1949-11-21

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The house will be pleased to know that once again an unique distinction has been conferred upon the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar by one of its farm residents, Mr. Albert Kessel, of Valley Centre, who not only won the silver cup for the northwest championship for his grain, but last week was awarded the world championship for his rye at the annual Royal Winter fair in Toronto. I should add that last year, Mr. Kessel won a championship ribbon and first prize for a sheaf of wheat, and a first for oats at the same winter fair.
I might say also that in 1947 Mr. Albert Robbins of Laura, in the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar, won the grand prize for oats and in 1948 a reserve championship for an exhibit of barley at the Royal Winter fair. I am sure all hon. members will join with me in congratulating these Saskatchewan farmers for their successful efforts to improve the products of the Canadian grain growing industry.



WINNER FOR OATS AND BARLEY

Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, according to newspaper reports, one of my constituents won the world championship with his exhibits of oats and barley at the Royal Winter fair. The name of the winner is John T. Eliuk, and in winning this award he became the first such double winner in this fair. Incidentally, Mr. Eliuk was the oat king at the Chicago World fair in 1948. This is not the first time that some of my constituents engaged in farming have obtained world recognition of their ability.
It is a pleasure for me to record the congratulations of this house to Mr. Eliuk upon obtaining such a high distinction as winning this double award. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is noted not only for the richest and biggest oil field in Canada, but also for the type of farmers who are given world recognition for their efforts.


Mr. J. L. Gauthier (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, since all these farmers are being mentioned this morning, I believe I should draw the 45781-126
attention of this house to the fact that, although my constituency is one of the richest in minerals in Canada, on Friday Mr. Theo-phile Depatie of Hanmer, Ontario, Sudbury district, was crowned potato king of the world.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I do not
believe it would be fair to let an occasion such as this pass without joining with the other speakers in their congratulatory messages, and I should like to extend congratulations to the district agriculturist from my home town, Mr. E. H. Buckingham, for the part he played in bringing three firsts to Alberta from the Royal Winter fair at Toronto, and in addition, the high singles in those classes. Mr. Buckingham and some of his associates came east with five young people's teams, and in taking home these three firsts has conferred quite an honour upon my fellow citizens and his associates from the province of Alberta.


Mr. Knowles:: The people in my riding are raising Cain over the lifting of rent control.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Argue be substituted for that of Mr. Herridge in the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Battlefords: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to sit while the house is sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: For the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), I wish to give the house a summary of the report of the court of investigation into the loss of the steamship Noronic by fire on September 17 last.
The Minister of Transport informed the house that under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act he had appointed the Hon.

5.5.	Noronic
Mr. Justice Kellock, of the Supreme Court of Canada, to act as commissioner and to hold a formal investigation into the loss of that steamship. The commissioner, sitting as a court of investigation, was assisted by Captains H. S. Kane and Robert Mitchell as nautical assessors, and Mr. Neil B. Gebbie as engineer assessor.
Counsel appeared for the Department of Transport; for Canada Steamship Lines Limited, and officers; for the Attorney General of Ontario; for the attorney general of the state of Ohio; and for the Seafarers' International Union. Mr. W. K. Campbell acted as registrar of the court.
The court held hearings in the city of of Toronto on eighteen days in September, October and November, and the final sitting was held at the city of Ottawa on the 21st day of November, 1949.
Many witnesses were called to give evidence, and ample opportunity was given to everyone who had personal knowledge of the circumstances of the disaster to come forward and testify. I think I may say without fear of contradiction that the investigation was searching, impartial and thorough.
The judgment of the court was pronounced this morning in open court as follows:
Court of Investigation
5.5.	Noronic
Monday, the 21st day of November, 1949.
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. L. Kellock, Commissioner
This matter, coming on for hearing before this court at its sittings held at the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario on the 28th, 29th and 30th days of September, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st days of October and the 7th day of November, 1949, and judgment having been reserved until this day and the same coming on this day for judgment:
1.	This court doth order and adjudge that the certificate of William Taylor, being passenger inland waters' certificate No. 6703, be and the same is hereby suspended until and including the 21st day of November, 1950.
2.	And this court doth further order and adjudge that the costs of the Department of Transport of this investigation be taxed upon the scale of the Exchequer Court of Canada and be paid by Canada Steamship Lines Limited.
3.	And the court doth not see fit to make any further or other order touching the costs of the said investigation.
R. L. Kellock, Commissioner.
Hugh S. Kane Assessor R. Mitchell
Assessor Neil B. Gebbie Assessor
The commissioner's report, concurred in by the assessors, is embodied in a separate document that has been forwarded to me by the

commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. I now table a copy of the report, and copies will be available for all members of the house.
The report of the court of investigation is a lengthy document, as befits an investigation of major importance, and should be carefully read by all those who are concerned in preventing a recurrence of such a terrible disaster. I shall not attempt in this statement to review at length the contents of the report, but will endeavour to point out to members of the house some of the more important observations and findings of the court.
In the first part of the report the commissioner reviews the legislation and regulations to which the ship and its owners were subject. He finds that the Noronic was built in 1913 and was constructed without fire-resisting bulkheads. Under the regulations, the ship, as an existing ship, was exempted from compliance with the regulations which came into force in 1939 and which require new ships to be constructed with fire-resisting bulkheads.
The Noronic was equipped with a fire alarm system which was mechanically in good order, with fire-extinguishing equipment consisting of hydrants, hoses, fire extinguishers, pumps, smoke helmets and lamps which had been inspected by the Canadian steamship inspection service on April 23, 1949, and had been approved by the steamship inspector. The commissioner expresses the opinion that the laxity of the inspection in requiring compliance with the regulations could only induce or encourage a similar laxity on the part of the owners and officers of the ship with respect to the vital matter of preparedness for fire.
Pursuant to United States legislation, the provisions of the Canadian regulations were considered by the United States authorities as approximating those in the United States, and a certificate was issued on April 28, 1949, by the inspection office of the United States coastguard admitting the Noronic to the exemptions and benefits provided by United States statutes relating to the inspection of boilers, machinery, hull and equipment. This meant that compliance with Canadian regulations was considered sufficient.
The certificate issued by the Canadian steamship inspection service permitted the ship to carry 600 passengers and 200 crew. At the time of the casualty the ship carried 524 passengers and 171 crew.
There are no regulations applying to Canadian passenger ships on the great lakes with respect to the maintenance of any fire patrol system or as to fire drills for either passengers or crew. However, the commissioner states

that, in his opinion, it is implicit in the regulations relating to fire-extinguishing equipment that there shall be provided by the shipowner men trained to use the required apparatus and so organized that the presence of fire on shipboard may be learned at a sufficiently early stage to make the use of the required apparatus in the hands of such men effective in its control. So far as patrolling for detection of an outbreak of fire is concerned, that is a duty which, it was decided as long ago as 1910 by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Dominion Fish Company v. Isbester, is incumbent upon the shipowner for the protection of sleeping passengers in the case of a ship lying at dock.
In a ship equipped with neither automatic apparatus for detecting an outbreak of fire on board nor an automatic sprinkler system to extinguish it if it did break out, as was the case with the Noronic, an efficient patrol for the detection of fire at the earliest possible moment would appear to be essential. The fire patrol actually employed on the ship was inadequate for the purpose.
The report deals with the organization, or lack of it, of the officers and crew of the ship to meet a situation such as occurred. Only 15 crew members were required to be on the ship at the time of the fire, the remainder being free to go ashore.
After reviewing the evidence of certain witnesses, the commissioner finds that, in his opinion, no one in a responsible position in connection with the ship, either on the ship or ashore, had applied his mind in any serious way to the handling of a situation such as arose on the outbreak of fire on the night in question, although such an eventuality could not be considered otherwise than as one that might occur at any time. Moreover, complete complacency had descended upon both the ship's officers and the management. The fire which actually occurred found officers and crew without any organization designed to deal with such a situation.
The commissioner further states that, in his opinion, it is clear there was no training of the crew with respect to fire or its detection, or what should be done after detection, apart from what might be picked up by attendance at fire drills. The lack of any effective system of patrolling for the purpose of fire detection and the lack of any system by which, when fire was detected, the information of its presence and location could immediately be sent to some central locality, where personnel trained in methods of dealing with fire were available to be sent to the spot immediately, accounts, in the commissioner's opinion, for the loss of life which ensued.
45781-126J
S.S.	Noronic
The commissioner points out that the outbreak of fire on a ship at a time when it has a large number of sleeping passengers on board requires of necessity a pre-arranged plan for arousing and getting them off the ship. The Noronic had no such plan. Any organization which the ship did have was designed to function in other circumstances with a complete crew on board. Accordingly the fire found the ship totally unprepared to deal with the situation. Such efforts as were made to fight the fire were scattered and ineffective, and the heavy loss of life shows clearly the failure of the crew to rouse those sleeping passengers who were unable to escape from the burning ship.
The report states that the evidence established the origin of the fire to have been in a small linen closet located just forward of the women's washroom opening onto the port corridor on "C" deck. The actual cause of the fire was not established, but there was no evidence of the fire having been deliberately set.
The procedure followed in formal investigations of this kind is for the Department of Transport to propound certain questions for the opinion of the court. The report of the commissioner sets out at the end thereof the questions raised and the answers given by the court. Following these questions and answers the commissioner makes some observations on the suspension of the master's certificate and gives reasons for awarding costs. The report concludes with certain recommendations made by the court. I should like to read the more important of the questions and answers which are found on pages 94 to 96 of the report, and which are as follows:
Question 15:	When fire was discovered on the
S.S. Noronic was all possible and proper action taken to save life, to fight, control, localize, and extinguish the fire? If not, in what way and to what extent was the action taken, if any, defective or inadequate?
Answer:	The action taken for the above purposes by the ordinary crew members was no doubt such action as they would be expected to take without direction in such circumstances, no officer of the ship having taken charge of the situation or having attempted to give any general directions, if such was possible at the advanced stage which the fire had reached when the alarm was given.
Question 16: If all possible and proper action was not taken or was not taken soon enough to save life, and fight, control, localize and extinguish the fire, was the master or any other person or persons on the vessel to blame? If so, whom?
Answer:	After the alarm had been given the
only thing it might have been possible to do, which was not done, was for the master to have taken general charge of the situation and directed in an organized way the arousing of passengers, instead of acting himself as an ordinary sailor in such parts of the ship as he could reach.

S.S.	Noronic
Question 17: Were the fire fighting appliances on board the S.S. Noronic adequate? Had they been found satisfactory and in good working order? If so, when and where were they last tested and found satisfactory and in good working order?
Answer:	The fire fighting appliances on board
appear to have been satisfactory and in good working order. The last departmental inspection was on April 23, 1949. Some of the fire hydrants (probably all the outside ones, but none of those inside), and a few of the fire extinguishers had been used since that time.
Question 18: How many of the crew of the S.S. Noronic were lost or injured? How many are missing?
Answer:	There were no losses among the crew.
Question 19:	What was the cause of the loss of
the S.S. Noronic and the cause of the loss of life?
Answer:	The loss of the S.S. Noronic and the
loss of life was due to the failure on the part of the owners and the master to have:
(a)	a continuous patrol of the ship for the purpose of detecting the presence of fire, such patrol as was in existence being limited to approximately fifteen minutes out of every hour;
(b)	in failing to have any organization operative when the ship was in dock with passengers on board by which information as to the outbreak of fire could be promptly dispatched to some point from which men trained in the methods of dealing with fire could be immediately dispatched to the locality;
(c)	in failing to contemplate in any real sense the possibility of fire occurring at a dock, and maintaining only fifteen actually on duty out of a crew of one hundred and seventy-one, the others being free to go ashore and who might be, so far as the master or the officer on duty knew, actually on shore;
(d)	in failing to have any plan for arousing and getting the passengers off the ship in the event of fire while the ship was at dock;
(e)	in failing to train the crew as to the proper steps to be taken on discovery of fire or in fire fighting methods beyond giving them a knowledge of how to operate fire extinguishers and hoses.
Question 20: Was the loss of the S.S. Noronic and the loss of life caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the owners, Canada Steamship Lines, Limited, the master, Captain William Taylor, or any other person or persons?
Answer: The loss of the S.S. Noronic and the loss of life was caused by the wrongful default of the owners and of the master in the respects mentioned in the answers to the last question. While it is true that the owners knew and approved of the organization, or lack of it, designed to deal with the outbreak of fire on the ship while it lay in dock with sleeping passengers on board, the master was not in any way precluded by any instructions from the owners from taking the proper steps himself.
I should like also to read the recommendations which appear at the end of the report:
While anything in the way of recommendation for the future probably arises fairly obviously upon a review of the circumstances covered by this report, it may be of value to gather them together in one place. The following are therefore submitted for consideration in connection with ships carrying more than a minimum of passengers on the major fresh waters:
1.	That the provisions as to the fire resisting bulkheads in regulation XVI of the international convention for the safety of life at sea be made applicable to such ships.

2.	That the provisions of regulation XLIII of the said safety convention, as to the maintenance of an efficient and continuous fire patrol system as well as an automatic fire alarm or fire-detecting system, be made applicable, but such alarm or detecting system should not be restricted to parts of the ship not accessible to the patrol system.
3.	That the provisions of regulation XLIV as to muster lists and the assigning of special duties to different members of the crew in connection with the matters therein mentioned, including:
(a) the muster of passengers; (b) the extinction of fire; (c) warning of passengers; (d) assembling of passengers at muster stations; (e) keeping order in the passages and on the stairways and generally controlling the movements of passengers, be applied. This will necessarily require adequate training of the crew in methods of fire fighting, together with the setting up of and maintenance of and effective organization for dispatching men so trained to the seat of fire at the earliest possible moment.
4.	That such ships be fitted with a sprinkler system protecting all enclosed parts of the vessel.
5.	Muster charts should be prominently displayed in order that each member of the crew may become familiar, not only with his own duties and fire and boat stations, but with those of the crew who are to work with him.
6.	That such ships be fitted with a public address system for directing passengers in an emergency, and that the proper officers be trained as to its use.
7.	That ships at dock should provide adequate and more than a single means of exit to shore.
8.	That passenger ships docking with the intention of remaining for any extended time be required to be connected with the local telephone system so that the aid of the local fire department may be obtained without delay.
I wish to read my colleague's conclusion, as follows:
In conclusion I wish to take this opportunity to thank publicly the commissioner and his assessors for their untiring efforts in this long and arduous investigation, and also all those who assisted the court in the discharge of their duties. The recommendations made by the court will be carefully considered by the department, and I sincerely hope that this investigation, which has been so ably carried out, will be the means of preventing disasters of this kind in the future.


Mr. Green:: May I direct a question to the minister? Has the government any intention of bringing in amendments to the shipping legislation, or seeing to it that amendments are made to the shipping regulations? This was a terrible disaster. The report condemns the company very strongly, and points out that certain new regulations are required. As I understand it, the report also points out that the inspection of the dominion inspecting officer was not adequate. I do urge that there is the utmost need for a prompt and thorough revision, primarily of the regulations, but perhaps also of the Canada Shipping Act itself. Has the government in mind taking any such steps?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Transport is indisposed at the present time, and I received the report only this morning. I am sure, however, the

government will take into consideration every suggestion made by the commissioners, and I shall be surprised if my colleague does not recommend legislation to the house at an early day.
I believe that is all I can say. I shall take as notice the further remarks of the hon. member, and bring them to the attention of my colleague.
S.S.	"CHELOHSIN"



QUESTION AS TO ACCIDENT NEAR ENTRANCE TO VANCOUVER HARBOUR

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on November 6 the passenger steamship Chelohsin, despite urgent warnings from the radar station at First Narrows bridge, ran ashore on the rocks at Stanley park near the First Narrows entrance to Vancouver harbour. Fortunately there was no loss of life. I understand the regulations do not force a ship to comply with the directions given by such radar stations. Apparently there was no one on the ship to receive the directions. Is there to be an investigation into this accident? None has been announced.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will take the question as notice and give an answer later.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members would wish me to refer here to the successful rescue of eighteen men of the United States air force by the Canadian destroyer Haida. This was the culmination of a search and rescue operation by United States and Canadian forces working together. The job done by Haida and her crew was in line with the splendid record of that fine ship.
I am sure all hon. members will wish to echo the message I sent to the commanding officer: "Well done, Haida; heartiest congratulations."


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon. member would wish the congratulations of the house as a whole to accompany and to support the message sent by the minister on this occasion.
This is one of the most remarkable examples that can be recalled of a combination of different services of different countries in rescue operations. Not only were there Canadian and United States units in the area, but there was a British unit as well; therefore the units of three services were taking some part in these rescue operations.
Royal Canadian Navy
The effective co-operation so indicated, and the fact that air and navy personnel and all those operating with them from the land stations brought the great developments of science to bear in this incredible rescue, is an indication of what can be accomplished by the association of these great forces.
It is to be noted that the aircraft was down in an unknown area, and could not have been seen from a ship, except probably by chance. Air and naval forces combined in a heroic manner, but the ultimate heroism undoubtedly was that of the men in the small whalers from the Haida, and later from the Magnificent, who took a gallant part in making the rescue and transferring medical personnel.
We admire the gallantry of our men and the skill displayed by all who took part in this operation.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	189,	for	the	relief of	Muriel
Johnson Binnie Keates.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	190,	for	the	relief	of	William
Campbell James Meredith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	191,	for	the	relief of	Lillian
Steinberg Heitner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	192,	for	the	relief	of	Clayton
George Allison.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Louis Kasper. -Mr. Weir.

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

Mr. Higgins:: How much was paid to Newfoundland for current assets of the Broadcasting Corporation of Newfoundland?


Mr. McCann:: No payment has been made to date, as no claim has been received by the dominion government from the province.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many letters have been detained by the Post Office Department under the provisions of section 52 of the Post Office Act for each year beginning January 1, 1946 and to date?
2.	Is this section of the act being made use of directly or indirectly by the foreign exchange control board?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1.	No record is kept of ordinary post letters referred to the customs under section 52 of the Post Office Act.

Questions
Any post letters diverted to customs for examination which as a result are not permitted delivery are either detained by the customs authorities or are returned to the Post Office Department for return to the senders in accordance with international postal regulations.
2.	No.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Mr. Knight:: 1.	Was it over a period of time the custom of the C.B.C. to include in its weather reports one upon weather conditions at Churchill?
2.	If so. when did such reports on weather at Churchill cease, and for what reason?
3.	On whose recommendation was such service discontinued?


James Joseph McCann: Prior to September, 1948, five-minute network weather forecasts were broadcast for prairie region on midwest network four times daily, but distribution was limited largely to CBK, Watrous, Saskatchewan, as most of the other stations did not carry these reports. Following inauguration of CBW, Carman, Manitoba, and CBX, Lacombe, Alberta, in September, 1948, prairie reports were broken down on a provincial basis, each CBC transmitter giving full coverage of respective provinces plus adjacent weather areas in neighbouring province to provide overlapping service to listeners. Churchill weather region has been reported continuously six times daily on CBW, Carman, Manitoba, since September, 1948. In addition, CBK, Watrous, Saskatchewan includes adjacent Reindeer and Flin Flon weather regions in Saskatchewan forecasts now given five times daily.



CROWN PROPERTIES


Mr. Church:: 1.	What amount does the city of Toronto receive from the government in connection with the statement of the Minister of Finance on grants to municipalities across Canada by federal authority for municipal services rendered?
2.	What revenue does the dominion receive from that city in (a) income tax; (b) sales tax; (c) other federal revenues?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1. As was made clear in the statement to which reference is made, it will be impossible to determine what grant will be made to the city of Toronto in lieu of municipal taxes until the assessment of all federal property in the city of Toronto has been completed. With regard to "municipal services rendered", the statement also pointed out that all water used by government buildings anywhere in Canada is, or will be, paid for on a meter basis and any local improvement charges will be paid on the same basis as charged against adjacent private property.
2. The government's accounts are not maintained in such a manner as to provide details of revenues obtained from any particular municipality.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	Under existing immigration regulations, are Austrian nationals permitted to emigrate to Canada?
2.	Are such nationals permitted to enter Canada under special orders in council?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No order in council is required for the admission of Austrian nationals who can comply with the Immigration Act and existing regulations.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Green:: 1.	How many veterans in British Columbia were in receipt of war veterans allowances as of October 31, 1949?
2.	How many of such recipients have made application for assistance from the special assistance fund?
3.	How many have been granted such assistance?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	6,354.
2.	1,029.
3.	828.
The figures relate to the territory under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver district office of the department, and do not relate to the small portion of British Columbia which lies within the Edmonton district.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Gordon Francis Higgins: How much has been collected from Newfoundland in sales tax since the date of union?


James Joseph McCann: Domestic, $353,013.48; importation, $777,862.70; total, $1,130,876.18 (Inclusive to October 31, 1949).



AVIV KOSHNER FOOD PRODUCTS LIMITED


Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Has an export permit been issued to Aviv Koshner Food Products Limited?
2.	If so, for what amount and on what date, and through whom?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: It is contrary to government practice to reveal the private business of an individual company.



NATURAL RUBBER


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has there been during the last two years any embargo preventing the importation into Canada, from Malaya, of natural rubber?
2.	Has this embargo been lifted in whole or in part and, if so, in what particular?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have investigations been made by the combines investigations commission, or by the wartime prices and trade board, at any time since January 1, 1945, to determine whether or not certain bakeries in Winnipeg, and/or at other points give secret discounts to stores handling their bakery products exclusively?
2.	If so, what are the findings of such investigations, and what action has been taken thereon?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Green:: 1.	Have any persons of the Japanese race coming within one of the following categories (a) those who were in Japan throughout the war; (b) those who were sent to Japan on exchange during the war; (c) those who went to Japan after the war under the repatriation scheme of the Canadian government, been given permission to return to Canada?
2.	How many in each category have been given such permission?




Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many displaced persons brought into Canada during 1946, 1947 and 1948 had contagious diseases upon their arrival?
2.	Were any put in hospital at North Bay?
3.	What is the religion, by denomination, of the 261,260 immigrants brought into Canada during 1946 1947 and 1948?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Shaw:: For a copy of the schedule of fees payable by the Department of National Health and Welfare (Indian health services) to the medical profession across Canada for the care of Indians when such attendance is rendered on a fee for service basis.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Charlton:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and communications from Mr. Donald Gordon, Mr. Kenneth Taylor, the wartime prices and trade board feeds administrator, or any member of the staff of the wartime prices and trade board to the flour milling industry or any feed manufacturing company or feed distributing company, between the
Motions for Papers
period December 15, 1941, and the present time, relative to the making or maintenance of price agreements for mill feeds, rolled oats or any other flour mill products used for feed.


John Alpheus Charlton: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and communications from Mr. Donald Gordon or Mr. Kenneth Taylor to any minister of the crown reporting any understanding given by the wartime prices and trade board to any flour milling industry, feed manufacturing industry or feed distributing industry, that they would not be subject to prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act relative to the making or maintenance of price agreements between the period December 15, 1941, and the present time, for mill feeds, rolled oats or any other flour mill products used for feed.



PRINTING BUREAU


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all orders in council, directives, memoranda, et cetera, dated at any time since January 1, 1940, having to do with wages, hours of work, holidays with pay, statutory holidays, overtime rules and regulations, apprenticing, and other working conditions, in the case of employees of the government printing bureau.



TAX AGREEMENTS


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend section seven of the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947, which provides for payments to the provincial governments in respect of income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to or the generation for distribution to the public of electric energy, gas or steam, to reduce deductions made in computing the amounts payable for provincial corporation income tax imposed by the provinces who have not entered into tax rental agreements and otherwise to assist in computing the amounts payable.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a department of mines and technical surveys with a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the duties, powers and functions as therein set out, a

Proposed Legislation
deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council and the necessary officers, clerks and employees to be appointed in the manner authorized by law, with provision also for the transfer of members of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources or the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to the new department.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a department of resources and development with a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the duties, powers and functions as therein set out, a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council, and the necessary officers, clerks and employees to be appointed in the manner authorized by law, with provision also for the transfer of members of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources or the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to the new department.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. Church:: With all these ministers and secretaries we shall soon have a cabinet of sixty people.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid the hon. member will not be one of them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a department of citizenship and immigration with ' a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the duties, powers and functions as therein set out, a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council, and the necessary officers, clerks and employees to be appointed in the manner authorized by law, with provision also for the transfer of members of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of the Secretary of State to the new department.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Salaries Act by repealing the salary provision respecting the Minister of Mines and Resources, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National War Services and the Minister of Reconstruction, respectively, and by providing salaries for the Minister of Resources and Development, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respectively.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The Prime Minister-That on Tuesday, the 22nd of November, 1949, if upon the expiration of the time allowed for the consideration of private bills, the house shall not have disposed of motions respecting private bills (other than divorce bills), upon the order paper, and shall not have decided whether or not such bills should be referred to a standing committee, then, notwithstanding standing order 15. the time for consideration of such private bills shall be extended until the regular hour of adjournment of the house on that day, or until such earlier hour when such motions shall have been disposed of. provided that divorce bills shall not be considered during such extended time.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Under standing order 116 this motion cannot be moved at this time without the unanimous consent of the house. The house knows that there are two applications for incorporation of companies among the private bills listed on the order paper. These applications have to be dealt with by parliament under the legislation adopted last year with reference to pipe lines. It is immaterial to the government and a matter of indifference whether these applications are adopted or not, but it does seem that there

should be an opportunity for the house to express its views on the question whether the charters should be granted.
The bills in question have been before the house on four occasions during the hour reserved for private bills, and on each of those occasions the time allotted proved to be too short to permit of an expression of opinion by the house. It would perhaps be the feeling of hon. members that there should be an opportunity to permit of a decision being made by the house.
As this motion refers to private bills, under standing order 116 it would have to go to the committee on standing orders unless there was unanimous consent to have it dealt with at once. If there is any objection to its being dealt with at once, I would move that the motion be referred to the committee on standing orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has anticipated the point of order I was going to raise, but I feel that I should raise a parallel point of order with respect to his suggestion that this motion be referred to the committee on standing orders. Standing order 116 reads:
Except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity, no motion for the suspension or modification of any standing order applying to private bills or petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the house until after reference is made to the committee on standing orders or to one of the committees charged with the consideration of private bills, and a report made thereon by one of such committees.
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, this makes it quite clear that the motion standing in his name on the order paper today cannot be moved in the house unless there is unanimous consent. If the motion is out of order in its present form under standing order 116, then I do not see how the Prime Minister can, without giving notice, propose his motion to refer the matter to the standing orders committee. It seems to me that the course the Prime Minister should follow is to withdraw this motion and give forty-eight hours' notice of a motion to refer the matter to the standing orders committee. That is the procedure that is followed every year toward the end of the session with respect to divorce bills that have come in late. It was the procedure followed in April of this year with respect to some of the pipe lines bills.
I shall refer only to the point of order, and will not transgress the rules of the house by going into the merits of the question; but it does seem to me that the rules are quite clear, first, that this motion cannot be put because it abrogates standing order 116, and, second, that the Prime Minister is now making a 45781-127
Business of the House
motion to refer a matter to the standing orders committee without having given the required notice of such a proposal.
A ruling upon this point will be found in Beauchesne's third edition, beginning at page 685. Incidentally there is an interesting extract from what Sir Richard Cartwright said in connection with that ruling, as found on page 688, when he pointed out the iniquity of asking for special consideration for any particular private bill.
My only point at this moment is that the rules of the house should certainly be followed, particularly with regard to private bills. As a matter of fact, citation 9 in Beauchesne's third edition makes a particular point of that by saying:
The practice is more stringent with regard to private bills.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I for one do not feel that unanimous consent should be given to abrogating standing order 116, and likewise I contend that the proposed motion of the Prime Minister is one which calls for forty-eight hours' notice.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since it has already been indicated that there will not be unanimous consent, and since the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his opening remarks recognized the necessity for unanimous consent before the motion can be dealt with, it would seem that it will not be proceeded with at this time.
There is one point I wish particularly to make, because it may facilitate the proceedings. We should discuss the motion without any suggestion that it is other than it really is. Its purpose is to make a special provision with respect to two private bills that have been under consideration, having to do with the pipe lines legislation introduced earlier this year.
This motion raises an important question which goes beyond the point of its regularity or the suggestion that it might be referred to the standing committee on standing orders. Ordinarily, as has already been pointed out, it should not be introduced without notice. There is no occasion for any uncertainty about what is contemplated, because at page 1805 of Hansard of November 15, 1949, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated that the government is interested in seeing that these bills come forward under conditions which are not made to apply tc other business introduced by private members.
In his introductory remarks on the motion the Prime Minister said frankly that there are two applications for private bills in connection with pipe lines, and by referring

Business of the House
thereto he indicated that the purpose of the motion relates to these two private bills. He said that the government had no special interest in these bills, but felt there should be an opportunity for the members of the house to pass judgment on them, and that the members should not be deprived of that opportunity by the limitation provided by standing order 15.
It has already been pointed out that if these measures are to be dealt with in this manner it is necessary to demonstrate that there is some urgency. The Prime Minister indicated recognition of that limitation by accepting the fact that unanimous consent is required. He went on to suggest that if such consent was not forthcoming, the motion could be referred to the committee on standing orders.
I think it would be well to consider the implications of what is now proposed. In effect the motion makes these two private bills government measures.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: It is idle for any member of the government to suggest otherwise. It is only necessary to read the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to see that the government is definitely interested in the outcome of these measures. At page 1806 of Hansard the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
I know nothing about the pipe line company which is asking for incorporation under this bill; but I do know something about the interests that are asking for incorporation under another bill now before the house.
I think he was unduly modest in regard to his knowledge of those associated with the other bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I said that modesty could not be properly suggested in the case of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but if the suggestion is wrong, I am quite prepared to withdraw it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member accused me of telling an untruth. I suggest he withdraw his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not catch the words, but I am sure if the leader of the opposition accused the minister of telling an untruth, he will withdraw the statement.


George Alexander Drew: Surely it is not necessary to engage in a debate. I said I thought the minister was being unduly modest as to one bill. If he was not unduly modest, then the whole house is being asked to deal with these bills with less information than we should

have. If the minister knows nothing of the details behind these bills, how can it be suggested that there is any urgency in dealing with them? I cannot imagine a more conclusive argument against dealing with them in this extraordinary manner than the suggestion of the minister that he does not know anything about the people behind one of the bills.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have heard no withdrawal.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of anything that I should withdraw. If it can be suggested what I should withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: We had better have this matter cleared up first. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has requested that the leader of the opposition withdraw any implication that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made an untruthful statement. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The statement I made was that I did not know the sponsors of the bill to which I was speaking, and I knew nothing about the particulars of the bill. My hon. friend has said I was much too modest, and that I deliberately made a misstatement about my lack of knowledge. I wish he would withdraw that statement.


An hon. Member:: A guilty conscience.


George Alexander Drew: I think the time has come to take a position in regard to this overrefinement of the rules. At page 786 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, we find a discussion about a matter that goes a great deal further than the present controversy. The house was discussing a bill in committee, and the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, under whom the Minister of Trade and Commerce served for some time, had this to say:
My hon. friend goes on to say that this legislation is part of a bargain between the government and certain members of this house. I want to take direct issue with him, and tell him that it was in no part a bargain. There was no bargain whatever of any kind, and when he makes that statement he makes a statement that is incorrect and untrue.


Mr. Manion:: I rise to a point of order. I do
not think the Prime Minister has any right to use the word "untrue" in regard to a statement made by any member of this house.


The Chairman;: The hon. member for Fort William raises the point of order that the Prime Minister has declared that the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford is untrue. I rule that the Prime Minister was quite in order in his declaration. . . as there was in it no personal reflection on the honour of the hon. member for South Oxford.
Much stronger words were used on that occasion, and, except under your ruling, sir, I do not propose to withdraw the statement that the minister was unduly modest.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Always the slanderer.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the quotation read by the leader of the opposition, the word "untrue" there referred to a matter of fact; it did not imply dishonesty on the part of anyone. It is unparliamentary to imply dishonesty on the part of a minister or on the part of any hon. member of the house. I think the leader of the opposition will be the first to recognize that, and if he has implied dishonesty I am sure he will withdraw his statement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is no possible interpretation of the words used which implies dishonesty.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is sufficient. The leader of the opposition has definitely stated he has not implied dishonesty.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize this point in relation to what was under discussion. If in fact no information on the matter is available to the members, then we are being asked to deal with something that presumably involves the judgment of the members of this house. The Prime Minister has pointed out that the two bills to which the motion refers relate to applications for charters which would be granted with the approval of this house. I am making my observations at this moment with the idea of facilitating this business, if it is the desire of the government to directly intervene in this matter by resolution or otherwise.
I submit that if, as was implied by the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on November 15, the house is required to exercise no judgment in regard to these bills, then we should not be passing them. That is what he said when he pointed out that all that is necessary is that the house pass on it, and then the Alberta government deals with it. A government agency will be called upon to pass upon the route, and there will have to be permission to export gas, and so on. If the granting of a charter is merely a formality, I suggest the proper course is for the government to introduce an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act which was passed earlier this year, so that a charter may be granted in the ordinary way by the appropriate government agencies. Then these other proceedings which do involve judgment could be brought into play. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this house should not be called upon to pass upon a bill which outlines no route, which gives no detailed information, and which merely says to unnamed persons: "You go ahead and use the judgment of this parliament to carry out such formal matters as you see fit." I believe this business would 45781-1271
Business of the House be expedited by an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act rather than by introducing this motion. For this reason, I would not agree to unanimous consent to deal with this motion and refer the matter to the committee on standing orders.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that I anticipated his objection. I did expect that he could not allow an occasion such as this to pass without giving us his interpretation of the rules of the house. It was for that reason I suggested that standing order 116 be complied with in this regard.
With respect to the observations of the leader of the opposition, I wish to say most positively that this government, as a government, is quite indifferent to the decision this house makes upon this bill. But as a government it is not indifferent to the house being prevented by obstructionist methods from expressing its opinion in regard thereto. I believe the proper application of the democratic principle is to have a majority and not a minority determine what the House of Commons will do. It was merely for this purpose that this motion was put on the order paper. It was not for the purpose of recommending to the house that it pass the bill. The preamble of the bill recites that it is expedient that a charter be granted. If the members of the house are not convinced it is expedient that a charter be granted, they will refuse to grant a charter. It should be done, however, by a majority and not by a minority.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister free the private members of the government party so that they can vote as they wish?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly, every member of the house, whether of the government party or any other party, will vote according to his judgment on whether or not the assertion in the preamble that it is expedient to grant a charter has been established. That is not usually established on second reading, but is usually ascertained in the committee to which the bill is referred.
If hon. members will look at citation 769, in Beauchesne's third edition, they will find that the second reading of a private bill does not involve acceptance of the principle, except to this extent: that if in the committee to which the bill is referred the principle is established, then the bill can be accepted. I would not wish to suggest to any member on this side or on half of the other side of the house how he should vote on these applications. As to the other half

Business of the House
of the house, I would not want to suggest to them, either, how they should vote on the applications.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says there would have to be a period of forty-eight hours before referring this to the committee on standing orders. I think not, Mr. Speaker. I think that standing order 116 has to be given a reasonable application. When there is a motion made for that purpose, the rule provides that it will not be considered by the house until after reference is made to the committee on standing orders. I do not believe there have to be two motions with two forty-eight hour periods intervening in order to have the matter considered by the committee on standing orders. I suggest that the proper construction of standing order 116 is that whenever this kind of motion has had the proper notice and comes before the house, it should, in the terms of the rule, be referred to the committee on standing orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I may be able to assist the house in coming to a conclusion in this matter. I have had the opportunity of studying standing order 116, which says:
Except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity, no motion for the suspension or modification of any standing order applying to private bills or petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the house-
Does this motion apply to private bills or petitions for private bills? Does it not rather refer to the procedure in this house? Under standing order 15, the procedure on Tuesdays and Fridays is that private and public bills shall be considered for the first hour between eight and nine o'clock.
During the time I have been in this house, I have never known standing order 116 to be applied other than to a petition for a private bill which has been received after the allotted time for the presentation of such a petition. There has been a motion to refer it to the standing committee for such recommendation as it deems advisable. I have had the opportunity of looking at Bourinot's fourth edition, in which a reference is made to rule 115, which is now 116. I do not intend to give my ruling immediately, but I am bringing this to the attention of the house because I believe it is pertinent to the matter. It would seem from Bourinot's reference that standing order 116 is restricted to those standing orders applying to private bills rather than to a standing order such as 15 which applies to the more general procedure of the house. My point is that standing order 116 has been applied in this house with regard to definite, bills and questions affecting bills under part II of the

standing orders, and that standing order 116 does not apply to procedure in the house as set forth in standing order 15. I should like the house to take that matter into consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point that you have just asked us to consider, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I listened carefully to what you said, and I thought I heard you read standing order 116 in these words: ". . .of any standing order applying to private bills and petitions for private bills."


Mr. Speaker:: ". . .or petitions for private biUs."


Stanley Howard Knowles: That clears up that point. Standing order 116 refers to suspending or modifying any standing order that applies to private bills or to petitions for private bills. May I call your attention, sir, to the fact that there is another standing order, namely standing order 101, which refers only to petitions for private bills, and it is usually that one which is the basis for referring late divorce bills to the committee on standing orders. But surely that word "or" makes it clear that any motion which seeks to suspend any standing order that applies to private bills is subject to standing order 116.
May I point out here that there is actually a misnomer in the wording of the resolution. The Prime Minister in his motion uses the phrase "the time allowed for the consideration of private bills". Standing order 15 allows consideration on Tuesday evening from eight to nine, not of private bills but of private and public bills, the former having precedence. I submit that the motion deals with something that does not exist at all.
I may say further, Mr. Speaker, that the question whether the motion of the Prime Minister applies to private bills-I refer to the doubt raised in your mind because it deals with general procedure set out in standing order 15-should be set aside by the fact that the Prime Minister's motion relates only to the portion of standing order 15 that applies to private bills. I do not wonder that Your Honour has some difficulty with the matter, because I have searched the Journals for a good many years and I cannot find any record of this kind of motion having been made before in this house.
While I am on my feet, may I say that I take exception, and I think there is a good deal of support for my doing so, to the inference cast by the Prime Minister that I could not miss an opportunity to rise on a point of order. May I tell the Prime Minister, since he has looked up standing order 116, that there is an interesting quotation in the set of citations that comes right under

standing order 116. It would do him good to read it. It is citation 818, and it comes from an ancient authority on the practices and the procedures in parliament, namely John Hatsell, an authority back in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in the United Kingdom. The citation reads:
So far the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; I shall gladly read this part a lot louder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To continue:
-and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
May I remind the Prime Minister also of an apt quotation from Lord Macaulay's "History of England". I have the book in my room, and I am going to bring it down tomorrow in connection with another debate; but let me quote part of it right now:
As we cannot, without the risk of evils from which the imagination recoils, employ physical force as a check on misgovernment, it is evidently our wisdom to keep all the constitutional checks on misgovernment in the highest state of efficiency, to watch with jealousy the first beginnings of encroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, even when harmless in themselves, to pass unchallenged, lest they acquire the force of precedents.
I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister or to anyone else in this house for rising every time I think that some rule of this house is being broken, in order to see to it that this house sticks to the rules that have been laid down.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to discuss the point of order which has been raised by the hon. gentleman of the C.C.F. party, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In the first place, I would call to Your Honour's attention the fact that if standing order 15 is interfered with, then the government are allowed to drive a coach and four through every standing order in the rule book. It can only be done by passing a bill. In my opinion the government forget that the private member is the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate. If they are allowed to interfere with the private
Business of the House
member in this way, then the private member ceases to function and parliamentary government is at an end and becomes simply the plaything of the administration. Why should the executive, under our standing orders, be allowed to assume that responsibility? If this is twentieth century Liberalism, then I doubt if there are any real Liberals on the government benches.
I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this fact. The other day we had a return made with regard to the export to the United States of millions of kilowatt hours of electric power.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker,
last Friday night I spoke on one of these bills; and I am asking the Prime Minister that he do me the great honour of reading the speech I then made-which I thought was a contribution to the debate-and that he absolve me from the charge he made a moment ago when he accused me of being an obstructionist.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have had some assistance on the point which I raised. Standing order 116 in part reads as follows:
... no motion for the suspension or modification of any standing order applying to private bills or petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the house . . .
And so on. Part II of the standing orders, starting at standing order 92, is headed "Private bills", and under that "Petitions", followed by the words "Deposit of bills and fees; additional charges." Am I correct or incorrect when I say that standing order 116 applies to standing orders starting at standing order 92 and continuing to the end of part II, being standing order 121? Is it limited to those standing orders which apply directly to private bills?


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any reference anywhere to its doing so?


Mr. Speaker:: My reading of Bourinot would give me that impression.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What page?


Mr. Speaker:: Page 586. I admit that it is not very clear, but I will say further that during the time that I have been in the house I have never known this standing order to apply to standing orders other than those which directly affect private bills. It seems to me that the motion before the house applies to procedure in the house set out by standing order 15, and that standing order 116 applies specifically to the standing orders affecting private bills.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would move the motion standing in my name.

Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker has not made a ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: There is no ruling yet.


Mr. Speaker:: We have discussed this matter for nearly an hour. I think I have given ample opportunity to all hon. members to discuss it.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, before you make your ruling may I attempt to answer the question you asked as to dividing the standing orders, namely, those preceding 92 and those following 92? They are all standing orders which refer to the same thing, namely, procedure in this house. There can be no difference between the standing orders preceding 92 and the standing orders following 92. Standing order 116 is as clear and as specific a direction for procedure in the house as any standing order preceding it.
If a question has not arisen during your time in the house, Mr. Speaker, as you have said, in which 116 has been invoked, the reason is that this procedure has never been requested in the house before. This is something new, and I suggest, sir, that you take that into consideration before you make your ruling.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, in connection with what the hon. member has just said I think it is material to consider the fact that this has never happened before in the house. While the Prime Minister may say that there is entire freedom for hon. members to vote as they wish, his attitude this morning, and the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: There is only one person who can decide questions of order, and that is the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: It is very interesting, sir, to note that citation 748 of Beauchesne at page 281 says:
It is a recognized principle in the Canadian, as in the English parliament, that ministers of the crown should not initiate or promote private bill legislation.
Having regard to the statement made the other night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I say that there is indeed that promotion here, which demands that we take into consideration the meaning of the words: "except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity." Not one suggestion of urgent or

pressing necessity has been advanced by the Prime Minister or any other minister of the crown. All they have said is that parliament should have the right to speak. The rules say that parliament can speak only-and this is stringently applied in the case of private bills-when the rules are applied. The rules are made as stringent as they are because of the fact that private bills should not take precedence over public business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Vancouver East, and other hon. members, have all emphasized the fact that this is the first time the question has arisen in the house within the memory of any of the present members. It seems to me that there is a difference between the orders affecting private bills, other bills, and the public business of the country. Standing order 116 comes within the orders under the heading of part II, "Private bills". Under that in large type appears the following heading: "Petitions, Deposit of Bills and Fees, Additional Charges." Standing order 116 reads in part as follows:
". . . no motion for the suspension or modification of any standing order applying to private bills" . . . shall be entertained by the house until after reference is made to the committee on standing orders.
Taking into consideration my experience in the house and the experience of other hon. members, and also referring to page 586 of Bourinot's fourth edition, where reference is made to rule 115, which is now 116, it seems to me that standing order 116 is restrictive to those standing orders definitely applying to private bills rather than to a standing order such as 15, which applies to the more general procedure of the house; and I rule that it is now in order for the Prime Minister to proceed with his motion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with deference I appeal your ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
A question of order having arisen with respect to the applicability of standing order 116 to the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I ruled that the said motion referred to general house procedure under standing order 15, and that standing order 116 was limited in its operative effect to the standing orders specifically by relating to private bills, beginning with standing order 92, and that it is therefore not necessary that the motion be referred to a standing committee.
From this ruling the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and others appealed. The question is on the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. St. Laurent moves,
seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull):
That on Tuesday, the 22nd of November, 1949, if, upon the expiration of the time allowed for the consideration of private bills, the house shall not have disposed of the motions respecting private bills (other than divorce bills), upon the order paper, and shall not have decided whether or not such bills should be referred to a standing committee, then, notwithstanding standing order 15, the time for consideration of such private bills shall be extended until the regular hour of adjournment of the house on that day, or until such earlier hour when such motions shall have been disposed of, provided that divorce bills shall not be considered during such extended time. .


Mr. Speaker:: Before the debate proceeds, may I point out to hon. members that the discussion at this time should not be on the merits of the private bills; it should be confined strictly to the motion before the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal more to this motion than a simple suspension of the provisions of a standing order. In view of the introductory remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), it seems to me it is impossible for us to forget in any stage of the discussion that his motion is directed particularly to two pipe line bills. This being so, I suggest it is essential that we carefully examine exactly what it is we are being asked to do.
There are before the house two pipe line bills which have been presented by private members in the ordinary way. They carry out a detail of the broad measure passed earlier this year providing for the incorporation of pipe line companies. I confess at the time the bill creating the general provisions was before the house I had not contemplated the possibility that hon. members would be called upon to pass judgment on a private bill without any knowledge as to what the effect of it would be. If I had been aware that the provision as to incorporation carried with it the suggestion that the house should pass upon bills in connection with which we are given no details upon which to base our judgment, certainly I would have objected to the particular section of the general bill at

Business of the House
that time, and to any of the related sections, and would have placed before the house the objections I now have.
I suggest this should be in our mind when we are asked to support the motion because its only purpose is to provide a special opportunity to deal in a special way with these two bills. Nothing has been put before the house to show why they should be placed in such a peculiarly favoured position. The merits or purposes of the bills are not so much in issue now as the procedure that we are asked to support. We are told that the limitation of the opportunity for debate on private bills should not, under our democratic system, deprive hon. members of the opportunity to exercise their right to say whether or not such measures should become law. That argument sounds like one in support of the principles of democracy that we are seeking to preserve; but if the principle is sound, why does it not apply with equal or greater force to public bills and orders that are on the order paper?
After all, public bills and orders deal with equally important matters. They are not related to some limited personal or corporate interest. Public bills and orders relate to the broad welfare of the people. Under our democratic procedure it is not incumbent upon every member of the house to indicate his support of the views set forth in resolutions or bills to be found in the list of public bills and orders; nevertheless they relate to matters which are just as important as or more important to the people of Canada than the two pipe line measures. If the principle is sound that limitation of debate should not be so imposed as to restrict the opportunity of members to exercise their democratic right to express their opinion on any matter properly before the house, then I submit that the argument applies with greater force to public bills and orders than it does to private bills which can be transferred to government business and supported as government bills if that is in fact the desire of the government.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question before the house is the motion of the Prime Minister which has to do with extending the hours for considering private bills. When discussion of this motion opened, a number of members who are now in the house were not then in the house. At that time I pointed out that the debate should be on this motion, and not on the bill. I trust 
that hon. members who speak on this motion will confine their remarks to the principle of the motion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock, I had referred to the fact that this motion is one which places before the house the responsibility for determining whether the ordinary procedure should be departed from in relation to two particular bills. While the house naturally accepts without question the ruling that the principle involved in the bills concerned is not debatable, the nature of the bills which call for this motion is a subject for consideration at this time.
The point that I had made just before one o'clock was that the government, in its explanation, suggests that it has no particular concern about the subject matter of these bills, but that it does not think the limitation of time provided by a standing order should make it possible for the members to be deprived of an opportunity of voting on these two particular bills. I had pointed out that the same argument applies to public bills and orders. If it is sound in this case to ask the house to change the standing order to extend the time for this particular purpose, it would be equally proper to make sure the members have an opportunity of expressing their judgment on matters placed before this house by hon. members. I went further, and suggested that if this is to be accepted as a precedent, and all motions of this kind do become precedents by acceptance, then we should consider the fact that public bills and orders are on a higher plane than private bills.
Public bills and orders are introduced on the responsibility of members who have been elected by their representatives to share, not only on behalf of their constituents but collectively on behalf of all the people of Canada, the responsibility of government in Canada. In the other case, the procedure is one under which individuals or corporations present petitions and then have their bills sponsored in the house by those who quite often show little attachment to the subject matter of the bill. Having complied with the provisions by way of petition, the bill then comes forward with someone's name attached to it without much suggestion that that individual is seriously identified with the subject matter of the bill. The fact that that is so is evident in this case, because it has already been explained that one hon. member of this house was to have had his name attached to the bill originally, but that was withdrawn and someone else was found who was willing to have his name attached to it.

I suggest therefore, Mr. Speaker, that a decision to vary the regular procedure for this particular purpose should not be contemplated unless the basic argument that the members should have a democratic right to express their opinion in regard to it and register their position should also apply with equal force to public bills and orders. I suggest that it does create a precedent which should be examined carefully. No other reason has been put before us by the Prime Minister in support of this motion. If action were taken by this parliament to extend the time of debate for a purpose so undefined, I would suggest that it would be equally appropriate to present a similar motion at any time to diminish the time of debate. If that is so, then the standing orders would cease to have very much effect in controlling the debates and the orderly business of the house.
While the Prime Minister pointed out that the subject matter of the bills is not one of direct concern to the government and that the point which is really being raised is the democratic right of the members to express their position on the bills themselves, I would point out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in his remarks on November 15 certainly left the impression that he, at any rate, was greatly concerned about whether or not a decision was made on these bills. On that occasion he made the statement that a good many uninformed assertions have been made in the house about these bills. It is not to be wondered at, Mr. Speaker, that uninformed statements might be made since we have no information other than the fact that in two cases solicitors are applying for incorporation; that no route is outlined and that, having received incorporation, these companies will attempt to obtain the requisite authority afterwards.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that I am not discussing the principle of the bills but the principle with which we are confronted, when I point out that these bills are different from bills incorporating railways, another type of common carrier. It is true that what is carried is different but the railways, as common carriers, present their petitions in a similar manner. But in every case in which a railway presents a petition for a similar incorporation, they must state exactly where they intend to go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like to interrupt the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) but it seems to me that he is now discussing the bills; I hope he will not do so at too great a length but will rather discuss the principle of this motion.
Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: Without calling for a ruling on the matter, Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that in a few words I can dispose of the point I wish to make, which I think is fundamental to this discussion. In this particular case we are asked to depart from the ordinary standing order so that we may consider a bill which does not tell us where this particular pipe line would be going. The point I am making there is not as to the merits of the bill itself as such, but as to the fact that any argument that this situation can be cured in committee is not correct. In the very discussion on these bills, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) pointed out that he did not have the information he wanted but that the place to obtain it would be in committee. What I am pointing out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the leader of the opposition not agree with me when I say that that matter should be discussed when the bills are before the house on second reading?


George Alexander Drew: It will be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that I have said nothing in debate about the bills. What I am trying to do is to point out that we should be extremely careful about a special motion of this kind because it would permit the abandonment of the ordinary standing orders so that the second reading could be proceeded with without the obtaining of information which the committee would not be empowered to incorporate in the bill in any event.
I have said all I wish to say, so that we shall not proceed to the stage where it will be necessary to make a ruling on this particular point. But for the consideration of hon. members of this house I suggest that we are being asked to support this motion for a reason that brings the bills into consideration. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated that hon. members should not be deprived of the right to vote on them. Then he stated that it was the responsibility of the government not to permit obstructionist tactics to delay consideration of these bills. As I recall his remarks, the only argument that really justified this resolution which he put forward was that there should be a democratic right to have the judgment of the house expressed on these bills, and that obstructionist tactics should not be permitted to deprive the members of that right. If that is the argument, surely it is the responsibility of each of us to examine the tactics which are brought in issue by the Prime Minister in saying that this motion is to overcome what are described as obstructionist tactics.

Business of the House
I had not expected to take any part in the debate on these bills, because they were being dealt with by other members who had a particularly close interest in them geographically. But I think that it is now the duty of every hon. member to say whether, by a special resolution of this kind, the standing orders shall be changed so that the obvious desire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that incorporation be granted-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now, now! When, Mr. Speaker, did I ever say that I desired incorporation to be granted?


George Alexander Drew: On November 15, at page 1806 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce expressed the hope that the house would proceed to pass these bills in order to get them before the committee so that the ordinary procedure could be followed to carry them beyond that stage.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would the leader of the
opposition read that section?


George Alexander Drew: I think perhaps it would be just as well if I were to refresh the memory of the house with regard to what the minister said on that occasion, since he questions my statement. At the bottom of page 1805 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
I said that the first requirement under the Pipe Lines Act is that the company shall be incorporated by act of this parliament. I pointed out that the company must next acquire the gas sufficient to justify a pipe line, by contract with producing companies or by other means. I then pointed out that the company must obtain an export licence from the province of Alberta which, through its own legislation, has retained jurisdiction over the export of gas from that province. I then pointed out that the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada must be satisfied with the route of the pipe line and satisfied with all particulars regarding the construction of the pipe line.
I stated that one requirement of the board of transport commissioners would be the assurance that an export licence under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act would be forthcoming. That act is administered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and its function is to make sure that electricity or fluids are not exported until the present and future requirements of Canada are satisfied. It is therefore seen that there are ample safeguards for the public interest of Canada.
A good deal has been said about possible routes of the pipe line. A good many uninformed assertions have been made in the house in that regard. I know nothing about the pipe line company which is asking for incorporation under this bill;-
That is, Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.
-but I do know something about the interests that are asking for incorporation under another bill now before the house. I know that that company has surveyed five routes from Alberta to the Pacific coast, and that one of them at least is an all-Canadian route. There is no difference whatever between my opinion and opinions expressed here that Vancouver must not be on the end of

the pipe line. Vancouver must be served before any considerable service is taken off for supply to the United States. Under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act that requirement would have to be complied with before any export permit will be given by the department of which I am the minister.
However, I do think that these acts should be studied, and studied very carefully. I should like to know much more about the incorporation asked for in the bill about which I am speaking than I know at the present time. But the place to obtain that information is in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to which this bill will be referred, and before which the sponsors of the bill will appear to make their case for incorporation.
I will say this, however, that since incorporation by act of parliament is a requirement of the Pipe Lines Act, that incorporation should not be refused on trivial grounds. It seems obvious to me that if a responsible group of men, be they Canadians or Americans, properly financed and having the proper background of experience, apply to this parliament for incorporation, they are entitled to incorporate.
I should like also to say a word about what seems obviously to be a filibuster in connection with these bills. The government will not permit any small number of members to prevent this house as a whole from voting on a private bill. If these bills continue to be talked out in the limited time permitted for private bills, the government will ask the house to suspend the rules and provide whatever time is required to finish the discussion and to obtain a vote on such bills.
Then I believe in some part of it there is a reference to one of the parties in this house; and the closing words of the minister are:
Therefore, I hope that these pipe line bills will be examined and if they are properly sponsored I hope that this house will grant the incorporations.
I would have thought that was a fairly complete summary and a fairly definite statement that the minister thought that the bills should be adopted. That is what the words seemed to imply; and it is the right of the minister to say so. But what we are being asked to do here is to abdicate our responsibilities and to follow this particular course. The word "filibuster" and the word "obstruction" have both been used to describe tactics. I happened to notice that at the time this bill came up for debate on the last occasion only four or five members of the house had spoken on it. That seems to be a fairly limited number to describe as a filibuster. There is something much more than that involved here. The right of hon. members to express their opinions on matters of this kind is not one that should be denied by the mere majority of hon. members, following the lead of the government in regard to bills that are presumably private bills and not bills put forward with the responsibility of the government.
We should not be asked to take the position that because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has informed us that a number of other agencies must exercise their judgment we should exercise none. Yet,

that is precisely the position in which we are being placed by the way these bills come before us in this house. The procedure is one that does not invite the co-operation of the minority members of the house. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, it is not only a legitimate practice, it is in many instances a very necessary practice, for hon. members to avail themselves of the rights they have to prevent what they regard to be an improper course. Every hon. member who thinks that an improper course is being followed has a duty to exercise whatever rights he has under the rules to prevent that course reaching its improper result.
Call the discussion which has taken place a filibuster; call it obstruction; call it what you will, it has only been the presentation of things by individual members of the house -and I might point out individual members of both sides of the house-as the reasons why they do not think that the bill should be dealt with in this particular way. But I was struck very forcibly by the fact that a number of hon. members on both sides of the house indicated that they were quite prepared to support bills which gave, them the information that they thought was essential for them to assume their actual responsibility. I do not think it is for the hon. members to abdicate their responsibilities.
I suggested this morning that if the right is not included, if we are not to be given information fully, another course would be to bring in an amendment to the pipe-line bills, which should be brought in this session, treating the incorporation of the companies merely as a formal procedure, imposing no responsibilities on those who grant the charter except to see that the form is complied with. If that were done I am sure hon. members would support such an amendment; but, Mr. Speaker, one of the issues before us in this particular motion is whether parliament, when it passes on something, is going to insist that it have the facts upon which it can base a judgment. I for one do not believe that any hon. member of this house should be asked to pass judgment on something in regard to which he has no essential information. It is for that reason and the other reasons I have explained that I shall oppose this motion.


Thomas Langton Church: Twentieth century Liberalism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think that by this time we are all aware of the fact that this is a most unusual motion. In addition to the motion being unusual it is quite clear that the reason it is taking time, the reason it is contentious, is to be found in the attitude of
Business of the House
of Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), when he spoke a week ago tomorrow night. I do not think anyone would deny the fact that this house has shown itself on many occasions prepared to co-operate with any reasonable suggestion. I am satisfied that if the government had gone about this thing in a reasonable way we might not be taking up the time that this house is having to spend today on this matter; but you cannot threaten a democratic parliament and not have it cost at least time.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that some of us have wondered who helped the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) draft this motion. It is so unusual I wonder whether it came from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As I say, I have gone back and looked over the records of the past. In the noon hour there was not time to go through everything that has happened since 1867 down to the present time; but I went to the library and pulled out the Journals, and in some instances Hansard, of certain years of the past, some of them deliberately but many of them at random. For example, I pulled out both the Journals and Hansard tor the year 1872, the year the bill went through respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a private bill, a very important bill in the life of this country, introduced by a private member by the name of Mr. Grant. I pulled out volume after volume across the years, and looked at standing orders that were suspended. In no case did I find a standing order suspended for the purpose of giving more than the allotted time to private bills. Just in case it might have happened in a certain period in the life of parliament I took the years from 1930 to 1935 and pulled out every year, and looked at every standing order that was suspended during that regime, and not once was a standing order suspended for the purpose of giving extra time to the consideration of a private bill.
I may say that standing orders have been suspended frequently, shall I say, in every session of parliament. The kinds that are usually suspended are the standing orders that have to do with the petitions being filed in time. But I repeat, never has there been an instance, so far as I could find out, where extra time has been taken away from public business and given to private bills.
I read with interest over the week end some of the debates respecting these very rules regarding private bills when they were passed back in 1867 and revised in the early seventies. The whole spirit of those debates was that private bills must be subjected to a special stringency not applied to public bills and government measures. Therefore, I

Business of the House
emphasize the fact that this is a most unusual precedent that the Prime Minister is bringing before parliament at the present time.
There was an occasion in 1895 when an attempt was made to suspend a certain standing order having to do with private bills, although it was not the particular standing order that we have been considering today. During the course of the discussion on that matter none other than Sir Richard Cartwright, who was quite an outstanding Liberal, had something pretty forceful to say. This was on July 5, 1895. Sir Richard Cartwright said:
There are a number of important bills that we have no chance of touching. The government do not propose to suspend the rules of the house and let them have a chance, but in favour of this bill they propose to suspend all the rules of this house, because by accepting this motion, you practically decree that our standing orders are of no consequence whatever, that every standing order of this house may be abrogated without notice, a proposition that seems to me to be a monstrous one.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that that position taken by Sir Richard Cartwright, namely, that the house should oppose any effort on the part of the government to give extra time to private bills, at the expense of private members' public bills and at the expense of government legislation, is a monstrous proposition that should not be tolerated in this house.
I call as another witness another Liberal, the present Prime Minister, who had something to say on a similar matter in this house on October 28 of this year. On that occasion, bearing in mind we had not concluded the debate on a motion before the house having to do with federal aid to education, I moved an amendment to a motion the Prime Minister presented to the house, and in my amendment I asked that we have one more private members' Wednesday, and that the order of business be arranged so that on that one more Wednesday we might continue to discuss, not private bills, but a private member's resolution relating to a matter of public policy-and a very important matter.
What did the Prime Minister have to say? He said:
I do not think it would be a good precedent- Note that, "good precedent"-
-to have the house decide that any one of these academic resolutions submitted by hon. members should have precedence over the other. The rights of each member are equal, and when there Is an opportunity for those rights to be exercised, it seems to me that they should be exercised according to the provisions of the standing orders.
And then later he said:
There should not be a day especially set aside for the continuation of the debate on the resolution of the member for Saskatoon.

Well, when we have now the same Prime Minister, who would not agree to this house taking further time to discuss a matter of public policy, moving a motion which gives special consideration to two private bills, I am wondering who these people are who get this special consideration.
That led me to look up the names of some of those who are behind these bills. I find that in one case one of the promoters is none other than a certain John Black Aird. I would like to know if he is the same John Aird who appeared before the committee investigating the Beauharnois power project on July 17, 1931, and was asked a long string of questions, just one or two of which I would like to quote.
Q. Is it fair to sum up your recollection of your conversation with Mr. Sweezey this way: You met him and asked him how he was getting along: He said he was having a bit of trouble and you said, "Perhaps I can help you out, but I want 50 cents a horse-power or $125,000 if you get the contract?"
A. That was the first conversation; yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot see how what the hon. member is reading has reference to the motion before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just asked the question-a rhetorical question, I confess: Who are the people to whom special consideration is being given, by the terms of the Prime Minister's motion? I know one of those persons is John Black Aird. I would ask the house to recall something in the past about one who appears to be the same person. Just one or two more questions-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no evidence before the house to permit the hon. member to conclude that the gentleman referred to in the committee report is the same person as the one by a similar name in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, we will leave that until we reach committee on the bill.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this motion of the Prime Minister today is the end result of a long series of special benefits that have been accorded to these bills incorporating pipe lines which, frankly, I regard as indecent.
I would remind the house that last April, before the Easter recess, the Minister of Trade and Commerce urged the House of Commons to speed things up to give second reading to the pipe lines bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, when these bills were discussed at the last session the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in the United Kingdom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Trade and Commerce misunderstood me. I was referring to the general pipe lines bill, which was

passed before the Easter recess, and I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce was here then.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For part of the discussion only.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was here at the time when he asked the house to give the bill second reading so that the principle could be endorsed, and so that the bills incorporating companies could be introduced to the Senate. Does he not recall that that did happen?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not recall it. I was here during the early discussion of the pipe lines bill, but I went to the United Kingdom two weeks before the session ended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is no doubt that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was here for the proceedings to which I referred. Then when we came back after the Easter recess we were informed on the Monday night that parliament would be prorogued or dissolved on Saturday of that week. With respect to the suspension of standing orders, look up the Journals for that week and you will find that it was done with respect to a great many of those bills, except that no extra time was allowed. But other standing orders were set aside one after the other, at the request of the government, to facilitate getting those incorporating bills through.
The whole picture during that period of time at the end of April, just before the election at that, was to me an indecent one, confronted as we were with this desire of the government to get these pipe line companies incorporated.
Now, after all that indecency we had last April, we have this instance of a little delay in the house with respect to the second reading of these bills, at which time the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets up and accuses the house of filibustering. Along with that he accuses this party of being responsible for that filibustering, whereas up to that time only one member of this party, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones), had spoken to those bills, and very briefly at that.
After that charge by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that a filibuster was being carried out we receive this threat that unless the house passes these bills there will be this special kind of motion brought in. Well, apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave the house one more chance on Friday night to see whether the bills would go through. They did not go through, so that now we have this motion.
But I ask hon. members to note that no matter how much the government may try to put forward the niceties of the situation and say that they are still private members' bills, the house should note that the Minister
Business of the House
of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister have brought in this motion to facilitate getting these bills through-and that, by the way, in spite of this quotation from Bourinot -and I am not speaking to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but just as a matter of argument, where he says at page 581:
It is a recognized principle in the Canadian, as in the English parliament, that ministers of the crown should not initiate or promote private bill legislation. But ministers sit on private bill committees in the Canadian commons-
And notice this-
-and carefully scrutinize all private and local legislation with a view to guarding the public interest.
And there is a footnote which says:
In England, the occupants of the treasury bench are exempt from serving on private bill committees.
I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister will tell us that they did not initiate these private bills, and that in the strict sense they are not promoting them. But they certainly are the two persons in this House of Commons who are facilitating getting these bills through.
In the light of these precedents and in the light of the practice that ministers of the crown stay away from these private bills and especially company incorporations where such huge sums of money are involved, they have made a serious breach-both of them- in what they are doing at the present time.
I intend to bring my remarks to a close.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice hon. members
opposite say "Hear, hear". I hope they will say "Hear, hear" a minute from now. I intend to move an amendment to the motion of the Prime Minister. I move-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to note that my amendment is accepted even before hon. members hear its terms. As has already been pointed out, under standing order 15 an hour is set aside on Tuesday nights for private and public bills, the former having precedence.


Mr. Bradeite:: We know that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) does know that. I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) knew it, and I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) knew it. I wish whoever drafted this motion had known it and recognized that fact.
The motion before us proposes to extend the time allotted for the consideration of private bills. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has pointed out, if there is to be any fairness in a proposal to change the rules,

Business of the House
such rules should be changed on the basis of equality as between private and public bills. If the time is going to be extended, let it be extended, not just for private bills but for public bills also. As a matter of fact, if there is to be any distinction it ought to be the other way around: there ought to be allowed extra time for public bills rather than extra time for private bills. So if this motion is before us, despite my objection to it this morning, I feel that some attempt should be made to make it a proper motion. For that purpose I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein between the word "private" and the word "bills," at each of the three places in the said motion where the phrase "private bills" appears, the words "and public," so that in each case the phrase "private bills" will read "private and public bills."
May I point out, before someone else does, that if this amendment were to carry and if it were ordered that tomorrow evening the hour for private and public bills shall be extended to the three-hour period, if the debate on the private bills consumed the whole of the three-hour period then of course we would not get to public bills. But I admit that that is the way the standing order now stands, that private bills always have precedence over public bills in the hour allotted. However, because of the way the Prime Minister has worded his motion, if we have not finished with private bills at nine o'clock tomorrow night we can continue for the rest of the evening, but with a proviso attached. Thus, if we finish private bills at ten o'clock, do we then take public bills? No, we go on with the business that was in hand at six o'clock.
I submit that somewhere in this picture there should be some element of fairness. My contention is that the attitude shown toward these pipe line bills through the whole piece has been one where the government, led by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has gone just a little bit too far. I submit that this disregard of the primary importance of government legislation and of public bills over private bills has been carried just a little bit too far.
The whole business is amazing to all of us. What we are witnessing in this house in connection with this private bill matter, what we are witnessing in the action of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in attempting to facilitate the passing of these bills, is indeed as bad as we are saying it is; in fact it is a whole lot worse. I have been startled at the number of things

which have been done during this session which are contrary to hundreds of years of British parliamentary practice.
True, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been mixed up in most of them, but that is no reason why the government should continue to make this kind of mistake. I hope the amendment I have moved will be accepted. Even if it is, it will not be satisfactory, but if we are going to change standing order 15 with respect to Tuesday evening at least it will be changed so that the additional time provided will permit consideration, not just of private bills but of private and public bills as provided for by the standing order itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Before reading the amendment may I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I noted his remark when he reminded me that he did not approve of my ruling this morning. Perhaps I should have reminded him and other hon. members of the house at that time that standing order 15 is frequently suspended with regard to Monday sittings. Standing order 15 provides for the order of business as follows:
Monday (private members' day).
Private bills
That standing order is regularly suspended. I think it has been suspended in every session which I have attended without any reference to the committee on standing orders.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if the proposed motion is accepted by the house the result will be that tomorrow evening private bills will be considered after nine o'clock rather than being restricted to the hour between eight and nine. I assume that if the government does not achieve its purpose of having these two bills put through tomorrow night it will take further steps to see that they are passed before the end of the session. As has been mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the effect of this move is to put aside government business, the business of the country, in order to allow these private bills to go through.
In fact the government is forcing these two private bills to a vote at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is professing complete indifference as to whether they are passed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not quite so naive. He has expressed everything but indifference with regard to the bills. The effect of the government's action will be to benefit two groups of individuals who are applying for

incorporation of two natural gas pipe line companies, one company to be known as the Alberta Natural Gas Company and the other as Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.
Not only will the effect be to benefit these individuals who have applied for charters- we all know that they are applying on behalf of undisclosed principals-but I understand that one incorporation is in effect being sought by a company known as Northwest Natural Gas Company which is described in the Financial Times of November 18 as a United States corporation which plans to pipe Alberta natural gas south into the states of Washington and Oregon with side lines to southern British Columbia cities, such as Vancouver.
Has the government actually the gall to pick and choose among private bills and to say, "We like this private bill and we want it to go through"? That is what they are doing here. They are picking two private bills and attempting to force them through the house, or in any event to force them to a vote. After the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), everyone knows that it will be a most independent-minded Liberal, such as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who will stand up and vote against the bills. If this is to be the course followed by the government, then why not change the rules? If they are going to force these measures through, then let them be honest about it, change the rules, and provide that these things can be done legally.
May I point out that the government is attempting to force these bills through despite the fact that there is a most important issue at stake.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is not discussing the principle of the motion before the house or of the amendment. I am not calling upon him to discuss only the amendment, but I ask him to direct his remarks to the principle of the motion.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, here we have a motion introduced by the government for the purpose of setting aside extra time to discuss these bills. I suggest to you that I am entitled to explain why, in my opinion, a certain stand has been taken as to these measures by those who oppose them. It is pertinent to the discussion. The speeches made on these bills have not been made merely for the sake of taking up the time of the house. I made a speech on one of them myself and pointed out why I was opposed to it. I repeat that there is a most important issue at stake, and that is why many of us are so concerned with the motion now before the house.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot agree with the hon. member. It is not in order for him to discuss why he is opposed to the bills. He has an opportunity to do that when the bills are before the house for discussion, but he should not do so on the present motion.


Howard Charles Green: Surely I am entitled to say why I think the discussion on the bills should not be cut off, and why the government should not take the action it is taking today.


An hon. Member:: It will give more time.


Howard Charles Green: The whole point is that I believe the gas pipe lines should serve the Canadian people first before they go into the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that discussion. I hope the hon. member will not pursue it at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, surely questions of that kind are involved in the present motion. I will not follow that point further except to say that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are now taking the position that we must pass these bills, and that provision must be made at this session in order that the house can express an opinion by a vote on these two measures.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested that any group of men who come here and ask for a charter, provided they are apparently financially able and responsible people, should be given a charter by the house without any further argument. He says: Let them fight it out; let as many companies apply as wish to do so, and then let them fight it out, or let the Alberta government decide. On the 8th of November the Minister of Trade and Commerce said at page 1559 of Hansard:
And may I say in passing that I am very glad indeed, as a member of this government, that the province of Alberta has relieved this government of the responsibility of making a choice of pipe line companies to do this particular job.
He has made other statements. For example, he has intimated he will see to it that gas is supplied to Vancouver before it goes to the United States. I do not know how he is going to do that if the pipe line is to go through the United States first. I do not believe he is that all-powerful. No arrangement has been made with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is again discussing the bills and not the motion.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I submit I should not be prevented from speaking in this way. The Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and the hon. member

Business of the House
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have not been restricted, and I suggest I should be entitled to make my case.


Mr. Speaker:: I think 1 have probably given the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra more latitude than I gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I may have given the leader of the opposition a little more latitude, but I think it is his wish, and the wish of hon. members of the house, that at this time the discussion should be on the motion.


Howard Charles Green: In the face of that ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is going to be difficult to discuss the merits of this particular resolution.


An hon. Member:: Give it a try.


Howard Charles Green: I would say in conclusion that we have here an attempt at dictation by the Minister of Trade and Commerce backed up by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Trade and Commerce intervened in the debate on these private bills, and in effect took the stand that the government was behind them. There can be little doubt in the mind of any member of the house that actually the government is behind these measures, and that is particularly clear in view of the action being taken today. This concern to aid pipe line promoters does not compare favourably with the failure to give consideration to such people as the recipients of war veterans' allowance and our senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: The action of the government in bringing this motion forward today shows not only that the ministry is arrogant but also that it is a big-interest government, and I hope the people of Canada will realize that clearly.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, within the limits which your ruling places on the debate, I agree that it will be difficult to debate the matter. No reasons have yet been given either by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) why the rules of the house should be suspended in order to give precedence to two private bills, and I say that puts an additional difficulty in our way. Surely, there must be some peculiar merit in these two bills. There must be some particular urgency. There must be some public interest to be served if we are going to delay the business of this house in order to have a debate on them, and have them carried if possible. That being so, surely we are entitled to hear from those who have now put themselves in the position of promoting these bills.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Angus MacInnis: One of the rubber stamps says "Carried". If that is what he was sent here for, that, of course, is his business and the business of his constituents. If he continues to act in that way, I would not be surprised if he were a bird of one flight.


George James McIlraith: He is entitled to an opinion, just as you are.


Angus MacInnis: During the time I have been in this house, nothing has distressed me so much as what has happened today. We are putting ourselves in the position where-


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. gentleman to call me a rubber stamp?


Angus MacInnis: I did not call anyone a rubber stamp except the one who called "Carried" when I had the floor.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If the hon. member has called me a rubber stamp, he will take it back here or some other place.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East has assured the house that he did not refer to the hon. member for Fort William.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know what the laughter is about, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps it is because of the belligerency of a person who I thought was an apostle of peace.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that nothing that has happened in this house during the time I have been here has so disturbed and distressed me as what has been done here today. As has been already stated, we find that not only the government but two of its most prominent members, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), are putting themselves on record as the promoters of private bills.


George James McIlraith: No.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member should make that assertion. I am certainly not promoting any private bill, but I am promoting the principle that, when parliament has declared the only way to proceed to get incorporation is by an act of parliament, an opportunity should be afforded for parliament to express its views, in spite of what appear to be concerted efforts to talk the matters out.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have been here quite a while. I have seen the government of which the Prime Minister was a member often talk bills out. This is the only session of parliament since I came here when private members' bills or resolutions were allowed to go to a vote. The government

majority is so large they feel they do not need to care what the people think about what members on the opposition side of the House think. If the Prime Minister is not promoting these bills, he is certainly facilitating their passage through this house.


George James McIlraith: Not their passage.


Angus MacInnis: Let us look at what is happening. Surely, the members of this house have the right to oppose any measure that is brought before the house.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: Any measure that comes into this house-


George James McIlraith: That is what is being given to you.


Angus MacInnis: Any measure that comes into this house according to the rules of the house, that is the point I wish to make. The bills which come before this house are of three types. There are government bills which the government usually carries without much difficulty. There are public bills which are put forward by private members of all parties. Then there are private bills which are first of all promoted by outside interests who have some special private interest to advance. If it so affects the interests of the country that those individuals must come here for a charter, surely it does not automatically follow that they must receive a charter merely upon presentation of a bill.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


Angus MacInnis: The Prime Minister says "no". If that is correct, then those who are opposed to what is being asked are entitled to oppose it until they defeat the measure, if they can. If that is not the principle of parliamentary procedure, then I do not know what parliamentary procedure really is. Private bills are in a particular category. The rules and forms of this house have made that abundantly clear.
Let me draw to the attention of this house what an outstanding Liberal said in connection with private bills and the position of members of parliament in regard to them. I am quoting from Hansard, 1883, volume 1, page 37:
We have adopted a system wholly vicious, a system by which members of the house are expected. not merely to introduce and take the first steps in connection with the passage of private bills, but also to become their advocates and active promoters, and the position which we see is assumed with regard to such bills is one which is quite inconsistent with the true position of members of parliament called upon to pass judgment on them.
If we are to be free members of parliament, we cannot put ourselves in the position where
Business of the House
we are supporting private interests outside this house. There is nothing further I wish to say on this subject. As I said, I believe a debate should be allowed on the merit of the bills; for how can anyone say whether the rules should be suspended if there is not some particular reason for doing so? That reason must lie in the merit or demerit of the private bills referred to in the motion.
The motion, as it is based on part 4 of standing order 15, should also apply to public bills unless the government takes the position that these private bills are more important than the half dozen public bills that are on the order paper. If the government takes that position, regardless of what they may say, they are supporting and promoting these bills.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take any part in this debate. After listening to a number of speakers, however, I do think, and I think all members must feel, that the whole question has acquired a rather unpleasant odour. I say that as a member of a group who have already stated that they were prepared to support the pipe line bills, that they were not opposing them. On the other hand, when I find that one of the men supporting one of these pipe line bills is one of the same men who were mixed up in the Beauharnois scandal, I think perhaps we may change our opinion in regard to supporting measures of that kind in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member will not pursue that subject further at this time.


An hon. Member:: That is hot.


Victor Quelch: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the less said on that subject, the better for the government anyway.
Another point that I disliked greatly was when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other night threatened the members of this house that if they continued their opposition to the bill, action would be taken by the government to facilitate its passage. Right at that time, although we were supporting the bill, I felt like getting up and opposing it, because I do not like any form of intimidation. Now we find the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) bringing in a resolution to carry out the threat of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I have been in the house since 1935, and on many occasions I have seen private measures talked out by members of the Liberal party; and no member of the Liberal party has been better at that than the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank).

Business of the House
I think for a while he must have had the official job of talking out measures brought before this house. Not once did the government step in to facilitate the passage of a bill or measure that was being talked out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Why do the government now feel it necessary to step in to force a measure through this house; and that is what it really amounts to. Surely that action can only be taken by the government because they are interested in seeing this measure go through. I do not mean that they are interested personally in that they will benefit by it, but they have shown by their action that they are personally interested in seeing that these bills go through the house.


Thomas Langton Church: You might as well abolish parliament.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Like the last speaker, I had not intended to say anything about this matter, but I will add just a word or two. Without much knowledge of the subject, I assume that the division of time as between government business, private bills, and private members' public bills was carefully thought out in times past, that these rules with regard to this division of time were established with care, and stood the test of years. That does not say that they are sacrosanct or that they should not be changed. But like others who have spoken, I think that the circumstances under which we are being asked to change them are, to put the matter mildly, unfortunate. There will certainly be the feeling that has been expressed strongly that if any change in the rules is made now, it is made under circumstances which, as I said a moment ago, are unfortunate, to say the least. It seems to me that it would be infinitely better if we had been able to discuss the matter on its merits; and I am afraid that many people will feel that that is not being done at the present time. I had a phrase running through my mind, and I have sent out to find out a little bit more about it. There is an old phrase, which will be familiar to the lawyers, and which was in use at the time when the strict rules of law which had been so rigid and unyielding were tempered by rules of equity. It became a saying that equity was determined according to the length of the foot of the chancellor. I will read you a short explanation:
Equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity . . . one chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot. Tis the same thing in the chancellor's conscience.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if this motion goes through, we are going to deter-

mine this matter not on the merits of the case but really, as has been suggested, according to the shortness of the temper of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; and I think that would be a most unfortunate thing.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: I want to oppose the resolution of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and place myself on record if only as supporting the amendment that has been suggested. As a matter of fact I would prefer that the resolution even as amended should be defeated. The question in my mind is as to the difference between the position the Prime Minister has taken today and the position he took on October 28. You will recall that on that day he brought in a motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not stop the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he referred to a previous debate in this session. He made a short reference to it. When a brief reference is made to a former debate on another subject in the present session it has not been my custom to stop the hon. member making it. I hope that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is not now going to discuss at any length a debate which took place during the present session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that reference be made to May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, at page 316, and I shall read only a sentence or two:
It Is a wholesome restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded . . . The rule, however, is not always strictly enforced: peculiar circumstances may seem to justify a member in alluding to a past debate, and the house and the Speaker will judge, in each case, how far the rule may fairly be relaxed.
I think Your Honour was perfectly fair in what you did to me. I hope you will treat others in the same way.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I followed that reference when I allowed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to allude to the debate. I think he went a little further than alluding to the debate, but I did not stop him. I hope the hon. member for York South will not do more than allude to that debate.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not my intention in any way to speak in opposition to your ruling or to contravene the rules of the house. We find it a little bit difficult, however, to carry on this debate without running foul of the rules somewhere. I was pointing out that I am rather at a loss to understand the different attitude that the Prime Minister is taking

today from the one he took on a former occasion. Then he was greatly concerned about getting the business of the government through the house. Some of us were asking for the privilege of speaking for two or three hours on the subject of education; but we were assured that so much government business was before the house that we could not go on with that discussion.
The second point raised by the Prime Minister on that occasion was that it would not be fair to permit extra time for the discussion of that particular public bill brought in by a private member, that all these bills should be treated in the same way, and that no preference should be given to any one. It is quite evident from the resolution before us that for some reason or other the government is anxious that more time should be apportioned to the debate on these particular pipe-line bills than the ordinary rules of the house would permit. I simply want to register my protest on the ground that the particular measure which we were discussing on October 28, namely, the question of federal aid to education, was in my humble opinion of just as great a public interest as is either of the bills before us, and for which special time is being provided in this resolution.
The second point on which I wish to register my protest is the extent, as has already been said, to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at least, and today the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), are placing the whole weight of the government behind these bills through the introduction of the resolution which is now before us.
When this question was under debate, as is recorded on page 1806 of Hansard-the quotation has already been placed on Hansard- the Minister of Trade and Commerce ended his speech in this way:
I hope that this house will grant the Incorporations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is going to quote the sentence I think he had better quote all of the sentence.


Joseph William Noseworthy: If the minister wants the entire sentence quoted I shall do so. It reads as follows:
Therefore, I hope that these pipe-line bills will be examined and if they are properly sponsored-
I presume there is no question of that.
-1 hope that this house will grant the incorporations.
Which would seem to me to indicate that the government was lending its weight, or at least the Minister of Trade and Commerce was lending the weight and influence of his position, to induce hon. members to vote for these particular bills. The danger that I see
Business of the House
is that following the precedent which we shall set today by accepting this resolution, any private bill brought in to this house in future which any cabinet minister wishes to promote may have special time given to it as it is proposed to give these bills. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if you are going to give special time in this instance then we should carry that rule through and special time should be given to some of these public bills which government members, and in some instances cabinet ministers, have talked out during this session.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) adds the word "public" to the amendment so that it reads:	"Private and public bills." I am
opposed to this particular doctrine. I might express my objection in a few minutes. I am opposed to this particular doctrine of interference with the rights of private members by a resolution instead of an amendment to the standing orders. If the motion is not amended private members might just as well go home and allow the cabinet to rule.
This debate today has taken more of the time of the house than has been taken up by the first bill to which objection is taken. I object to anything being done in the house to interfere with the rights, privileges and functions of private members to take part in the debate in accordance with their rights and privileges under the constitution.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: There is one matter which I should like to make abundantly clear. We of the C.C.F. do not like this motion at all. We realize that the government has a big enough majority to carry whatever the government wishes to carry. Though we offer an amendment to the motion, thinking that it might make some slight improvement, whether the government accepts our amendment or not we still retain our fundamental objections to the motion. If the amendment is accepted we shall vote against the motion as amended, and if it is not accepted we shall still vote against the motion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to labour the matter at all, but I do wish to refer to one fact. The course suggested by the motion amounts to a suspension of the rules. Under standing order 116 a suspension of the rule can only take place in cases of "urgent and pressing necessity".
I have no feelings in regard to the pipe line bill that will go to a committee. But when I find a motion such as this with no

Business of the House
explanation as to any pressing emergency or necessity I wonder whether everything is above the surface as it should be. As I look at the situation I would have thought that the Prime Minister-if ever there was a Prime Minister of our country with a knowledge of the law to equal his, I am not aware of the fact-would have laid a foundation, as he led off on this motion, to let the house and the country know what are the matters of "urgent and pressing necessity" that require a complete change in our rules.
Because of the ruling that you made I find myself, sir, in the position of all those who have preceded me, of being unable to discuss this matter as I should like. With the greatest deference I say this. If the onus is on us to show that there is no urgency or pressing necessity for this, the facts of the bill would have to be discussed in order to show it. You, sir, having so ruled, the discussion as a result becomes more or less theoretical. The only justification advanced was by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which apparently is that a filibuster has taken place. I have looked up the meaning of filibuster. Filibuster means this: any one or a group who attempt to prevent legislation by prolonged speaking to consume time. Obstruction, of course, is to block and to hinder. How many spoke on this matter? I think the total number who have spoken, including the minister, was seven or eight hon. members. The total discussion on this subject amounted to some two and a half hours. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with that peculiar affection for parliament and parliamentary procedure that he has always shown, was fearful that parliament was being circumvented.
He gave the House of Commons an hour of grace on November 15. I have read the reports in the British Journals, and I find no case where at any time any minister, much less a prime minister, became an active proponent of a bill introduced by a private member. What is the reason for this solicitude? No one knows. Why the urgency? Would discussion for a few more days have possibly brought other matters to light? The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) was one who took a firm stand; was he an obstructionist? Was any speech delivered by any member of the house on this matter other than a fair and proper discussion and an examination of matters deserving to be examined by parliament?
What are we coming to? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that there were no precedents for this course in Canada. I ask the Prime

Minister when he replies to answer why this rush, why this endeavour to put the matter before a committee and thus deny a legitimate and proper criticism in parliament?
There is more to this than appears upon the surface. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave the house an hour of grace. His words were these-and he wants them quoted:
I should like also to say a word about what seems obviously to be a filibuster in connection with these bills. The government will not permit any small number of members to prevent this house as a whole from voting on a private bill.
Where was this small group of members? Members in all parts of the house spoke, seven in all-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. member will count the speeches on both bills I think he will find they ran to fifteen or sixteen.


John George Diefenbaker: I am referring to the bill to which the minister referred in the words I have quoted. Yes, that is true; there were speeches on the other bill too. Surely this House of Commons is not to be throttled in order to meet the peculiar wishes of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? That is the issue here.
Nothing surprises me any more after what was revealed in the last few days in connection with the combines report.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-"order"- I wait for direction in that connection from Your Honour. Surely I am allowed to refer to that as but another example of playing with parliament by virtue of the fact that the Prime Minister places his weight as Prime Minister, and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, behind this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not pursue the subject of the Combines Investigation Act further at this time.


Alphonse Fournier: It is out of order, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I was discussing it as another example similar to this that occurred within the last few days. In this case parliament refused to follow the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It did not dance to his dictatorial tune. In effect he ordered the house on November 15 in these words, "you have a few more days, and then this government will see to it that your rights shall be denied."
Sir, this morning the Prime Minister spoke with almost contemptuous disregard of the rights of minorities in parliament. We have a government with an overwhelming majority, supported as it must be by its membership-

for, after all, every government has power over the membership following it to insist upon obedience.
Is there any member supporting the government who dare stand in the House of Commons and show his independence after the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have thrown themselves wholeheartedly behind this motion? Quintin Hogg in his book on parliament says:
The rights of minorities and individuals are as indispensable a factor in a democracy as the privileges of an anonymous majority.
I say again that if there was any suggestion of filibustering, then the Prime Minister has his rights in order to prevent such filibustering. He has his rights under the rules. But instead of exercising the rights he possesses under the rules, he decides to change the rules. If there was filibustering the Prime Minister had power to apply closure, as it has been applied in proper cases. Instead of doing that he adopts the backdoor method of introducing an amendment to change the rules for the occasion. Parliamentary rules have stood the test in this country for eighty years, and in the mother of parliaments for two hundred years. It is dangerous to parliamentary government when rules become a monopoly of the Prime Minister and the government to be changed whenever they deem it necessary.
The motion in its present form mutilates parliamentary procedure, and I use those words advisedly. For it places in the hands of the government of this country, supported as it is by an overwhelming majority, the right at any time, at the wish and whim of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), so often says, I say this in a spirit of kindliness-


Clarence Decatur Howe: "In a kindly way"-get it right.


John George Diefenbaker: -to circumvent parliament and parliamentary procedure.
Nothing can stop the government from doing what it will with the rules for it is omnipotent. It is omnipotent because of its overwhelming majority. It is omnipotent because of the control the cabinet has over its followers, in that there are two sanctions that can be applied against independence, one being the threat of dissolution and the other the threat of preferment.
I have not spoken on these pipe line bills. The opposition has a right to demand the preservation of the rules of parliament, and not to have them changed at the will of the government. Parliamentary rules are designed to deny the short-cuts in parliamentary procedure which have taken place on a number of recent occasions.
Business of the House
In my opinion the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not meet the situation. Proper debate is not filibuster. Indeed, in an important matter that was before parliament some weeks ago, the question of grants for education to the provinces, was talked out by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He spoke on it, no vote, the debate was adjourned, and private members' days were ended. There was no question of a filibuster by the Prime Minister, but that was the effect of what occurred.
I am not interested either directly or indirectly in any of these applicant companies. I have no views with regard to them although I have heard arguments on both sides. I am concerned with this motion which transcends the fortunes of any company, whether any of the principals in that company were interested in Beauharnois or not. This motion is but another example of an arbitrary attitude of mind on the part of this government. The government seems to develop that arbitrary turn of mind from being led or misled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Throughout the years this attitude has revealed itself, in this case in interference with the rules of parliament and in other cases by circumvention of parliamentary tradition and procedure.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, many hon. gentlemen have spoken of the government's overwhelming majority, and the hon. gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the many occasions when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had circumvented parliament. I can assure hon. members that if the government has an overwhelming majority it is because of the opinion of the people of Canada about the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On every occasion and on every platform where I appeared during the campaign I never failed to pay tribute to the great service that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had rendered to this country and to assert that although the path might not be easy for trade in the months or years to come there was no man in Canada better fitted to guide Canadian trade during that period than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The response that was made was such that it enables hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate to jeer at the fact that the government has an overwhelming majority. They forget that that overwhelming majority was sent here by the electors of this nation.


John George Diefenbaker: With a hidden report.

Business of the House Mr. St. Laurent: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) says, "with a hidden report." The hon. member should make a more worthy defence of the position he occupies and not make an insinuation of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not an insinuation, it is the truth.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member knows that there was no hidden report and he knows also that if he had been placed in the position in which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was placed his conduct would have been similar to that of the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: There can be no justification to break the law.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member for Lake Centre says that he does not think there is much in this amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The government has no objection to the amendment. Hon. members say that this motion is designed to throttle parliament, but that assertion is ridiculous. All that is being done is to ask that there be more time when hon. members can say whatever they have to say about these bills. It is to remove something which would throttle debate upon them; that is the purpose of the motion before the house.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes his amendment to pass, I have no objection to it. I do not think that much can be added to what has been said. A certain number of charters for pipe line companies have been granted. I have been told that these charters are regarded as being of considerable value and will be regarded as of greater value if no more are granted. Whether that be so or not, I do not know. I do think that having approved, as we did, of legislation that provides that these incorporations must be by act of parliament, when incorporators apply for an act of parliament they should be given an answer. It is for that reason and that reason only that the motion has been drafted. I do not remember who it was, but I can assure the hon. member who inquired that I drafted the motion myself.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived.


Mr. Homulh:: I was paired with the Minister of Labour.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Casselman:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: In
the absence of the Minister of Finance, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Have any communications been received from any of the provinces regarding the announcement of rent increases? If so, from which provinces have communications been received, and will copies of that correspondence be supplied?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I shall draw
the attention of the minister to the hon. member's question when he returns.



INCREASED RENTALS


James Sinclair: I should like
to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last Friday. It reads as follows:
Are tenants who have had their rents increased by maximum rental decisions made since the minister made his announcement on November 3 liable to further increases on or after December 15?
The answer is yes. The increases announced by the minister on November 3 would apply to the actual amount of the rent in effect on December 15.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the parliamentary assistant take up with the minister the possibility of amending the order so as to give some reprieve to those people who have had one increase since November 3, so that any further increase might at least be delayed?


James Sinclair: The only increase which could have been granted since November 3 is a special increase granted as one of the six special classes for which rental increases can be authorized by a decision of the board. There has been no change of policy affecting those increases since November 3 which
Inquiries of the Ministry would make them any different from those which were authorized immediately before November 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There may be a difference, but it is still tough on the tenant.



QUESTION AS TO RECOGNITION OF COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question of which I have not given him notice. I hope it is one which can be answered without formal notice having been extended. Today's press carries reports to the effect that eight nations of the commonwealth agreed last week to recognize the Moscow-dominated communist government of China. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house whether or not that statement is correct? If it is not correct, will there be an opportunity for the house to debate this question before such recognition is extended?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have to make inquiries about that. I must confess I was quite as surprised as the leader of the opposition on hearing such a report over the radio yesterday. No dispatch to that effect has come to my attention. Just as soon as there is any development in that regard, I shall see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs informs the house. So far as I know, the position is as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he made his address to the house.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES AS TO CHOICE OF ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On
October 3 an order for return was passed for the correspondence that passed between the dominion and provincial governments relative to the location of the trans-Canada highway. Will the minister say whether or not he is at present in a position, in view of the fact that the debate on this subject will now take place, to table the correspondence requested and directed by that return?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for not tabling the correspondence is that the permission of all the provinces has
HOUSE OF < COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry not been forthcoming. If the hon. member wishes to have tabled, up to the date of his motion, the correspondence with the provinces who have registered no objection, I shall be glad to do that this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. In addition I should like to know whether any provinces directed the minister not to lay on the table of the house their correspondence as to the location of the route. If so, which provinces did so?


Robert Henry Winters: There were several provinces which requested us not to table the correspondence between their governments and the federal government. This afternoon I shall table the correspondence I am able to table, and the hon. member will then see which provinces have not given their consent.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources about the transfer of staff in the immigration offices to Montreal and Toronto. I understand that the department pays the cost of moving, but has the department secured houses for these people in Toronto and Montreal? If so, are they Central Mortgage and Housing Company houses?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to restrict questions unduly, but this question does seem to me to be one which should appear on the order paper.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The staff is being moved before Christmas, which is only a month away. If I put the question on the order paper, I shall not get an answer in time.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that if notice were given the question would appear on the order paper within forty-eight hours and an answer could be given.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I put a question on the order paper on September 27, and I only received an answer the other day. I shall expect the answer to this question after Christmas.
May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are supplying houses to the Department of Mines and Resources for the immigration staff in Montreal and Toronto?


Robert Henry Winters: I will take the question as notice.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: In
view of the fact that amendments to the Combines Investigation Act may come up shortly, can the Minister of Justice tell me when we may expect a return dealing with the alleged assurances given by the wartime prices and trade board to the milling industry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We hope we can get it ready for tomorrow. I may say that the difficulty there is that my hon. friend, in his address, mentioned any assurances that had been given by any wartime prices and trade board officials. To go back through the extremely voluminous files of the wartime prices and trade board and to make sure that the ones which are produced are all that were given is an extremely difficult task. I am afraid that in the end, though we shall try to bring down what my hon. friend wants, we shall have to assure him that it is quite impossible for us to say that what we bring down is all that any official has ever given.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that I shall be quite satisfied if the minister produces assurances from Mr. Donald Gordon and from Mr. Taylor.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought that was what my hon. friend wanted, but that was not what his address for an order of the house said.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Department of National Defence adopted a plan to move No. 10 repair depot, R.C.A.F., from Calgary? If so, what are the reasons for this action?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: That also seems to be a question for the order paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is ready to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says that the minister is prepared to answer it. I think that at times ministers have answered questions which should have been put on the order paper. Even if ministers are prepared to answer, I must remind hon. members, including the ministers, that only questions which are urgent should be asked or answered on the orders of the day.
(Mr. Winters.]



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May
I direct this question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the minister? When will he be in a position to make available for distribution copies of the public accounts? The public accounts were tabled three weeks ago today, and at that time the parliamentary assistant said that they would be available for distribution within a few days. That was on October 31.


James Sinclair: That was the understanding at that time, because they were in the hands of the king's printer. I shall make inquiries and give an answer tomorrow.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROVISION FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES

Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to encourage and assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway and to provide for this purpose that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply may enter into agreements with any provinces providing for the payment by Canada to those provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of a trans-Canada highway: with provision also for the employment of temporary engineers, technical officers and other employees for the purpose of the act.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: I have a short statement. I could make it in committee.


Howard Charles Green: We should like to have it now.


Major James William Coldwell: Make it now.


Robert Henry Winters: Before I make my statement on this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the notice of motion for the production of papers, in Votes and Proceedings No. 4 of September 20, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I should like to table the correspondence with those provinces which have registered no objection.
This resolution deals with a proposal to provide assistance to provincial governments toward the completion of a trans-Canada highway. This project is one for which there has been a popular demand and an increasing need. It is now timely to bring the project to realization.
Trans-Canada Highway
Since the termination in 1927 of federal assistance under the Highways Act, 1919, aid given by the federal government to provinces for highway construction has amounted to $28,650,000. This aid was extended during the years 1931-1939 for the purpose of relieving unemployment, and was largely spent on portions of a contemplated trans-Canada route.
Most provincial governments would have great difficulty in assuming alone the financial burden of completing a trans-Canada route to adequate standards, in addition to the demand for annual outlays covering capital expenditures and maintenance costs on their over-all highway systems. Under the circumstances, and because such a highway will have some national complexion, assistance from the federal government appears warranted.
When completed, the interprovincial or trans-Canada route of approximately 5,000 miles should assist in the development of trade and of natural resources, as well as our tourist industry.
Though first conceived as a direct link for through highway traffic between Halifax and Vancouver, it is now contemplated that the highway will extend beyond the Canadian mainland, on to Vancouver island, Cape Breton island, and the insular provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Thus it would become a joint project with a portion of it in each of the ten provinces.
The federal government's concept of the highway is not that of a superhighway for high-speed traffic from coast to coast. It is rather that of a first-class, hard-surfaced road which should follow the shortest practical east-west route across Canada and through each of the provinces, consistent with the needs of the provinces and of Canada as a whole.
The highway, excepting those portions in national parks, when completed would remain, in each of the provinces, the property and responsibility of the province. The federal government's purpose is to encourage and assist the provinces in the construction and completion of the project.
A federal-provincial conference was held in Ottawa on December 14 and 15, 1948, to discuss problems related to a trans-Canada highway. At that time the provinces indicated in a broad, general sense that they favoured the project.
As a preliminary step toward the enactment of enabling legislation a resolution was placed on the order paper during the fifth session of the 20th parliament. However, since all provinces had not formally indicated

Trans-Canada Highway their desire to proceed with the project by the time parliament was dissolved, the resolution was not proceeded with.
Considerable progress has been made during recent months in analysing provincial estimates of costs, studying procedure for determining completion costs, evaluating past expenditures, discussing technical details with provincial authorities, seeking agreement on matters of policy, and preparing the ground generally for introduction of a bill into the House of Commons and the signing of agreements with the provinces which would follow in due course.
Early in September I forwarded letters to the ministers responsible for highways in each province, seeking agreement on broad questions of policy which might ultimately form the bases of agreements. Replies indicating agreement on principles have been received from nearly all provinces. Concurrence of others in a general way has been indicated verbally. Some technical details remain to be worked out between the federal and provincial governments, and specific routes remain to be defined by formal agreement.
It is at present possible to travel the 4,200 odd miles between Halifax and Vancouver by road on Canadian soil, though not in comfort throughout the length of it. Only some 60 per cent of the total mileage is paved, and much of this paving is of low standard. Legislation will therefore be placed before parliament seeking to enable the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces for sharing the cost of construction of a hardsurfaced, all-Canadian, interprovincial or trans-Canada highway.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before making any remarks in regard to this may I ask this question? Is the minister prepared to indicate what percentage of the cost the dominion government contemplates assuming?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That information is in the bill. On the resolution stage I do not know how much you, sir, wish us to debate. I think I can tell the house, though, that the federal government contemplates paying fifty per cent of the cost of building the highway.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, that information is the key information to any discussion of this subject, because the simple truth is that the decision by the dominion government to assume fifty per cent of the cost means that it is an utter impossibility for a number of the provinces to proceed with the effective construction of a trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: They have not said so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I happen to know something of the discussions that have taken place from the other point of view. I know that the discussions that have taken place in the past in regard to the trans-Canada highway have been characterized by the absence of any practical approach to this problem, which really meant that, unless a great deal has happened in the past year, they are very far from any understanding of what the problem really is.
The conference that was referred to as having taken place here last December was not a conference which did more than conduct a general discussion of this subject. When we discuss the construction of a trans-Canada highway it is highly desirable that we recognize that the first step toward the successful decision as to the carrying out of a project of this kind is an agreement between the dominion and the provincial governments as to the satisfactory procedure by which the highway will be built and the satisfactory method for determining the route of the highway right across the country and a practical method for financing the cost of the construction of that highway when the other details have been completed.
I wish to make it clear that when I said that the assumption of fifty per cent of the cost will not settle the problem I was making that statement subject to the reservation that it applies only to the extent that the provinces are bound in their financial capacity by the present financial agreements that they have with the dominion government. It is all very well for the minister to smile in regard to that, but the fact that this rather important consideration is ignored in the discussion of these subjects simply indicates a failure to recognize what the basic problem of the provinces really is today in regard to the assumption of any new responsibilities for education, for the construction of highways, or for any other great activity of this kind.
As it stands at the moment, outside of provinces which happen to have found themselves in a particularly favourable position as a result of some unexpected events, the provinces which accepted a certain fixed payment for the term of an agreement in exchange for certain taxing powers have indicated that they are having considerable difficulty already with some of their financial problems. They have indicated that very clearly by the proposals that are being made for financial support of various kinds. For that reason I do suggest that in the discussion of this subject we shall not be satisfied merely to express approval of the construction of a trans-Canada highway, but that there shall

be assurance of these practical steps being taken which will really result in the construction of a trans-Canada highway.
In view of the fact that the correspondence has been tabled only this afternoon it is obvious that no hon. member is in a position to express the views that have been set out by the provincial governments in the correspondence. I will not attempt to guess what views have been expressed. Nor have we been informed yet as to which provinces have not expressed approval of the general plans or what objections have been raised. But I should like to review the general situation and what is essential to make the bill effective no matter what provisions it contains.
There is not a single member in this house who by now can fail to have been impressed with the fact that the people of Canada generally are in favour of having a trans-Canada highway which will make it possible for Canadians, or those visiting Canada, to travel by modern standards of comfort from one side of this country to the other. This is something more than mere comfort. Today the various types of vehicles that are available for highway transport are making possible a highly important means of distributing supplies, and are making it more satisfactory for the farmers and other producers to get their products to the markets.
To avail ourselves, however, of the advantages that are made available in this way it is essential that we have highways with surfaces that are suited to that type of vehicle. When the minister speaks of 60 per cent of the trans-Canada highway being paved, I think that a definition of the word "paved" will enter into a discussion of that kind, because I am inclined to think that by what is at present regarded as a modern standard of pavement on any route that could be regarded as a trans-Canada route 20 per cent would be a very high estimate indeed. In fact for a very considerable part of the route I do not know how the minister is able to determine what percentage has been paved because from Winnipeg to Vancouver I had thought there was still a very considerable amount of doubt as to which route was going to be followed. Consequently no estimate within that area could be effective without some determination of which route was to be followed so that such paving as had been done might be regarded as part of this plan or otherwise.
Nor is it only between Winnipeg and Vancouver that there is any doubt as to the route of the highway. There is very considerable doubt about a longer stretch of the highway through Ontario, and I understand also in the province of Quebec and in
45781-128J
Trans-Canada Highway the maritime provinces as well. Most of the highway construction in Newfoundland will be new construction entirely except that part of the highway that runs northwest from St. John's. All this brings us to the fact that enabling legislation is something put on the statute books which has very little effect until the preliminary steps have been taken to find the key which will unlock this very real problem that is surrounded by so many difficulties.
With the agreement that there should be a highway, there is also very real disagreement in certain parts of the country as to where that highway should go. I know we are not going to settle it here. The one thing we should not attempt to do would be to settle it here, because any disposition to reach decisions in advance would be the very thing which would commit a number of people in the different provinces who hold very strong and sincere views to adhere to those views in advance of a decision being reached.
I think we must recognize first of all that the construction of highways has been under provincial authorities ever since this type of construction has been undertaken. Certain special work has been done from time to time by agencies of the dominion government; but on the whole this work is something that has been entirely under provincial governments. They have their departments of highways skilled in this work, with very considerable experience, and they are in a position to undertake whatever task of this kind may be imposed upon them.
The minister has said he does not think this should be a superhighway. That again is one of those things that must be decided as a matter of over-all policy before any decision made in the house can be effected. It may be that different standards of highway construction will be best suited to different parts of Canada. But that should be part of a generally settled over-all plan embracing the whole of the country, and acceptable to those provincial governments which will be carrying out the work.
Then again there should be a clearly defined procedure as to how the route will be chosen, and that is going to be one of the difficult problems to be faced. It is a problem which will call for the highest degree of co-operation and of recognition of the local views held in regard to the matter. I said the other day, and I repeat, that the minister charged with the responsibility of this legislation has indicated a very real desire to meet the provincial governments in matters of this kind. But may I say, from some experience on the other side of this general problem, that the construction of this great highway will be

Trans-Canada Highway held back rather than advanced unless there is a real conference between dominion and provincial representatives not only in regard to the construction of the highway but in regard to the manner in which this and similar undertakings by the provinces are to be financed.
It is all very well to say that the dominion government will help the provinces to do this or that. New undertakings by the provinces in any of these important fields involve financial undertakings which at the present time they are not in a position to assume, unless they know where the additional revenue is to come from. For that very reason there is a related problem which should be ;onsidered at the same time, and which .ndicates the need for a very clear understanding of the financial relationship between the different governments.
Take for instance the case of Newfoundland. An offer to assume 50 per cent of the cost of construction of a highway in Newfoundland at the present time is not going to meet their problem, unless there is a clear understanding as to the type of highway involved, how it is to be built and what it is going to cost, because my own expectation would be that the cost of a highway of the type most people have in mind across Newfoundland at the present time would reach a figure that would impose far too severe a burden on the Newfoundland government if it were called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost of such a highway.
There is another question which should be carefully examined when approaching this problem. Some provinces have already carried forward extensive highway construction which might be embraced in a trans-Canada highway. Certainly a formula will be necessary to determine how that will be regarded in relation to the construction of the whole highway across the country. Are those provinces which already have built sections of hard-surfaced modern highway along routes which can be regarded as trans-Canada routes to be given credit for that construction?
This would have to be known before an estimate could be made of what the cost to any province would be. Then also there are certain provinces which have a very special problem. Undoubtedly British Columbia with its great mountain ranges has a more severe task in the construction of a trans-Canada highway over its provincial route than would be so in respect of those provinces with less formidable natural barriers.
It will be necessary not only to surface the highway but to do a great deal of blasting

and ballasting, and to erect protective construction so as to make a highway of the type people have in mind, suitable for heavy and fast traffic through the mountains.
Then there is the decision as to whether in the long stretches through northern Ontario and Quebec the highway should follow existing routes, or should follow some route that would have relationship to the strategic aspects of the highway. Certainly the construction of a highway of this kind will be related to our general strategic plans for the use of our raw materials in the event of the necessity arising of using them for defence purposes. All these things enter into the problem of determining the formula by which the route will be decided, as to how the cost will be divided, and the type of highway that will be suitable over any particular stretch of country.
I would emphasize the point that there may well be stretches of highway which would be adequate to carry ordinary traffic in normal times, but which nevertheless may pass through areas where the possible need of a wide and heavily constructed highway for the carriage of heavy freight would of necessity become part of the consideration in the building of such a highway.
For all these reasons I strongly urge that, instead of carrying on negotiations by letter, the governments should be brought together so that around the table they may examine these problems and decide upon a formula which will really work.
We have been discussing other problems associated with western Canada and every one of us knows that one of the real problems to be dealt with in going ahead with the construction of this highway is the manner in which the route through Alberta and British Columbia is to be determined. There are at least three routes that have most vigorous support, and behind the support for each of those routes are strong arguments that have been presented vigorously. I should imagine we all hope that within the lifetime of many or most of us a modern highway will follow each of those routes, but in the meantime, within the means available, a decision must be made as to one route.	*
The decision as to the route through Alberta and British Columbia will determine the route from Winnipeg through western Canada. If it is to be by one route, it will follow one course shortly after the highway leaves Winnipeg; if it is to be by another route, it will follow another course. Therefore the setting up of some effective mechanism to make a decision in regard to this

particularly important problem is an essential part of any advance that is made in this extremely vital undertaking.
I have said already that this problem is not one which is met only in western Canada. The problem is met in Ontario, in Quebec and in certain parts of the maritime provinces, although the lengths involved are perhaps not as considerable as those involved in western Canada.
This does call for a display of co-operation of very high order. I think it must have impressed the minister, and I know it has impressed others who have read the briefs that have been put forward, that those who have put forward arguments in regard to one route or another have all made it clear that their main concern is to see a trans-Canada highway built. They are advocating a particular route and undoubtedly will continue to press their point of view until a decision is made. My feeling is that the sooner the dominion government and the ten provincial governments can get together and reach agreement as to the formula, the more hope there will be of making these decisions upon which the completion of this great highway must depend. The longer the decision in regard to that formula is deferred, the more appeals to local loyalties will be effective in establishing a strong opinion in regard to one route or the other. In the very nature of activities of that kind certain loyalties to a particular idea become firmly embedded and it is then more difficult to reach a satisfactory decision in regard to a matter of this kind.
There are many hon. members who feel that there is a too frequent reference to the need of a general dominion-provincial conference, but I submit that until there is a general dominion-provincial conference to settle the vital questions of the allocation of responsibilities and of taxing powers in the wider fields, an attempt to reach satisfactory conclusions in regard to some of these problems is simply hopeless. I repeat that unless some decision is reached as to the way in which the provinces are going to have assured sources of revenue other than those which they now have, an offer by the dominion government to assume fifty per cent of the cost of constructing a trans-Canada highway will simply mean that the construction of that highway will be delayed for a long time.
There are some provinces which could not under their existing financial arrangements today assume the additional cost that would be involved in this great undertaking. Therefore, as we deal with this particular problem that all of us want to see solved,
Trans-Canada Highway I again urge upon the government the necessity of reaching at an early date an understanding with all provincial governments as to how their financial responsibilities in the broad administrative and legislative fields are going to be divided and how they are going to be carried out. Without that, this problem, along with a number of other things, will be delayed for some considerable time no matter how keen the desire of the minister or of any hon. member may be to see them brought to an early result.
Let us not forget that this is an expenditure which will bring great returns to Canada. In addition to the strategic aspect, with which the dominion government is particularly concerned, a satisfactory trans-Canada highway with a good surface across the whole country will facilitate the distribution of products of all kinds as well as provide an opportunity to Canadians to move back and forth. In addition it will make it possible for our friends from the United States to take increasing advantage of the tourist facilities we have and it will afford us an opportunity of receiving from them an increasing number of the dollars which they bring with them.
Throughout all time the existence of modern highways has been one of the evidences of national development. The observations I have made have been made in the hope that effective steps will be taken at an early date to give to this country as suitable transportation on the ground as we have today by rail and air. We should not be satisfied in Canada until we have a highway that makes it possible for us to make use of the most modern means of transportation to go from one side of Canada to the other.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my first word in this debate will be one of approbation of the resolution presented to the house by the minister. The time has long since passed when the federal government should accept some responsibility in the building of a trans-Canada highway. Long years ago the fathers of confederation decided that it was necessary for the future development of Canada that there should be a link from one coast to the other by means of a trans-Canada railroad. We have long needed a trans-Canada highway to link by this new means the people from one coast to the other.
For more than thirty years the automobile has bpen in popular use. We have seen automotive transportation increase in popularity until today a large part of our freight is carried by trucks travelling on our highways. Increasing numbers of people are using the automobile as a means of transportation and communication. The fathers of confederation

Trans-Canada Highway realized that the building of a railroad was a national responsibility. I believe the government should realize that the building of a trans-Canada highway is also a national responsibility. We all realize that one of the important problems facing Canada today, as it faces almost every other nation in the world, is that of increasing our earnings of United States dollars. Coupled with that, we must seek every means possible to conserve our supply of United States dollars, and use >ur American dollars to the best possible rational advantage.
We boast, and I think rightly so, that Canada's tourist attractions are the best in the world. We know that every year hundreds of thousands of our friends from the United States visit Canada because of these attractions with the result that the dollars spent by United States tourists in Canada have increased to the point where the amount earned from that source compares favourably with earnings from the export of wheat, newsprint, timber and other commodities. In 1948 United States tourists spent $270 million in Canada. I believe if we had a proper trans-Canada highway the amount of money spent by American tourists would be greatly increased. At the same time there are large sums of money spent by Canadians travelling in the United States. We all know that if we want to make a journey from one point in Canada to another point a long distance removed, invariably the first thing we do is to go south into the United States as quickly as possible so that we may travel on their efficient highway system with speed and comfort. We remain on the United States roads as long as we can, and when we reach a point approximately due south of our Canadian destination we swing north and proceed to our destination from there. Not having an adequate trans-Canada highway, many Canadians are virtually forced to go through the United States and use their highway system.
The same thing is true when United States tourists visit Canada. If they desire to make a long journey from one Canadian point to another, they must go back home and use their own highways because our highways across Canada are almost intolerable. If we can judge from statistics that are made available from time to time, our United States dollar position is worsening. If we do not soon do something along the line of building a trans-Canada highway in order to improve our dollar position with the United States, we are going to have to adopt other measures that will not be nearly as palatable. I should like to point out that in the first eight months of 1949 the number of Canadian automobiles entering the United States for a period of
Mr. Argue.]
twenty-four hours or less increased by 26 per cent, and the number entering the United States for a period of more than twenty-four hours increased by 69 per cent. Therefore we see a growing demand on the part of Canadians for United States dollars for the purpose of travelling in the United States.
I say again that the building of a trans-Canada highway is important first of all to increase our earnings of United States dollars by means of greater tourist traffic created by United States citizens visiting Canada, and secondly to decrease the necessity for Canadians to travel through the United States to reach an ultimate Canadian destination. Many Canadians now do so merely because there is not a modern trans-Canada highway.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the assistance that the construction of the trans-Canada highway would be, in solving our shortage of American dollars. I had pointed out that the dollar problem was a national problem and, since the trans-Canada highway would help solve that problem, it should be a national undertaking. One is tempted in this debate to state one's own position as to the route which should be followed. But I should like to point out at this time that the house is not going to decide the route of the trans-Canada highway. I think the minister would be wise to take the best engineering advice he can obtain and, in consultation with the provinces, reach an agreement as to the route the trans-Canada highway should follow.
From reading the correspondence between the minister and the government of Saskatchewan, and from statements made by the Saskatchewan minister of highways in the provincial legislature, I learn that it was generally understood at the December conference with the provinces that the trans-Canada highway was to be a four-lane highway and that the federal government's contribution towards building that highway would be much above 50 per cent. When the minister informed the house that the federal contribution would not be greater than 50 per cent, then it followed that we must be satisfied with a two-lane highway. A two-lane highway may be sufficient to meet traffic requirements in many parts of Canada, but wherever traffic is dense a four-lane highway would be required.

In the formula that the minister has proposed, no consideration has been given to the difference in construction costs in various regions. I have in front of me the figures given by the minister of highways of the province of Saskatchewan in a speech he delivered in the Saskatchewan legislature last March outlining the costs of the trans-Canada highway within the different provinces. The minister pointed out that these costs were highly tentative and had arisen from consultation with the other provinces. In any case, I believe that this outline of the expenditures that construction will entail in the various provinces will demonstrate that the cost of building the trans-Canada highway will certainly not be equitable as between provinces.
For instance, the trans-Canada highway within the province of British Columbia will cost $40 million; in Alberta, $13 million; in Saskatchewan, $18 million; in Manitoba, $17 million; in Ontario, $103 million; in Quebec, $27 million; in New Brunswick, $7 million; in Nova Scotia, $36,500,000; in Prince Edward Island, $4,700,000. On the basis of those estimates, I have divided the provincial contribution by the population in the various provinces as of 1948. I find that the per capita costs for the provinces are as follows: Nova Scotia, $28.70; Prince Edward Island, $25.20; British Columbia, $18.50; Ontario, $12; Manitoba, $11.20; Saskatchewan, $10.50; Alberta, $7.60; New Brunswick, $7 and Quebec, $3.50. We have a range of costs as between the various provinces running from a high of $28.70 per capita in Nova Scotia down to $3.50 per capita in the province of Quebec. The taxpayers of Canada are going to build this highway, no matter whether the money is taken from provincial sources or federal sources. In my opinion the only way the burden can be equitably distributed is for the federal government to assume the whole of the cost.
Under this formula by means of which the federal government says it will pay 50 per cent of the cost, no consideration is given to the high cost of construction through the mountains of British Columbia or the high cost of construction in the northern portion of the province of Ontario. This formula gives no consideration to the over-all needs of each province for an adequate highway system within the province. For instance, perhaps the government of Ontario might not desire to spend millions of dollars building a trans-Canada highway through the northern portion of the province, when highways in the more densely populated areas of Ontario might be urgently needed.
Trans-Canada Highway
In the province of Saskatchewan a large part of the trans-Canada highway will be of little service to residents of Saskatchewan as a whole. The expenditure of large sums of money by the province of Saskatchewan towards paving that section of the highway within our province could result in some other area having to go without needed highway service. In the province of Saskatchewan we would experience great difficulty in paving all of the highways. What we are hoping to do is to increase the number of miles of highway that will be graded and gravelled. By this means the farmer can get out of the mud in the summertime, and can travel on snow-free road through most of the winter. If provincial funds are tied up to a large extent in paving a road across the province, it may mean that other parts of the province will not get even a gravel road.
The 50 per cent formula does not take into consideration the total road mileage within each province. For example, the province of Manitoba, according to the Canada Year Book for 1948, has 91,354 miles of road; the province of Ontario has 73,001. There are almost 20,000 more miles of highway in the province of Manitoba than in the province of Ontario. The province of Alberta has 80,525 miles of roads, whereas the province of Quebec has only 40,329 miles. Thus the province of Alberta has twice as many miles of road as the province of Quebec. The province of Saskatchewan has 212,978 miles of road. Our province with 7 per cent of the population of Canada, has 38 per cent of the total road mileage in the country. The province of Saskatchewan has three times as many miles of road as the province of Ontario and five times as many miles of road as the province of Quebec.
When the minister presents to this house and to the provinces a formula for building the trans-Canada highway under which the federal government will pay only 50 per cent of the cost, then he fails to take into account the over-all needs of the various provinces. Some provinces may find it impossible to go ahead with the construction of the trans-Canada highway, except at the expense of other areas within the province. I wish the proposals made by the government today had been made before the general election, because some ministers took the opportunity to misrepresent the position of some of the provinces. For example, the Minister of Agriculture, as quoted by the Leader-Post of June 27, had this to say at Indian Head:
Refusal of the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government to pay its share of the trans-Canada highway is one of the reasons for delay in finalizing plans for its construction. Agriculture Minister Gardiner told a political meeting here Friday night.

Trans-Canada Highway
He said the dominion government proposed the highway be financed on a 50-50 basis and all provinces from whom replies have been received agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost in each province.
I should like to quote from a letter written by the minister of highways for Saskatchewan to Hon. James A. MacKinnon, the then minister of mines and resources, on January 14. The letter says in part:
With reference to item eight,-
Which was asking for technical information.

1 am enclosing a copy of the minimum standard
agreed upon by the four western provinces. I may state, however, that when this matter was discussed, it was generally understood the federal government would be prepared to accept responsibility for 100 per cent of the construction cost of this road.
I note from a press report from Edmonton you are credited with a statement suggesting that your government is considering assistance only to the extent of 50 per cent of the entire cost. . . .
As it is desirable both from the viewpoint of your government and of ours that work on a trans-Canada highway be commenced as early as possible in 1949, I would respectfully ask that the responsibility for construction costs of this route be finalized as early as possible, in order that the necessary provision may be made in our construction program for this coming season.
The minister of highways in Saskatchewan in that letter accused the federal government of backtracking from the position taken at the conference in December. Throughout the whole file of correspondence-that was brought down as an order for return requested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)-between the present minister and the Saskatchewan government, and between the former minister under whose department was placed the matter of a trans-Canada highway, nowhere was there a denial that the federal government had not taken the position in December that it would be prepared to pay 100 per cent of the cost. Certainly, if this government had not led the province to believe that it would be prepared to pay the total cost, it would have denied that statement of the minister of highways in Saskatchewan, particularly when the government was going to the country in a general election within a few weeks.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made the statement that Saskatchewan had not agreed to go ahead with the program on a certain basis and that was one of the reasons why the project had not been undertaken. I want to quote from a letter written on April 7 by the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) to Hon. J. T. Douglas, minister of highways in Saskatchewan. I should like to read the second paragraph, which is as follows:
It seems clear from the helpful attitude you adopted at the conference, and from subsequent correspondence, that you are anxious to proceed at an early date.


Hence during the election campaign the Minister of Agriculture, in my opinion, was attempting to mislead the audience to whom he was talking. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply himself, who had to deal with this matter, made the statement in writing that the government of Saskatchewan had indeed adopted a very helpful attitude.
There are other letters in that file, written by the Hon. J. T. Douglas in which he repeatedly asks the federal government to finalize its plans so that the province of Saskatchewan could begin the construction of the Saskatchewan section of the trans-Canada highway within the year 1949.
I have already said that the present formula does not meet the needs of the provinces, that the formula will result in some provinces being called upon to shoulder a very high part of the cost; and the formula does not take into consideration the necessity of large expenditures within the various provinces for a provincial highway system that will meet the needs of the people within those provinces.
I think the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and the government could learn a great deal from the highway program adopted by the United States federal government. We all know that the United States system of highways is the best in the world. As far back as 1912 the federal government of the United States undertook a program of federal grants for the construction of roads throughout the country. Hence when this government decides to pay some money for the construction of a trans-Canada highway it is just thirty-seven years behind the United States in that regard.
In 1916 there was appropriated from the federal treasury in the United States $75 million for the construction of highways over a five-year period. In 1922 there was appropriated another $75 million. In the following years, from 1922 up until the period of the war, the federal government in the United States contributed to the states for building of highways the sum of $1,190 million. Towards the end of the war, in 1944, the federal government in the United States allocated $500 million a year for the next three years to be spent on the building of highways. I want to point out that contributions coming from the federal government of the United States are not paid to the state governments merely for the construction of interstate highways, but that money is paid from the federal treasury in the United States to the various state governments for the construction of feeder highways, secondary and farm-to-market roads,

school bus roads and rural mail delivery roads. Part of the construction cost of almost any road of any consequence whatever built in the United States at the present time is paid by the federal government.
The United States government divides its money in this way. It takes the $500 million and it says that two and a half per cent of that sum will be used for administration expenses. Then it takes the balance and divides it into three equal parts. The first part is divided among the states in proportion to their population; the second part is divided among the states according to the area of each; and the third part is divided among the states according to the total road mileage within each one. That formula was adopted by the United States government in 1916 and has never been changed. That formula worked in the United States because, by means of it, they were able to build an excellent highway system throughout all parts of their country.
The state highway system in the United States reaches forty-two of the 48 state capitals. It reaches 182 of the 199 cities with more than 50,000 population. And in addition to the interstate highway, federal contributions are made for the construction of secondary and farm-to-market roads. On top of payments for the construction of these roads a large contribution is made by the federal government in the United States toward the construction of highways within urban areas. If the government of Canada would spend as much per capita on the building of roads as is spent in the United States we would spend in each year $20,250,000 on federal aid to a federal highway system; $13,500,000 on federal aid to the construction of secondary or farm-to-market roads; and $11,250,000 on federal aid for the construction of highways within the large urban centres. The American formula has brought results. Under the Canadian formula if you take the highest possible cost for building a road through the province of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan will not obtain any more than $1,285,700 a year from this government over a period of seven years.
If we take the state of Montana, immediately south of the province of Saskatchewan, we find that that state is much smaller in area than the province of Saskatchewan. Montana has 300,000 fewer people than the province of Saskatchewan. Yet in the year ended June 30, 1948, the state of Montana obtained $10,586,873 for its highway program from the United States federal government, eight times as much money as the province of Saskatchewan can possibly get from the legislation that is being presented
Trans-Canada Highway to the house. The state of North Dakota got six times as much as the province of Saskatchewan can hope to get under this legislation within the same period, namely, $7,271,913.
One of the important aspects of the program for road construction in the United States is directed toward making the highway system available to as many farms and rural communities as possible. I should like to quote one short paragraph from a publication of the public roads administration in Washington. It says this in relation to the highway program followed by the state of Texas in co-operation with the United States federal government:
Texas has been conspicuous for its speed and vigour in building secondary roads. Many of the farmers along the twenty-mile project in Armstrong and Randall counties had the contractor build spurs to their homes and barns. One farmer paid $900 for his driveway, saying: "The road doesn't help you if you can't get to it." The Texas state highway department estimates that its secondary system, when added to the primary highways, will place 74 per cent of all rural homes within two miles of a surfaced road and 62 per cent within one mile.
That is what has been accomplished in the state of Texas through the federal formula used in the United States. Under the formula presented to this house this afternoon by the minister not one dollar of federal moneys will be used for the construction of secondary or farm-to-market roads. Therefore I say that while we welcome any contribution that the government may make toward the building of a trans-Canada highway, the contribution that the government has in mind in this respect falls far short indeed of the amount necessary to build a highway system to adequately serve all parts and all communities of Canada.
I wonder whether the government is seriously interested in proceeding with even paying 50 per cent of the cost of a trans-Canada highway. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made a statement during this session and I wish the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) would find out from him for me what he meant when he made that statement. The statement was in reference to the building of a trans-Canada highway. He said that the magnitude and timing of works on the trans-Canada highway would depend upon the general rate of economic activity in Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether work on the trans-Canada highway is to be tied to the government's theory of cyclical budgeting. I should like to quote what I think is a most important paragraph in the circular sent out by the minister to the various provinces, or at any rate in the letter to the province of Saskatchewan, on September 2 of this year,
2032

Trans-Canada Highway outlining the federal government's proposal. I wish that paragraph had not appeared. The paragraph reads as follows:
The federal government's contribution is being made by reason of the national aspect of the project and its participation is, of necessity, contingent upon all provinces entering into agreements with the federal government.
Is the minister going to place in the hands of each province of Canada the right to veto the construction of the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have one more question and I shall sit down. I should like to ask the minister whether he is going to place in the hands of Premier Duplessis of Quebec for example the power to veto the construction of the trans-Canada highway. Some provinces may not find it possible to raise their 50 per cent of the construction cost. It may be too great a burden for their provincial treasuries. If some provinces cannot afford to build the road, is the minister going to hold up the federal government's contribution toward the building of the highway within those provinces that wish to undertake its construction?
In conclusion I urge the minister, when he brings in the bill, if he can get his colleagues in the cabinet to agree, to increase the federal contribution much above 50 per cent; and, if not at this session at a later session, bring in a program whereby federal contributions will be made to the provinces in order that feeder roads can be built, so that all Canadians irrespective of the province in which they reside, and irrespective of the region in which they reside, will be within reasonable proximity to a decent highway.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is in many ways, I think, a tragedy that Canada has not yet provided for her people at least one trans-Canada or transcontinental highway. I submit that pur failure in this respect casts a serious reflection on our vision. I believe it also reflects on our enterprise and on our leadership, but most of all on our interest in the development of our own country.
The resolution that is now under consideration is, I submit, twenty-five or thirty years too late. In this respect the trans-Canada highway is in much the same position as Canada's utilization of international waters for irrigation purposes. We have neglected to take aggressive action in this regard to secure to future generations in Canada their rightful proportion of those waters by putting it to use, until we are now in a difficult posi-

tion with respect thereto. I say, sir, that we are also in a parallel position with regard to a national policy for making Canada as nearly self-sufficient as she can be in the essentials of living, and as a result we are lagging along utterly dependent upon other countries for a good many of the things that we ought to be producing for ourselves.
This is a dangerous position to be in at a time like this. The chief cause of all of these conditions is lack of vision, lack of leadership. I do not need to remind hon. members that where there is no vision the people perish. The Liberal party must bear the major responsibility for the fact that Canada has no trans-Canada highway, for that party has been in power for 47 of the 82 years since confederation, and 36 out of the 49 years since the turn of the present century. I do not wish to heap the blame upon the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) because he merely inherited the situation. He is young in the important position he holds, and I congratulate him upon taking the lead in this very important matter so soon after assuming his high office.
However the government cannot escape some responsibility for its failure in the past even though the minister himself does not have to accept full responsibility now. The resolution before us calls for the introduction of a bill which, so far as we can learn, is to contain provisions for agreement between the dominion and the provinces to share the cost of building a trans-Canada highway; in retaining the technical staff to advise the provincial governments, and for inspection and accounting duties.
I see, however, nothing in the resolution to indicate the method to be used in determining the route the highway is to follow through the various areas of this vast country of ours. The resolution is also silent as to the way in which costs are to be shared between the dominion and the provinces. The minister did say in his opening statement that the federal government proposes to pay 50 per cent of the cost. To us that is a great disappointment. It was also most disappointing to hear the minister say that the highway he proposes will have "some national complexion". A timid whisper like that is exactly the opposite of what one would expect from a government with a majority the size of this one. I say it is very difficult for anyone to understand why the government will walk roughshod over the law and standing orders, but will plunge headlong almost with the reckless abandon of the Stampeders football line when it comes to abolishing appeals to the privy council and making amendments to the constitution, and

approaches the building of this most important trans-Canada highway with diffident reluctance. That is the only way one can express it.
We criticize the failure of the government to take proper leadership in this most important matter. To begin with, as I have already said, we have drifted along for 25 or 30 years without a route by which our own Canadian people, to say nothing of the tourists, could motor or haul by truck from eastern Canada to the west, or vice versa. All this time we have forced Canadians to spend a good many millions of scarce American dollars in the United States simply because they had no alternative to the use of the highways south of the 49th parallel. I have had to use those highways on many occasions when it has been necessary for me to travel west by automobile. We have lost untold millions of those same scarce American dollars through tourist travel which undoubtedly would have passed over a trans-Canada highway, if one had been in existence.
I am not going to cover the ground already so well covered by the two preceding speakers. In much of what they have said I concur. A number of good suggestions were made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew), in which I concur. I should like however to say something about financing the road. I said earlier that we were disappointed, keenly disappointed, with the government's announcement that it would share to the extent of only 50 per cent. I believe the trans-Canada highway should be financed entirely by the federal government.
I propose to cite to the house a number of good reasons in support of my claim. Obviously because of the shortage of time I cannot discuss all of them; but there are a number of good reasons why at least the first trans-Canada highway should be financed entirely from the federal treasury.
The first of these reasons is that the trans-Canada highway would be a national asset, because it would be national in scope. It would serve the interests of Canadians as a whole rather than the interests of only those people in one province or the people in a small group of provinces. My second reason is that the governments in the provinces, and of the municipalities in the provinces, are already faced with excessive expenditures for roads and other public works, in some cases away beyond their ability to pay without going further into debt.
At the present time the provinces and municipalities have to construct and maintain practically all the highways and roads, without any financial assistance from the 45781-1291
Trans-Canada Highway federal government. I submit that in no federal country in the world outside Canada is that true to the extent that it is true in this country. At the present time many of the highways in the provinces which serve the Canadian people as a whole are in the nature of a trans-Canada highway. No part of the cost of either building or maintaining those highways has been borne by the federal treasury.
Just let me give my own province as an example. I refer to Alberta only because I am more familiar with it than with any other province. I feel sure however that what I say about Alberta will hold more or less true with respect to all other provinces in Canada. In the first place according to 1947 figures Alberta had a population of roughly 822,000 people and an area of 255,285 square miles. In the second place, the total miles reserved for roadway amounts to 143,805. This simply means, by ordinary calculation, that five Albertans would have to carry the cost of building and maintaining each mile of highway, if it were possible to do the building all at once.


Mr. Blackmore:: That figure includes men, women and children.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, including babies. This is a heavy burden for any group of people to bear. At present out of the 143,805 miles of potential roadways that will have to be built in time, a grand total of 80,742 miles have been built. In the third place there are in Alberta 76,140 miles of rural, municipal and improved district roads; and of this huge total 42,684 miles are earth roads, 24,790 are graded and 8,666 are gravel.
One gets some idea of the heavy financial burden to be borne by a province like Alberta when it is realized that it is impossible to maintain a mile of gravel highway for less than $1,000 per year, if normal traffic is to be continued. Let that sink in: for less than $1,000 per mile per year it is impossible to maintain a gravel road in passable condition.
In Alberta there have been built 3,258 miles of main gravel highway. It is not difficult therefore for hon. members to measure the kind of maintenance bill this mileage requires every year at $1,000 a mile. And when we remember that a province with not many more than 800,000 people has to lay out over $3 million a year merely to keep up its gravel roads, then I ask the house what chance it has to build hard-surfaced roads with the restricted resources falling within the scope of its own tax revenues. That is a serious question which it seems to me hon. members
2034	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway will have to ask. And on top of that, according to the minister's statement, this government expects them to contribute to the building of the trans-Canada highway to the extent of 50 per cent. What chance have they to do that?
There is another aspect of this matter to be considered. Alberta has built nearly 700 miles of asphalt surfaced roads during the past 12 or 13 years. I should think that the cost per mile today of such roads would be over $25,000 per mile. That represents in itself an expenditure of more than $18 million, all of which has been paid in cash as they went along. But over and above all this the people of Alberta have had to pay the interest on $40 million of bonds which were issued by governments prior to 1935 to pay for roads that were built up to that time. By 1935 those roads had largely disappeared, but the debt had not. We have had to pay the interest on the $40 million every year in spite of the fact that the roads were not there any longer. That is the kind of financing that went on from 1905 when Alberta became a province.


John Horne Blackmore: Under Liberals.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to point out that in the last provincial election the only suggestion the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta had to make was that if his party was elected they would immediately go out and borrow $100 million to be spent for roads.


John Horne Blackmore: Which would all blow away.


Solon Earl Low: All this indicates why it would be most unfair and unwise to saddle the provinces with further financial burdens in connection with the trans-Canada highway.
There is a third reason why the federal government should bear the full cost of the trans-Canada highway. I would refer now to the announcements the government has made at different times since 1946 as a means of reassuring the people of this country that they do not expect that a business recession of any serious proportions will hit Canada. They have assured the people that in the foreseeable future there will be no such thing as a depression. They have assured them that they have up their sleeves or somewhere a shelf of projects with which they are going to cushion Canada's economy against a depression.
If the trans-Canada highway is to be built as one unit of that shelf of post-war projects that we have heard so much about and that are to prevent a recession or unemployment in Canada, then quite clearly it is a federal responsibility. I do not think anyone can


argue successfully that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to order and administer the financial policy of this country to the end that effective demand is kept at a high enough level to make possible the equitable distribution of our total production. That is a federal responsibility. There is no other way to prevent unemployment and business recession or, what is worse, a depression, than for the government to so order its financial affairs and to so conduct its financial policy that effective demand is kept at a level where the people of the country can buy, if they so desire, the total of our production.
The provinces have no voice in the national financial policy and therefore it becomes the responsibility of the federal government to bring out its shelf of projects and put them into effect. One of the most important of these should be the building of the trans-Canada highway. When the government and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) are considering ways of financing this vast project they should give serious consideration to the use of nationally created credits rather than taxation and borrowing. It would be quite possible to plan the undertaking to be carried out over a period of years ini such a way as to make the necessary expenditures coincide with the periodical need for expansion in the Canadian monetary supply. In my judgment the building of the trans-Canada highway offers an ideal project to be financed by national money since it will be not only a national asset but in many respects a self-liquidating national asset which would lend itself to the kind of financing I have suggested. I should like to stress also that the people of Canada should not have to pay for this road two or three times over during this and succeeding generations simply because the government insists upon saddling them with more debt that never will be paid, but carrying interest which must be paid out of taxation.
There is another consideration to be dealt with when considering this question of whether the dominion government should finance the proposed highway rather than add to the burdens of the provinces which are already very heavy. I refer now to the effect which the building of the Alaska highway has had upon provincial economy since its transfer from the United States to the Canadian government. As hon. members know, the southern terminal of the Alaska highway is at Dawson Creek, British Columbia. There is no connection between that point and the highways of the United States except over Alberta roads. From Dawson Creek to the nearest United States port of

entry at Coutts, Alberta, is about 820 miles. That means that nearly all the traffic that moves over the Alaska highway must of necessity travel over 820 miles of provincial highways in order to get to the Alaska highway.
During some seasons of the year large convoys of heavy trucks and transports carrying great tonnages of materials and supplies move over Alberta roads. It is only natural that those heavy convoys which are accustomed to travelling on the armour-coated highways of the United States should cut the Alberta roads to pieces; and this they have done. No system of licensing or of gas taxation could possibly bring in sufficient revenues to pay for the damage done to a highway by such heavy traffic, much of which is incidental to the United States army and the United States supply depots in the great northland. Thus far Alberta has had to pay the full cost of maintaining, and repairing, and the rebuilding necessitated by this heavy traffic from the United States, and this has run into hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
The Alaska highway is important to the United States and Canada. We do not begin to understand how important it is now; but we should be thankful that it has been constructed. I think we should pay tribute to the foresight of our neighbouring country, the United States, for building this highway even at the tremendous cost involved. This highway was turned over to Canada by the United States and Canada is maintaining it. I understand from the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) that they are doing a good job, and for this the government should be commended. However, the full potential of that highway cannot be realized until it is extended to the south and connected up with the great industrial centres of the midwest United States. It will have to go through Alberta before that can happen.
It is clearly the duty and responsibility of the federal government to do three things in order to relieve the province of Alberta of the heavy responsibility it has today in providing feeder roads to the Alaska highway and in order to make the Alaska highway of real value. It is their responsibility to share the cost of maintaining these feeder roads to the Alaska highway so that they may be kept up to standard and make it possible for traffic to move over them at all seasons of the year. Possibly these supply convoys bound for Alaska are going to be tremendously important from a security point of view sooner than anyone expects.
The second thing I think the Canadian government should do, and it is clearly their responsibility, is to negotiate with the United
Trans-Canada Highway States government with a view to getting that government to share the costs of maintenance of feeder roads to the Alaska highway, and perhaps to share the cost of rebuilding where that becomes necessary as a result of the wear and tear from the heavy convoys travelling over the roads.
The third thing which I think is a federal government responsibility is to construct, or share with the province in the construction of, a more direct route from the southern part of the province of Alberta to the Alaska highway. I am told that surveys already made indicate that it would be possible to save up to seventy-five miles between the port of entry at Coutts, Alberta, and Dawson Creek by surveying and building a cut-off between Whitecourt, west of Edmonton, and Valley-view in the Peace river country. Certainly it is only reasonable to suppose that if a road is to be of military and security value then the most direct route is the most feasible one.
I suggest with all respect these three important things should be followed up by the government of Canada. They are the only ones in a position to negotiate and to arrange for an agreement between ourselves and the United States to the effect I have mentioned. I do not need to deal with the precedent established by the United States. My colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), undoubtedly will go into that to some degree, and will show the contrast between the way we have undertaken the building of an important highway link between eastern Canada and western Canada, and the way the United States has acted over the years. I suggest that feeder roads, or an inter-regional system of highways, ought to be considered also as a part of any trans-Canada highway project.
I should like to say a word about routes before I close. A good deal has been heard, especially during the past year, about what route the proposed trans-Canada highway should follow. I am critical of the government in this respect. I think the situation has been allowed to drift along with no leadership until it has become terribly confused. Nobody seems to know just where to start. I did not hear the interpolation of my hon. friend over there. I would be very happy to have him speak right out so that I can deal with him. There is no question about the fact that much of the existing confusion with respect to a route, and how to select a route, is the result of the lack of leadership on the part of this government that is supposed to initiate such things. There have sprung into existence in Canada trans-Canada highway route associations. I know we have at least three of them in the province

Trans-Canada Highway of Alberta because there are three main possible routes by which the trans-Canada highway could proceed. Each of these associations has been doing a great deal of advertising and has obtained much publicity. Each of them makes many claims about the advantages of its own route. The Yellow-head association has even gone so far as to sponsor a convoy and send it from the city of Edmonton right through to Vancouver to show the feasibility and advantages of that route.
Alberta finds herself in the position that she cannot make a firm decision as to which route she should designate across her territory because already it is reported that the people of British Columbia have said:	We
will not consider any other route than the Big Bend highway leading into Calgary. On the east, it is reported that the province of Saskatchewan has said: We will select as the route the one that goes through Regina and ends up at Walsh on the Alberta border. That being the case, Alberta is in the position where, if she made a decision to put the road through over the southern proposed route or the Yellowhead route, it would throw the whole thing into such confusion that nobody would be able to make a decision for a long time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Nobody would do anything that silly, would they? '


Solon Earl Low: At any rate, thus far Mr. Manning, the head of the Alberta government, has used his head and has waited to see what leadership would come from the federal government.


John Horne Blackmore: He always uses his head.


Solon Earl Low: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: I have in mind the hon. members who pounded their desk when I said that. They have indicated they do not know what they are doing.

I also suggest for the very serious consideration of this government, when it comes to financing the trans-Canada highway, that they make it part of the shelf of projects designed to cushion the Canadian economy against the onslaught of depression. The only way that can be done is to make use of national credits without interest, which would be expended as it became necessary to expand the monetary supply so that effective demand can be kept at a high level in this country.


Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear from all indications that everyone in this house is agreed that Canada should have a transcontinental highway. The building of this highway has now reached the stage of definite plans, and it is interesting to observe that a Liberal government is responsible for this constructive step.


Mr. Thatcher:: It is about time.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: What portion of the cost of the trans-Canada highway will be borne by the federal government and under what auspices the construction will take place are matters of negotiation between the dominion and the provinces concerned. What route the construction will follow is a matter of grave concern to all Canadians who are interested in this national undertaking. It is hoped that some time in the not too distant future there will be more than one trans-Canada highway welding together the components of our great nation. At the moment, however, we are immediately concerned with the building of our first national roadway, and my remarks will be directed to a discussion of the location of this highway.
There are members in this house representing the ten provinces affected, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and it would appear to me that my observations should deal more directly with that part of the trans-Canada highway which passes through the province of Alberta, although the principle involved is equally applicable to the other parts of this Canadian undertaking. Representing as I do the constituency of Edmonton East in the province of Alberta, I have given special attention to the possible routes of this system through the passes of the Rocky mountains, namely the Crowsnest pass, the Kicking Horse pass and the Yellow-head pass. It has been my privilege to personally traverse all three of these divides of our picturesque Canadian Rockies. As a layman, I was particularly impressed with the natural roadway, and the accessibility of good grades through the Yellowhead pass. But I would not feel qualified to give judgment on which route should be chosen. I am equally convinced that those who have undertaken to make a definite decision are not
Trans-Canada Highway fully qualified, nor have they sufficient facts at their disposal on which to give a sound judgment.
There are three main factors to be considered in deciding where the trans-Canada highway should pass through these mountains, namely, the practicability for civilian use, the accessibility for defence purposes, and the cost of construction. On this basis it is difficult to understand the decision of the provincial government of Alberta proposing that the Kicking Horse pass route should be followed, when all available evidence points to the Yellowhead pass route as being preferable on all three counts.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now I will tell one.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: I am not
suggesting that the recommendation of the provincial government of Alberta should be ignored, but I am definitely stating that there is sufficient evidence against this recommendation to make it imperative for a national highway commission to be established which would weigh carefully the merits or demerits of all three locations. The best engineering brains in this country should be mobilized for the purpose of forming a fact-finding board or trans-Canada highway commission with representatives thereon from the armed services. This commission could consider everything contributory to the construction of a highway such as route, costs, weather conditions and military requirements.
To substantiate my concern over the hasty or ill-considered decision of preferring the Kicking Horse pass, I would call the attention of this house to several factors which should interest all members. There is a stretch of highway west of the Kicking Horse pass known as the Big Bend, on which the annual snowfall has approached nearly sixteen feet in one season. In the pass itself, there are twelve miles in the Kicking Horse canyon through which a twenty-two foot top highway could not be built without a cost approaching $200,000 per mile. The railroad in the gorge would make extensive blasting operations impracticable. On the other hand, the Yellowhead pass does not present such formidable obstructions to either construction or maintenance.
The Yellowhead route will approach and proceed through the mountains and arrive at Vancouver at a lower elevation than any other proposed route. The Kicking Horse pass elevation is 5,337 feet; the Crowsnest elevation is 4,450 feet and the Yellowhead, 3,717 feet. As there is the least snowfall on the Yellowhead route, that is another good reason why this route should be considered for

Trans-Canada Highway priority of construction. Not only the original construction cost but the cost of maintenance should be given consideration, and I contend that maintenance would be less on the Yellow-head route, owing to lighter snowfall and the ease with which any slides that might occur could be cleared away. The mountain scenery is equally glorious in each of these areas, but tourists today demand highways of 22 to 24 feet, without those turns which reach beyond the point of enjoyment.
I submit that commercially the Yellowhead route west of Winnipeg would serve the greatest number of people living in the prairie provinces. The recent oil developments in the central part of the prairies, as well as the potential resources of the northern part of the prairie provinces and Northwest Territories, are strong reasons why the highway should follow the Yellowhead route. The Yellowhead route is the central route, and would serve by far the largest park areas west of the great lakes. It is as necessary to have good highways as it is good railways. The Yellowhead route passing through four national parks and five provincial parks would be a veritable magnet for the tourist trade.
During the present session the citizens of Canada, and in particular the members of this house, have been made more conscious of the necessity for national defence. With the realization that war is still a possibility, would it not be shortsighted indeed to construct a trans-Canada highway without giving adequate consideration to the availability of this highway for defence purposes? Our great ally and friendly neighbour to the south, the United States of America, has been ever-conscious of the necessity for protecting the back door on the northwestern border. The joint effort in the construction of the Alaska highway is firm evidence of the practical co-operation between Canada and the United States in defence projects. During the last session of congress, a bill was passed anticipating the construction of a railroad by the United States from Prince George to Fairbanks, Alaska, costing approximately $200 million. Just last month the President of the United States signed this bill which authorizes plans for an immediate survey of this proposed railway. At present there is a railroad in the province of British Columbia which could be used as a feeder for the Prince George-Alaska line, but two highways could also be utilized as secondary feeders if the Yellowhead pass were used for the trans-Canada project, which would make the military supply system less vulnerable, either to climatic conditions or to military attack.

In overlooking the Yellowhead pass we question whether sufficient consideration has been given to defence highway supply routes such as (1) south-north route through the interior of British Columbia from the United States border to Prince George and (2) the Alberta highway from Montana to Edmonton which could be linked up with Prince George by the extension of the trans-Canada highway west from Edmonton via the Yellowhead, with a branch to Prince George, British Columbia.
A highway along this route of the Yellowhead pass would serve the two largest ports on the Pacific coast, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, also Skagway via the Alaska highway. The Yellowhead route would join the Alaska highway at Edmonton as well as give direct connection with the Mackenzie highway to Great Slave lake.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that I am not dogmatically suggesting that the Yellowhead route be chosen. On the contrary, I am definitely suggesting that a factfinding board or highway commission be set up to secure evidence as to what route is preferable for this great Canadian national undertaking.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I should like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, in support of the principle of this resolution which may, of course, result at some time in the bringing in to this house of a bill for the establishment of the trans-Canada highway. I do so not having in mind the route either in the maritime provinces or in the western provinces.
I hear a voice, Mr. Speaker, but I see no one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You had better grow up; then you will see some of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am not particularly interested in the conflict between western members as to the route that it ought to take there. I am interested, however, that there shall be a trans-Canada highway which shall lead from one side of Canada to the other so that the products of our mines, farms and factories may be transported in a manner which may seem advisable to those using trucks, and that our people may be transported by bus, but primarily that this route may be a haven or a paradise for the tourists that enter our country.
One of the largest industries-I think it is the second largest-providing United States dollars to the Dominion of Canada is the tourist industry. For that reason in the province of Ontario I believe I would rather support a move to establish such a route along the north shore of lake Superior. I

say that, Mr. Speaker, probably for a selfish reason. That reason is that the constituency which I have the honour to represent has the largest port of entry for tourists in the Dominion of Canada. While I realize that not even by the widest stretch of the imagination can we divert the trans-Canada highway into this part of southern Canada, yet the people who use this highway will, to a large extent, come to that highway through the constituency which I represent.
The development of this tourist paradise along the trans-Canada highway will require the utmost co-operation of the federal and the provincial governments. It will also of course require the co-operation of municipal governments. It seems to me that a tourist coming to this country for the purpose of a holiday or otherwise requires three things: (1) ample quality meals; (2) comfortable beds; (3) an enjoyable time. These objectives, of course, can be accomplished on such a highway, especially in the part to which I refer, along the north shore of lake Superior.
Since the federal government is going to pay a large part of the cost of such a highway, I think it would be entitled to call the tune to some extent. For that purpose it can assist greatly in establishing on this highway the tourist attractions that go with it. To enumerate, may I point out that loans may be provided by the federal government cor the establishment of tourist camps or lodges. These should of course be given to worthy individuals. I am not suggesting that loans be granted to everybody. I said that they should be granted to "worthy" individuals; that is, to persons who would be deemed to be most likely to succeed and who are prepared to put in a considerable amount of hard slugging or hard work. The state of Indiana-I am told that it is done by many other states in the United States, but I have knowledge of the state of Indiana -provides such camps within its confines, in which a large tract of land is developed, with parks, with golf courses, snow slides, ski slides, and things of that nature. Usually it has incorporated therein a large or commodious hostel of some type. This is done with state funds.
In the second place, the federal government can assist the provinces in co-ordinating the rules and regulations which will assure the traveller of the fair practices that should be employed by the operators of all tourist accommodation so that the tourist will get the most for his money and, of course, so that a profit will be provided for the operator. High standards of course should be set. I would think that it would be well if such
Trans-Canada Highway accommodation were classified. Certain standards should be set by the different levels of government in co-operation one with the other. The camp, lodge, hotel or whatever it may be, should be classified and that classification given adequate publicity. The federal government should enter into a program of education of the tourist resort operators from one coast to the other. Any merchant or tradesman on the highway should be provided with adequate information. Inspectors should come along to see that the operator of the establishment is given firsthand knowledge of the standard that is being set by the government officials.
A moment ago I said that the first thing the tourist requires is ample quality meals. At the present time the Department of Agriculture is doing a great deal of valuable work throughout Canada in educating the housewife, the restaurant proprietor and the hotel keeper in the different ways of preparing best quality food. I might point out that in various parts of Canada there are specialties which are indigenous to that part of the country. As a matter of fact, just a few days ago I was discussing the matter with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mott), who is a new member. He told me of an experience which he had had with the mayors of the Dominion of Canada who were in convention in that western city. He said that in their tour across the country they had been fed turkey and peas and chicken and peas everywhere. Of course they got those dishes at home

we all get them if we are not careful. But while out in that part of the country they were provided with samples of the fish products which are so bountiful in that region, with the result that he was besieged for many weeks afterwards with requests for different products that were being produced from the fisheries of British Columbia.
The different provinces of the maritimes, through research and education, might discover special ways of using the potato or the fish products which they have down there. We of course think of Quebec and pea soup as synonymous. With education and publicity I am sure that the tourist as he approached the province of Quebec would be looking forward to a delicious bowl of that famous soup. Ontario might-I might point out that the interjection at my elbow was that Ontario might specialize in the hot dog. I do not think it is really a dish which is peculiar to the province of Ontario. I do think that in Ontario we have fine products. For instance, our blueberries are the finest in Canada. With a little research by scientists and dietitians they could provide a specialty course for the

Trans-Canada Highway tourists in our country. I have already mentioned the west coast. The prairies of course have the wheat products.
In addition to the specialty food dishes for our tourists I am going to suggest that there be an adequate supply of maps which could be displayed on the walls of the establishments along this highway. I have found that all tourists are tremendously interested in maps, especially of the locality in which they find themselves. These maps could also be used as place mats at the different establishments. Perhaps the recipe of the favourite dish in that locality could be typed or printed on the map and taken by the tourist as a souvenir.
I have already pointed out that the second requirement of a tourist establishment is comfortable beds. This could be regulated by government directive, by the regulations that are provided by the provincial and federal governments co-operating with each other. As I have pointed out, a certificate could be issued to the establishment and publicity given not only in the establishment itself but in the different trade journals and advertising.
The third essential for a tourist is an enjoyable time. I would think that anyone going across Ontario and coming through Windsor would have an enjoyable time. Outdoor activities could be augmented by establishing in many of these places handicraft activities. I believe that the Canadian Handicraft Guild will be most active and anxious to assist the operators of such establishments in providing the means whereby tourists may have activity when the weather is not suitable for outdoor exercise. That is done in many places in the United States. When an inn or a hotel is established, a handicraft guild or a handicraft shop is established, and on a cold or rainy day they are very active places and provide an outlet in which the tourist may make something for himself, probably under expert supervision, which he can take home and use as a memento in the years to come.
If the federal, provincial and municipal authorities do co-operate, and I am sure they will, if given the opportunity, to provide these tourist havens across Canada, the number of motorcars which pass through the port of Windsor, which is in my constituency, will greatly increase.


Mr. Isnor:: Is this highway to go through the hon. member's constituency?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I would prefer that they divert the highway through the city of Windsor, but I am really not asking for it at the moment. I said "at the moment"; it might be that a little later I would ask for it. However the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) has brought up the point. I think

it might be well if the provincial government were to proceed at once with the building of a four-lane highway. Perhaps I should not use the word "building", because they already have the plans. However, they might well proceed with the building, for which they have the plans, of a four-lane highway from Windsor, to connect with the trans-Canada highway. Not only would it provide easy access to the trans-Canada highway, but it would bring in many more American dollars so badly needed in this country.
In 1949 alone, from January to August 1,295,549 motorcars passed through the port of Windsor. When one considers that in each motorcar there are several passengers, and that each tourist spends a considerable sum of American dollars, it must be agreed that this is a great contribution to our national economy. For these reasons I most heartily support the trans-Canada highway.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I notice in reading the files tabled by the minister today of correspondence with the premiers of the different provinces, that they do not appear to be complete. I wonder if this is correct; are they or are they not complete?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand the hon. member is referring to the date of the last correspondence.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, that is right.


Robert Henry Winters: The correspondence is up to the date of the notice of motion for production of papers moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Gordon Francis Higgins: I presume the minister will file any remaining correspondence.


Robert Henry Winters: If that is the wish of hon. members, I should be glad to do it.


Howard Charles Green: Could it be done tomorrow?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it may be done tomorrow-and done of course on the same basis, that it will be filed only with respect to those provinces which have given their permission.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I mention this because from the date it appears that there is further correspondence.
I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that the idea of a trans-Canada highway has general support. The only differences we may have in the matter-those of us who have differences-are with respect to the contributions that have to be made. I shall refer to that aspect of the matter later.
The chief reason I see for the trans-Canada highway-one which I think is probably

accepted generally by all-is the development of trade and industry, and particularly that industry known as the tourist traffic. The other important phase is the necessity for a good system of highways for purposes of defence.
That feature has probably been stressed in the house before, and perhaps there is no need of my mentioning it again. We all recall however the famous autobahn of Germany and the purpose of it. We know of its value to that country during the last world war. I do not suggest that we should have an autobahn, but I do feel that throughout Canada we should have highroads which if necessary can be used for defence purposes.
Another important reason, one to which the minister referred in his opening remarks, I believe, is the value of road-building in taking care of unemployment. In my opinion that is one of the important features in the program. Perhaps it is not of such importance to the other provinces as it is to Newfoundland, because unemployment is a problem we are now facing. I believe road-building has been termed a shelf project; whatever it is, it would be of immense value to us in this connection.
As has been stated so often, in Newfoundland we have immense tourist possibilities but no roads. With an area of 42,000 square miles we have less roads both in number and in quality than has Prince Edward Island with an area of only 2,000 square miles- and that is only on the island alone irrespective of Labrador. One can easily see why your poorest cousin needs and looks forward to a system of roads. The value of the tourist industry cannot be stressed too greatly, because with the opening up of highroads and the resultant opening of the country, not only will citizens from the wealthier sections of Canada come to us as often as possible, but also we will have a tremendous influx of American visitors as well. From that point of view I feel that no matter who pays for these roads, whether it is the wealthy provinces, the poorer provinces or perhaps even the Americans, it is a good investment, so long as we do not have to pay for them or pay more than we are able.
I am sure this matter has been considered before, but some years ago I noticed that on some of the American highroads specially wide and long strips were being built in places, the purpose being to take care of emergency plane landings. It might be well to keep in mind that in the proposed highroad provision could be made at no great extra cost for an extra twenty feet in width and a long straight-away of a mile or so which would serve as a first-class emergency
Trans-Canada Highway landing field, at which planes could land and from which they could take off. It might be even an attraction to tourists. This is offered only as a suggestion as we go along.
I do not need to repeat the strategic value of the island to the rest of the continent. But with the bases in Newfoundland it seems ridiculous to find that there is no road connection between them. We have a big American base at St. John's, with an airport at Torbay, which was used to a great extent during the war as a base for the spotting of submarines by aircraft. Then, we have the naval base at Argentia. St. John's and Argentia are connected; but may I remind the house that they are connected chiefly by American money being spent in their construction. Americans built and maintained that military road to give them speedy transportation between St. John's and their naval base at Argentia.
From there on however there is a great hiatus. The great airport at Gander is an important part in the scheme of defence of Canada; but there is no road connection with Gander and the rest of the country. Going farther west we come to Ernest Harmon air base at Stephenville. This is an American air base. There is no road connection with it and the other bases. So, apart altogether from the advantage of roads in the ordinary scheme of things, it seems to me apparent that in the defence scheme of the dominion and the United States all these bases should be connected by roads.
I do not think there is any contradiction to this. I do not believe it would be taken in good grace in this parliament or by the people of Canada, but I am quite certain the United States will build these roads if we do not. As a nation, surely we do not consider we are in the position where the United States should come in and build our roads. But that is what will happen unless these United States bases are connected up properly in the not too distant future. Somebody is going to do the job and I think that somebody should be Canada. This should all be part of the trans-Canada system.
The difficulty faced by the other provinces in deciding where the road is to run does not exist with us. We know perfectly well where it is going to run because we have no alternative. It will run from St. John's to Port aux Basques. Apparently this route has received the blessings of the powers that be.
But there is one thing I want to be certain about. When the highway is completed to Port aux Basques I want the minister to implement the undertaking contained in section 32 of the terms of union that a proper car ferry will be provided. This may be

Trans-Canada Highway thought to be asking for "all this and heaven too", but I am suggesting that provision should be made now so that a proper ferry will be available if and when the highway is built.
I have looked over the correspondence in this connection which was tabled. This correspondence sets out the standard of road that will be built. The details accompanied a letter to the premier of Newfoundland dated September 2, 1949. I take it that these standards will form part of the bill that is to follow and therefore it is proper to discuss them now. Apparently the government plans only a two-lane highway. I do not suppose Newfoundland itself would require more than a two-lane highway, but a military road would have to be wider. The intention is that if any province builds a road wider than two-lane the federal government contribution will be 50 per cent of the cost of a two-lane highway rather than 50 per cent of the total cost of the road.
Apparently the right of way is to be 100 feet in width with a 22 or 24 foot pavement. The shoulders are to be 10 feet and the minimum thickness of asphalt is to be three inches. The stone base will be from a nine-inch minimum to 12 inches. There will be a maximum curvature of six degrees and a maximum gradient of six degrees. The sight distances, horizontal and vertical, are to be a minimum of 600 feet. Bridges are to have an overhead clearance of 14 feet with a width of 26 feet for spans of over 30 feet, and curbs of 18 inches.
These are not my own figures. I do not know about these matters myself, but I discussed it with an hon. member who is engaged in the road-building business and who knows something about costs. I described as well as I could the terrain that would be encountered and the nearest approximate cost figure I could get was in the neighbourhood of $100,000 per mile. As I see it, the minimum distance would be 500 miles, which means that the share of the poor province of Newfoundland will be quite steep. I do not know about the wealthy provinces up here, but if we have to find $25 million as our share, it is going to be a little hard.
Then apart from the original cost the province must maintain the highway, and I understand that maintenance costs are fairly high. I hate to be considered begging all the time but I am a little worried about this part of it. We like to play our own part in Newfoundland and I would not advise taking on a job that we cannot handle properly. We do not want to be always coming around asking for more.
Another angle to this road construction business is the assistance that it will give

to relieving unemployment. Frankly I do not like the idea of this cost being as high as it will be, but even though it will assist unemployment I cannot see how we are going to find $25 million unless some wizard comes along and pulls it out of a hat. Unemployment has recently been taken care of by the provincial government by the payment of $13.20 for a 48-hour week. Can you imagine in this day and age that in one of our ten provinces a family man is receiving only $13.20 for 48 hours of work. It is easy to see what is going to happen. The family allowance cheques that are being received in Newfoundland will be used for purposes never intended by the act. I am quite worried about that and I am sure all hon. members from the province are in the same state of mind. I probably got a little off the point in this discussion, but I thought I should mention this matter.
From the correspondence the minister had with our premier it would appear that the subject of the resolution has been discussed. This letter was dated September 2, 1949, but I was rather confused by noting a Newfoundland newspaper report dated October 1. This report referred to the visit of the premier of Newfoundland to Ottawa and the discussion he had had with the minister with regard to a highway. There is a headline, "Twenty feet wide road to be built from Port aux Basques to city", and the premier is reported to have said:
Thanks to the help offered by the federal government, we'll have a paved highway from St. John's to Port aux Basques, with a minimum of a twenty-foot pavement and' two-foot shoulders on either side.
Then the premier is reported to have said further:
I don't guarantee that the paving itself will be completed within our first term of office, but the road itself will be completed and a great deal of its pavement will be laid. In addition there will be many miles of secondary roads constructed.
There seems to be confusion of thought in this matter. This resolution contemplates legislation which will follow a decision by the provinces concerned. If the premier is reported correctly it would seem that he had more or less accepted the proposal. I notice down at the bottom of this same newspaper another article which reads:
Work in connection with the survey of the western section of the proposed trans-Canada highway is progressing satisfactorily, and a party under T. H. Winter which commenced work at Robinson's on September 5 has now moved to McKay's.
These are places on the west coast.
It is understood that the work will be pushed forward and as much as possible completed before winter sets in.

I do not know if it means when the minister sets in or winter itself, but there does appear to be some similarity in the thoughts of the minister and the premier. The premier appears to have accepted the fact that it is all over and done with. In his letter to the minister he says:
Many thanks for your letter of September 2 . . . I may say that we are most eager to be in on the proposition from the very commencement.
The premier may take it as being all right. He may have decided Newfoundland can afford this expenditure, and if he sees his way clear I am not going to knock it, but frankly I do not see it as he does. I am quite worried about it. I would certainly wish to see a highway in Newfoundland in keeping with the rest of Canada. I certainly would wish Newfoundland to be able to pay its proportionate share of the cost of the highway, but I do not see how Newfoundland can do it. The bases in Newfoundland need highroads from the defence angle, but unless there is some other contribution suggested than that of 50 per cent to be paid by the dominion I do not see how the province can provide the balance. I heard the leader of the Social Credit party IMr. Low) say that for some provinces the contribution should be 33 per cent. I am not able to give a figure for Newfoundland. All I can say is that it should be less than any other province of Canada if Newfoundland is to pay its share. I am not able to go into figures, but I should like to see the road constructed. I should like to see it properly built, and I should like to see it built soon. I hope when legislation is being introduced there will be an exception in the case of your poor cousin in the matter of contribution.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the general policy of federal contribution to the building of highways and assisting the provinces therein. Therefore I am in general sympathy with the proposal before the house. I am particularly glad to give support to a minister from Nova Scotia because of my personal regard for him. I am in favour of it also because for some years I had considerable experience with highway administration and construction, and I have given my support at all times to improving highways starting in 1918, when the province of Nova Scotia had lefthand drive and nothing but sheep and cow trails all over the province. The highways were then looked after by sectional highway statute labour, when a provincial highway board was set up, of which I was a member. There were five members; three of them were supposed to be Liberals and two were associated with the other party. In those days there were only two
Trans-Canada Highway parties, but there were no politics in our efforts, at least so far as I was concerned.
We laid down certain policies and started a program. I have given my support to highway development from 1918 to the present time. I had the privilege and responsibility of being minister of highways in Nova Scotia for eight years. I had to take up the burden of administering the highways department from those early days. We were able to accomplish a good deal, and according to our revenue and resources, I believe that we accomplished as much towards the construction and maintenance of highways as has been done since. It has been the policy of everybody in the province of Nova Scotia to advance the construction of our highway transportation system. Great progress has been made.
I had the honour of proposing the policy of federal assistance for the construction of highways at the Conservative convention held at Winnipeg, which policy was adopted and put into effect under the Bennett government. Unfortunately it had to be carried out in the days of the depression when it was most difficult to secure funds to advance the programs that we had in hand. Our objective was to give as much employment as possible and to distribute the work as widely as we could. We were able to keep all our villages, towns and cities in the province of Nova Scotia solvent during those days, and no municipality defaulted on its bonds.
The industries of Nova Scotia could not give employment to their old hands. The workmen's compensation board recorded $30 million less in wages per year than they did a few years before. Because we had the responsibility in those days we were blamed by some-and I have heard it in the house many times-for the depression which was continent and world wide. We met the situation the best we could. We undertook to build many sections of the trans-Canada highway. We were not able to build it in a continuous stretch, but in different localities where labour requirements were the greatest. It is a problem today for the present minister, and for the ministers of all the provinces, to lay out the route of the trans-Canada highway so that it will serve their provinces. In those days we laid out the highway in Nova Scotia from the New Brunswick boundary to Cape Breton, through Sydney, and on to Louis-bourg, that old fortress of the historic days when the French and the British fought for ascendancy.
It is more important than ever that that route be adopted under the present program

Trans-Canada Highway because it gives connection with Newfoundland. We laid out one stretch of thirty-three miles running from Sydney. We adopted a 100-foot right of way, and the work was carried on largely by manual labour. We dispensed almost entirely with machinery, which gave more employment, but we were not able to do the work as cheaply as we could have if we had used machinery. We were only able to employ men in relays and provide two or three weeks' work at a time. It was not efficient help, but we did it in order to give employment to the people not only of the rural districts where the highways ran but also of the towns and cities. We established our own camps and supplied the food. Many of the people who came out from the mining towns in those days, where the mines were working one or two days a week, had not eaten a square meal for weeks. Many of them ate heartily, and their stomachs could not retain the food. Those were the conditions under which we carried on, but I believe we got a fair return for the work we did in those days in starting the trans-Canada highway.
A highway of the highest standard was continued to Halifax and to other parts of the province. I do not know what the policy of the government of Nova Scotia is today. I have glanced over the correspondence the minister has tabled, but I do not see any correspondence from the province of Nova Scotia. I am sure the government of Nova Scotia has an advanced policy. I feel greatly handicapped tonight, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this resolution because there is no correspondence available from the government of Nova Scotia which would indicate their policy. I think it is due to us from Nova Scotia, in fact to all the members of this house, that the complete correspondence be placed in our hands so that we may know the attitude not only of the province of Nova Scotia but of evex-y province in Canada. I am sure that is the wish of all members of the house who desire to assist in working out the best policy possible.
All work undertaken in Cape Breton at that time was not part of the trans-Canada highway. We built the Cabot trail 186 miles largely in the constituency of the member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll). That is a great asset to the province of Nova Scotia today and I believe the whole of Canada. That was carried out by labour during those depressed days. Not only were we able to do our share of the work in Nova Scotia and keep the municipalities solvent, but we were able to pay all our own bills and finance our own undertakings. That was not the case with the western provinces. The four western provinces, with their enormous


resources and great revenues of recent years, went through a difficult period at that time resulting in the cancelling of a large portion of their expenditure during those depressed years, but we paid all our commitments.
I am going to read some of the figures I gave to the house on May 20, 1947. The treasury bill debt of the four western provinces was as follows: Manitoba, $24,734,451.82; Saskatchewan, $80,441,852.44; Alberta, $26,212,000; British Columbia, $34,112,249.99, making a total debt of $165,500,554.25. I presume a considerable portion of those expenditures in those days went toward the building of the trans-Canada highway. The province of Nova Scotia paid every dollar of its share. The federal government has cancelled $55,456,164 of that debt and repaid, out of the proceeds of natural resources, $15,987,500. The province of Nova Scotia contributed to those great natural resources of the west. They got in addition a cash contribution, refunded without interest, of $49,729,979.99; there was also refunded on a thirty-year basis with interest at 2-58 per cent the sum of $44,326,910.19.


Mr. Carroll:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Did the dominion government contribute towards the construction of the road the hon. member mentioned?


Percy Chapman Black: I cannot hear the question.


William F. Carroll: Did the dominion government contribute anything towards the construction of the road the hon. member mentioned, from Sydney, through Bras d'Or lakes district to Halifax?


Percy Chapman Black: Yes, the dominion government contributed 50 per cent of all expenditures on the trans-Canada highway. They also contributed a certain amount towards the improvement of other highways, towards the construction of the Cabot trail, towards railway crossing and other work. I am pointing out here that the portion payable by Nova Scotia was paid in full by the province of Nova Scotia, while in the western provinces their portion was largely forgiven. I say to the minister that special consideration should now be given to Nova Scotia for what it paid out in the building of roads in comparison with what was done in western Canada in the days of depression. I believe that equal treatment should be given to the eastern provinces. In laying out this trans-Canada highway, we should adopt a high standard because we are not only building for today, but for the next 100 or 1,000 years.
The province of Nova Scotia needs these highways for transportation purposes. We need these highways, too, to take advantage

of the tourist traffic. I believe that Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and to some extent New Brunswick are the most neglected parts of Canada when it comes to the tourist trade. Those sections are blessed with hospitable people, the finest climate, beautiful scenery and warm sea water for bathing. The water in the Northumberland strait is the warmest and safest of any from New York to Newfoundland. This trans-Canada highway should be built with special regard for the needs of that neglected part of Canada in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, so that there would be quick and easy access not only for the people of the United States but for the many thousands of people in central Canada, many of whom today go to the state of Maine and to other places in the United States. They should have the best possible highway in order that they might have access to our great tourist resorts.
I believe the minister should give special consideration to the possibility and advisability of building a short route through the state of Maine. I say that it is a matter which is worthy of serious consideration. I am quite sure that our friends in the United States would lend their co-operation. It would save two or three hundred miles for those who would want to go from central Canada to the maritime provinces and take advantage of our tourist attractions.
I am not going to take up any more time, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, I am in general sympathy with the policy which has been proposed by the minister. There are many features to be worked out. I am confident that the province of Nova Scotia will cooperate with him. Coming as he does from the province of Nova Scotia, he has a special responsibility to see that full consideration is given to the claims of our part of Canada and to what we have done in previous years in developing the highways of Nova Scotia and helping, within our own resources, in relieving unemployment in the days of depression.
In this connection I might point out that today there is, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and I presume to some extent at least in Prince Edward Island, a demand for employment which is far greater than this government appears to realize. There is unemployment and distress in parts of the maritime provinces today. It is urgently necessary that work be undertaken on this trans-Canada highway project and on other government projects in order to relieve the distress that is becoming greater all the time in that part of Canada.
Trans-Canada Highway


John Horne Blackmore: Somehow or other, Mr. Speaker, whenever I hear a member from the maritime provinces speak, and I reflect on what has happened to those three noble provinces since they entered confederation, I find myself deeply moved. That is so tonight, as a result of listening to the hon. member who has just taken his seat.
I have long favoured the principle of a trans-Canada highway. Even before I entered parliament I wondered how it was that this matter had been neglected by successive Canadian administrations. I still favour a trans-Canada highway system.
I may say that on July 11, 1947, as recorded at page 5460 of Hansard, I raised the question of a trans-Canada highway. I was joined by a number of members, including the then members for Qu'Appelle, Fraser Valley, Weyburn, Swift Current, Macleod, Kootenay West, Kootenay East and Regina City, all supporting the southernmost route of the trans-Canada highway.
As has been mentioned by hon. members who have preceded me, there are three possible routes in western Canada. One of those goes from Brandon to Saskatoon to Edmonton through the Yellowhead pass to Vancouver. Another one goes from Brandon to Medicine Hat, and from Medicine Hat to Calgary through the Kicking Horse pass to Hope to Vancouver.


Mr. Johnston:: That is something.


John Horne Blackmore: The other one goes from Brandon to Medicine Hat to Lethbridge through the Crowsnest pass to Hope to Vancouver. This third one is the southernmost route. As I said, the members whose constituencies I mentioned favoured the southernmost route.
I have no desire whatever, Mr. Speaker, to precipitate any unhappiness or discord in the house by advocating any one of these routes. That is not my purpose in rising tonight. Therefore the members who want to start shooting might just hold their fire until they find out whether or not they have something to shoot at.
On April 28, 1949, I rose in the house, as reported at page 2693 of Hansard, and delivered a speech in which I advocated that the federal government adopt a policy under which they would provide for the expenditure of one billion dollars in five yearly instalments for the assistance of the provinces in building and maintaining a system of trans-Canada highways. At that time I also advocated the completion of the southernmost route first, and gave the reasons why I believed that should be done.

Trans-Canada Highway
I now desire to congratulate the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the vision, faith and all-round statesmanship they have displayed in initiating a policy of federal aid for the provinces which is more ambitious and more promising than anything that has hitherto been advocated or suggested in the Dominion of Canada. I believe that their names will go down in history with honour because of this action. I do not believe they have gone nearly far enough, as I shall indicate, but they have made a good start; and because of that they deserve the gratitude of everyone in the Dominion of Canada.
Before I say any more, I believe that I should suggest the principles which ought to underlie expenditures in Canada upon trans-Canada highways. I believe that there should be federal aid for, as I have already indicated, a system somewhat comparable with the inter-regional system in the United States. I believe that the appropriation should be greatly increased beyond what is even dreamed of at the present time, and I believe that Canada is perfectly capable of meeting the commitments under such an increased appropriation. I believe that the dominion should undertake to pay a considerable share of the expenditures during the ten years just past upon highways that, after careful consideration, shall be found to be part of that system. For example, if we are dealing with Nova Scotia and we find that a certain portion of the highways which she has built as a province should be included under the system of trans-Canada highways, then certainly Nova Scotia should, I believe, be reimbursed to the full for the money she has expended in the construction of those highways during the past ten years. That does not need to be all done in one year. It could be done over a period of years, say ten years, greatly to the advantage of the whole of the Dominion of Canada.
I believe that we should broaden the basis of federal support to include not only the construction but the maintenance of highways. As was well developed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the cost of maintenance is excessive. Anyone who has had any experience whatsoever in maintaining provincial highways knows that.
I believe that the next principle is this. We should leave the provinces to determine how and where the money will be spent upon highways that shall have been agreed upon as appropriately constituting parts of the trans-Canada highway system. There are a number of people who seem to think that the provinces are unable to spend the money wisely. All anyone needs to do is to listen to the hon. member who has just taken
fMr. Rlackmore.l

his seat. All he needs to do is to go into Nova Scotia and see what has been accomplished there with the most meagre financial resources. He will come away with the deepest respect for the people who administer that province and the other provinces of the maritimes. No one can tell me that the provincial governments are not alive and prudent, in a general way at least, in the expenditure of money which comes into their hands. Therefore I say, let the provinces decide where the road is to be built. They will decide. They are interested in the development of Canada just as much as anyone in Ottawa could possibly be.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) gave us an idea concerning what the United States has done for highway construction. Probably there are several things I might say which might be in addition to his excellent contribution. I think the hon. member truly gave us a most instructive, informative and perhaps inspiring address.
In the main the United States efforts began with Woodrow Wilson. He encouraged expenditures from the federal treasury for the construction of so-called "post roads". That was a long time ago. The United States has a bureau of roads which co-operates actively with state highway departments. Entirely adequate sums of money are placed at the disposal of engineering staffs of federal and state agencies for preliminary engineering purposes, and thereby serious mistakes are avoided.
In 1941 congress voted $10 million as aid toward planning for primary highways. In 1943 congress voted $50 million for planning of post-war highway work in all the states. If I may suggest so, the federal government in the United States is doing the thing in a big way, in a correct way and in a sound way. Past expenditures on roads between 1931 and 1942 inclusive in the form of federal aid in the United States amounted to $209,327,417 annually, matching equal gross sums from the forty-eight states. Between 1934 and 1942, 2-9 per cent of the total national revenue was spent on roads; -8 per cent was spent by federal authorities. If this ratio were continued it is estimated that $2,250 million would be provided for highway construction. Whether or not the United States will follow that ratio is not quite clear. In addition to that, they were spending $750 million for a proposed national inter-regional highway system.
I wish to direct the attention of the house tonight, if I may, to that inter-regional highway system, the like of which I believe we should develop in Canada. In fact I believe it is our duty inasmuch as we are jointly

responsible for the defence of this continent. I believe it is our duty to see to it that there is a system of highways in Canada which is comparable with the system in the United States so that the United States people do not need to be worrying constantly over whether or not there are going to be highways up here to enable them to manoeuvre in case of trouble.
How came it about that this national interregional highway system was planned? Well, F. D. Roosevelt, on April 14, 1941, set up what was known as a national inter-regional highways committee under Thomas H. MacDonald, commissioner of public roads, to make a survey of the need for a system of express highways throughout the United States. May I suggest that probably the Prime Minister or the minister would do well to do something like that at a very early date in Canada. This committee recommended that the federal government provide $750 million a year to help build 34,000 miles of rural and urban roads to comprise a proposed national interregional highway system. On January 12, 1944, President F. D. Roosevelt recommended that congress accept the report of this committee.
The results of this and other United States efforts are shown by figures in a schedule which I should like to have the privilege of putting on Hansard. I am not sure whether I shall have permission to do that, therefore I am going to run over hastily some of the figures which are involved. The schedule I have covers the years from 1919 to 1949 inclusive. In those years the United States government spent per capita the following sums of money: 66 cents in 1919-per capita that is. It works out to a lot of money-and in the following years 94 cents, 95 cents, 71 cents, 52 cents, 61	cents,	61 cents, 70	cents,61 cents, 68	cents,	69 cents, $1.32. A	greatincrease occurred in 1930. In the following years, $1.19,	$2.10,	$4.37,	$1.15, $3.27,	$1.12,$1.08, $1.71,	$1.72,	$1.10,	$1.38, $2.70,	$1.88,
which brought them up to 1943. During the following years the appropriation dropped down considerably, particularly during the war, to 22 cents and probably nothing in the next year. But again in 1946, immediately the war was over, the appropriation rose to $3.71 per capita, $3.65 and $3.51. There is a contribution which I would suggest that the Canadian authorities keep their eye on and do their best. Let Canada have a Canadian inter-regional highway system comparable with that in the United States.
May I say that western Canada is well along towards such a system already. A great amount of construction has gone on in the three prairie provinces and in British
Trans-Canada Highway Columbia, notwithstanding the relatively meagre resources at their disposal. For example in Alberta: In the first place, the Yellowhead pass road, in the main consisting of the Alberta provincial highway No. 16, runs from Lloydminster to Jasper Park gate, a distance of 360 miles. From Lloydminster to Edmonton it is gravel surface. From Edmonton to Seba Beach it is bituminous. From Seba Beach to Jasper Park gate it is first-class gravel. Much work and great expenditure have been put forth in respect to this highway.
The Kicking Horse pass highway, Alberta provincial highway No. 1, runs from Walsh to Banff Park gate, a distance of 302 miles. From Walsh to Medicine Hat it is low-type bituminous. From Medicine Hat to Bassano it is gravel road, third class. From Bassano to Gleichen it is new grade under construction. From Gleichen to Strathmore it is new grade and gravel. From Strathmore to Banff Park gate it is bituminous surface. The Crowsnest pass route is Alberta's provincial highways Nos. 1 and 3. From Walsh to Crowsnest via Medicine Hat, Lethbridge and Macleod is a distance of 245 miles. From Walsh to Medicine Hat the road is low-type bituminous. From Medicine Hat to Taber it is first-class earth and gravel. From Taber to Pincher Creek it is bituminous, and from Pincher Creek to Crowsnest it is earth grade and gravel.
From these facts it can be readily seen that Alberta is alive right to her fingertips. If the federal government had been half as much alive as the provincial governments have been during the last fifteen years Canada would not have such deficient roads as we have in many cases at the present time. We do not need to worry about putting money at the disposal of governments that have done so much for roads as Alberta has.
Thus far Canada federally has made little or no systematic contribution towards Canadian highways. I said "systematic". There have been contributions. For example, in 1919 the dominion parliament granted $20 million to assist the provinces in highway construction. It was to be awarded on the basis of $80,000 flat to each province. It was limited to 40 per cent of the cost of construction or improvement. One hon. member. I think it was an hon. member representing Newfoundland, pointed out a moment ago that if that province is expected to pay one-half of the cost of the highway in order to get the dominion government to pay the other half, then that province never could build a highway and never could claim the 50 per cent.

Trans-Canada Highway
The minister has a reputation for good common sense. I believe he can see quite clearly what caused the trouble in 1919. It was that very fact. A number of the provinces simply could not possibly pay the money. How could they pay 60 per cent of the cost of an elaborate system of highways in order to get the dominion government to pay 40 per cent? It seems that the Ottawa government has been afflicted with a lack of common sense for a great many years. A pretty good discussion of this whole subject is to be found in the New Brunswick submission to the Sirois commission at pages 44 and 45.
After about four years or five years of trying to put into operation successfully this policy the dominion government abandoned it.
Now, what are the provinces doing this year? What have they attempted to do? Provincial expenditures for highways for 1949, proposed, amounted to $157 million. I am taking figures from a report which appeared in the Financial Post, according to information at my disposal.
For Manitoba the amount is $7,400,000. Of this $1,400,000 is for reconstruction, aid to municipalities and school districts. There were 160 miles of main highway to be graded; 65 miles surfaced with asphalt and concrete, Winnipeg to the international line at Emerson; Brandon to the international line at Peace Gardens and Brandon to the Saskatchewan border.
Saskatchewan appropriated $7,400,000, according to this report. It states that $2,500,000 of this was spent for maintenance -and it will be noted that maintenance comes at tremendous cost. There were 400 miles of bus-grade roads, 430 miles of gravel surfacing and 105 miles of bitumen-treated gravel. So Saskatchewan is alive to her fingertips. There is a whole lot more than deadwood in the Saskatchewan government. British Columbia appropriated $13 million on construction, reconstruction and paving. It states that 350 miles were to be newly paved, according to the report when it was made.
Hon. members will be interested to know something about Alberta's recent efforts. I have in my hand a government document, called "These are the Facts". These facts appear at pages 34 and 35, where it states a number of facts concerning the last fourteen or fifteen years of road-building in the province:
Main and secondary highways; miles of work done from March, 1936 to March, 1948:
miles
Grading	 1,922
Reconditioned grading	 844
Gravel	 4,207
Asphalt	 1,149
Seal coat	  645

To explain what that means, here is a legend which states:
"Grading" is construction of standard earth grade to highways standards.
"Recondition grading" is done when necessary to bring highway up to standard prior to first course or replacement gravel surfacing.
"Gravelled" miles shown consist of first course and replacement gravel surfacing; it also includes the gravelling of highways where locations have been revised.
"Asphalt" miles include "blotter" and light plant mix surfaced highways, most of which were later rebuilt with a six to nine-inch stabilized gravel base and two-inch hot plant mix surface.
"Seal Coat" miles represent gravel chips and asphalt applied to seal plant mix surface.
May I interrupt at this point to say that we have had a great deal of difficulty in Alberta finding out the kind of road we should have for our terrain and climatic conditions. It cost us a great deal to learn these essential facts.
A comparison of main and secondary highway mileages between March 31, 1936, and March 31, 1948, shows the following:
Type	March 31	. March 31 Difference	
	1936	1948	
Graded (earth) .	
767	221	minus 546Gravelled 	
2,152	3,258	plus 1,106Asphalt 	
92	645	plus 553Total miles 	
3,011	4,124	plus 1,113That is a lot	of road-building.	The nexttable shows a comparison of district and local	road mileages	as at March 31,	1936, andMarch 31, 1948,	as follows:	March 31, March 31,	Type	1936	1948	DifferenceOrdinary road ..	. 40,000	42,749	plus 2,749Graded (earth) .	. 19,373	25,487	plus 6,114Gravelled 	. Nil	7,596	plus 7,596Total miles 	. 59,373	75,832	plus 16,459
The next table shows the amount of road grants paid to municipal districts:
Amount of road grants paid to municipal districts:
1941-42	Fiscal	year	
$101,290.951944-45	"	"	
468,944.731946-	47	"	"	
523,338.991947-	48	"	"	
1,038,207.68
From which it can easily be seen that there has been a regular increase to municipal districts. Then, the bridge-building record is as follows:
March, March,
1942	1948
Number steel and concrete	bridges 170	216Number timber bridges	
1,885	2,611Total bridges built	
2,055	2,827Number of bridges repaired	
1,509	2,192
Hon. members will be able to see that in this respect Alberta is right up in the forefront. My object in pointing out the efforts put forward by Alberta is, as I said, to show that we do not need any governor or overseer from Ottawa to tell the provinces

how to build roads. The people out there know how to build roads, and they do it. All we in Ottawa need to do is to provide them with the financial support, and they will do the rest, and give us a trans-Canada highway system of which we shall be proud, and which will be of great use to us.
Turning again to the matter of the route, I am afraid, from the way many hon. members have been speaking, that we shall argue about the different routes to a point where we shall nullify our efforts. Under no circumstances must that take place. I grant that all three routes advocated by hon. members and throughout the country must be built sooner or later. The Yellowhead route is important for the reasons given by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Of course it is. No one questions that at all. The Kicking Horse route is important for reasons which will be given by those who advocate that route. Of course it is. And the southern route is exceedingly important, also.
I am not setting forth the reasons why the southern route should be built first in order to antagonize anyone; I do so only that members of the house and the people of Canada should know why I would support the southern route first. Here are some of the reasons:
In the first place it is the most densely populated route, taking into consideration all the various towns-Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Lethbridge, Cranbrook, Trail, and all the other places along the route. It is asserted by those who have given the matter much study that there is a denser concentration of population along this route than along any of the others. In the second place, it is the greatest tax-producing area. In the next place its industrial importance is noteworthy. For ordinary farming, this district is outstanding, producing all kinds of farm commodities. In addition to that there is considerable oil development. Lumbering flourishes along that route. Fruitgrowing is important, as also are mining, smelting, seed-producing and sugar-producing. There are many parks along the route and a great many other features which appeal to tourists.
It is the most direct route from Winnipeg to Vancouver, and is an all-weather route. It will be argued that there are places along it which in the wintertime are likely to become seriously obstructed by snow. That may be said concerning any road which is to cross Canada and go over the mountains, I do not care which one it is. It is something that has to be faced; that should be borne in mind. The route I suggest is close
Trans-Canada Highway to the United States border and in case any particular section of it should be blocked by snow for three or fours days it would not be a difficult matter to drop down across the line, go along the United States highway, come up the other side of the snow obstruction and go right on through. That advantage is not to be found in connection with any of the other routes. I am not attempting to disparage any other route; I am simply pointing out the advantages that are worthy of note in connection with this southernmost route. It is more nearly an all-weather route than any that can be found in Canada going west from Winnipeg to Vancouver.
There are forty points of entry into the United States not very far from this proposed southern route. Great numbers of United States tourists will come from the large United States concentrations of population across the line. Anyone knows that if a person crosses the border and gets onto a good highway at once he is more likely to go into the hinterland. These are things that I believe should forcibly be brought to the attention of anyone trying to form a conclusion on this matter. This route is the natural entry to most of our parks. Many more things could be said about it, but probably I have said enough. From the strategic point of view it would be extremely important because it offers the most direct and shortest route from Winnipeg west to Vancouver.
Some will say that the Dominion of Canada cannot afford the money, but that is the sheerest nonsense. It has yet to be shown by anyone in Canada that this country cannot afford to pay as much per capita for roads as is paid in the United States. It will be pointed out that the United States has large concentrations of industry, but Canada will have concentrations of industry if we have sense enough to manage the country in the right way. If we adopt measures which prevent the development of industry, we shall never have industry in Canada.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) pointed out how the national credit could be used for the building of these roads. This is a feasible means of providing the money. It has been used and it is being used today only we do not call it that. It can be used on a large scale by this country and by that means these roads can be built.
I should like to show hon. members how much would have been paid to Alberta as one of our provinces if Canada had been spending as much per capita on roads as has

Trans-Canada Highway been spent in the United States. These are the amounts that would have been paid to that province in the different years:
Year	Amount
1939		 $1,351,920
1940		 869,000
1941	  1,098,480
1942		  2,095,200
1943		 1,488,960
1944		 179,960
1945		
1946		 2,979,130
1947	  3,000,300
1948		 2,969,460
1949	  3,048,500

All that money was not given to the province of Alberta. That is the way it has worked out for us. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) pointed out what has been spent in Montana and other states along the border. I ask hon. members to compare those expenditures with what has not been spent in Canada. We shall then have an answer for the first two-for-a-nickel politician who comes out from Ottawa to Alberta and sneers about the poor roads in that province and compares them with the fine roads across the line. We shall then have an answer for the shyster newspapers all over the country who do the same kind of thing without having taken the trouble to tell the people of Alberta or Saskatchewan that whereas the United States government is constantly helping the states down there, the Canadian government is doing next to nothing at all to help the provinces up here.


Mr. Byrne:: Can the hon. member tell us what the Alberta government collects in the way of licence fees for cars and what is collected by the state of Montana? I do not want the aggregate revenue; I simply want the charge per car.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member asked a minister of the federal government who had all his experts in front of him a question like that it would take the minister some little time to find the answer. The hon. member would hardly expect the minister to be able to give the answer offhand. The Alberta government is using practically all the money raised from motor vehicle fees and all that sort of thing in paying for the debts accumulated for roads by the provincial governments which preceded it. The money was borrowed and spent on roads and the roads have been lost. The Social Credit government were forced to build roads and then at the same time to take care of the debt that had been accumulated. If I had known, I would have come down here fully prepared to answer the hon. gentleman, but

I may bring down all this information at a later time and be able to tell him anything he wants to know.
I do not wish to spend any more time on this matter as I shall probably have more to say later on. To summarize: first of all the dominion government must enter the field of highway construction on a far wider scale than it has ever dreamed of doing. I think the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) put his finger right on the pulse of the situation when he said that if we did not build these roads in Canada somebody else would. If it is not the United States it is likely to be the Russians. We can take our choice. I think that is putting it pretty clearly. We just cannot escape the responsibility which rests upon us. Federally we must enter the field in a far more generous manner than we have ever done in the history of this country, than we have ever dreamed of doing.
I am grateful for what the minister is now proposing and I thank him for it in the interests of all the people of Canada, but this is only a small thing compared with what he ought to be contemplating. This may all sound pretty harsh but I am simply stating the facts. I put the figures on record so that we may know that what Canada has done looks extremely meagre and almost contemptible. As I say, the participation must be on a far greater scale.
Second, we must stop trying to decide what particular highway we are going to build and concentrate on the building of a system of highways, not only to go across Canada and be known as trans-Canada highways but to connect up the urban centres in the country, especially those which are situated in what we might term strategic positions. Speaking as a westerner I submit that all over western Canada there should be a system of highways which could be used in case we are called upon in an emergency to defend ourselves.
We do not need to bother about how the money is going to be spent. I believe the four western provinces have shown themselves sufficiently capable of handling money that comes into their hands to justify our placing implicit trust in them. All we need to do is to supply the money; they will build the highways. When they get done we shall have the system of highways that we have all longed for in Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to finish before eleven o'clock. I think I know what you have in your mind. I only rise to speak so that I may suggest to the minister who has charge

of this matter that under no circumstances should he create a commission with respect to the route of the trans-Canada highway. If he does so he will then be in the difficulty of having all these local geographical positions urged upon him by the members of the commission who of course must come from various parts of the country, and naturally will have the colouring, may I say, of the geographical section from which they come. The problem before us surely is one to be settled by the provinces, and I think that has been the policy of the federal government.
I was greatly interested in an announcement made in Edmonton a short time ago by one who recently occupied the position of minister of mines and resources in this government, and who has now gone to that other place. I assure the minister I do not mean he is dead, but he has gone to that other place. He announced that the matter had been settled some time ago in so far as western Canada was concerned, and that the highway would run via Walsh, Medicine Hat, Calgary, and so on. I greatly sympathize with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) in his endeavour to have the highway built over those swamps extending for 200 miles between Edmonton and Jasper. I have the greatest sympathy with him.
When we speak of a trans-Canada highway being used by tourists, what do tourists come to see? They come to see scenery. The suggestion that any tourist from eastern Canada or the United States should take some highway which avoided Banff and Jasper is on a par with the suggestion that you might as well give your son or your son-in-law the money to visit England for six months and tell him to be sure not to go near London. If he is going to India you may as well tell him to see India, to see Delhi, but under no circumstances should he ever take a look at the Taj Mahal. The matter is just that simple and so utterly ridiculous.
The difficulty is that in the city of Edmonton and the northern part of Alberta members of my party, as well as other hon. members, all ran their election campaigns on one ground, namely, that the highway should not go through Calgary. They adopted that position unanimously. They all knew the situation perfectly well-they had run out of stuff or something of that kind-and the hon. senator certainly knew it at that time when he had charge of the general campaign there. I well remember that a great friend of mine, and a member of my own party, put great advertising splashes in an Edmonton paper saying that if we were
Trans-Canada Highway elected the highway would go through Edmonton. It cost me several hundred dollars to answer him. They were not elected but I was, and I want to assure him and all the Edmonton people that in spite of the eloquence which was wasted on their desert air-and I use the word quite advisedly-we all knew that the matter had been settled by the Alberta government.
What did we do in Alberta? We were reasonable. We simply joined the governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia in a most co-operative way and said: You are coming in here and you are coming in there. Certainly we will continue the straight line, which of course we are doing, and thus show the people all the beauties of the Rocky mountains which are not visible on any other route, and I have travelled them all. We are most co-operative. We are doing everything we can to assist the minister, and we will keep on assisting him just as long as he keeps his nose out of our business and lets us tell him where the highway is going. Why shouldn't we? When he is finished who will own it? Are we going to end with a highway in that province owned by somebody else? That is really what the matter is about.
It is a great thing to live in that country; the spaces are so vast. You can start at Winnipeg on any good-sized map and draw a line from Winnipeg through Saskatoon and on to Edmonton. They have an organization there which travelled from Winnipeg to Vancouver by road. They did it to prove it could happen. I must say the basis of their whole equipment was pull-outs and shovels, but they finally got through. I have no idea how long they travelled on the ties of the railroad but they made it in the final analysis.
I said that I would take only a moment or two. Before I sit down may I repeat my advice, if I may use that expression, to the minister. Do not let us have a commission to further confuse the picture. Let him stay in his present position. He has made up his mind that the route is going to be left to the provinces. Thereby he avoids all sorts of difficulties, but even now of course he will have to listen to the eloquence of my very good friends who come from that area which the little town of Leduc has now made known to Canadians, namely, the city of Edmonton.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, before the debate ends I think it is only right that a few words should be said about the practical route. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) put up quite a case

Trans-Canada Highway but he wrecked it right at the finish. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) also told us that only on the route via Calgary could you see the scenery of the Rocky mountains. I contend that is a statement nobody but a blind man would make. I want to deal with the arguments made by both these members. I do not think it is right to allow them to stand, when they are without foundation, without at least explaining them to some extent.
On motion of Mr. Fair the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): Tomorrow we will try to conclude the debate on this resolution. Then we will take up Bill No. 149 with respect to bankruptcy. I understand it is to go to the standing committee on banking and commerce. Then we will resume the debate on second reading of Bill No. 144, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act. If any time is left we will take up two small bills having to do with the Department of Justice, Nos. 64 and 65.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 22, 1949