this: that the Alberta people are going to feel that the route must go through Calgary, for the very obvious reasons I have indicated. In leaving a certain amount of latitude in this regard to the provinces, the minister has shown exceedingly good judgment.


Mr. Fulton:: So long as the highway goes through Calgary.


Charles Edward Johnston: Anyone who uses good judgment must of course feel that it should go through Calgary. I shall not argue the matter at length.
I would ask the minister to keep in mind some of the constructive suggestions I have made. These are things which are necessary in connection with the building and maintenance of the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I would not like the idea to get abroad that those of us from Vancouver or from British Columbia think that this is a disappointing bill. If it is the opinion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that it is disappointing, then I would say to him that I do not think he is representing the view of the people in our province.
In the light of the fact that we have had no formal federal aid in the matter of the trans-Canada highway, although over the years aid has been given to various provinces, this is the most popular piece of legislation that could be introduced by the government at the present time.
By its very nature there are many problems about which the provinces must be consulted. I assume that sooner or later- and I suppose it will be sooner-the minister will be meeting the heads of the public works departments of the various provinces. I hope that the spirit pervades in that meeting which I think should pervade in the House of Commons, namely, that a British Columbian should be just as much interested in the efficiency of the trans-Canada highway as it affects the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis)

Trans-Canada Highway as in its efficiency in British Columbia. This should be the spirit, because it we are to have a trans-Canada highway we want to have a highway on which we from British Columbia can travel right through to Nova Scotia and the other provinces, and on which they can travel to our province.
One of the greatest advantages will be that of bringing together the people of the various provinces. I assume, however, that the different provinces have varying views as to the importance of the trans-Canada highway. I rather imagine that in Saskatchewan the people think the construction of this highway is advisable, and would like it very much, particularly if they can get some federal aid. For us in British Columbia the trans-Canada highway is absolutely imperative. If we did not receive some federal aid we would have to proceed with the building of it, depending to the extent of one hundred per cent upon our own resources.
I should like to place some facts on record because I take issue very strongly with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he says that he is opposed to reimbursement of the provinces in respect of those areas which might be incorporated in the final trans-Canada highway route. I should think that with any reflection at all-and I am rather of the opinion that he will have changed his mind by the time he returns to British Columbia-


Howard Charles Green: No; I do not change my mind so easily.


Arthur Laing: I suggest that this is the only way in which compensation can be made for the enormous difference in cost in the respective provinces. I believe the figures I shall place on Hansard will be of interest to hon. members from all the provinces, because they show the cost of road construction where we have to gouge out mountainsides, and where the roads hug the hills, with precipitate clearances into rivers from heights sometimes as much as 800 or 900 feet.
We have done an enormous amount of road-building in British Columbia in recent years, and are proud of it. We are particularly proud of the 24-foot Hope-Princeton highway. I am sure if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra were to go over it with me he would agree that it is ample for British Columbia, and will be for many years to come. I drove over it recently from Keremeos to Penticton in forty-five minutes; not many years ago it would have taken an entire day to make the trip.
Here are some of the figures-and I would ask hon. members to keep in mind the fact that they show the cost per mile, exclusive

of hard-surfacing. This is just for the road building, up to the point where it can be hard-surfaced. The cost per mile of the Ashcroft-Cache Creek road was $30,806; the cost of the Chase Village road was $81,689 per mile for a small piece. For the Westbank-Trepanier highway the cost was $50,289 per mile; for only four-tenths of a mile on the Boston Bar road-and how lucky we were that it- was only four-tenths of a mile-the cost was $99,000, or at a rate of $247,500 per mile. This was clear blasting of rock; and I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is part of the trans-Canada highway. The Chum Creek-Squilax highway cost $54,545 per mile. The trans-Canada highway at Robbins Creek cost $166,250 per mile-and all this to draw up the road, without hard-surfacing. We have spent on section A of the Hope-Princeton highway $2,773,127.85, or $104,646 per mile. That was for a distance of 26-5 miles. Section B of the Hope-Princeton highway, for a distance of 56-5 miles, cost $3,371,496.81, or $59,672.50 per mile.
These figures will serve to indicate our problems in British Columbia. Without some reimbursement in connection with the incorporation of these highways in the trans-Canada system, we could not call upon British Columbia to assume fifty per cent of the cost of the remaining unfinished parts.
I hope that the same co-operative spirit, and the feeling of pride in the construction of a trans-Canada highway, will characterize the negotiations between the dominion and the provinces as is being shown in the discussion of this bill. The government, and particularly the minister, are to be complimented most highly upon the introduction of something which will be one of the greatest monuments along the pathway of Canadian progress.


Mr. Gordon B. Isnor (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) in dealing with the matter from the point of view of the broad benefits to be derived by Canada as a whole rather than from the narrow provincial point of view.
As on former occasions, I listened this morning with keen interest to what the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) had to say as to the attitude of the various provinces. I was pleased to note that without exception all the provinces are prepared to enter into an undertaking such as he proposes. It augurs well for the unity of Canada when we find all the provinces willing to co-operate, so that those in the

extreme easterly sections may enjoy the benefit of visits from those in the western and central provinces,
I differ to some extent with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) in his criticism in regard to the tabling of the correspondence with the provinces. I am not a bit concerned about the question whether the correspondence with Nova Scotia is tabled; in fact I can see advantages in its not being tabled at this stage.
The hon. member for Cumberland is well versed in all aspects of highway construction because at one time he was minister of highways for the province of Nova Scotia. I can remember sitting opposite to him in the legislature, and I recall that he carried on his work in a most efficient manner and conducted the administration of his office in such a way as to make it troublesome for us to criticize him. But I recall, too, what he said in 1932 when a scheme of hard-surfaced roads for Nova Scotia was suggested by the opposition, which included myself. At that time the hon. member said-whether rightly or wrongly the people of Nova Scotia can judge-that he did not think that the province was financially able to undertake such a project.


Percy Chapman Black: I stated repeatedly in the legislature that it was a matter of economic necessity to proceed with the hard-surfacing of roads, but that we would have to do preliminary work before that program could be started.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am glad the hon. member for Cumberland has put that statement on record, but I think the people of Nova Scotia will recall that the statement I referred to a moment ago was made. I recall as though it were yesterday the stand which the hon. member took when minister of highways of that province. He said: "While I appreciate the criticism offered by the member for Halifax, I wish to say that the province of Nova Scotia is not now financially able to undertake a hard-surfacing program of roads such as is suggested." I put that on the record. I am pleased to note the hon. member's progressive thought in regard to the construction of a national highway from the extreme east to the extreme west.


Percy Chapman Black: My attitude has not changed in the years with respect to hard-surfacing, but we had to do preliminary work before undertaking that hard-surfacing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not mind the interruptions. I think it is just as well to have this all on the record so that the people of Nova Scotia will know. I am doing this now because of the
Trans-Canada Highway position in which the hon. member endeavoured to place me a short time ago when he said that I had seduced the Minister of Agriculture-that is the term he used-aw^y from Amherst, Cumberland county, to Halifax. I am not going to make further reference to that, except to say that it is entirely incorrect.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, not only on the able manner in which he has presented this matter to the house, but on the negotiations he carried out with the various provinces. He is now able to report to us that the project is in healthy condition, and he has presented a bill to carry out the plan as outlined.
There is one respect in which I differ with what the minister said in his statement. If we are to undertake the building of a national highway we should start with that in mind. I suggest that instead of a 22- to 24-foot two-lane highway, provision should be made for a four-lane highway-perhaps not right through the whole distance, but certainly fn those parts of the country where there is likely to be fairly heavy traffic.
In California and other parts of the United States they started with two, three and four-lane highways, but subsequently they were forced to widen them to six and eight-lane highways. That widening was done at great cost because of the increased value of the property which had to be taken over. We should realize that the first cost is the cheapest, and provide for a four-lane highway where traffic warrants such a width.
I am not going to deal with the tourist question, except to say that I am entirely in accord with the resolution and the bill. I feel that this money will be more than an expenditure; it will be an investment. The results will be shown by the attitude of those who visit this country. Just last evening I heard General Wavell speak over the radio in high terms of the progress made in Canada. We should make sure that we are building something for the future which will be worth while.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: When the house rose at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had been referring to the fact that I was in accord with the general principles of the legislation introduced by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). I recall that in 1936 the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who I believe was then Minister of Transport, brought in a transport bill

Trans-Canada Highway which not only dealt with rail and air travel but also gave the provinces an opportunity to share jurisdiction over the highways. At that time the provinces, quite rightly, took exception to the provisions of part 3 of the bill, which dealt with highways. They felt that highways came strictly within the jurisdiction of the provinces and that for this reason they should not be dealt with by the bill. Subsequently that part of the bill was dropped, and the legislation dealt only with transportation by rail and air, and a portion of water transportation.
I believe the same views are held by the provinces today, except that they are willing to co-operate in a much greater degree. I do not wonder that they have assumed that position, because the proposition that has been placed before them is very generous. Almost any businessman would be prepared to enlarge his business if he had to put up only fifty per cent of the cost; and that is practically what the government is offering the provinces under the terms of this legislation. As a matter of fact they are doing better than that; they are saying, "We will match your contribution dollar for dollar to the extent of $150 million. Then when the work is finished, in seven years, the entire proposition will be yours. You may collect the licence fees, take advantage of the tourist traffic, and derive all the other benefits that may accrue from a national highway." So, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who did not see how the Nova Scotia members could vote for this bill, as far as I am concerned I look upon this as a splendid opportunity not only for Nova Scotia but for all the provinces.
In bis statement the minister said he did not see how he could go ahead with this project unless all the provinces agreed. I say to him and to the government that they would be quite justified in carrying out the agreement with as few as five provinces, if only that many signified their willingness to take advantage of the legislation. I believe the minister would be well advised to proceed in such case, without waiting for the rest of the provinces to come in. I offer that as a suggestion because the proposition looks so good to me. I really cannot see why any province would hesitate to come under the legislation which was so clearly explained by the minister this morning.
As the minister stated, this is simply legislation of an enabling nature, to permit the provinces to take advantage of the offer if they feel so inclined. It would be wonderful, I think, for Canadians living in the

extreme west or in the central provinces who wanted to visit Nova Scotia, that beautiful ocean playground on the extreme east, to be able to travel the entire distance over a Canadian national highway. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) suggested that the road be extended southward to the United States, but I do not agree. We are very pleased to receive tourists from the New England states and particularly to have our native sons who are now living in Boston and the surrounding district pay us visits, but I think our first duty is to provide a national highway which will serve our own provinces.
Returning to the question of the advantages accruing from this highway, as far as the provinces other than Quebec and Ontario are concerned, it seems to me that from a business point of view those other provinces would be well advised to enter into this agreement, because of the great possibility in connection with tourist trade. According to the census of 1941 Quebec at that time had a population of 3,331,882 and Ontario 3,787,655. I think we all appreciate what this means to the other provinces as far as the tourist business is concerned. During the past few years we in Nova Scotia have been very fortunate, in that we have had tourists from every state in the United States. I also noticed them from British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces of Canada. The great majority of western tourists who come to the maritime provinces, however, find it necessary to travel by the southern route, through the United States. It is unfortunate that this should be so, but I am sure that situation will be remedied after this legislation goes through this house and is endorsed, as I am sure it will be, by all the provinces of Canada.
I do not say this in a political way at all, and I would not want the hon. member for Cumberland to think I was doing so; but there has been a wonderful improvement in the tourist traffic in Nova Scotia in the last fifteen years. People have come from all parts of Canada and, as I mentioned a moment ago, from all over the United States to enjoy the wonderful scenery we have to offer in our province; and they all leave speaking in the very highest terms not only of the hospitality they have enjoyed but of our fine highways. I believe great credit is due the premier of Nova Scotia, Angus L. Macdonald, for the progress that has been made in this regard; and again I do not say this in any political sense at all.
In his remarks this morning the minister said this program would cover a period of some seven years. I sincerely hope it will not take that long. I fully appreciate that the

construction of five thousand miles of paved or hard-surfaced road is a big undertaking, but we all recall what was done in connection with the Alaska highway. There we have a road sixteen hundred miles long, twenty-four to twenty-six feet wide, extending from Dawson Creek in British Columbia to Whitehorse and Fairbanks, Alaska. In the spring of 1942 that was virgin territory, the only means of transportation a pioneer air route. In November, 1942, it was officially opened for military traffic. So I say the minister may be able to shorten the period of construction, so that instead of seven years we may look forward to seeing this project completed in perhaps four to five years. If that can be done the various parts of Canada will enjoy that much more prosperity from the tourist traffic.
I said I was going to be brief in my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not wish to let this opportunity pass, however, without adding my voice to those who have so warmly welcomed the legislation that has been placed before us by the minister. He stated his case clearly, and there was no misunderstanding what the government was prepared to do. I simply wish to accord him my full support.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with reference to the matter which is before the house. I believe the proposal to construct a trans-Canada highway has received the approval of all members from all sections of Canada. As has been stated by the previous speakers, it is not a new idea. The matter was considered by the provinces and then the war intervened, otherwise I have no doubt that the trans-Canada highway would have been built by now.
I feel that it is a splendid idea to link the provinces of Canada together. The more the people of the various provinces visit one another, the stronger Canada will be. There has not been enough of that in the past. In the province of New Brunswick, we are in a rather peculiar position. Upon looking at the map one can see that this province is the link between the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. Because of this, I feel there are problems facing the province of New Brunswick which are not found in the other parts of Canada. I do not envy the position in which the minister finds himself in attempting to work out the details, because I am sure there will be a great divergence of opinion in the different provinces as to the route of the trans-Canada highway.
During the last election campaign in my own province, as I remember, three different
Trans-Canada Highway routes were mentioned by the local government. I might say that all three of them went through my constituency, so I was impartial. Just to indicate the difference of opinion as to the route this highway should follow through the province of New Brunswick, I should like to read some of the correspondence in that connection which took place in November of 1948. The deputy minister of public works in the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Barbour-who I might say is one of the most efficient public officials in Canada-replied to a letter from Mr. Wardle of the Department of Mines and Resources. It is dated November 25, 1948, and reads in part as follows:
It is the intention of the government here to set out the trans-Canada highway as follows:
No. 2 from the Quebec border north of Edmunds-ton down to Fredericton; thence across the Saint John river and following No. 9 along the shore of Grand lake to Sussex: and thence to the Nova Scotia border near Amherst and to Cape Tormen-tine for connection to the island.
Evidently that was the decision of the New Brunswick government in November, 1948.
There have been some changes since then, and on January 24, 1949, the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. W. S. Anderson, wrote to the Hon. James A. MacKinnon as follows:
It has now been found advisable to change the route-
Speaking of the route of the trans-Canada highway.
-and we suggest No. 2 highway from the Quebec border to Fredericton with a branch into Saint John through Oromocto following route 2A to Westfield and thence into Saint John. Also for the benefit of Nova Scotia and island traffic the trans-Canada highway would cross the Saint John river at Fredericton following route 9 to Sussex and thence through to the Nova Scotia border and connect with the island at Cape Tormentine. This has the effect of lengthening the trans-Canada highway by 21 miles.
I am sure that must be a mistake. It can be seen from that letter, however, that there was a change and the government felt that there should be two routes from Fredericton; one down through Oromocto, and then what is known as the broad route through Westfield and into Saint John. From Saint John it would follow No. 2 to Moncton. It was also suggested that for Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia traffic, in order to shorten the distance in travelling to those provinces, the highway should follow No. 9 from Fredericton to Sussex and then into Moncton.
The next letter referring to this subject is dated September 29, 1949, written by Hon. W. S. Anderson to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). It reads as follows:
As explained before the trans-Canada highway passed through Saint John to Moncton-

Trans-Canada Highway
He means the route that was laid out when the trans-Canada highway was mentioned some years ago.
-and thence to the Nova Scotia border, but in order to make a shorter route we did suggest No. 9 highway from Fredericton to Sussex in order to cut off distance.
That rather indicates that the government was willing to drop the second proposed route from Fredericton over No. 9 to Sussex, and accept the route from Saint John to Moncton.
On November 4, 1949, the provincial minister of public works wrote to the Hon. Mr. Winters. He was replying to a letter in which the minister of reconstruction set out the general program for the trans-Canada highway. Speaking of the general concept the provincial minister said:
It is submitted that this should be amended to read "the most practical route across Canada and each of the provinces." For reasons set out in my letter to you of September 29 we cannot reconcile ourselves to any route through New Brunswick which will by-pass Saint John.
That became the definite policy of the government. On September 19, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply wrote Hon. Mr. Anderson stating:
The choice of the route of the trans-Canada highway across each province rests with the province.
That is quite a definite statement.
The federal government is of the opinion that it should1 follow the shortest practical east-west route across each province, consistent with the needs of the province; and that the trans-Canada highway as a whole should follow the shortest practical east-west route across Canada consistent with the needs of Canada as a whole. The federal government's participation in the cost would have to be conditioned upon those factors being given adequate consideration.
On this basis, and as indicated in my discussion with the Hon. Mr. McNair, the federal government would consider appropriate modification from your original submission of January 24 last regarding the location of the highway in New Brunswick. The route on which it is believed that the federal government should contribute (completion costs and back costs) is as follows: Entering New Brunswick from a point on the Quebec boundary north of Edmundston and following highway No. 2 to Fredericton, thence to Sussex over highway No. 9, from Sussex to Aulac through Moncton over highway No. 2, and from Aulac to Cape Tormentine over highway No. 16.
The minister does not definitely state he will not accept the proposition made by the New Brunswick government but he strongly suggests that the route which the dominion government is prepared to accept is the route I have just described.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister is going to have considerable difficulty in persuading the different provinces that the shortest east-west route is the one which they must accept. I might also point

out that, so far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned, its portion of the trans-Canada highway will carry the cars, trucks and so on from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the traffic from the United States which goes through New Brunswick into Quebec, Ontario and the west. The cost of maintenance of the highway in the province of New Brunswick is going to be a heavy one; I think it will certainly be much heavier than in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and undoubtedly it will be much heavier than in the province of Newfoundland.
The minister used one expression, "the needs of the province", which I think needs some explanation. When the minister speaks again I think he should explain to the house just what he means by "the needs of the province". From reading the correspondence here, it is rather hard to know just what is meant by that expression. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) spoke about the great tourist traffic. One of the needs of our province is more tourist trade. If we are to have a trans-Canada highway for that particular need, it should be built in that section of the province which will induce the most tourist traffic. Another thing that might be considered a need is the shortest route between the larger centres of population. If that is a need, that would have to be taken into consideration. I am sure that the general term "needs of the province" has little meaning at all.
As to the cost, I would also point out to the minister that, like some of the hon. members who have already spoken, I feel that the cost is going to be a heavy burden on the smaller provinces, particularly on our province of New Brunswick. I think we shall have more mileage per capita of population than any other province in Canada. The trans-Canada highway will traverse the whole length of the province of New Brunswick, north and south. This morning the minister said, I think, that the total mileage would be about 5,000. It is estimated that the mileage in New Brunswick will be about 450. I do not know how much it costs to build a mile of hard-surfaced road in Canada today, but I think the average for my province is around $100,000 a mile.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: 


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister shakes his head. I do not think my estimate is far out. Having regard to the high cost of material and the high cost of labour, I would not be at all surprised if he finds that this trans-Canada highway, 5,000 miles in length, cannot be

built for the $300 million which he has mentioned. I am satisfied that in New Brunswick alone it will cost from $25 million to $30 million.
I should like to point out this fact. We in the province of New Brunswick today are the heaviest taxed province in the Dominion of Canada. We have the highest per capita debt. We pay more for our gasoline than do those in any other province. We also pay more for our car licences. If an extra burden like this is added to those already carried by the people, without more assistance from the government, I think it will be exceedingly difficult for a small province like New Brunswick to bear the expense. I think we in New Brunswick have more road mileage, including hard-surfaced and gravel roads, than any other province in the dominion.
I have here in my hand the Canada Year Book, 1948-49; at page 709 there is a statement of construction, maintenance and general expenditures on rural highways, bridges and ferries in Canada by provinces, 1942-46. I am sorry that I could not get the figures for 1948 and 1949, but I think 1946 is a fair year. The construction expenditures in the province of New Brunswick in 1946 amounted to $7,032,089. I will compare that figure with that in the province of Manitoba, in which it was only $2,143,505. Everyone knows that Manitoba is a much richer province than New Brunswick. We all know that the population of Manitoba is perhaps double that of our own province. Yet their cost for highways was just about one-third of what it was in our province. The cost in Saskatchewan in that year was $4,372,502, a little over half as large as ours. In Alberta it was $6,205,275. In British Columbia, a province with many times the wealth of ours, and a population of over twice what it is in New Brunswick, the construction expenditures were $5,887,779 or just slightly more than half what we spent in New Brunswick. I will not give the figures for the larger provinces, but in proportion they work out at about the same ratio.
Then I come to the maintenance expenditures. For the maintenance of our highways in New Brunswick in 1946 we spent $4,144,259; Manitoba spent $1,189,168; Saskatchewan, $1,784,940; and British Columbia, $2,931,839. By comparison, one can see the burden that the construction, maintenance and upkeep of roads is in a small province like ours.
Then, as to administration and general expenditures, in New Brunswick in 1946 the figure was $573,806; in Manitoba, it was $311,227; in Saskatchewan, $165,187; in Alberta, $22,461 and in British Columbia it was $686,319, slightly more than in New 45781-150
Trans-Canada Highway Brunswick. I am simply quoting these figures, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to you that the burden which will be placed on New Brunswick is going to be a serious and heavy one.
I think the question of constructing highways comes into the picture. In New Brunswick it is difficult to construct highways. We have many rivers, brooks, streams, hills and other impediments that are not found, for instance, in Saskatchewan or many parts of Alberta or Manitoba. It is going to cost far more per mile to construct the trans-Canada highway in our province than it is in any of these other provinces. In equity, I think that such a province as New Brunswick should receive in compensation from the federal treasury more than the fifty per cent which the minister mentioned this morning.
Another point which I should like to call to the attention of the minister is the width of the road. I think perhaps his statement was such as to indicate that some changes could be made. He said it would be 100 feet. Most of the roads constructed in the maritime provinces are 66 feet wide. Along the border of the road there are rows of trees that have been there from 50 to 100 years. There are buildings right up to the edge of the road. If the minister insists that the road be 100 feet wide, I can see much difficulty in widening the roads through the maritime provinces. These are old localities. The difficulty will be very great.
Another matter which the minister should take into consideration is the question of railway crossings. I do not know how the construction of the road will be carried on in other parts of Canada, but the part that is suggested along the Saint John river from Edmundston to Fredericton has many level crossings. A highway of this kind, which is being built to encourage traffic from one end of the country to 'the other, should be a safe one. On a public highway of this kind everything should be done to provide for the safety of the people using it. When the minister brings in his final bill I hope that some provision will be made to ensure the safety of railway crossings.
There is another point which should be taken into consideration. I do not know whether this is a problem in other provinces as it is in ours, but when work is provided on our highways the practice has grown up of giving that work almost entirely to government supporters.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, and we have suffered under it for many years in the province of New Brunswick. If the minister has anything to say about it I know

Trans-Canada Highway that will not happen. That is the reason I am calling it to his attention now. I hope that the minister will see to it that in the employment that is provided in constructing the trans-Canada highway no preference will be shown to anyone, and particularly in these times when there is such an increase in unemployment throughout Canada. This will be a great opportunity to take up the slack of unemployment which is arising in all parts of Canada, and particularly in the maritimes. I ask the minister to use all his influence to see that no preference in employment will be given on this highway. These are just a few points that I wished to call to the minister's attention. Personally I am in favour of the trans-Canada highway. I think it is a splendid idea. I thought it was a splendid idea some fifteen or more years ago when it was first mooted by the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The idea of joining our country together in this national highway is good, and I wish the minister every success in what I believe is going to be a very difficult task.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I shall not delay the house very long. First of all I wish to congratulate the minister on this bill, No. 194, to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. I congratulate him on being the first cabinet minister in 1949 to recognize what just about everybody else in Canada has recognized for the last fifteen or twenty years, namely, that the building of the trans-Canada highway is a matter of national importance, and a project for which the federal government should take some responsibility.
I think this is one bill on which we can all agree, at least on the principles of it, regardless of our provinces and regardless of our political differences. This is a matter of great concern to the country, and it is one that I am sure people from all parts of Canada and of all political parties in Canada will appreciate.
There are some things about the bill that I like, and there are some things that I dislike. I am not going to emphasize the things that I dislike because I feel that this bill marks the first step taken by the federal government in the building of a trans-Canada highway. From the minister's remarks I presume he believes that the government can put $150 million into this project over a period of seven years and then pull out of the project entirely. Quite seriously, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the minister believes that. I doubt whether he believes for one minute that the federal government can enter upon this project, stay with it for a few years, and then turn it back to the provinces. Let us examine the idea that once the road is built the federal government 
wiU bear no part of the cost of upkeep. I am quite sure that once the minister sits down with the representatives of the provinces, once they get down to the serious business of the details of this project, he will find that the federal government, having gone into the building of the highway, will not be able to get out. I recall that many years ago the government took much the same attitude on a grant for agricultural education and technical education. It was to be a grant for a few years, and then the matter turned back to the provinces. Experience showed that once the government had gone into that business it just could not get out. I am quite confident that as time goes on we shall find the present minister, or some other minister, coming back to parliament year after year with amendments to this legislation which will indicate that the federal government is bearing an increasing proportion of the cost of upkeep of the highway.
I welcome this legislation because it is a step in the right direction, and I look upon it as merely a first step, and not by any means one that is finished in this bill.
There are a few points I should like to raise on which the minister can probably give us some more information. I am not quite clear as to how this $150 million is to be allocated to the provinces. In a general way the minister indicated that it would be allocated on the basis of population and on the cost per mile of highway. I am sure the house would welcome a clearer statement, if it is possible for the minister to give it. The house would like to know just what general formula will be adopted in the allocation of the $150 million. I wonder whether the minister can tell us if this $150 million, if it is matched by the provinces, thus making $300 million, will give us five thousand miles of good hard-surfaced highway as he expects. I hope that part of that $150 million is to be used to reimburse the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis for moneys they have already spent on provincial highways that will form a part of the national highway. Has the minister any estimate as to how much of that $150 million will be used to reimburse the provinces for work that has already been done? In other words, can we arrive at any conclusion as to just how much of this $150 million is likely to be spent on the construction of new highways?
He has told us that the question of routes to be followed will be left to the provinces, and, as other speakers have said, in that I agree with him. I cannot blame the federal minister for not wanting to tackle the particular problem of deciding, for instance, whether the highway is to go through the Ottawa valley, or whether it is to go up to

Toronto, and then up Yonge street to North Bay. I can quite understand why the minister would prefer to have the provincial authorities settle that problem.
That is only with reference to Ontario. There are other sections of the highway where there will be just as great differences of opinion as to the choice of routes. I am confident the government will have to face in time-and I feel certain the government of necessity will do it in the future-the building of not just one trans-Canada highway following any definite route. There are a number of places all across the country where alternate routes are needed, and where two or more alternate routes have advantages.
I certainly visualize the time when, having spent the $150 million of federal money on the building of one highway-and I am not particular which route that highway follows -we shall then follow that up by building alternate routes. For instance, in Ontario such alternate route might follow the Ottawa valley, or go around by Toronto, Yonge street and North Bay. In northern Ontario it might go through Kapuskasing, with an alternate route following the Canadian Pacific along the north shore of lake Superior. A similar situation has developed in the west.
I believe that in future this condition will have to be met, and not by one highway. The minister and other members of the cabinet might as well make up their minds now- because they will have to do so later-that they are not going to get off by contributing to just one trans-Canada highway following one definite route. There will be considerable national advantage in having alternate routes in certain provinces, and possibly feeder lines from certain points on the United States border so as to make it convenient for American visitors coming to this country to reach the trans-Canada highway. Those feeder lines will be just as important a part of the trans-Canada highway as the main highway itself.
If the minister thinks for one moment that the federal government is going to get away with building only one route, contributing $150 million over a period of seven years, and then pulling out of the project and leaving it to the provinces, he is not taking a realistic view of the situation. Indeed I doubt whether that is the point of view held by the minister.
There has been some comment concerning the authority the act will give to the minister. One section for instance states that the minister's authority will include supervision over the calling of tenders, and gives him the authority to review specifications. I would express the hope that the minister's intervention in this sphere may help to some extent 45781-150j
Trans-Canada Highway to curtail the degree to which patronage enters into the building of our highways. It is possible that the power given the minister under the act could be used for that purpose. On the other hand it could be used to increase the use of patronage in the building of the highway, in which event we would have involved not only provincial but federal patronage.
Any hon. member who has any knowledge of what has happened in connection with the building of highways will realize at once that there is no one phase of public works that has been more bedevilled by political patronage than the building of our highways. If the minister's help and influence can be used to prevent the injection of political patronage, or to eliminate it even in some small degree, and if he will make a serious and honest attempt to obtain good value for the dollars spent in highway construction, I am sure the country will benefit.
If the minister can give us a little more information as to the formula to be followed in the allocation of funds to the provinces, and an estimate of how much of this $150 million is likely to go back to the provinces as reimbursement for money they have already spent, and how much will be available for new construction, it will be helpful. He might feel free also to give us his own view as to whether he honestly believes the federal government should go into this business for seven years, spend $150 million and then turn the whole thing back to the provinces.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, it is with some diffidence that I rise at this time to speak as briefly as possible. However, this is the first time I have spoken in this session.
Before proceeding further may I compliment most sincerely the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). Speaking in the name of my constituents let me say, "You are doing a wonderful job, young man. You are following in the footsteps of your predecessor and have shown yourself enlightened and progressive in all your activities."
I was somewhat puzzled this morning when I heard my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) insinuating that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) might have had some ulterior motives in presenting the trans-Canada bill. If I may speak for myself and for the people I represent, I would say that in the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) we have one of the finest statesmen this country has ever produced. He did a marvellous job under difficult circumstances during wartime. He has accomplished things that have evoked

Trans-Canada Highway the admiration of the whole civilized world. He has been a great help in placing Canada, industrially, financially and commercially, in her present high position.
Why it has been found necessary in a discussion of this kind to impute certain motives to that worthy gentleman is beyond my comprehension. So far as I am concerned, and so far as northern Ontario is concerned, I believe I speak unanimously for all in that part of the country when I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a man among millions who has accomplished things worthy of this country and of the whole civilized world.
Just one word about the fifty per cent contribution. There is no doubt that perhaps next year or within two or three years this legislation will be subject to some changes and amendment and the matter will be up again before this House of Commons for discussion. It is not fixed absolutely because, in dealing with this, time and cost factors are involved that must necessarily be reconsidered. I remember when the Quebec-Chi-coutimi road was constructed it was expected that this would cost the province of Quebec $6 million, but up to date it has cost over $20 million and it is not yet completed. We cannot fix an absolutely definite figure for a matter of this kind for the reason that there is so much involved in it. The sum of $150 million is mentioned but it is possible that with the high cost of labour and materials that figure will be increased before the trans-Canada highway is completed.
I should like to say a few words about the routing of the trans-Canada highway. Happily for our people our constituency is in central Canada, geographically speaking, and we are always ready to take a national view of things. We appreciate the problems of the three western provinces in the routing of this trans-Canada highway, and we understand something of the difficulties faced by British Columbia in routing this highway through the Rocky mountains. I know the situation in Ontario and I know something about the problems faced by Quebec and, to some extent, those of the maritime provinces including Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) belongs to a party that is very sensitive about so-called provincial autonomy and provincial rights, but he wants this government to overlap the activities and prerogatives of the provincial governments in connection with highways, a matter which under our constitution comes absolutely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. I wonder what would have been the reaction of the official opposition and its members

if the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) when presenting his bill this morning had said that this government had decided on the route of the trans-Canada highway. I would like to have heard what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would have said if we had attempted to take away provincial rights in that connection. The Liberal party takes a back seat to no other party in upholding provincial rights and maintaining the integrity of the provinces, and it will not change its position on this question.
A project of this kind should be considered as a national project. The trans-Canada highway should be national in scope. If you study the history of our country for the last forty years you cannot help realizing that great advances have been made in the northern sections of Canada, in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, the northern sections of the three prairie provinces and in northern British Columbia. In dear old Quebec during the last thirty years they have accomplished wonders in colonizing and settling the northern sections of that country. At the present time there are half a million of new population in the northern sections of Quebec. Those people are prosperous and comfortable. They have a really balanced economy because there is good land in the clay belt and the mineral resources have only been scratched up to the present time. There is great potential in hydro power and forest production.
The same can be said of northern Ontario, and we know what is taking place at the present time in Labrador. We have only to read the reports of the geologists to realize the great potentials in power and mineral production that are there. The same thing applies to northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and perhaps to a greater degree to northern British Columbia. If I were not considering this matter from a national point of view I would say that the trans-Canada highway should be routed northward from North Bay to Hearst to Geraldton and so on. But I am not going to argue that that route should be followed because I believe that the statesmanship of the leaders of Ontario is such that a really national route will be decided upon, and that the claims of the section just mentioned cannot be set aside.
When we are discussing the routing of the trans-Canada highway we must think in terms other than those having to do with the tourist business. The tourist business is important, but this is a national matter. Probably we shall not be building another trans-Canada highway for fifty years or more.

The ten provinces and the central government will have to get together and exercise their intelligence so that a truly trans-Canada highway in the full sense of the word can be provided for the Canadian people.
It will not be possible for all the large centres of population to be on this highway.
I believe the people of Toronto and many other cities appreciate that situation. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has said that all these large centres will be connected directly or indirectly with the trans-Canada highway. We should not have parochial or local feelings about this matter. We do not want to set up a cabal that will cloud the issue. We must remember that the trans-Canada highway will serve a great purpose in national defence.
We all hope and pray that war will never come, but we remember what happened during the last war. I remember the central government and the government of Ontario got together in order to build a section of highway from Hearst to Geraldton, and Fort William. This was done for national defence purposes. I repeat that not only will this trans-Canada highway serve national and international purposes; it will serve national defence purposes as well. Let us be logical in dealing with this question. I hope that in dealing with this matter the government of Ontario will have a national and not a parochial approach. I know this is a hard question for the provincial administrations to settle. I know that some people in my section of the country will not be satisfied unless the road goes through there because our claims have logic behind them, but after all I think they will be ready to accept loyally any route that is decided upon that will best serve Canada as a whole. That is the only way that a problem of this nature should be discussed.
One word about the maintenance of the road. We speak in general terms of our national economy and we want lower taxation as far as the federal treasury is concerned. Everyone wants to see expenditures cut down. This total of $150 million is a lot of money. It is not the government's money; it is the money of the Canadian people. Before the trans-Canada highway is completed no doubt the federal treasury will be called upon to pay an extra $50 million or $100 million.
I repeat that I believe in the maintenance of provincial autonomy and therefore I believe that highways should continue to remain under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Otherwise we shall have a duplication of services. Ontario has already constructed large sections of highway that no doubt will
Trans-Canada Highway become part of the trans-Canada highway and this applies also to other provinces. At the present time the province is maintaining those roads which in many instances are hard-surfaced. The province has the necessary equipment and personnel for winter and summer maintenance. We would not like the federal government to take over any of those activities as there would be overlapping; as far as I am concerned I would strongly oppose anything like that. I want the prerogatives of the provincial government to be maintained in their entirety. But I go further on that score. If after a year or two, or longer, any province or all the provinces find the maintenance load is becoming too great for them to carry, I think it should be in order for them to come to the federal government with their pleas and arguments, and I am sure they would be received with an open mind.
I repeat that as a national parliament we have a responsibility to the people whom we represent to see that the money of the federal treasury is spent through the proper channels. I make that statement deliberately, because while many times we are told how expenditures may be curtailed, at the same time we hear suggestions for even greater expenditures. When a bill of this kind comes along, for instance, even if it proposed to expend three times the amount mentioned here some people would be asking for twice as much again. During the war I was Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees, and at one time I began to keep track of how much the opposition wanted the government to increase its expenditures; but after I reached a total of $5 billion I stopped.
That is the sort of thing we must guard against at all times because, I repeat, there is no mystery as far as governmental expenditures are concerned. The money comes from only one source; that is, the Canadian taxpayer. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), whose remarks are always very interesting, wants this bill enlarged right away. He says the government has been too slow in bringing forward legislation dealing with the construction of a trans-Canada highway, but in practically the same breath he wants the federal treasury to stand the cost of constructing transverse lines running north and south to the United States. Let us complete one big project at a time; then other problems can be considered. But let me repeat that we must have due regard for provincial rights and provincial autonomy in regard to certain matters which are the primary responsibility of the provincial government and highway administration is certainly one of them.

Trans-Canada Highway
There may be complications with respect to roads already built. That would apply more particularly to the older provinces such as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Certainly it would apply to Quebec, because you can travel the length and breadth of that province on fine highways. More than that, a few years ago, if I am not mistaken, under Mr. Bouchard, who was then a minister in the Quebec legislature, the construction was commenced of that fine highway called Bouchard boulevard. Now what use is to be made of that boulevard? As far as I can make out it will depend upon the provinces of Quebec and Ontario coming to an agreement. This just illustrates the difficulties that may arise, which can be solved only if the members of all the provincial legislatures work together in a spirit of co-operation.
Then instances may arise where the cost will be either greater or less than in other cases, because you cannot follow rigid lines when working on a project of this kind. There will be many complexities to be met and overcome. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said the government was slow. Well, I don't know. It seems to me this legislation is well timed. Is this not the logical time for it, a few years after the war? Surely no one will contradict me when I say it would have been impossible to start this work during the war. There was a period of six or seven years when it was absolutely impossible to even mention the construction of a trans-Canada highway. At the moment, though there may be local instances of unemployment only a few months ago we actually had over-employment, if I may call it that. The cost of material has been exceedingly high, and as I said a few moments ago we must be extremely careful. We may be budgeting for a trans-Canada highway that we think will cost $300 million, but by the time it is completed the cost may be $500 million.
These are some of the precautions the government must take. The legislation speaks in terms of a period of seven years. Well, I hope it will be completed in less time than that, but there are bound to be obstacles and delays; situations may arise which we cannot foresee at the present time, so that seven years may not be long enough. For a nation acceleration may not be always a good quality. It is true that we must work as quickly and as diligently as possible, but in a matter of this kind we must employ logic and thorough study at all times. Who can say that this fine project may not be completed in five years. Certainly the fact that the legislation mentions seven years is no reason to criticize it.
[Mr. Bradette.l
As to the route to be followed, I know that not a single premier, provincial minister or official of any of the ten provinces will criticize the central administration for not itself deciding upon the route. I am sure all the premiers and their legislatures are prepared to accept their responsibilities as they come along. This morning the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned that New Brunswick had not definitely decided what route the trans-Canada highway should follow in that province, and there was some question about whether it should go through Saint John. That is one instance showing the difficulties the provinces must expect to face. Once this becomes a fait accompli, however, once the route has been decided upon, I am sure the Canadian people have enough common sense to accept the decision, if not gladly, at least loyally, and in that respect I am sure I can speak for my own section of the country.
When I hear of the proposed expenditure of $300 million for the construction of a trans-Canada highway I am pleased I know that it is a necessary project; I am proud of my country, because we need that national artery which will provide a wonderful means of more closely uniting our ten provinces. At the same time I must think in terms of the colonists, the settlers and farmers of northern Ontario, whom I know so well. Some of them have spent forty years in colonizing that part of our country, and they still have to go through quagmires of mud all summer, and are faced with impossible roads all winter. I like to see cars going along our highways at fifty, sixty or seventy miles an hour, with the people singing and happy. At the same time, having been a colonist and settler myself in northern Ontario, when I am in my own car travelling on our good highways I always have in mind those thousands of settlers and farmers in northern Ontario and also other parts of Canada who, with their wives and children, have to plow through mud and deep ruts all summer. If it had been possible I should like to have seen this legislation include provision for the expenditure of perhaps $25 million for rural roads on a fifty-fifty basis with the provinces. That is just a wish I am expressing, not with any desire to throw cold water on this fine scheme but so that people may realize that this is still a pioneer country and will be such for many years to come, because in northern Ontario, yes in the whole of northern Canada, we have the richest heritage on earth, which so far has just been scratched. The Pre-Cambrian shield offers us the greatest riches any country could wish to possess; that is why I am making these statements at this time.

I am absolutely in favour of the construction of the trans-Canada highway as rapidly as possible; but while that construction is going on I shall always have in mind the many farmers in all our provinces who are suffering through lack of proper roads. I do not say that in a critical way at all, but just in order that this national forum may realize that a section of our population which has done so much for the development of Canada in the last forty years, particularly northern Canada, should receive some consideration from the federal treasury in the near future.
Patronage has been mentioned; and I hope this can be avoided. I know whereof I speak, because in my youth my father, who was engaged in road work, was fired because he happened to be a Liberal. I would not want this to happen to anyone, because it is not Canadianism; it is not worthy of our nation. So I hope there will be safeguards to ensure that no one will be fired, no one will be hired, and no one will be refused a contract because he happens to belong to a party other than that which is in power at the time. Those are the things I know, because no one has been able to accuse this administration of patronage for the last sixteen years, and this is as it should be.
There is one clause with which I entirely agree, and I believe it will be of great help in building this highway. It is the clause in connection with tenders, which states that tenders and specifications shall be reviewed by the minister. I understand that in the province of Quebec there are no standards set for highway construction and no tenders for road contracts. I am not saying this critically, but the federal treasury must insist upon all necessary safeguards in all the provinces so far as contracts are concerned. I repeat that I hope there will be no patronage in the letting of contracts for construction, or in the hiring of workers so far as this great undertaking is concerned. It is necessary to take all safeguards. The Canadian people must be seized of the fact that this is a national undertaking in the full sense of the word, and that it will take the genius and ability of the people of the country to see that it is carried to a successful conclusion.
I believe that is all I want to say at the moment. Before resuming my seat I wish to express the hope that the provincial governments and the central government do not permit themselves to be swayed by the various factions, so that they will avoid having our trans-Canada highway look like that comic strip, the Toonerville Trolley, as it would if it went into all these little corners. We want a highway that will be as straight
Trans-Canada Highway as possible from coast to coast, one which will exemplify the fine spirit of the Canadian people, and which will show that it is possible for all parties in Canada to get together to give to the present and future generations a link that would mean so much to their comfort, happiness and prosperity, and better understanding.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. He has one of the most interesting personalities among members I have met during my time in this house. I have always believed in the principle of confederation which I have often said is akin to the principle in the old Cornish battlecry, "Each for all and all for each". I believe that is a good principle on which to base any solution of these grave problems that confront the people of this country after two long wars.
I rise to support, in a general way, the principle of this national project. As a social and economic necessity, it outranks anything of which I am aware, but it is subject to the reservation I always make, that it must be commensurate with the ability of the country to pay. Consideration must be had for the fact that we have taken part in two long wars, and that there are many national problems coming up each day. At the time of Sir Charles Tupper this country was spending $36 million per year, but it is now spending almost that amount in a day. The capacity of the country to pay has to be considered.
I wish to give the government some constructive suggestions in connection with this problem. Some of these suggestions were made by the leader of the opposition, and one concerned the capacity of the provinces to pay the amount named in the bill, fifty per cent of the cost. The leader of the opposition has stated he believes the determination of this percentage should await a provincial conference, and that is correct. Until such time as the various provinces know what revenues they will receive, it would be impossible for them to decide on this economic question.
I wish to deal with some of the economic problems involved in this problem, first from the local standpoint, and second from the national standpoint. Back in 1911 when Sir Robert Borden came into power, he appointed a former provincial cabinet minister, Frank Cochrane, who was then representing a new Ontario constituency, just as my friend does who preceded me in this debate, as minister of railways and canals. Mr. Cochrane had been the Ontario minister of lands and forests. He decided that Toronto's contribution to

Trans-Canada Highway good roads could be reassessed against the proposed federal road from Montreal to Windsor.
I wish to refer to the problem from a local standpoint. As you know, the city of Toronto was a pioneer in the building of good roads. The other day I referred to the fact that milk and dairy products could not be brought into the city-the children had no milk-because of the bad roads. I proposed a resolution, and we conferred with ihe county of York and the province of Ontario about it. I urged the city to give a voluntary contribution to improve the highways around our city from the east, the north and west. This embraced all the surrounding communities, including the riding of South York, which a member of the C.C.F. party represents at the moment. The city went into this scheme and, with the county of York, paid the cost of building good roads for fifteen miles around the city.
I am glad to see that the minister has included in the bill one principle which was not contained in the resolution so far as I could see, that provincial governments would be given credit in this national project for any work done towards making good national roads. Now, that takes me back to the Beveridge bill, which was introduced by the United States government. What was the Beveridge bill? I think the principle of it has been copied into this bill. The minister knows a great deal about this problem. I have found him to be a very industrious minister, and one who looks ahead. I believe this Beveridge bill was passed in 1916 or 1917, and the whole of the national project was paid for with federal funds. But it compelled the various states-what we call provinces-to have a standard contract with Washington on a national standard plan. The federal government paid up to fifty per cent. As long as they had standard plans for the highway they could qualify under what is known as the Beveridge national highway bill. It was one of the finest national bills that I think the United States ever had. They were pioneers in the good roads movement. I think that has been explained in connection with the new provision which the minister has in the bill. It makes it a national work.
I remember when the city of Toronto proposed going in on the Hamilton highway, when Mr. Cochrane was the minister of railways and canals. A deputation of us came down to Ottawa; I think the members were from Hamilton, Toronto, Oakville and other places. We met the government to discuss the matter. What was done was this. The city of Toronto went in by agreement with the city of Hamilton and the Ontario government. To do what? To build the Hamilton

highway. We were to pay only forty per cent of the capital cost of the work. That did not include upkeep or maintenance. In the contract I insisted on having a term specifying a direct route from A to B. Afterwards the Ontario government appointed what was known as the Ontario-Hamilton highway commission, a provincial government commission. What did they do? They just tacked something on to the agreement and made it retroactive. They compelled the city of Toronto to pay forty per cent of the costs for the total upkeep of the work, which accordingly exceeded by a large sum the capital sum; and it was not to go from A to B direct. It was to make a detour past certain people's farms at a place whose name I just cannot think of now. It went up the lake-shore road, and thence down into the village of Oakville. It was then a village; it is now a town. It went thence along past certain people's farms and it was not a direct route at all. The result was that it added greatly to the cost of the work. In the second place, it was retroactive and it compelled the city, notwithstanding the honourable agreement we had with Hamilton and the Ontario government, to pay forty per cent of the upkeep costs. That should not have been.
Then a deputation from Toronto, Hamilton and other places came down to Ottawa about the matter-the Borden government had come into power in 1911

and waited on the then minister, Frank Cochrane. The minister said this national road was to be part of the Windsor to Montreal national highway, and that Toronto would be recouped its share of the costs, including capital and maintenance. I am glad to see that in the amended bill there is some provision made for it now.
I may say that the public wants to see the correct picture in connection with this national highway. As a municipal officer I found that our city, which was the pioneer on the local end of it and many other national features, was not objecting, although it is the main tax-paying city of the dominion. As far as I can see, we do not wish to offer any opposition provided we are able, which we are now under the new amendment, to get contributions in respect of highways previously constructed. There should be some way of working out that plan in the national picture accordingly.
I shall speak for only three or four minutes more. I am sorry that in the early twenties the national railways, which recently had been taken over by the Meighen administration and united into a national system now known as the Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian Pacific railway were not a

little bit more progressive than they were after the first war. I remember in 1920, 1921 and 1922 when we were urging them to go into the motor bus and motor truck systems, they backed up on it and said they had no funds for it. They could not see what the good roads movement meant to these railways. They might have got the cream of the business. Instead of that, they have turned it over largely to private ownership, to the trucks and buses. I was sorry that in any solution of this problem the national railways lost track of that particular matter. The railways were not progressive enough to take advantage of the situation, with the result that they themselves created the situation by which they are done out of the cream of the truck and bus business when they could have had it just for the asking. It would have acted as a feeder to the same railways and would have kept them from going bankrupt and applying for increases in rates as they are doing in various sections of this country at the present time. It would have provided a large revenue for these systems. I am sorry they did not go into it.
As to the annexation of these various districts to which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) referred, we found that it was far better, instead of annexing these various outside sections of the city- and many of them are in the city now-to give them certain municipal services like water, sewers, good roads, health regulations, police protection, fire protection and the general municipal services. We found that it was better to do that than to annex them, bring them into the city and give them many of the other services which would have been given at the expense of the taxpayers as a whole.
I doubt if there is any city on the North American continent that has contributed more to the good roads movement than our city of Toronto. There is no bigotry in that city. There is a warm feeling for the people of the east and of the west, as was shown last Saturday. I believe that what I say today many others will take up tomorrow. I was speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), through you, sir, the other day about the expansion of the cabinet. I said he would have a cabinet of sixty, and he told me I would not be one of them. I never wanted to be one of them. I point to that consideration. I told him it looked more as though we would have in the cabinet a committee of one hundred; it might go to that. It is the same with other problems. What I say today, probably others will say tomorrow. But that does not make any difference. Our city is one which has been built up by
Trans-Canada Highway progressive people. They have done something for public health, for good roads and in every way they have shown their appreciation of other parts of the country, as they did last Saturday in a manner which I think will do a great deal of good for the cause which is near and dear to the Prime Minister's heart, namely, unity from coast to coast among the people of this country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this bill. As a British Columbia member I want to express my opinion. I am sorry to say that I entirely disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) if I understood him aright in the remarks he made on the trans-Canada highway. It will be admitted by anybody who knows Canada that in British Columbia it costs a great deal more to build a highway than it does in the other provinces of the dominion. I understood the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to say-and he can correct me if I am wrong -that we should not be recompensed for what we have already spent. I entirely disagree with him.


Howard Charles Green: May I correct the hon. member? What I said was that money would be better spent on constructing this highway. I pointed out, for example, that under the bill it could be spent for putting up buildings or doing some other work entirely unconnected with the highway. I said it would be better spent in building the highway.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has corrected himself, for I still entirely disagree with him. In British Columbia we should have our rights and our fair share of buildings, or any other public project for the betterment of Canada, irrespective of the trans-Canada highway.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will it go through the Fraser valley?


George Alexander Cruickshank: It just happens that I am sitting pretty in the Fraser valley. No matter what route is chosen, it has to go through the Fraser valley. I do not know what route will be chosen for the trans-Canada highway. That is up to the provincial governments. We have just completed 88 miles of construction within the province of British Columbia which is known as the Hope-Princeton highway. Unfortunately in the last couple of days part of it was washed out in the storm. It cost us $12 million, which we in the province of British Columbia paid. It may or may not be used as part of the trans-Canada highway. That is up to the provincial government. The route will be either the Hope-Princeton highway or the Cariboo highway. One of these

Trans-Canada Highway routes must be used as the trans-Canada highway. We in British Columbia paid for all that construction. I disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I think we should be recompensed for it. I am not begrudging anything to the prairie provinces at all, but obviously for $100,000 you can build far more miles of a highway across the province of Saskatchewan than you can across the province of British Columbia. They do not have the mountains to contend with; they do not have the obstacles that we have to contend with. I do not know which department this comes under; I presume it comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), since almost everything is under his department. Therefore I hope he is listening to me. I believe that we in the province of British Columbia should be recompensed for what we have already spent in building this road through the Rocky mountains. Obviously it costs us more to build highways through our province than it does in any other province in Canada.
If this highway is to be built on a fifty-fifty basis, which I do not think is right-I think the federal government should pay more than fifty per cent-then we in British Columbia are entitled to more than fifty per cent. I repeat that we in British Columbia should be recompensed for what we have already spent on what must be the ultimate route to the Pacific coast. No matter what route is chosen it must go through that canyon, and we have built that ourselves.
Never mind your public buildings. If we are not entitled to our share, if we do not get our share of public buildings, then there is something wrong with the British Columbia members who do not see that we get it. The money that we have spent on this highway which will be part of the trans-Canada highway should be repaid to us, even though it was spent prior to the construction of the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, with what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) just said I am in hearty agreement. Anyone who has gone over the roads which have been built with almost incalculable toil and expense by the British Columbia people would have to agree with what the hon. member said.
I think that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) did the country a service when he put on record some of the costs which have been involved in constructing these roads, which really are fine roads, in the province of British Columbia. I do believe that British Columbia should be recompensed. Even if they wanted to spend

some of the money in clearing off debts which they have accumulated in building these roads I see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so. We are all going to benefit by the improvements which British Columbia makes in her roads as part of Canada.
I desire once more to congratulate the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on initiating this policy of systematic aid to the provinces in building roads. It is one thing to talk about things; it is another thing to begin to do them. These men have begun to do things. That is what I always respect. My father used to say to me when I talked overmuch around home: "Son, talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy whisky." He never used any whisky, but he used the illustration. So now we want to begin to do things in Canada, not talk overmuch about them.
I agree with the minister that the provinces ought to be recompensed, as he said in his speech this morning, for the amount of money which they have spent on building roads which will ultimately become a part of the trans-Canada highway-I would say a trans-Canada highway system, because I am quite sure it will not be very long before everyone will come to realize that there must be a system of trans-Canada highways to service the vast areas which constitute Canada. I also agree that the provinces ought to be free to spend the money as they choose. All one needs to do once more is to look at what British Columbia has done or at what Alberta has done to be impressed with the fact that these provinces have known how to spend money wisely. They have known what constitutes desirable achievement, and they have attained it. I agree too that the provinces ought to come to agreement on the route. These routes are purely a provincial matter. It will be said: Well, suppose the provinces do not agree as to which routes ought to be constructed. This constitutes one of the most cogent arguments in support of a system of highways. I have no doubt that the provinces of this dominion, if given a chance, will do those things which ultimately are in the best interests of this nation.
On November 21 I advocated a system of highways comparable with the national interregional system of the United States. I still think that suggestion is worth careful consideration.
I cannot share the minister's opinion that the help being offered by Canada at the present time, or that which was offered in the past, in any way compares favourably

with the assistance the United States has been giving the states in the matter of constructing highways.
Even granting the fact that that nation is very rich and populous, Canada has fallen far short. I believe hon. members will be interested in having some facts which have been gathered from page 253 of the World Almanac and Book of Facts for 1949. It states:
The federal works agency reported highway construction in the United States in 1947 cost $1,154 million or 63 per cent more than in 1946. Costs, however, were higher in 1947 and physical volume increase was only 43 per cent. The agency said construction on federal aid-highway programs in 1947 accounted for more than half the costs or $586 million. State work amounted to $246 million and construction at the local level $322 million.
In his budget message to congress on January 10, 1949, President Truman said that the forest roads and trails under the Department of Agriculture in 1948 accounted for $18 million of expenditures. In 1949 it was estimated it would be $26 million, and in 1950 it was estimated at only $3 million. Apparently that type of road was tapering off. He pointed out that the Alaskan and Indian roads under the Department of the Interior in 1948 actually cost $7 million, while in 1949 they were estimated to cost $19 million, and in 1950 to cost $28 million.
He pointed out that the public works administration, under the federal works agency, in 1948 actually cost $331 million, whereas in 1949 the estimated cost was $444 million and in 1950 the estimated cost $501 million. Included in the 1950 estimate of $501 million is $470 million as grants in aid to the various states for work construction.
In his budget message President Truman said, as reported at page M-59:
Even with this high level of federal aid, our highways are not being improved as fast as they wear out, nor are they being modernized to the extent required by postwar traffic conditions. Nevertheless present high costs and the limited capacity of the construction industry make it undesirable for expenditures in the fiscal year 1950 to exceed the estimated level of $501 million.
Those figures, and the quotation, indicate the attitude the United States is taking in respect of this whole matter of the construction of highways throughout that country. I believe their conditions are fairly accurately or properly comparable with the conditions obtaining or shortly to obtain in this country. Therefore, as I said, I cannot share the minister's optimism when he states that Canada is doing anything comparable with what the United States is doing.
Here are some further considerations which add weight to my conviction. I have before
Trans-Canada Highway me some figures which show federal aid in the United States between 1929 and 1948:
Amount Per capita
Year	voted	vote1929	
$ 84,500,000	- 691930	
163,000,000	1-321931	
147,578,800	1	191932	
262,000,000	2	101933	
548,935,700	4-371934	
245,284,508	1-151935	
415,472,489	3-271936	
143,286,687	1-121937	
138,500,000	1	081938	
222,333,333	1-711939	
225,118,188	1-721940	
150,666,667	1-101941	
183,791,667	1-381942	
364,150,000	2-701943	
256,449,085	1-881944	
30,000,000	- 221945	
(Not given) (Not given)1946	
535,265,000	3-711947	
525,000,000	3-651948	
525,000,000	3-51
I believe the minister and all other hon. members will agree that this indicates a much greater increase in expenditures by the United States than even this relatively generous bill proposed by the minister envisages for Canada. It is in my opinion only fair that the federal government should contribute far more generously, more consistently and perhaps perennially for road-building in Canada than the minister appears to have in mind at present. The appropriations the Canadian provinces would have received if they had been receiving a similar per capita appropriation during the years for which I have given the United States figures may be computed by multiplying the populations of the various provinces by the per capita rates I have given. Anyone who would take the trouble to look into the population figures and make these computations would be astonished at the amount of money Canada ought to have given the provinces, but which has not been given to them.
As a whole Canada has dealt rather stingily with the provinces from beginning to end, if the comparisons which I have are accurate- and I believe they are. In comparison with what the central government of Australia has done for the states of that dominion, Canada's achievements I would say are genuinely shabby. The computation to which I shall now refer has been made by one who is thoroughly competent to make it. I shall not give his name, but I believe his figures are accurate-he believes they are.
He says that the average yearly payment by the dominion to the provinces from grants out of total revenues for the years 1868, 1878, 1888, 1898, 1908, 1918, 1928 and 1938 was
2356	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Trans-Canada Highway 4-35 per cent. That is, the dominion gave the provinces altogether 4-35 per cent of the moneys taken in as the grand total revenue during those years. From the grand total revenue in 1941 the dominion paid to the provinces 2-20 per cent. From the grand total revenue in 1946 the dominion paid to the provinces 3-73 per cent.
Contrasted with this the average yearly payment by the commonwealth of Australia to the states from their grand total revenue for the years 1927 to 1945, a period of eighteen years, was 16-07 per cent-16-07 per cent as
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick _____
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia___
What did the dominion do with all that money which they collected from the provinces? That is an interesting question. The amounts paid by the dominion government, exclusive of the statutory subsidies which would have been paid anyway during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948, were as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 1,635,189
Nova Scotia	 10,033,372
New Brunswick	 7,821,817
Manitoba	 12,661,301
Saskatchewan	 13,681,361
Alberta	   13,205,173
British Columbia	 20,289,281
In that time the dominion collected from the seven provinces a total of $344,607,659 and paid out $79,327,497 in compensation, or for every $434 collected by the dominion from the provinces it paid back $100. Pretty fine business for the dominion government.


Arthur Laing: What federal expenditures in the provinces are included in the figures given by the hon. member? There would appear to be something wrong with the hon. member's figures because I know there is a great deal more money than $20 million, as indicated, going into our province.


John Horne Blackmore: I listed the payments to the provincial governments to replace the revenue which they would have collected had they collected those taxes.


Arthur Laing: You were not including the federal expenditures in the provinces?

against something like four per cent. That makes Canada's contribution look like small potatoes.
I should like to say something now about what Canada has done and about the money that the dominion government has taken away from the provinces under the taxation agreements that were consummated with seven of the provinces in 1947. These figures are given in a return tabled by the government in the House of Commons on April 26, 1948. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948, the dominion collected the following taxes from the seven provinces:
Personal Income	Corpora- tion	Excess	SuccessionTax	Income	Profit	Duty$ 1,236,995	$ 686,984	$ 328,478	$ 54,36115,492,763	7,711,449	4,756,529	1,206,12511,853,532	6,414,309	4,194,833	625,04833,095,159	16,300,637	14,592,878	790,28722,893,141	4,665,839	4,938,309	699,27239,858,199	9,127,855	6,684,201	1,003,97766,517,175	48,621,456	26,510,672	2,747,214


John Horne Blackmore: Not by any means. It must be borne in mind that these are not the only heads of revenue. The dominion gathers from the provinces customs tariffs and sales tax which add greatly to the costs of the provinces. Then there are other imposts. I do not think I was at all unfair in the figures I have given.
I do not think there is any argument to be advanced against a free and generous participation by the dominion government in the construction of roads in Canada. Once more I congratulate the minister and the Prime Minister and the government, and I think I shall have to include the Liberal party, upon having initiated this system of federal aid to the provinces.
There are three main points which I think need to be stressed in considering this subject. First, Canada should spent much more money on the construction of roads as well as upon the provision of a good many other services in the provinces. Second, Canada should plan and construct a system of highways all over the country in conjunction with the provinces. Third, Canada should allow the provinces to spend the money.
There are several questions which I think this house and the country would like the minister to answer if he has the facilities at his disposal to obtain the information and make the computations before we finish discussing the trans-Canada highway. First, how much money has the Canadian government contributed to the construction of highways since 1920 in each province of Canada?

Second, how much has each of the provinces spent on highways during the same period?
Third, why did the minister choose this amount of $150 million rather than $10 million more or $10 million less? In other words, what was the criterion by which he arrived at the amount of $150 million? Did he suppose that that amount was particularly appropriate or did he just pick that figure out of the blue?
Fourth, has the minister considered a system of highways throughout Canada and has he formed any opinion as to what such a system would cost?
Fifth, can he give any reason why the government should not make up to the provinces for what they have lost in the past because of federal neglect in connection with highway construction? Can he offer any logical reason why the federal government, realizing its past error even at this late date, should not begin to make restitution as an indication of true repentance for misdeeds in earlier days?
Sixth, can the minister state the amount of money the dominion has expended on highways since 1900? This would cover roads to national parks and in national parks which the dominion has constructed.
Seventh, is there any reason why Ottawa should not bear the cost of upkeep occasioned by unusual situations such as that in Alberta in connection with the Alaska highway brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) on November 21 and that in New Brunswick brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) this afternoon?
I think matters of this sort should be carefully recognized and studied and weighed, and allowed for.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the house for its patience in once more listening to a talk from me on this subject, dear to my heart, as I believe it is dear to the heart of every hon. member here. I hope that as a result of our deliberations we may formulate a plan and policy under which we shall be able to provide our country with the kind of fine highway system everyone dreams of, which, I believe, will greatly help to increase the prosperity and happiness of our people during the coming years.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on this bill.
Trans-Canada Highway First of all, I should like to thank the government for this legislation which is so generous to the provinces. I also desire to compliment the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) on the clearness of the explanations he has given us in connection with this measure. I am aware that, as a trained civil engineer, he is particularly fitted to assume the responsibility of such a project.
If my information is correct and also if what I have read from time to time is consistent with the facts, all provinces or a majority of them would accept the generous bill introduced by the federal government. The stand taken by most members who have made some observations this morning and this afternoon shows that it is admitted in principle that this bill is in the best interests not only of the country at large but also of each province.
I think it would be quite unnecessary to dwell at length on the touristic, economic and military advantages offered by this bill. That is why I was astonished this morning by the statements of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). He brought forward so many objections that, although he finally agreed with the principle of the bill, one could have inferred he was against the measure as presently proposed. Actually the hon. member would have the federal government pay one hundred per cent of the construction costs and also pay costs of maintenance.
Well, under the circumstances, it would be easy to infer that in letting the federal government pay one hundred per cent of construction costs, and later pay for maintenance, it would be a recognition of the federal government's jurisdiction over this highway. Although I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on constitutional issues, I think we all agree that the question of provincial roads, legally speaking, belongs exclusively to the provinces, even if provincial roads have to be used in part for the trans-Canada highway.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask the house again, hasn't the Liberal party always shown that it aims to protect provincial autonomy, that it will not change its attitude as one hon. member, apparently expressing the opinion of the Progressive Conservative party, did this morning? We have always maintained the same policy in respect of provincial autonomy. The minister, in his talks with the provincial premiers or the provincial ministers of highways, has always been careful not to encroach

Trans-Canada Highway upon provincial autonomy. This bill, as all members will agree, is another striking example of the eagerness of the Liberal party, which has been attacked on various occasions, to maintain and protect provincial autonomy.
I hope that the press, especially that of the province of Quebec, will spread the news that once again the Liberal party is giving tangible proof of its absolute respect for provincial autonomy.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was critical about another aspect of the measure. He asserted that the seven-year period was too long for the construction of that highway. I do not claim to be an expert in the matter, although as a civil engineer I have had some experience in road-building. However in the opinion of specialists, contractors would be unable, with their present set-up and equipment, to build this road in less than ten or twelve years. That period could possibly be reduced to six or seven years, if the provincial authorities preferred to secure the services of contractors from other provinces. As everyone knows, every province-and especially Quebec-keeps a jealous watch over its autonomy. I believe it would be very difficult to use contractors from outside to do the work. That is my answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The seven-year period is entirely logical, but time alone will tell more conclusively whether it should be extended since we lack the physical means to complete the work in such a short time.
In this respect, I believe that, without in any way dictating to provincial authorities, it is quite proper for a member of this house to stress, in the course of such a debate, the interests of his constituency. Hon. members, and more particularly the Quebec representatives, know that in 1940 or 1941 that province started to build a highway on the south shore between Quebec city and Montreal. This boulevard, named after Sir Wilfrid Laurier, has many good points. For instance it is 160 feet wide, which incidentally makes it well in keeping with the provisions of the bill now before the house. It could therefore serve as a splendid extension of the trans-Canada highway.
May I suggest to the hon. minister that in his future discussions with the ministers of the provincial departments of highways, he should point out to the minister of highways of the province of Quebec the advantage of selecting this splendid road begun in 1940 or

1941, but discontinued later on. National interests would be well served if this section were to become part of the trans-Canada highway, since it would be completed sooner and at less cost. In addition, it would reduce the distance between Montreal and Quebec by fifty per cent.
This route would provide many advantages to the city of Montreal and the surrounding district. However, we feel it would provide even greater advantages to the Quebec, Gaspe, North Shore, Charlevoix, Lake St. John and Chicoutimi districts.
I do not wish to labour the point, but I hope the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will put forward all the arguments in favour of this route, in which my hon. colleagues from Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe), Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Cloutier) and Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cournoyer), as well as those from that part of the south shore of the St. Lawrence are greatly interested.
I am not doing this for political reasons, but it does seem to me that this is an excellent occasion to show all the advantages of this route. I therefore consider it to be my duty to explain these advantages to the house.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks which I wanted to make. I would have liked to address the house in English, but, unfortunately, I only had a few minutes during the noon recess to prepare these remarks.
Such a bill well demonstrates that the Liberal party is not furthering its particular ends in this matter, and that the construction of this highway is intended to foster the economic development of all the provinces. We are showing once more our desire to work in the interests of the nation as a whole. I hope that the highway ministers of the other provinces will approach this matter in a spirit similar to ours for the good of the country as a whole.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in common with the other members who have taken part in this debate, I wish to congratulate the minister on his presentation of this bill. I do hope that a trans-Canada highway will be built as a result of this move. I should like to point out, however, that the position of the government today is quite different from the position it took at the

dominion-provincial conference on highways last December. In this connection I have previously pointed out that the western provinces understood the federal government would be prepared to pay one hundred per cent of the cost of construction of the highway.
I was sorry to hear the minister state that the provision calling for every province to agree to pay fifty per cent of the cost before work could be undertaken in any province would still apply. I noticed that the minister said he felt sure most of the provinces would start construction work in 1950. I am sorry he could not give the house assurance that all provinces would commence construction in 1950. In my opinion the $150 million provided by the bill will be found inadequate. I question, too, the wisdom of paying the provinces for part of the cost of the work they have done on the trans-Canada highway since 1930. I should like the minister to give us the figures to show what each province has spent on its portion of the trans-Canada highway from 1930 to date. It seems to me that such a provision might result in an unfair distribution of a large part of the $150 million. It would seem to me that it might be an encouragement to some of the provinces to do little work on the trans-Canada highway. If a province knew it had $10 million or $20 million coming to it for work undertaken since 1930, then it might use that money for other services or in other ways than building roads.
I should like to deal, Mr. Speaker, in particular with one statement the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply made in introducing this measure. He said that the pattern followed by the government in relation to the trans-Canada highway was similar to the pattern followed in the United States, and that the federal government would pay fifty per cent of the cost of construction. I wish to point out that the formula and policy followed by this government in respect to the trans-Canada highway is much different from the highway program being followed by the United States government. I need only mention that this government does not propose to pay one dollar to the provinces to aid in the construction of secondary or farm-to-market roads.
The government does not propose to pay fifty per cent of the total cost of taking the trans-Canada through some of our large urban areas. Certainly, the program and pattern followed by the government of Canada with regard to highways is far different from the program followed in the United States. Another example of the difference in attitude is that the introduction of a bill
Trans-Canada Highway which will provide some money for the construction of a trans-Canada highway comes thirty-seven years later than the initial highway program undertaken by the United States in 1912.
The United States has a good highway system, as all hon. members are aware. According to the public roads administration annual report for 1948, the United States has a primary highway system totalling 231,977 miles. If Canada had a primary federal highway system which would give us the same number of miles of road per capita as exists in the United States, we would have 20,878 miles. The most that the trans-Canada highway will represent is approximately 5,000 miles.
The next great difference between the program of this government and the program in the United States is that in the United States the government has already contributed towards the construction of a secondary federal highway system composed of farm-to-market roads, school bus roads and rural mail delivery routes. The secondary system in the United States totals 377,622 miles of road. If this government made a contribution to the provinces of Canada to give the same number of miles per capita in a secondary federal highway system as the United States has, we should need to have a system composed of 33,986 miles of road. The total highway system in the United States as of June 30, 1948, towards which the federal government paid a portion of the construction costs, amounted to 609,599 miles. If the Canadian government did exactly the same thing as the United States government, on the basis of our population the federal government should contribute to a highway system composed of 54,864 miles of road. The 5,000 miles of road in the trans-Canada highway will amount to only one-eleventh of a highway system that is necessary to give Canada the same number of road miles per capita of population. If we compare that trans-Canada highway seven years from now, and if we assume that it is built and completed, then the federal government seven years from now will have aided in the construction of a total number of road miles equalling only eight-tenths of one per cent of the total highway system in the United States to which the United States government has contributed.
Another way that the proposed legislation varies greatly from the legislation in the United States is that no consideration is given to the increased cost of taking the trans-Canada highway through our large cities. I might quote a sentence from the
2360	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway same booklet that I have already mentioned. On page 9, in relation to the interurban roads in the United States, it says:
Provision of federal-aid funds specifically for urban improvements and the emphasis that has been placed on the construction of expressways as the only solution of the traffic problems for larger cities have led many cities to substitute bold and direct methods for ineffectual procedures that did not produce results.
The ineffectual procedures within urban areas that did not produce results within the United States in the past are exactly the kind of procedures that this government contemplates continuing in this legislation, since it does not propose to help the urban areas to take the highways through the cities.
As I have already said, this legislation does not propose to pay even one dollar toward the cost of secondary or farm-to-market roads. I should point out that the policy followed in the United States has resulted in 2,699 counties, or 88 per cent of all counties in the United States, embarking on a program of road construction within their counties, and that within the three years following the war $373,814,000 was paid from the federal treasury in the United States for the construction of secondary or farm-to-market roads.
In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1948, in the United States 6,432 miles of road were added to the federal highways system and 11,419 miles of road were added to the secondary or farm-to-market road system. In the United States federal contributions to secondary roads in that year were almost two to one as compared with those to the federal primary system.
The minister made the statement that the federal government in the United States is paying to the various states in the union not more than fifty per cent of the total cost of road construction.
I should like to read to the house some of the statistics shown in table 6 of this same report which sets out the total costs of road construction of various types in all the states and then shows the amount of federal contribution to that construction. The first state is Colorado. The total cost of construction of all primary roads in that state within the fiscal year ended June 30, 1948, amounted to $10,006,688. The federal government paid $5,799,640. Total contributions from the federal government to the construction of secondary roads amounted to some $2,087,808 of a total cost of $3,682,202. Within the state of Colorado, that year, $4,059,395 was spent on a highway system within the large urban centres. Of that $4,059,395, the federal contribution amounted to $2,587,152. The final total cost of road construction in the state


of Colorado for that year amounted to $17,748,285, of which the federal government contributed $10,474,600; or for each $41 advanced by the state of Colorado the United States federal government advanced $59.
In the state of Montana, the total cost of all roads for the same year was $17,404,689; federal contributions amounted to $10,568,873 or a ratio of $61 to $39. Sixty-one per cent of the cost of construction of all roads in Montana in the year ended June 30, 1948, was paid by the federal government.
In New Mexico, the total cost of all road construction in 1948 was $12,623,954; the federal contribution was $8,045,461. In that year the federal government paid to the state of New Mexico 64 per cent of the cost of the construction of all roads in that state.
In the state of Wyoming in the same year the total cost of all roads was $9,178,227; the federal contribution, $5,972,801. As its share of the cost of construction of all roads in the state of Wyoming for that year the federal government paid 65 per cent.
In the state of Arizona, in the same year, the total cost of all road construction was $8,823,178; the federal contribution was $5,824,907. In that year the federal government paid 66 per cent of the cost of all road construction in the state of Arizona.
The last state I wish to mention is Utah. In that year the total cost of primary road construction was $4,151,691 of which the federal government paid $3,038,871. The total cost of secondary highways was $2,733,167, of which the federal government paid $2,032,511. In the state of Utah for that year the total cost of all roads amounted to $6,884,858, of which the federal government paid $5,071,382. In the state of Utah within that year the federal government paid 74 per cent of the construction costs, not of one highway running across the United States, or even of a federal primary highway system, but of the main interstate highways, the secondary roads, farm-to-market roads, school bus roads and rural mail delivery roads.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the government's formula under which it will pay only fifty per cent of the cost is not a formula that will assure the building of the trans-Canada highway even within a seven-year period; and that formula does not take into account the needs of the various provinces, the difference in construction costs, the size of population, the area and other factors which are taken into consideration in the United States formula. I rose, Mr. Speaker, mainly to point out that the minister was incorrect this morning when he said that the pattern followed in this legislation was similar to the pattern followed in the United States. I

would ask him to attempt to influence his colleagues, if he can, to bring in an adequate highway program that will meet the needs of the Canadian people, irrespective of the part of Canada in which they may reside.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the whole country-


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Casselman:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that an arrangement had just been made, with the Speaker who was in the chair before you relieved him, that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) would have the floor next.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) that 1 saw on my list the name of Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) above the name of Mr. Fulton. If an arrangement has been made I shall be pleased to recognize it. Therefore, if the hon. member for Charlotte does not object too strongly, I will call upon the hon. member for Kamloops to take the floor.


Arza Clair Casselman: I move that in accordance with the arrangement made the hon. member for Kamloops be now heard.


Mr. Sinclair:: Put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I do
not think there is any need for me to put the question. I think I can decide. If the whip of the Progressive Conservative party is agreeable I will decide now that the hon. member for Kamloops may speak.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Before the hon. member speaks I should like to say a word. For half an hour I have been trying to get the floor. I do believe that with a hundred and ninety Liberal members in the house and sixty or seventy opposition members a government member should be given a chance to say a few words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Perhaps I should add to what has already been said. Before I took the chair I had seen the hon. member for Charlotte rise at least three times. As hon. members know, a certain practice is sometimes adopted for debates on second reading of a bill, whereby a list of speakers is made in advance, and the Chair usually follows that list. The only reason that I called on the hon. member for Charlotte to speak was that there was no other indication, so far as I was concerned, that any arrangement had been made. The whip of the Progressive Conservative party can see from this list that above the name of the hon. member for Kamloops there is the name of the hon. member for Charlotte.
Trans-Canada Highway
A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Charlotte and it will deserve consideration. When speakers' lists are made in the future I know that hon. members will co-operate with the Chair. After all, I have just taken the chair to replace my predecessor. I am sure hon. members will co-operate with the Chair in this instance. Since it has been brought to my attention that an arrangement had been made, of which I was unaware, I will call upon the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I refer to the point of order which has been raised? I think it would be proper to point out that the arrangement made with the Speaker while he was in the chair was that the order of speakers now being followed should be followed. In addition I might point out that since the last member of the official opposition spoke two members of the government party have spoken; therefore I do not think it can be alleged that any predominant position, even on a numerical basis, is being given to the members of the official opposition.
Speaking now to the subject matter of the bill before the house, I am certain that all the country will be glad to know that the government has now accepted the principle of federal responsibility for providing aid in the construction of a trans-Canada highway, for that acceptance is given its final form and proof in the bill which we are now considering. But at the same time I think that the country will regret the fact that this bill represents only a limited acceptance of that principle; the acceptance in this case of even the principle of providing aid to the one trans-Canada highway being limited by the features that it will be extended for only seven years and that the total amount of the aid is limited to $150 million, and for the reasons pointed out by the speaker who has just taken his seat that that amount may not be sufficient to build a first-class highway. It is also limited by the feature that no share of the cost of maintenance is to be provided by the federal government.
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the country will regret the fact that there has been only a limited application, or a limited acceptance of the principle which is widely accepted throughout the country, namely, that there should be federal responsibility for the joint construction and maintenance of a first-class highway system in this country. I think that is the main weakness of the bill, as is evidenced in certain particular aspects of it to which I should like to refer later.
However, as I said at the outset, I think the country will be glad that we are going as far

Trans-Canada Highway as this bill goes, if for no other reason than that it has taken us so long to get even to the point where we are beginning.
This matter first came before the parliament of Canada in a concrete way as far back as 1912, thirty-seven years ago, when the government of Sir Robert Borden introduced a bill to provide for federal aid to the provinces for the construction and maintenance of highways. It is interesting to observe that that bill passed the house. It was accepted in principle in 1912 by all parties in the house, but it was defeated in the Senate, where, at that time, there was of course a Liberal majority. For that reason the bill did not become law. Exactly the same bill was introduced in the house again in 1913. On both of these occasions the bill was introduced by the minister of transport of the day, and it had exactly the same fate. It was accepted in principle by both parties in the house. The Liberal party, which then formed the opposition, stated explicitly that, although there were some features of the bill which they did not approve of, they did agree with the principle of the provision of federal aid to the provinces for the construction and maintenance of highways. But again the bill was defeated by the overwhelming Liberal majority in the Senate at that time. The matter fell into discard during the war years from 1914 on, and it was not until 1919 under another Conservative government that the first highway aid bill finally passed both the House of Commons and the Senate and became law, providing for a limited measure of assistance by the federal government to the provinces for the purpose of constructing roads.
At that time it did not embrace merely the contemplation of one cross-country road. It was a general provision that the federal authority should aid the provinces in improving the general standard of the highway system of the country. Then, as the house knows, considerable money was spent under the provisions of the 1919 act, and further money was spent during the depression; but again the matter fell largely into disuse during the past war. In that respect it is interesting to compare our position with that of the United States, which started in 1916 with their federal aid system, and which during the war years, instead of allowing it to fall into disuse, provided for a substantial increase in the amount of federal aid to be paid out for their highways.
In 1944 they passed a statute in which they provided that for three years there should be a very substantial increase in the amount paid by the federal government in connection

with the national system of interstate highways. So we have taken from 1912 to 1949 to make a real beginning on this question of a trans-Canada road, and even now, in 1949, we are beginning well back of the point where the United States started in 1916, because in that year they laid down the basis of their federal highways system.
It is that principle upon which I submit we should be starting now, instead of on this very limited policy of providing a limited measure of aid for one trans-Canada road. There are one or two general principles I should like to suggest to the minister, because I feel that obviously he is interested in the matter and will be most anxious to see this beginning extended, and the program of which he is to be in charge expanded under a general highways system.
I would suggest first that the provision of adequate transportation in Canada is a national problem. I am sure it is scarcely necessary to develop that point beyond stating that it has been recognized as such by the initial steps taken by the federal government to provide Canada with adequate railway facilities. In those days of course highway transportation was not the chief means of transportation. However, now that it has become as important to the maintenance of our economy as has our system of railways, I feel we should extend the horizons of our thinking and take the same responsibility federally for providing adequate highway transportation as we took so many years ago to provide adequate railway transportation.
It is always to be borne in mind of course that at the present time the statutory responsibility for the construction and maintenance of highways is provincial. Therefore the second principle which it seems to me it is important to bear in mind in this connection is the necessity of working out an integrated dominion-provincial road program throughout this country. That of course is one of the chief difficulties in the evolution of any federal highways system. I think all will agree that that difficulty has been approached along sound lines in the present bill in so far as the limited scope of that bill is concerned. In it the matter of picking a route for the trans-Canada highway is to be left to the provinces, the dominion agreeing to make its contribution on a stated basis toward the construction of that route when the provinces have decided upon it.
Although a satisfactory start has been made, I should like to point out that I do not think even in that respect the bill goes as far as it should go, because the federal contribution is limited to fifty per cent of

the cost of construction, and provides nothing at all for the cost of maintenance. Surely this is an unrealistic point of view. The government is prepared to invest $150 million for the construction of a first-class trans-Canada road. Is it reasonable that when that road has been completed the government should take no interest whatever in its maintenance, no interest in the protection of its investment? I do not think that is a reasonable or businesslike attitude. In my view this does not involve any lack of confidence in the willingness or anxiety of the provinces to maintain the roads themselves.
The simple fact is that we have here the achievement of a very important measure of co-operation, where provincial and federal authorities are together going to build a trans-Canada road. Surely then the same co-operation should be extended in maintaining that joint investment, preserving the investment of the two parties. I submit it is not fair to leave it to the provinces alone to ^ bear the enormous cost of maintaining this joint investment.
This leads me to the next point I should like to discuss, which is the main weakness of the bill. That weakness all stems from the fact that the bill deals only with a specific feature of the general highways problem of the country, namely, the question of a trans-Canada road, and makes no attempt whatever to solve or even to begin to solve the general problem of providing an integrated highway system throughout the country. So that I would say the main failure of the bill is that it does not provide any basis upon which we can move forward in a systematic development of a highway system in this country.
Secondly, it fails to provide for the integration of the roads programs of the various provinces. For purposes of comparison may I here read the provisions of section 60 of the United States legislation providing for a national system of interstate highways. As has been pointed out, the first start made in the United States was a federal-aid system of highways, the basis of which has already been described. Then they gradually extended that concept of federal aid to include what is called the national system of interstate highways. Section 60 of their federal statute which deals with highways reads as follows:
There shall be designated within the continental United' States a national system of inter-state highways not exceeding forty thousand miles in total extent so located as to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities and industrial centres, to serve the national
Trans-Canada Highway
defence, and to connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance in the dominion of Canada and the republic of Mexico.
So that there are three features in this national system of highways: First it is to connect by as direct routes as practicable the chief metropolitan centres in the United States; secondly, it is designed to serve national defence; and, thirdly, it is to connect at suitable border points with routes in those countries bordering on the United States.
This conception of their highway system has led to that magnificent system of highways which we see and from which we benefit every time we drive in the United States; and it is that system of interstate highways which is responsible for the fact referred to by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) that the federal contribution to the total cost of highway construction is greatly in excess of the fifty per cent contemplated in our legislation.
I feel quite certain that we shall not have made any effective beginning in solving our highways problem and in meeting the requirements of an adequate road transportation system for the future development of this country until we have made a beginning along the lines of the system which has produced such magnificent results in the United States.
The third weakness which I find in the present bill stems from the same basic fault. I refer to the limitation of time during which this fund will be available, and the limitation on the total amount which will be available. Various reasons put forward this morning by the minister seem to indicate a strong possibility that the $150 million will not be sufficient to complete a first-class trans-Canada road. As he pointed out, some of the provinces may take quite a substantial proportion of the money coming to them to reimburse themselves for amounts paid out on previous road construction. Consideration must be given to the increased cost of highway construction, particularly along the rocky areas of Ontario and through the mountains of British Columbia. There are some 400 miles that would have to be traversed through the Rockies, the Selkirk, the Monashee, the Cascade and the coast ranges by any interprovincial highway in British Columbia. The increasing costs of road construction might well exhaust this fund before the objective was reached.
It may therefore be found that the funds provided are not sufficient to complete an adequate trans-Canada route and also that the time limit of seven years will not be sufficient. The government may have to

Trans-Canada Highway come back for an extension of time or for an increase in the amount, and I hope they will not hesitate to do so if it is necessary.
I assure the minister, or any other minister who may be administering this matter, that I will support such a request.
But why not avoid that likelihood? Why not lay the basis now by legislation providing for the development of an adequate system of national highways within Canada along the lines of the system in the United States? We should now lay the basis and then progressively take the necessary steps for the completion of such a system. The first step might well be the construction of a trans-Canada highway, and then other steps could be taken within the framework of the general project as provided by the legislation.
That opportunity is offered to us today and should be taken when the matter is foremost in the minds of the people. The requirements of the country indicate the necessity for such a program. I regret that a beginning has not been made in the bill before the house, but since it is better to have something than nothing at all, I shall support the bill even though I feel it is inadequate.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, the debate has progressed favourably up to this point. Speakers representing almost every province have taken part and as a representative of Queens in Prince Edward Island I feel it my duty to make a few remarks on the bill before us. It must be most gratifying to the minister who is sponsoring this bill to find that very few, if any, hon. members are opposed to its principle; in fact, they would seem to be in accord with every particular. No doubt that is why the minister wears that $150 million smile.
I had thought that some hon. members would have had some little complaints to register, and it appears to be up to me to register one small complaint. This is more of a personal nature rather than against the trans-Canada highway bill. When a minister and his staff visit a constituency on behalf of the federal government to deal with local or provincial officials, I submit that the representative of that particular constituency should be called in to some of the conferences at least. I want to suggest that when any minister comes to our province in the future the elected representative should be called in to some of the conferences even though he may not take part in some of the fine political manoeuvring. That would be a good thing for all parties.
I am not saying that without reason because I, along with my colleague, the other hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas),
[Mr. Fulton.l
represent Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and the C.C.F. party. For future reference I should like to place on the record a letter which I have received and which shows that I represent those interests. This is dated October 25, 1949, is addressed to myself, and reads:
Dear Mr. McLure:
Please let me first-and then on behalf of those associated with me on the staff of the Liberal Advocate, convey heartiest congratulations on your personal triumph at the polls on June 27.
Liberalism has won a great victory over the forces of reaction andi socialism, so as an elected member of the twenty-first parliament, we look to you to see that the interests of the common man are maintained in a true liberal way.
You have our very best wishes, and we assure you of our services at all times to bring to your constituents your viewpoint, and any other items which might be of interest in support of the Liberal cause.	[DOT]
Kindest personal regards,
Yours very sincerely,
G. H. Holton
That gentleman is the managing editor of the Liberal Advocate, established in 1936 and which is published in the interests of the Liberal party. The address is 28-30 Wellington Street West, Toronto 2. There is a postscript to that letter, and like the postscript to a woman's letter it seems to be the most important part. It reads:
We are anxious to have this publication go into as many homes as possible. So if you would appoint one or more representatives in your riding, we are prepared to offer a generous contract.
Having read that letter, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a matter of some urgency that I should like to raise at this time. In his reply to me this morning with respect to FAO policy, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was not prepared to make a statement on the marketing situation with respect to agricultural products. In view of the minister's attendance at the FAO conference, which will continue this week, I feel that it would certainly be in

order to have a discussion in this house in relation to the policy of the government with respect to the marketing of farm products.
I believe there is a serious and growing surplus of many agricultural commodities in this country. I believe further that we should have a discussion in this house, during which the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should make clear to us the policy of the government in relation to future markets for our agricultural commodities.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member can bring this matter forward at this time. In any case the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, so I do not see what the discussion will get the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course it is not necessary that the Minister of Agriculture should be in his seat. If the matter the hon. member wishes to discuss relates to any item in the estimates it would not be in order, but if it does not relate to an item it appears to me that he would be in order.


Alphonse Fournier: At the beginning of the session the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were before the house. Items 23 to 29 dealt with marketing services, and those items were debated for almost an entire day. So I believe the subject is closed, since those items were carried by the committee. I think the hon. gentleman is not in order now in discussing this subject, which has been debated by the house already.


Mr. Wright:: The items dealing with marketing services have been adopted; but since their adoption the Minister of Agriculture has attended a very importance conference in Washington having to do with the disposition of surplus agricultural products. So I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is in order in raising this grievance on going into supply this evening. It is the privilege of any hon. member to bring up any grievance he may have on the motion to go into supply.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Perhaps it may not be necessary to have a ruling as to whether or not the discussion is in order. On Friday I announced, and it seemed to be unanimously accepted by the house, that this evening we would move to go into committee of supply and would call item No. 92, dealing with the wartime prices and trade board, so that there could be a discussion of the matter of rent controls. All hon. members seemed to agree that this should be done; and I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would not permit that arrangement to be carried out at this time, reserving the
Marketing of Agricultural Surpluses discussion-if there can be a discussion within the rules of the house-on the attendance of the Minister of Agriculture at the FAO conference until another time. Of course if the discussion is in order it would be strictly within the right of the hon. member to continue it now, but when the announcement was made on Friday evening it seemed to be the unanimous view of those hon. members who were in the house that this evening we might deal with the other matter. So I would hope that the hon. member would allow that arrangement to be carried out.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I do not think the government is in a very good position in suggesting that this was arranged last Friday evening. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) moved the adjournment of the house in order to discuss a certain matter of urgent public importance, and on Your Honour's ruling the motion was denied because there would be an opportunity to bring up the matter on going into supply that day. When the amendment to the supply motion was voted on the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke to another question, namely the combines investigation of the flour milling industry. There is an item in the estimates under which the combines investigation branch could be discussed. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in order at that time I am quite sure this is in order now.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may reply to the Prime Minister's suggestion, I know the house is anxious to debate the matter of rent control, but I certainly would not anticipate that the matter I propose to raise would be discussed all evening. I do point out that it is a time-honoured right of any member of parliament to rise on the motion to go into supply and voice any grievance he may have. My grievance has to do with the problem that is developing in connection with the marketing of agricultural surpluses.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is not going on with his discussion at this time it will not be necessary to give a ruling; but in any event I am not ruling that the discussion would be in order. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 467, which states that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session or to any item in the estimates. It has been pointed out that the items dealing with marketing services were carried, but I would refer hon. members to the further supplementary estimates, where there are a number of items under that heading. Accordingly, if this discussion does relate to an item

Marketing of Agricultural Surpluses in the estimates, I doubt if it would be in order at this time. It may not be necessary to give a ruling, however. Shall I put the motion?


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to make my statement at this time, and unless you rule me out of order I shall proceed with it. I point out that there is no item in the estimates covering this whole question.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the items dealing with marketing services do cover the question the hon. member is raising at this time. The purpose of the rule is that discussions on the items in the estimates shall not take place in the house. I believe there will be full opportunity for the hon. member to discuss this item very shortly on the estimates, so I would rule that he is out of order in discussing it at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I appeal your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
A point of order having arisen as to whether a discussion relating to the agricultural marketing service was in order on the motion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to go into supply, I ruled that the discussion was out of order in that it related to an item in the further supplementary estimates. From this ruling the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and others have appealed.


John George Diefenbaker: First, Mr. Chairman, may I thank the Prime

Minister for affording the house this opportunity to discuss order in council P.C. 5840, which provides for the submission to the Supreme Court of Canada of a certain question in regard to the right of the federal authority to legislate by order in council or under regulations of the wartime prices and trade board under the emergency powers, to which reference has been made on a number of occasions. It was because there was such an agreement that we voted as we did a few moments ago. That arrangement having been made, apparently with the unanimous consent of the house, we endorsed it.
I should like to refer for a moment to this order in council. It is a long one, containing seven and a half pages. It consists in large part of a chronological statement setting forth the successive stages in emergency power legislation since 1945. In part it incorporates the speech made in the house on November 3, 1949, by the Minister of Finance, and it ends with the question that is submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada. That question is to be found on page 8, and reads as follows:
Are the wartime leasehold regulations ultra vires either in whole or in part and if so in what particulars or to what extent?
To begin with I submit, sir, that that question does not meet the situation at all. The succeeding paragraph reads as follows:
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, under and by virtue of the authority conferred by section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, is pleased to refer and doth hereby refer the following question to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration.
I will not now go on to discuss what has been done nor the allowances that were given by the Minister of Finance to increase rentals on and after the 15th of December. At the moment I will consider exclusively what this order in council means, although I am fully aware of the feelings of many hundreds of thousands of the people of this country who today fear what will happen to them with the approach of the Christmas season. I do not propose for the present to deal with the hardships and the suffering that will ensue.
What I asked for the other day was an opportunity to discuss this order in council and the submission to the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe this is the first time since I have been in the house that an opportunity has been given by the government to discuss an order in council with a view to making suggestions relative to an amendment to it. I am not going into the authorities. They were all summed up recently in a case well known to the Minister of Justice-it was
Rent Control
heard in his own province-and generally to all members of the bar. I refer to the case of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Manitoba Pool Elevators, as reported in 1949, 2, Dominion Law Reports, at page 537. Summarizing that case in the words of Mr. Justice Adamson, this is what he said:
What then is the nature of the "danger," the "peril," or the "emergency" necessary to give jurisdiction to enact such legislation?
By "legislation" he means legislation by the dominion parliament, or under order in council, that results in invading property and civil rights. Then follow these significant words:
And what evidence of it is there? An emergency may be public or private. A public emergency may be local or provincial. What is necessary to justify such legislation is a national economic emergency of such dimensions as to imperil the nation, and one which would be judicially recognized in the same way as a state of war is judicially recognized.
My first point is that this order in council will be the entire reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. From beginning to end it contains not one word setting forth the facts upon which the dominion government and its counsel will rely in regard to the extent of the emergency. Having regard to the authorities, that immediately opens the door to a serious danger, in the absence of evidence to establish an emergency, by the declaration that the legislation is in fact ultra vires, and the rental orders in council will end.
I ask the government this question through the Minister of Justice. Why was this order in council worded in such general terms? Why was it not supported by evidence setting forth the necessity of such legislation or a justification for it as emergency legislation? Certainly it was not a lack of space, because the speech of the Minister of Finance on November 3 is incorporated in it. Nowhere is there anything placed before the court that sets forth the vital facts that are fundamental, namely, that there is a continuing emergency, and furthermore that that emergency will be in existence on March 31, 1950. If it is not certain that this legislation is lawful now, would it be lawful after that date? Nowhere is there any suggestion of an emergency or a continuing emergency. It must be a matter of knowledge to all hon. members in every part of the house that across this country several hundred thousand Canadians regard this situation with trepidation and fear. That there is any agreement among hon. members that there is an emergency is rather denied by the fact that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, when speaking on March 28, 1949, as reported in the Globe and Mail

Rent Control
of March 29 and in the Montreal Gazette of the same day, to a delegation regarding the general question of housing and rental, said:
Housing was primarily a matter for the provinces except in the case of a national emergency and while the government believes there was still a great need for houses the need would not constitute an emergency.
That statement was made some four or five months ago. The declaration by a minister of the crown, as it is worded at the present time, sir, and without supporting evidence, if one were of a suspicious turn of mind, which I am not, would lead one to think that it had been deliberately worded in that way and unsupported by anything to suggest an emergency.
The next question I should like to ask is, why the indirect wording? Why not a direct wording setting out that it is being supported by evidence to justify an emergency? There is something more. When it is submitted to the supreme court how long will it be delayed before the people as a whole will know whether or not this legislation is within the power of parliament to enact by order in council? A few weeks ago we were asked in parliament to rush along the legislation making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada will not be the final court of appeal in this matter for the following reasons. The submission has already been made. I again read the second to last and operative paragraph:
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, under and1 by virtue of the authority conferred by section 55 of the Supreme Court Act-
And that is the section which provides for submissions-
-is pleased to refer and doth hereby refer the following question to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration.
We passed the Supreme Court Act. One of the sections provides for the supreme court being the final court, and that section-the new section 54-has been passed by the Senate. Why has not royal assent been given to that act? There would be no difficulty about that. All you have to do is to bring down the deputy to His Excellency the Governor General.
Section 7 says:
Notwithstanding anything in section 3 of this act, an appeal from or in respect of a judgment pronounced in
(a)	a judicial proceeding that was commenced prior to the coming into force of this act, or
(b)	a reference made by the governor in council or by the lieutenant-governor in council of a province prior to the coming into force of this act, lies or may be brought as if that section had not been enacted.

In other words, this order in council dated November 16 provides for submission to the supreme court. The Supreme Court Act could have been assented to and brought into effect by proclamation. Then this would have been final-the first case of the Supreme Court of Canada.
That, we thought, was the idea. Indeed, one member of the press gallery in an article dated November 4, 1949-I refer to Mr. J. A. Hume-said in part:
The government plans early proclamation of legislation abolishing appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council in London, as just approved by the House of Commons and Senate.
Such action will mean that the proposed supreme court reference on the constitutionality of continuance by parliament of domestic rental controls beyond their expiry date on March 31 next would be submitted to the court here for its final judgment.
Why was not the Supreme Court Act assented to?
The result now is this, that no matter what the supreme court decides, and it will not be sitting I should think before the middle of January or early in February-because it will not be until December 1 when there will be a submission to the court for direction-the supreme court will meet and, we will suppose, hand down its answer. Perhaps it will say that it is within the legislative competence of parliament to extend rental controls. Well, then, any of the provinces can appeal, and you have uncertainty which will go on for a year or more-uncertainty, procrastination and postponement.
That, in my opinion, seems to be the reason that the order in council is drawn as it is. And one can imagine the uncertainty which will continue. Today fear stalks everywhere in our country, because of what was done on November 3. And now that fear is being accentuated by the uncertainty which will follow for a period of eight or ten months before the matter is finally decided in the privy council.
I ask the government this:	Why were
they so anxious and why did they act with such acceleration to have the Supreme Court Act amended in order to make it the final court, if the very first thing that comes up to be submitted to that court, one of the most important things to come before the court, is to be brought before it and then has to go on to the privy council in the event of appeal?
Surely it was not by inadvertence that that condition arose. I do not know of any member who was ever aware of the fact, until it came out by the veriest chance, that the

order in council had been passed on November 16. I know it was not tabled in parliament. And you will remember that when the Minister of Finance made his speech on November 3, he said this:
The order in council making the reference is being prepared and when approved will be tabled in the house.
It was approved on November 16. I believe it was last Friday that I asked a question about this order in council, and whether it would be tabled. It was tabled the next day.
Sir, is there any reason why the uncertainty and confusion should be continued, with the delay and chaos which will result? We have made the Supreme Court of Canada the final court. The government was in a terrible rush to have that effected. Would it not be possible to give to the Supreme Court of Canada, of itself, the last say? Why carry a case such as this over to the Old Country, to the privy council.
When we on this side of the house suggested that on constitutional matters appeals to the privy council should be retained the answer was, "We must be supreme in this land. Let us have our autonomy. We are an independent nation". Yet the very first thing that comes up, one of the most important matters that could be submitted to any court, leaves open the door to appeal to the privy council, with the result that this uncertainty, this chaotic condition that today exists, when one does not know for certain whether the dominion or the provinces have jurisdiction, will be continued almost indefinitely.
I suggest that another order in council should take the place of this one. If the government wants finality in this matter there should be another order in council setting out in detail the nature and the particulars of the emergency upon which the court should determine whether in fact there is an emergency. For in the last statute passed by parliament carrying on the rental controls until March 31, 1950, there is no mention of emergency in that preamble, as I read it.
Let us have royal assent to this Supreme Court Act. Then submit it to the court, and have finality, instead of having hanging over the heads of hundreds of thousands of Canadians a fear today that I doubt has been equalled at any time in the homes of the people in this dominion.
I do not know what hon. members on the government side find, but wherever I go people say to me, "We do not mind paying some increase, but allowing for the increase provided for has brought fear to us".
That being so let us know now, once and Eor all, exactly what powers are arising out of the war and in consequence of emergencies 45781-151
Rent Control
arising from the war. And, in addition, I think there might be incorporated, in addition to redrafting the question to the supreme court, which is worded in such a way that it looks as if the cart is placed before the horse -"Are the wartime leasehold regulations ultra vires either in whole or in part, and if so in what particulars and to what extent"? -a rephrasing, stating, "Are they ultra vires, and if not in what particulars?"
The wording, I think, would almost indicate a suggestion that some of them were ultra vires. Further, I think the point raised by the premier of Saskatchewan in his letter of November 16 might also find its way into that order in council, namely:
I would strongly urge your government to include in that reference a question that will settle this issue of power in yourself or the governor in council to confer legislative jurisdiction on a province by executive action designed to turn rent control over to that province.
What I have advanced in this connection has been done for one purpose, to have finality brought to this matter. Over the last two years some of the inferior courts have held that this type of legislation is beyond the powers of parliament or beyond the powers of the executive, of the governor in council under order in council. Let us bring finality to this matter which is of importance to what I imagine is the majority of people in this country. Let us not, as a result of the possibility of there being a further appeal to the privy council, leave hanging over them the uncertainty that will follow for another five, six or eight months.
Those are my suggestions. I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the opportunity afforded to hon. members to place their views before the committee and to attempt to bring this matter into clear perspective. This is the first time that we have had a chance to discuss an order in council as is done in the British House of Commons. I think this represents additional evidence of the fact that we are returning to the democratic principles that prevailed before the war and which during the war were not followed at all times because of the necessity of concentrating power in the government during that period.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I join with the hon. member for Lake Centre in urging the government to review its order in council and make the reference to the supreme court, not only more specific but on somewhat broader lines. This is a matter of great importance to the Canadian people. Thousands of men and women across this country are anxious because of

Rent Control
the drastic increases in rent that are permissible under the policy announced by the Minister of Finance on November 3. In common with other hon. members I have had a number of communications from people from one end of this country to the other, some in the city of Ottawa and some as far away as Vancouver and Halifax. All these communications inform me, as I am sure other hon. members have been informed, of the difficult circumstances in which they will be placed when these drastic increases are permitted to come into effect.
On November 3 the Minister of Finance evidently expected that rentals on a higher scale would go into effect and would remain in effect for a considerable time. I should like to quote from page 1434 of Hansard of November 3, 1949, where the Minister of Finance is reported to have said:
Nevertheless, it seems probable that rentals might well settle eventually at a level substantially above the present maximum levels provided in our regulations. Sooner or later the adjustment must be made, and as I have said, it is our policy to permit this adjustment to be made gradually rather than abruptly.
I do not know what is the minister's definition of "gradually", but if increases of from 18 to 22 per cent are gradual increases, then my interpretation of that word is somewhat different from that of the Minister of Finance.
With regard to the order in council, I rise mainly to suggest that the proposal made to the government in the letter of the premier of Saskatchewan should be given serious consideration and the reference which he suggests should be included in the reference to the supreme court. If we are making a reference we may as well have all doubts cleared up at the same time. I have made some inquiries and I find that not only the legal advisers of the government of Saskatchewan but other lawyers seem to believe that the doubt expressed is well founded.
The question whether we have power to confer legislative jurisdiction on one province or on any number less than all should be referred to the supreme court. I am not a lawyer and I do not profess to be able to disentangle all the legal matters in connection with a constitutional problem of this kind. I know the minister may say that there does not appear to be any doubt as to the ability of the government to do this; but if there is doubt the question should be placed before the supreme court so that it can be decided beyond any uncertainty.
No province undertaking rent control within the province should be subjected to the risk of its legislation being declared ultra vires because one or less than all the provinces

have been granted the right to pass rent control legislation by order in council and not by specific legislative action of this parliament.
The present situation is that this parliament has passed legislation which removes rent control from the provinces, a position which the premier of Quebec has been challenging ever since it was done. Rent control was placed in the hands of the federal authorities and taken out of the hands of the provinces. At the present time the legislation is applicable to all the provinces.


Mr. Abbott:: Except Newfoundland.


Major James William Coldwell: Except Newfoundland. I was thinking of the provinces as they existed when the legislation was passed. The legislation affected all the provinces that were provinces when it was adopted. Of course this parliament always has the right to amend its own legislation and by legislation to exclude any one province or any number of provinces from the regulations made under a statute which it has adopted.
But the question is this: Has the cabinet, the governor in council, the right to override a statute and exclude one province without having legislative authority from this parliament to make such exclusion, such distinction or such variation? I should like the minister when he replies to point out whether he considers that, under that part of our legislation giving authority for rent control, under legislation adopted by this parliament, the right to exclude one province is conferred upon the governor in council.
The point is that while the governor in council can make rental regulations inoperative in a single province, does that also give the right to the provinces to enter the field by provincial legislation when federal legislation exists claiming, rightly or wrongly, overall jurisdiction in this particular field? As I have said already, I have been advised by some legal men whose opinions I respect that there are some doubts with regard to the granting of authority by the governor in council without amending the legislation under which the governor in council proposes to act. It seems to me, then, that if there is any shadow of doubt in this connection the point should be referred to the supreme court for a ruling, or on the other hand that the federal government should ask this parliament to amend our legislation to meet the needs of one or more provinces which desire to exercise rent control provincially.
It may be possible by order in council to vacate the field of rent control on a nationwide basis and thus by implication confer jurisdiction on all the provinces at once. That,

however, seems quite different from the present proposal to confer jurisdiction on one province while jurisdiction under the statute is retained by the federal government in respect to all the other provinces. In order to avoid confusion and perhaps new difficulties or hardships the point should be referred to the supreme court for an opinion. I take it no single province wants to be placed in the position, after having made arrangements to institute rent control, after having passed the necessary legislation in that regard, of running any risk whatsoever of having that legislation upset at any time in the future.
I want to say one other thing to the minister. He has stated that in order to give any province-and Saskatchewan already has requested it-time for its legislature to pass the necessary legislation, the action of the federal government in removing or varying rent control in that province will be deferred until and including March 31 next. I suggest to the minister that having given that assurance to one province and having invited other provinces to come under the same arrangement, if they wish to do so, he should give all the provinces an opportunity to call their legislatures, and should defer the effect of the announcement he made until at least, and including, March 31 next. If this were done the provincial legislatures, which are usually called after Christmas, could meet and consider the situation and advise their governments accordingly.
This is one of the most serious steps in decontrol to be undertaken by the government since the war ended, and I do not think there is a single member of this house who does not realize that many thousands of people are going to be gravely affected. As I said, I have received a very large number of letters; in fact I do not think I have ever received more letters on any subject than on this matter of rent control. I have before me one that I am going to read in part, just to give the house an indication of the way some people fear they are going to be affected by this decontrol measure. This letter is from the father of a large family, who wishes me to withhold his name. I am under no obligation to table the document and do not intend to do so, of course. But may I comment that I frequently get letters of this description pointing out the difficulties under which Canadian men and women are working, and quite often I get the same request: "Please do not mention my name, because if it were known that I had written to you on this matter I would lose my job." That is stated in this letter. When we talk of the four freedoms, when we talk of the democracy 45781-151i
Rent Control
and freedom in this country, I say it is a blot upon our democracy and freedom that so many men and women fear, rightly or wrongly, that they will be penalized for expressing an opinion which they hold.


John Ewen Sinclair: If the hon. member would permit one question in this very connection, if he feels that way why has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a question on the order paper asking the Minister of Finance to give the names of all persons who have written him on this very subject?


Major James William Coldwell: The purpose of the question asked of the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to obtain the names of corporations, of governments and others


John Ewen Sinclair: And of persons.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Individuals.


Major James William Coldwell: -who have written to the minister. But when we ask for the tabling of communications the minister always says he will table them when he has consent of the government concerned, if it is an intergovernmental communication.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can tell my hon. friend that no governments and no corporations have written to me on this subject.


Major James William Coldwell: Neither the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre nor I, nor indeed any member of this house, I believe, would ask or expect the Minister of Finance or any other minister to table a letter he was specifically requested to keep confidential because of the danger to the individual concerned.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Neither would he venture to read it in the house if he were not prepared to vouch for the person who wrote it.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment; I want to say this. Under the rules of this house an hon. member who reads a document here vouches for it. That is all that is required. I am vouching for this document, and that is all that is necessary. That is the proper procedure, for if that were not so a member of parliament might jeopardize many individuals in this country whose communications to him should be placed before this house in the language of the writers. I do not propose to be intimidated in my intention to read part of this document tonight.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member tells us he has a communication from someone whose name he will not disclose, and that he will not table the document, I object to its being read. It is not in order to come here and ask for the attention of the house

Rent Control
in order to express the opinion of someone who will not even be identified. If the hon. member wishes to make the opinions expressed in the letter his own, he may do so, because we know who he is and we know what importance should be attached to the opinion he expresses. We do not know what importance should be attached to the opinion of an unknown person, who wishes to remain unknown.


Major James William Coldwell: I have always tried to abide by the rules of the house, and I intend to abide by the rules of the house in spite of the lecture I have received from the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not lecturing the member, I am raising a point of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Those who have been here as long as the Prime Minister and I will know that I do not put spurious documents before the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that.


Major James William Coldwell: I stand behind anything 1 say because I believe it. I am going to read citation 316 of Beauchesne, second edition:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. On the 18th May, 1865, the attorney general, on being asked by Mr. Ferrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in assuming a question relative to the Leeds bankruptcy court, replied that he had made a statement to the house upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced1; but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.
That citation is taken from May, thirteenth edition, page 329.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. member look at citation 306. The citation to which the hon. member has referred deals with a request on the following day for the production of something that had been alluded to, evidently without objection, the previous day. The decision was that it did not have to be tabled. What I am objecting to is the reading in this house of something we are told will not be tabled, because a person does not wish his identity to be known. I rely upon citation 306.
It Is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I have read that citation a good many times. I am going

to say to the Prime Minister that the document I have before me does none of those things that are forbidden. It does not comment upon or deny anything said by a member, or express any opinion reflecting upon the proceedings within the house. All it does is to put before the house the case of an individual who is being victimized by the drastic increase in rentals permitted by the announcement of the Minister of Finance on November 3.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like to return to the original point of order I raised. The member for Rosetown-Biggar has not said why he refuses to give the name of the person writing this letter while, at the same time, he supports the demand of his colleague that the Minister of Finance give the names of the people who have written to the minister, both for and against the increases in rentals.


Alan Carl Stewart: I should like to
quote citation 265 in Beauchesne, third edition. It says:
It Is not in order to read articles In newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
If one reads the next three succeeding citations, one finds it is out of order to read a letter that one is not prepared to vouch for during any debate. I do not know what objection the member for Rosetown-Biggar has to filing the letter upon which he is relying as authority. He has done that before in this house.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I appreciate the help the hon. member for Yorkton has given, but I would point out to him that citation 265 in Beauchesne, third edition, is citation 306 in Beauchesne, second edition, which was quoted a moment ago by the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the member for Coast-Capilano has put a question to the member for Rosetown-Biggar instead of raising a point of order. He asked a question of the hon. member, so his point of order was not a point of order.


John Ewen Sinclair: My question was not
answered.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is a matter for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to decide.


Major James William Coldwell: What is your ruling on this question, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I should like to quote citation 280 from Beauchesne, third edition.
The point of order, that a member should lay on the table a document which he quotes, should be taken when reference is made to the document.
So far the hon. member has made reference to a document, but has not said very much about it. Some hon. members seem to know more about the document than the chairman does. The member for Rosetown-Biggar has a document in his hand, but as yet he has not quoted anything from it.
According to what has been said and under citation 306 of the second edition of Beauchesne, I think that the point of order raised by the Prime Minister is well taken. If an hon. member quotes from a letter he should disclose its source. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 270. Unless he desires to take the words and make them his own, he should, I think, disclose the source or table the letter. That is my ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: During the fourteen years I have been here, Mr. Chairman, members have quoted from letters. In my recollection, this is the first time this interpretation has been placed upon either the citations or the rules. I have known of no hon. member who has been made to table the document.
Some years ago, I remember, the hon. member for North Battleford quoted from a letter at great length. She laid it upon the table and the Speaker ruled that this was not a document for the house, so it was returned to her. I remember distinctly that she was told she need not have placed it on the table. I am not going to insist on this matter tonight.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, before you dispose of this question, there is one point I should like to raise, because I believe there is one angle to the question which may have been overlooked.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the hon. leader of the opposition referring to the point of order upon which I have ruled? My ruling is not debatable. The hon. member may appeal if he so desires.


George Alexander Drew: It may not be debatable, but if you would permit me to point out something, it may avoid a ruling which may cause some embarrassment. The rule to which reference has been made refers to any opinion reflecting on proceedings in the house. I believe that is the part which governs. Obviously, this letter refers to action that was taken in regard to rent control, and that was a proceeding by order in council, not a proceeding in the house. Consequently, I submit it is not governed by this rule.
Rent Control


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to prolong this discussion on the point of order. I wish to say that there was absolutely no reflection on any procedure in this house in the document I was going to read. All I intended to do was to place before the house an example of the hardship that is caused the father of a large family, and the manner in which the food for that family would have to be reduced. The man, a veteran of two world wars, a man who has served his country well, today has not the opportunity either of feeding and clothing his family properly or of housing them as they should be housed; and that is a condition which is widespread across the country at this present time. All I am going to say now is that I hope that one day this matter will come up when the Speaker is in the chair; at that time I can assure you that such a ruling will be further discussed.
I want to close my remarks now by making the plea that I made with regard to the expansion of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, in order that there may be no doubt. Since the Minister of Finance has extended to April 1 the time for a province which will assume rent control as of its own power and of itself, I make the plea that that be done in order to give all the provinces of Canada and all the legislatures an opportunity of discussing this question. I want to say to hon. members that with the increase in the cost of living and the possible drastic increases in rentals, many a humble family in this country will not spend a very merry Christmas.


George Alexander Drew: While this discussion was opened up on going into supply, Mr. Chairman, I think it must be remembered that the only matter now before us to discuss, and which can apparently be acted upon, is the reference by the government of an issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. But from the remarks that have already been made it would appear that the Prime Minister opened up this subject with the idea of affording an opportunity to discuss the issues to which this order in council relates.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out the obvious limitations in the wording of the terms of reference. In the copy of the order in council which I have before me, and which runs to eight pages, the actual terms of reference are found only at the last part of page 7 and the beginning of page 8, everything before that being a recital. The real issue that is referred to the Supreme Court of Canada is contained in less than four lines in the question: Are the

Rent Control
wartime leasehold regulations ultra vires either in whole or in part and, if so, in what particulars or to what extent?
Since we did not have an opportunity to discuss the recent changes at the time they were announced in the House of Commons, I think that on this occasion, in seeking to impress upon the government the necessity for a different type of reference, we should also point out exactly what has occurred and why the reference should be in different and wider terms. It will be recalled, particularly by those hon. members who sat in the house in the last parliament, that this subject was under discussion in March last; and on March 22, the act which has been described as the omnibus act was before the house.
It should be recalled by all the hon. members who are considering this subject at the present time that we are not discussing a rent control bill and that we are not discussing any specific piece of legislation dealing specially with rents. We are dealing with one of the continuing powers carried forward from the war under the Transitional Measures Act which was discussed by parliament last March. That bill carried forward emergency powers over rents, prices, steel, lumber, wood supplies generally and over a number of other things. That act had the effect of continuing for another year the sweeping emergency powers under which the government, by order in council, could deal with these subjects that were mentioned in that Transitional Measures Act. At that time, with other members of the house, I pointed out the difficulties that would arise unless there were introduced a bill dealing in clear and explicit terms with the problem of rent control. I would quote only briefly, to indicate the nature of the discussion which took place, from page 1767 of Hansard of March 22 last. This is from what I said at that time:
In many ways this rent control measure by government dictate is adding to the difficulties and preventing the building of satisfactory rental housing. We have urged over and over again that a rent control bill be introduced which will give tenants defined and assured legal rights and at the same time encourage the building of housing and apartments for rental purposes.
That is the parliamentary way to deal with this subject. That, Mr. Chairman, was the view that we expressed at that time. We asked that a bill, which could become the law of this parliament, be introduced, clearly defining the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords, letting each know exactly where he stood under enforceable laws. It will be recalled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that, along with other members of the House of Commons, I pointed out at that time that we were being asked to continue
(Mr. Drew.]
these sweeping emergency powers without any attempt being made by the government to define what the emergency actually was.
Then there is another point which the members who were sitting in the house at that time will recall. A judgment referring to one of these emergency measures had just been given by the appellate court of Manitoba. At that time the Minister of Justice went to some pains to point out that this high court of parliament is in a position to declare whether there is or is not an emergency of the nature that would support action of this kind; and that very point was, in fact, discussed in the judgment given by the appellate court of Manitoba and to which I have referred. I mention that for this reason. It should be recalled that last March, when this general omnibus bill was before the house embracing not only rent control but all these other emergency measures, we pointed out that if the house were prepared to pass legislation then tenants and landlords should sit down with a law which clearly stated their rights, and they would know where they were for a definite period; but that the continuing of this list of indefinite emergency powers would only create the very type of confusion that has arisen.
In spite of the arguments we put forward at that time this parliament was asked by the government to declare that there was an emergency, because it was necessary to declare that in effect if this sweeping bill was to be passed, and that decision was made.
It seems a strange thing at this time, Mr. Chairman, to come forward and say: We are going to ask the Supreme Court of Canada if there is or is not an emergency of the nature that would support the rental measures, but we are not going to say anything at all about the rest of the emergency measures that are carried forward in the same legislation. If there is an emergency that supports the continuance of these measures, then that same emergency must support the continuance of the other measures, and the same is true in reverse.
It seems to me that if a question is going to be asked of the Supreme Court of Canada it should be as to whether the bill that became law last spring to continue these emergency powers was in fact intra vires of the parliament of Canada. The question that is asked in this instance might not relate to the effectiveness of the legislation at all, but simply to the question whether the particular regulations passed by the government were or were not ultra vires of this parliament, and we might be left in the very confusing position of having a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on something that

still would not tell us whether the government has the power to deal with this particular subject under the amendments to the Transitional Measures Act which became law last spring.
We must remember as well what took place between the time of the passing of the law and the time that these new regulations came into effect. I grant that certain statements are made from time to time in public speeches that may not be made with the same consideration that would be given to statements in the house; but nevertheless they are undertakings so explicit that they cannot be misunderstood. The present Minister of Finance said in Montreal on June 23, and I quote now the parts that are in quotation marks in the report carried by the Canadian press of that day:	"In the
future as in the past the Liberal government will see that the rights of both tenants and home owners are protected." Other speeches of the same kind were made, and undoubtedly the assumption was that the rights, as established last spring, were to continue in that way. It will be recalled that on November 3, at a quarter to eleven, the Minister of Finance asked the house for unanimous consent to make a statement, without giving any indication of the nature of the announcement he was going to make, and I gathered from-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said it had to do with rent control.


George Alexander Drew: At the time, yes, but nothing was said as to what the details were or as to whether it was to be an abandonment of rent control.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the leader of the opposition is making a point of it, unanimous consent could have been refused.


George Alexander Drew: Of course, as far as that is concerned, one will realize the difficulties that the members were under, and not only the members of the opposition, for one of his fellow members from Montreal only the night before had assured a public meeting that there would be no change in the rent control measures of this beneficent government. Therefore I think one might fairly assume that the announcement that was made on that Monday night was as much a surprise .to the supporters of the government as it was to the members of the opposition, and it was of course a complete surprise to everyone that these sweeping changes were to be made. I am sure it must have been a surprise to the hon. member for the Mount Royal division who had felt so confident the night before that the changes were not going to be made.
Rent Control


Mr. Macnaughion:: I should like to make a correction. I did not say that the rates would be the same. I simply indicated that I believed the government would probably continue rent controls, which is entirely different.


Mr. Fraser:: Trying to mislead the public.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I am not suggesting that the hon. member for the Mount Royal division in any way attempted to mislead the public. He was answering certain questions at a public meeting in Montreal.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: At a private meeting.


George Alexander Drew: It was not so private as not to be fully reported by the Montreal Star on the following day. I was not at that private meeting. I am merely reading from the report in the Montreal Star. If it was not a surprise to the hon. member for the Mount Royal division, then of course he can inform us; but I gather from the nature of the statement that was made at that meeting that the announcement of the minister on November 3 was a surprise to him as it was to us. But I would point out that the statement of the Minister of Finance did not come at that time with any opportunity to debate the wisdom or otherwise of those particular measures. I do suggest that the government by opening up this discussion tonight is apparently willing to reconsider the nature of the reference which should be made to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would also urge that the government reconsider the order in council which was announced in this house on the night of November 3.
It will be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that the announcement made that night has already been changed in many respects. There have been numerous clarifications. The word "clarification" is the official description of the changes which have taken place.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the first place there was no order in council, but I suppose that is a detail.


George Alexander Drew: I stand corrected. It was even worse. It was an order of the wartime prices and trade board which was announced by the government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend wants to be correct, it was an amendment to the rental regulations, in the same way it has been made ever since the rental regulations were put into effect in 1941.

Rent Control


George Alexander Drew: Yes, and the very way they were put into effect last spring when we pointed out the kind of confusion that would result from the continuance of that practice. I am pleased to have been reminded that this is not an order in council, that it is simply a decision by officials appointed by the government-


Douglas Charles Abbott: A decision of the government implemented by an amendment to the regulation.


George Alexander Drew: An implementation of an amendment to the regulations but announced by the minister in this house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And announced in the house before the regulations were amended.


George Alexander Drew: Yes-at least the execution was not carried out before it was announced. There was at least that measure of correctness in the procedure.
Now, so far as those regulations are concerned, no matter what involved procedure may be taken, the government will not question its responsibility for them. The minister announced them in the house; and in doing so he took the responsibility of informing the people of Canada what would occur.
No sooner had those regulations been announced than there was objection right across Canada. And no sooner was that objection made manifest than these clarifications began to appear. And they have greatly changed the effect of the regulations. Many of the landlords who thought they were going to do certain things were disappointed when they found that these advances related back to a figure some years ago; and many of the tenants were only slightly more satisfied when they found what the net result of the arithmetic really was.
What actually did occur however was that these very substantial increases were permitted at a time in the year when it would be most difficult to make any adjustments, where any tenant wanted to find other accommodation. It came at a time of the year when this would be most difficult. Perhaps it was too much to expect that this could have been announced last spring when the transitional measures bill became law. That would have been the proper time to have made the announcement, a time when people are changing their tenancies; and the new tenancies could have been related to these very substantial changes.
It is still some time before these new regulations come into effect. Either the government is in doubt about its powers, or it is not. It did not indicate any doubt last spring. In fact it suggested that those who raised any 
doubt were raising specious objections to this measure that was before the house. If the government is in any doubt about its powers, then it should not make these changes at this time, or permit them to be made. If the government want to deal with this in an effective way, and do in fact want to find out what the position of the provincial governments will be in regard to it, then let them invite the provincial governments to come together and discuss with them this whole situation. But let them defer any action until after that is done.
Now do not let me hear the ridiculous suggestion that the dominion government proposed that the provinces take this over. A letter was written to the provinces last spring-


Douglas Charles Abbott: A year ago last October.


George Alexander Drew: -indicating that the dominion government was willing to pass this over, at a time when they were continuing to exercise emergency powers over other matters, in a way that made it impossible for the provincial governments to exercise effective control over rentals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure my hon. friend wishes to be correct. The letter was written to the provincial governments last October- four months before the government asked for the extension of the powers.


George Alexander Drew: That is quite consistent with what I said. I said that the letter was in effect-


Douglas Charles Abbott: You said "at a time".


George Alexander Drew: And the law was in effect at the time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understood my hon. friend to say that the letter was written at the time we were asking permission to extend the law. That was not correct. It was a year ago last October.


George Alexander Drew: It was before that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Five months before.


George Alexander Drew: These are the war powers that were carried forward and in effect then, and the letter was written.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just wish to have the chronological order right, that is all.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of fact I can quite realize that the Minister of Finance must try to find some measure of satisfaction in saying something about this subject that is not related to the actual substance of the subject itself, because that is the one thing he does not want to discuss. And I am simply pointing out-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will discuss it all right.


George Alexander Drew: I am simply pointing out that there was an offer made by letter in a very general way, and there was no consultation with the provinces by bringing them together to discuss their powers in the only way agreements could be reached at any time with provincial governments in matters of this kind, and the only way in which satisfactory results can be produced.
This has been done in a way that has created confusion for both tenants and landlords. And I can only repeat that, in regard to the regulations themselves, if the government is in genuine doubt about its powers, then let it postpone the operation of these changes which were announced to the house on November 3 until the matter can be fully considered, after this reference has been made.
If on the other hand the government has no doubts as to its powers, then let it go ahead and exercise its responsibilities, but open up this matter for discussion, and give an opportunity to deal with it before the decisions are made-not after.
Coming back to the question of the order in council which asks the Supreme Court of Canada to find out whether or not these regulations are ultra vires of the powers of this parliament, or of the board which passed the regulations, may I repeat that if there is any doubt as to the continuance of the emergency upon which the Transitional Measures Act is based, then the reference should be as to the Transitional Measures Act itself and not as to regulations passed by a board responsible to the government. Let us deal with the law, and not simply with the emanation from that law. Then we shall have a clear decision upon which the government can act, and which will give members of the House of Commons as well as tenants and landlords throughout the country some knowledge of what their position really is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, before my colleague the Minister of Justice says a word about the legal question involved concerning the order in council, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word in connection with policy in reply to some questions raised by the leader of the opposition, and the leader of the C.C.F.
First I should like to put the record straight as to the chronological order in which the government has attacked this question of decontrol of rentals. On October 23 of last year- that is, October 23, 1948-I wrote a letter in substantially the same terms to all the provincial premiers. I have not that letter at hand, because I did not think it would be necessary to quote it tonight; however, in the 45781-152
Rent Control
letters which I wrote to the premiers recently in connection with the new announcement I quoted from that earlier letter.
On October 23, 1948, as I say, I wrote to the provincial premiers pointing out that the dominion government had entered the field of rental control along with price control, wage control and other controls as a wartime measure, as part of an over-all control system; it being considered that it had no constitutional power to remain in the field indefinitely and was under obligation to proceed to the decontrol of rentals as well as of other controls as rapidly as circumstances would permit. To that end it indicated to the provincial governments that they should give consideration at that time to entering the field if in their judgment they felt it was desirable to do so. Here is what 1 said to the provincial premiers, and I quote from my letter to the premier of Quebec of October 23, 1948:
At the same time the federal government is prepared to vacate the field at any time after March 31, 1949, to any province which may decide to undertake rent control. Normally rent control would come under provincial jurisdiction and is peculiarly suitable for provincial or local administration because of the immovable nature of real property. The federal government is anxious not to stand in the way of any province which believes that rent control can be better undertaken and administered locally.
This announcement of policy is being made at this time so that any provincial government which wishes to do so will have sufficient time to prepare legislation for presentation to its legislature before March 31, 1949.
For reasons which no doubt seemed wise to them no provincial government came forward and suggested that it would introduce rental control legislation. The dominion government in February or March of this year, feeling that a condition still existed which justified it in going before parliament and asking for an extension of its power to continue to exercise rent control, discharged that responsibility and the bill ,to which my hon. friend referred was passed. In the letters which were tabled the other day, that offer was repeated. I should say that in the meantime the new province of Newfoundland had come into confederation. Newfoundland had had a rental control system in force before that time and it has continued to exercise its own control over rentals.
Then as to the matter of policy. As I said a moment ago, the federal government feels that it has no constitutional right to continue indefinitely in this field, that it has no right other than to continue to decontrol as rapidly as circumstances will permit. As hon. members know, more than four years after the end of the war we were out of all the major controls; we are out of price control, we are

Rent Control
out of wage control, and we are out of most of the other controls. In fact I think steel control is pretty well the only one left.
If anyone could give me a good reason why we should continue to exercise control over one relatively small group in the community, the owners of housing accommodation, I wish he would give it to me because no one has given it to me yet. Everyone has said that there is going to be hardship involved if the apparently large number of tenants have to pay higher rents, but that is no answer to me as to why four years after the war the central government in Ottawa should assert the right to continue to tell one small group in the community what they shall receive when they do not attempt to control anybody else.
No one on the other side has attempted to answer that. Hon. members on the other side have made a lot of demagogic appeals about the hardship that is going to be involved. They have read from letters from people who in some cases are going to find it hard to meet these increased rentals. But that is no way of solving the problem. It is not solved by the dominion government continuing to occupy a field in which its powers are definitely limited.
All I am saying on the grounds of policy is that the provincial governments of this country had an opportunity last fall to adopt rental control legislation if they wished to do so. Up to the present time only one province has indicated its intention to do so. As far as I am concerned, and as the Prime Minister suggested the other day, any province which wishes to do so may come forward and say that it intends to do so, and it will get the same treatment as the province of Saskatchewan.
I am not going to deal with the legal matters raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre, because my colleague the Minister of Justice will do that; but it seemed to me it might be appropriate at this stage for me to say a few words in addition to what I said a week or ten days ago as to the reasons which prompted the government in taking this action.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is just one point that I think should be brought forward before we have the explanation by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Finance has pointed out correctly that letters were written to the provincial governments in October, 1948. At the time the transitional measures bill came before the house in March, 1949, it was known to the government and to members of this house that the provincial governments were not going to come in and therefore the transitional powers with the inclusion of rent control

were continued by this government with the knowledge of that fact. That legislation continues in effect until March 31 next.
The views that have been expressed by the Minister of Finance could have been much more appropriately expressed at the time that bill was before the house. If those are his views, rental control might have been dealt with upon that basis at that time. But instead of that, rental control was continued by the provisions of a bill that will be law until March 31 next and therefore the remarks that have been made seem to be inapplicable to the situation.
The suggestion has been made that if the government is in doubt it should review the changed situation and withdraw its new regulations until it has an opportunity to examine into the matter. The fact is that these changes have been made at the very worst time of year that they possibly could have been made.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I wonder if the minister would answer one further question following the statement he just made? In view of the fact that the government has been in this field up to the present time and has expressed great concern about that one section of the community which is being discriminated against in a way no other section of the community is, will the minister tell us why it is so essential that rents should be increased at this time and why the government cannot wait until March 31?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of opinion. I pointed out to my hon. friend that the earliest date at which any monthly rental can be increased is February 1 next, which is some ten months after the last extension of rental control and, if my memory serves me correctly, some sixteen months after the last authorized increase in rentals. The dominion government, being under obligation to proceed with a decontrol policy, felt that in announcing its intention it should indicate that it really meant to decontrol. That is what is being done in increasing the authorized rental ceilings.
I want to take exception to one remark made by my hon. friend, inadvertently I am sure. He said that the government is showing special consideration for one group in the community. That is not the case. The government endeavours to be as fair as it can to all groups in the community.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I did not intend to imply that the government was showing favouritism; I was simply calling the minister's

attention to his own statement that he felt the government was discriminating against one particular group in the community.


Douglas Charles Abbott: By continuing it indefinitely it would be.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Does the minister not feel, in the light of the confusion that is likely to arise over the question of jurisdiction, that it would be in the best interests of our entire economy if this increase could be withheld until that matter is cleared up?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am going to let the Minister of Justice answer that legal question. If I might answer it directly I would say that I do not think there is any difficulty on the legal question as to the respective jurisdiction of the dominion and the provinces in the case which has been cited by the leader of the C.C.F.


Mr. Knowles:: It seems to me the Minister of Finance threw out something in the nature of a challenge, and that challenge should not be allowed to go unanswered. Indeed that is the reason both my colleague the hon. member for York South and I have risen in our places at this time. The minister said that from this side of the house not one reason had been put forward as to why the government should remain in the rent control field. When we cite the condition of Canadian families-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to correct my hon. friend, if I may. What I meant to say, if I did not make it clear, was that no good reason had been advanced why there should not be an increase in the authorized rental ceilings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same thing. As I was about to say, when my leader seeks to read a letter from a typical Canadian family, or when any of us lay before the minister some of the scores of cases which have been brought to our attention of the hardships Canadians are suffering today, I do not see what is wrong in asking that the Canadian parliament should do something to try to prevent those hardships. That should be our job. Since the minister threw out his challenge I have hastily glanced over the order paper, and the fact is that half or more of the items on the order paper now are designed to meet particular needs or particular problems either of certain groups of Canadians or of the Canadian people as a whole. That is what parliament is for, to try and help people lead the lives it is possible for them to lead in this country. When under present economic conditions you superimpose upon the burden so many people are having to carry the added fear of higher rentals, and the fear as to where this thing is going to 45781-1521
Rent Control
end, people do write these heart-rending letters concerning the experiences they are undergoing. They do not know how they can carry on; they ask us for action. They think this is a democracy; they think the purpose of parliament and government is to meet the needs and wishes of the people.
On looking at the order paper I see legislation having to do with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the National Housing Act, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, amendments to the Veterans' Land Act, changes in the Income Tax Act, amendments to the Agricultural Prices Support Act and the Fisheries Prices Support Act. All these are matters of public policy, and all these measures and amendments are being brought forward because of certain problems facing this section or that of the Canadian people. Well, scores and in fact hundreds of thousands of Canadian people are facing a real problem right now in view of this announced increase in rents; and I say one case, let alone the hundreds of thousands that now exist, should constitute sufficient reason for this parliament to ask that these increases in domestic rentals should not be permitted at this time.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Does the minister not think that if we retained these rental controls for another ten years we would have the same hullabaloo then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's opinion is as good as mine on that point, but I would agree; I should think we would.


Joseph William Noseworthy: You will if you do not build more houses.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wonder if I might be permitted to deal with some of the points raised by speakers on the opposition side of the house. The leader of the opposition made the statement that either the government is in doubt about its power or it is not. I suggest that by no more complicated a device than reading the order in council which is the subject of this discussion he could have set at rest any doubts he might have had on that score.
As my colleague the Minister of Finance has indicated, government policy with respect to this rental matter is that of orderly decontrol; but inasmuch as our jurisdiction in this field, which ordinarily would be with the provinces, is based upon the continuation of an emergency arising out of war, it is quite obvious that with the lapse of time after the end of hostilities the factual basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction becomes less and less. Therefore when we address ourselves to the question whether it is possible to complete a program of decontrol by March 31, 1950, we reach the opinion, stated in this

Rent Control
order in council, that we cannot complete that program by that time. Then in spite of the fact that we have no doubt ourselves as to our legal position, since we shall be taking a step which will extend these emergency measures for a year from March, 1950, it would seem that not out of an abundance of caution but out of a reasonable amount of caution we should submit this question to the court upon a reference. In case there should be any doubt as to our own view I would refer my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to page 5 of the order in council, of which I think he has a copy, where the speech of my colleague the Minister of Finance is quoted in these words:
May I say at this point that the advice which the government receives from its law officers is that the existing federal regulations with respect to rent control are valid.
Then further down:
As I have said, the law officers of the crown are of opinion that the rentals regulations are valid. They are also of opinion that both the law and the facts support the view that it lies within the authority of parliament to extend these regulations for a further period. Counsel will be instructed by the Attorney General of Canada to press this view before the court.
So there is no doubt as to the view of the government. We think we have the power and that these regulations are valid. It is only of a very proper caution that-some four years after the end of the war, as my colleague has pointed out-we think that before we extend these powers for a further period of one year we should have them passed upon by the court.
The leader of the opposition asked why, in the order in council establishing a reference, we should be bothering with the wartime leasehold regulations. He said this matter arose under the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, and asked why we did not refer the act itself to the court. I must apologize to the legal members of the house, because these are elementary principles of law, but I suggest that the first thing the dominion parliament requires in order to exercise jurisdiction in a field that normally belongs to the provinces is some type of wartime emergency such as we have here, a set of facts upon which to base its jurisdiction. Once it has those it passes a law, which in this case, as my hon. friend correctly says, is the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act. Then, pursuant to that statute, the governor general in council passes certain regulations.
When we submit to the court the question whether these regulations are ultra vires, that submission embraces first of all the question whether the governor general, in passing the regulations, has acted within the ambit

of the powers given by the statute, and secondly whether the statute itself is within the powers of parliament. So it is quite idle to draw the distinction my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has attempted to draw, between the regulations upon the one hand and the act upon the other in a reference such as this. The two of them are, for the purpose of a reference of this sort, inseparable.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister a question in that respect? Under the present terms of reference would it not be possible that, for some reason, the regulations might be ultra vires although that part of the act under which the regulations were passed might be intra vires? If the question is directed to the act itself, no such doubt could exist.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe my hon. friend is right in saying that it might be possible that the governor general in council, in invoking the powers given by the act, could exceed his authority. That would make the regulations invalid, although the statute itself might be quite valid. If the act itself be invalid, and my hon. friend seems to raise that question, then I should imagine that those who were attacking the orders in council would say that, although upon their face the orders in council were a proper exercise of powers which the statute purported to impart to the governor in council, yet the act itself was beyond the powers of parliament and was therefore invalid. Then they would say that, since the act was invalid, it was invalid for the governor in council to pass any orders in council under the purported powers granted by the act.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: If in fact, as a result of this reference, the court should come to the conclusion that there is no power in respect of the leaseholds, then will that not cast doubt on the other controls which were covered by the emergency powers act, such as the steel control?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not if the court's findings are based upon the view that the governor in council, in passing the leasehold regulations, has exceeded the authority granted by the act.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that there might be some insufficiency or difficulty in the act authorizing the governor in council to implement this arrangement which is under negotiation between the federal government and the Saskatchewan government. If that be so I should think that, inasmuch as this arrangement will come into effect some time later, it would be a simple matter, since we must apply within sixty days after the meeting of the

1950 session of parliament for an extension of this authority, to take the necessary statutory authority at that time.
From the government's standpoint, Mr. Chairman, and particularly from the standpoint of the Department of Justice, this discussion has been worth while. We have had the benefit of the views of such eminent lawyers as the hon. member for Lake Centre, and of some of the legally minded laymen of the house, in suggesting the various considerations that we might take under advisement in connection with this reference. I should like to congratulate my hon. friends upon the very useful statements they have made in this debate. We are greatly indebted to them for those suggestions, in spite of the fact that I have a sufficient feeling of confidence in the deputy minister and his advisers that I believe it probable they have considered each of these alternatives now suggested and have rejected them in favour of the course which is set out in P.C. 5840. The fact that they may have done so does not in any way lessen our gratitude for those suggestions that have been made.
In dealing with those suggestions, I hope my hon. friends opposite did not cherish the illusion that I was going to come here to debate these legal points with them, because I am in a much different position, as minister, than they are as members of the opposition. If they discuss, in terms of legal generalities, a number of abstract principles of constitutional law they are not discussing-at least I am charitable enough to assume they are not-a matter that is sub judice, which is contrary to the rules of this house. But if I considered their suggestions as alternatives to the course we have adopted in this order in council, I would be under the necessity of outlining the case that we are going to present to the Supreme Court of Canada. In that event I should certainly be offending the rules of this house which declare that it is improper for a member to discuss a matter which is under consideration by the courts.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt, but I had understood that the purpose of this debate was to make it possible to place suggestions before the government prior to the time this matter came before the court. If it is not before the court, it cannot be sub judice, so if that is the situation the Minister of Justice would be under no greater limitation than we would be.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when the order in council has been filed with the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, the attorneys general of the provinces have
Rent Control
been served, and in due course an application will be made to the court for direction as to the filing of the record and the setting of a trial date, the matter is certainly sub judice. I believe my hon. friends have in no way offended that law. I do not believe there was a syllable in what the leader of the opposition said that would have a sufficient bearing upon the reference to make it objectionable from the standpoint of the rule I have just mentioned. If I discussed the virtues of the course which we propose to follow in presenting the case to the supreme court, as an alternative to the suggestions which have been put forward by members of the opposition, then I would most assuredly be discussing the pith and substance of a matter which is sub judice.
Regardless of the rules, Mr. Chairman- and I think I am clearly barred by the rules -I believe I would be derelict in my duty in doing that, because parliament was never intended as a forum for a preview of some case that is to be tried in the courts. This legislative body would be discharging a judicial function by prejudging the matter which is now before the courts. For that reason I regret that I cannot reciprocate the interesting suggestions that have been made by my hon. friends opposite. I can assure them in all sincerity however that there is not a single suggestion that they have made that will not be taken into careful account at once with the deputy minister and his advisers, as well as those who are going to act in presenting the case to the supreme court.
In closing my remarks, I wish to express our appreciation and thanks to those who have offered these suggestions, for I have no doubt that many of them will be exceedingly valuable to us.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly we shall get back to something now, Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister-and this is not sub judice-why it is that the Supreme Court Act making the supreme court the final court has not been given the royal assent, so that in this case the final decision would be in that court. In that connection I ask the minister: Have the Supreme Court Act amendments received the royal assent? If not, and he says the matter is now sub judice and has been since November 16, is it not a fact therefore that under the amendments that he himself introduced some weeks ago this matter is appealable to. the privy council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the set of facts that my hon. friend cites, the answer is yes; but the fact of the matter is that, so far as the federal government is concerned, there will be no appeal.

Trans-Canada Highway


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason that this act has been held oil so long from having the royal assent? There was a great rush to get the Supreme Court Act amendments passed through the house. Why the delay?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I should answer that question, Mr. Chairman. Diligence has been shown in getting that business completed just as diligence has been shown in getting all of the business before parliament completed, because it is not the intention to have this session go on for ever. The act in question was passed in the other place since a royal assent took place; and a request has not been made to His Excellency to ask his deputy to come down for the purpose of giving the royal assent to that bill, because it will not come into force upon the granting of the royal assent but only at such time as it is proclaimed. It has been the intention of the government, when proclaiming the act, to proceed at once to carry out the provisions of the act and to increase the number of judges from seven to nine. At this moment we are not prepared to make those nominations.
Progress reported.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROVISION FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters for the second reading of Bill No. 194, to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I will not keep the house long, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a considerable amount of debate on this bill in connection with the all-Canada highway. I think it has been fairly well covered. From this corner of the house in the Social Credit group the leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), spoke on the matter when it was in the resolution stage. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who has made a special study of this matter, has given two major speeches on it. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has spoken on it. There is therefore not a great deal left for me to say, but I think I should put in my little ten cents' worth.
I know that it is not a particularly popular course to follow in this house for one to proceed now to make any recommendations as to the route the highway should take. Nevertheless, I am going to run the chance of becoming unpopular and suggest that, with regard to Alberta and British Columbia, the route should be through the southern

portion of Alberta, through Lethbridge, through the Crowsnest pass and in that direction. The reason I am saying this is that I believe special factors enter into the picture. A road built along that route would make beautiful and convenient connections with the various highways in the United States. This would facilitate tourist traffic coming into Canada and going up to the beauty spots of the rockies. Another matter to be considered with respect to the route which the highway should follow is the population: How many people will the highway serve? While I have not all the exact statistics on this matter, I believe that the route going through the Crowsnest pass and the southern part of British Columbia would serve a larger population compared with other routes through Alberta and British Columbia.
Another matter is the length of the road in mileage. I believe that that route is perhaps one of the shortest ones. I agree, however, with the hon. member for Lethbridge and others who have spoken that we must think not merely in terms of one coast-to-coast highway but of a real system of federal highways in Canada so that no matter what route the main highway may take, all other routes will be served.
There is one matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the house, and it has been mentioned before. I cannot quite understand why the government are proposing a seven-year period for the construction of this highway. I am not an engineer and I am therefore not going to attempt to argue all the details of construction that may be necessary; but for the life of me I cannot see why it should take seven years to build that highway. I recognize that if one contractor or one construction company were to begin at Halifax and eventually end in Vancouver, it might take even seventy years. I do not believe that is the way the highway will be built. I believe that many construction companies will do the work according to the contracts awarded them for the building of this highway. I cannot see why it should take seven years. I just wonder whether the government may think that there is a depression lurking somewhere around the corner, and that in order to absorb the shock of unemployment they will propose a seven-year period and use the all-Canada highway for that purpose. That is the only answer that I can think of. If that is going to be so then I say the government is not tackling the highway problem at all. They are simply making future plans to assist in a possible situation which they think might develop.

In previous speeches that have been made I noticed that the minister has been congratulated a good deal for introducing this measure and deciding to build this coast to coast highway. I do not want to be unkind, but I am not going to congratulate the minister at all, because I do not believe that he is the one particularly responsible for initiating the move. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that some of us have been advocating an all-Canada highway for a good many years. I suppose hon. members stood up in this house before many of us ever came here and recommended an all-Canada highway. In the fourteen years that we have been here we have advocated it over and over again. I am particularly reminded of the fact that some months previous to the last election the leader of the Progressive Conservatives-perhaps he was a little premature-made the announcement-if it was not he then it came from the Progressive Conservative convention; I am not certain of the origin of it, but I know it came from Progressive Conservative quarters -that if they were elected they would pursue a policy that would give Canada an allCanadian highway. He had not mentioned it very long before the government arose and stole his thunder. They announced that they were going to build this highway, placing emphasis upon the fact that they were in office and were in a better position to build a highway than some party that was not yet in office. They put the matter in the hands of the then minister of mines and resources, a greatly honoured gentleman who now sits in another place. Pressure began to be placed upon him for the highway to take a certain route which would cover his constituency. Perhaps considering that the highway might not go through his constituency they recognized that they were in a bit of a jam. What did they do? They moved the all-Canada highway from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines and Resources and put it into the hands of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, who did not live in northern Alberta, but lived away down here in the maritime provinces. Therefore that little political fence was hurdled.
Then came the election. The Liberals had stolen the thunder of the Progressive Conservatives. They were elected, and now they have to bring down a bill, and everyone in the house rises and congratulates the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply on his vision and his courage in introducing this bill. So much for that.
I want to know why it is going to take seven years to build this highway? The only thing I can suggest is that they expect a period of unemployment. They will get their picks and shovels out. They will bring in all
Trans-Canada Highway the unemployed and say: "Here you are. Here are your picks and shovels. The engineers have gone out. Now we shall give you a job to do."
I might say that while the leader of the Progressive Conservatives did advocate this highway previous to the election, there is one point that we have lost sight of, namely, that the Conservative party, under the late Mr. Bennett, when he was prime minister of Canada, was one jump ahead of them all. He started an all-Canada highway, but-there is a "but" in there-he started it not because Canada needed an all-Canada highway. That was not the purpose of the highway. There was a depression and vast unemployment. The purpose of the highway was to put the unemployed people to work. So he gave them picks and shovels and put them out in the northern part of Ontario to dig their way through the bush, at, I am told, $5 a week. A portion of that highway was referred to this morning by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston).
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) said that he had travelled all over it. He did not travel all over it because he did not know it was there. I will tell you why he did not know it was there. After about fifteen or twenty years the trees have grown up in the middle of the highway. There are trees in the middle of that highway with trunks almost as large as the circumference of my body, and that is getting larger and larger at about the same rate as the trees get larger and larger.
Mr. Bennett started to build that road and every time it came to a river it stopped. Of course the unemployed could not build bridges very well. It took expensive engineering skill to do that, so the highway stopped. If you wish to go over the highway you will need a puddle jumper to jump over the rivers and streams where the highway stopped. When you are going along in a train you can see the highway more or less close or farther away as the case may be with trees growing up in the middle of it. I am wondering whether the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) is going to follow that same highway. Part of the work may be done, but I am afraid that he will have to rebuild it. If he follows it he will at least have to cut all the timber off it and he will have to build bridges and so forth. I shall leave that for him to do. The fact of the matter is that governments have monkeyed around with this all-Canada highway for many many years and still we have not one.
Now we are about to have one, and it is going to be seven years before the ultimate objective will be realized. For the life of

Trans-Canada Highway me, with modern road-building machinery such as we have in Canada, I do not see why it should take more than three or at the outside four years to build that highway. Let us get started at it and have the highway built as soon as possible.
A good deal of it is already built by the provinces. Whether the parts now built will meet the specifications the minister has in mind, I cannot say. I will say this, however, that there are portions built which I am sure are better than the specifications the minister has. We have some mighty fine roads in Alberta-and I might as well put in a plug for my native province. I will say, too, that some portions of roads I have seen in British Columbia will match any to be found on the North American continent-perhaps not in width, but certainly in the travelling conditions offered by those highways. While there are not many of them, some which have been built recently would be a matter of pride to any country.
I travelled a small portion built in the last couple of years just this side of Cranbrook in British Columbia, and I am going to say that if the minister wishes to travel on a beautiful piece of road he should try that piece. While it is only about fifteen miles in length, he will think he is travelling on a piece of glass. The engineering skill has been marvellous.
I believe that is all I have to say. When the minister builds this highway I wonder if he will tell us just why he considers it will take seven years. For the life of me I cannot see why it should.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: Just one point before the question is put: I wonder if the hon. member who has just spoken would tell us the type of tree that grows a trunk as big as his body in fifteen years. If he would tell us, I am sure it would be most helpful to those who are interested in forest development.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make only a few brief observations on the bill, most of which are occasioned by what was said by a previous speaker.
I rise to support the principle of the bill, and to say that I listened with great interest to the statement of the minister when he introduced it. I believe it is safe to say that finally the government has reacted to some extent satisfactorily to public demand across Canada for the commencement of this work.
I have one or two criticisms of the bill, while supporting it in principle. My first criticism is that I am sorry the bill does not provide for a trans-Canada highway system. While that may not be possible immediately,

I am of the opinion that in starting this most important legislation for the Canadian people we should have had in the bill a provision for a trans-Canada highway system. I find that is what organizations throughout British Columbia had been asking for. As I said before, while it may not be possible to do these things immediately, we should have made provision for them and have indicated to the people of Canada that the government intended over a period of years to develop a trans-Canada highway system.
I think the necessity for such a system is obvious when we listen to the discussion concerning the various routes suggested across Canada. It is only natural that a province will favour a district in which it is interested. We in British Columbia are particularly interested in three routes, namely the Crows-nest pass, the Big Bend or central route, and the Yellowhead pass route. No matter which one is built first, there can be no question that the three routes will have to be built eventually, if British Columbia is to be served satisfactorily so far as a trans-Canada highway system is concerned.
I heartily support the Crowsnest route and I believe that it is the most suitable and should be built first. I shall not discuss that question now in detail, because the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) spoke at some length in support of it, and there is no need to repeat his argument. I do think however that in dealing with this matter we should approach it not from the standpoint of this or that route, but rather as Canadians hoping to see at least one trans-Canada highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Then, while we are seriously concerned with the percentage the federal government will pay, we must realize that finally, while the federal government pays a certain percentage and the provincial government a certain percentage, the whole of the expense comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. Therefore as our first objective we should have a trans-Canada system.
When approaching a matter of this kind I am inclined to set limited objectives, something reasonably possible within the reasonably near future. On that point I disagree with the bill, because I believe provision should have been made for a trans-Canada highway system, although only one route is to be proceeded with at the present time. When we have a trans-Canada highway system complete and serving all the areas of Canada satisfactorily, it will be time then for the federal and provincial governments to get together to arrange for the building of satisfactory farm roads.

I am pleased to see in the bill a provision for a fifty per cent payment to the provinces in respect of money already expended for the building of portions of highways which will become part of the trans-Canada highway route. I believe this will tend to equalize the great differences in the cost of building highways in the various portions of Canada.
I may have misunderstood the minister, but I would suggest that the fifty per cent returnable to any province on account of money formerly expended for the building of a portion of the trans-Canada highway should be earmarked for future highway construction in that province. I am of the opinion that in view of the large amount of money spent by the provinces which will be included in the trans-Canada highway when its final location is decided upon, and in view of the large amount of money to be repaid to the provinces on that basis alone, the $150 million will soon be found insufficient to complete the work. If we develop a trans-Canada highway system probably it would have been more sound to have made provision whereby the federal government would have paid seventy-five per cent and the provincial governments twenty-five per cent, as is done in respect of other legislation in which the federal and provincial governments are interested.
I was glad to hear the minister's statement with regard to standards and from what I was able to hear I think satisfactory standards have been established at this time. Naturally in the mountains those standards will be different than in the prairie provinces and other parts of Canada where road building is easier and traffic heavier. It must be remembered that when you come to construct a highway in mountainous country with its rock cliffs and things like that you multiply the cost of construction manyfold by every additional five feet in width. We must have different standards, not only with regard to width but with regard to grades and curvatures.
There is one thing I should like to draw to the attention of the minister, a thing which has been overlooked in the past by provincial governments when undertaking highway construction. You see examples all across the country where narrow bridges are used to connect two wider sections of highway. It is most necessary that all bridges be built to standard so that they will serve for many years to come.
I think one member stated that a one hundred foot allowance was too wide for certain portions of the maritime provinces. If we are going to have a satisfactory highway in the mountainous regions in many cases
Trans-Canada Highway the allowance will have to be five hundred feet because of the angle of the slopes and so on.
One other hon. member referred to the necessity of connecting up the various cities in Canada, but I am not in agreement with that. If we are going to build a satisfactory trans-Canada highway that will provide a through route it must be built in the best location possible whether or not it by-passes any particular city, village or town. It will be quite easy for any city, town or village to construct connecting links.
These are all the observations I want to make at this time except to express again my regret that this bill, which is the commencement of something that will eventually develop into a very large project in a few years, does not provide for a trans-Canada highway system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, in the remaining few minutes before eleven o'clock I should like to answer some of the points that were raised this afternoon. I should like to start with those raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who as far as I can determine is the only hon. member who opposes this measure. He suggested that certain action should have been taken and it was his view that no bill should have been introduced until a route could be defined. He imposed certain other limitations with respect to maintenance, standards, length of time allowed for the building of the highway and the provision of back payments toward meeting costs already incurred. I can say without qualification that if we had tried to do what the hon. member suggests we should do there certainly would not have been a bill of any kind. If we had gone to the provinces and asked them to define a route, if we had made that a condition of the federal government before bringing a bill before this house, I leave it to the judgment of hon. members as to whether there would have been a bill. If he is in favour of a highway, as I gather he is, I feel that other approaches would be necessary on his part to achieve it. The hon. member for Cape Breton South also expressed doubt that a bill should have been introduced until a route had been defined.


Clarence Gillis: I want to put the minister straight on that. I said no such thing. I said that I was not prepared as an individual to even support the principle of this bill until I knew the views of the province of Nova

Trans-Canada Highway Scotia. As far as the route is concerned, I did not mention it. I merely said that I wanted that information before I was prepared to vote for this measure.


Robert Henry Winters: I recall what the hon. member for Cape Breton South said and I still feel that if we had tried to conform with his wishes with respect to this matter there would have been no bill.


Clarence Gillis: The minister is absolutely wrong.


Robert Henry Winters: At any rate I want to thank the hon. member for putting off the speech he had prepared to give on the resolution stage, permitting the bill to be introduced and making that speech today on the second reading. I thank the hon. member for Bow River for the most constructive speech that he made. He appeared to have a good grasp of the problem as I see it and his remarks were most helpful.
The hon. member for Vancouver South said that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was not speaking for his constituency. Then at one stage the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra said that he was not speaking for his party. After having spoken to the provincial authorities I am convinced that he was not speaking for the provincial government. I think hon. members will have a difficult time in deciding just whom he represents. I wish also to thank the hon. member for Cochrane for making a most statesmanlike speech.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will try to pass this Bill No. 194, to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. We will then continue in committee on Bill No. 142, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944. There are two resolutions which are Nos. 19 and 13 on today's order paper which we should like to pass along so that the bills may be distributed. If time permits we will take up Bills Nos. 64, 120, 185 and 148.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 29, 1949