1956-04-16

SMALL LOANS ACT


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 213, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the passing of this bill would be to bring about an amendment to the Small Loans Act by which those moneylenders who advertise would be compelled to state the cost of such loans to the consumers in terms of per cent per annum.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. J. J. McCann (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for four additional judges of the superior court of Quebec and two additional judges of the supreme court of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Maclnnis:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1, 1955 to February 24, 1956, between any person in the Post Office Department and any person or persons in Vancouver, British Columbia, relative to the change of location of the sub-post office Vancouver-Joyce (No. 9795), and the change of postmaster at the said sub-post office.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Goode:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister
of Veterans Affairs, the officials of the Veterans Land Act administration, . Vancouver, and the province of British Columbia, prior to January 1,
1955,	regarding expropriation of property held by the veterans under the Veterans Land Act on Patterson road, Richmond, British Columbia, said expropriation for approaches to the Oak street bridges and the proposed highway to the United States from Vancouver to the state of Washington.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the parliamentary assistant that there is no correspondence in regard to this matter and I ask that the resolution be dropped.
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



HAMILTON AND DISTRICT TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mrs. Fairclough:
For a copy of all letters written by the Postmaster General to the Hamilton and district trades and labour council during the month of March,
1956.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all invoices or other documents of purchase and sale of guns, referred to in paragraph 36 of the Auditor General's report regarding certain items in the 1955 public accounts.
Mr. Dickey:: There is no objection to the passage of this resolution subject to the usual reservation with respect to consent being received from other governments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all correspondence, since January 1, 1952, with any companies from which the government or any minister or department received estimates of costs, on the basis of 1953 prices, for the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project.
['Mr. Speaker, there has been no sale of jet aircraft to Israel. The report in the press speculates about a request which has been submitted to the government and which is still under consideration.']
Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, a question with regard to this matter was placed on the order paper on February 24 by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). On that occasion I gave all the information which I thought should be given to the house in the public interest at this time. This order asks for the correspondence to be tabled, but the only letters in existence are marked "confidential" and must remain confidential under the understanding reached until such time if and when tenders are asked for

Motions for Papers
on the South Saskatchewan river dam. I am sure the house will realize that it would not be fair to individuals who are prepared to do the work at a certain price to have their names and the details of their offers circulated at this time. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that he do not press this order.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I shall let it stand for the time being.
Motion stands.
TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINE-ALTERNATIVE OFFERS Motion No. 62-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters and other documents received by the government or any minister or official from Mr. Frank McMahon or his agent or representative, and from Gairdner and Company Limited, since March 1, 1956, in which plans or offers have been made or suggested regarding the construction of a gas pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada.


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting the hon. member asked verbally for these documents and they were filed with the Clerk within an hour after his question had been asked. Under the circumstances perhaps this motion could be dropped.


John George Diefenbaker: The McMahon documents were not filed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There were no McMahon documents.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, I do not know just how I can table the documents which I agreed to table during the exchange between the minister and myself the other day. I have them ready to table if there is any means whereby they can be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The tabling of documents by the hon. member could take place merely by his sending them to the Clerk. Of course the tabling of such documents would not appear in Votes and Proceedings but they would be placed at the disposal of hon. members. If the hon. member for Prince Albert would care to send them to the Clerk I am sure that the Clerk would permit interested hon. members to have a look at them. What do we do with this motion?


John George Diefenbaker: If all the documents have been tabled then of course the motion is ineffectual.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member agreeable to letting it drop?


John George Diefenbaker: Dropped.
Motion dropped.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to make a statement to the house in regard to the proposed sale of Sabre jet aircraft to Israel, as reported in the press over the week end?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no sale of jet aircraft to Israel. The report in the press speculates about a request which has been submitted to the government and which is still under consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. A. White (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister order a thorough investigation into the dropping of airborne troops, as part of a recruiting drive, in the vicinity of the town of Preston in my riding during which 50 paratroopers were let out of planes in such a location that they descended all over the town of Preston, many landing in a heavily industrialized area where high tension wires endangered the lives of all participants?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the hon. gentleman, of which he was kind enough to give me notice, is whether or not an investigation into the incident of the dropping of parachutists near Preston would be instituted. I may say that, as soon as I heard of that incident, I immediately ordered an investigation, which is now in progress. As a matter of fact, so far as I am able to determine from such information as has been given me up to now, it would appear that it was an unexpected and sudden change in both the velocity and the direction of the ground wind, which led to the unfortunate incident to which he refers.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence? Are there any restrictions placed on the training of airborne troops during certain windy days? What I mean is, is a limitation placed on the

training so that it will not take place when there are high winds or winds above a certain velocity?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the general rule is that from experience and training data it is fairly well established when paratroops can be properly dropped. Incidentally, these were all very experienced paratroops, but there is never an absolute certainty, because of the vagaries of the wind, which may change during any given drop. I may say also that this drop was stopped as soon as the incident was observed, and a good many of the paratroops did not make the jump. I do not think one can say there are any definite rigid rules other than the natural care and caution which come from experience.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Last week, when I was asked when the Bluenose would be resuming regular service, I indicated that I would take the question as notice. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. member who raised the question that the Bluenose is now on, and has been on, its established winter schedule, which involves a trip from Yarmouth to Bar Harbor on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and a trip from Bar Harbor to Yarmouth on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. I cannot, therefore, answer the question literally since resumption of regular schedule is not and has not been involved.
It may be that the hon. member was thinking of the more frequent service which it is intended to provide during the summer period. I understand on this score that the Canadian National Railways has announced that commencing June 26 its summer schedule of daily service will be put into effect.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Ont.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the great interest in Canada's national pastime, can the minister state whether the C.B.C. will broadcast the Allan Cup series being played in British Columbia, commencing on Thursday night of this week?
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Joseph McCann: I shall bring the matter to the attention of the C.B.C. and give an answer as soon as possible.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipez North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works? Will the minister look into the situation that has arisen with respect to some of the prevailing rates employees in his department who are having their take-home pay this month reduced by virtue of going on the 40-hour week? Will he see if something cannot be done to maintain their total take-home pay at its full amount?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: That situation has been thoroughly gone into, and I believe the employees concerned are fully aware of just what the situation is.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, letters, humanities and social sciences is being set up, and whether a number of Canadians have been asked recently whether they would accept appointment to that new council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, the council has not been set up, and I have not recently asked anyone if he would accept appointment to that council.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Having heard the Prime Minister a year and a half ago use words which, to me at any rate, suggested the early appointment of the Canada Council, may I ask him whether there is nothing that can be said at the present time more encouraging than the absolute negation that he gave in answer a few minutes ago?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid there is nothing more encouraging that can be said at this time, Mr. Speaker.
2942	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
ILater:]
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? In view of what he has already said in answer to questions today, can he say whether his statement of March 1 still stands, namely that the appointment of the Canada Council is still under consideration?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS TO MAKE ROOM FOR NEW CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. In view of the thunderous storm a while ago from yonder corner of the house with respect to the failure of the government to handle our surplus wheat, I should like to ask the minister a question. Does he find it is difficult now to handle the surplus wheat? My second question is, is there any justification for reducing the price of wheat or giving it away in order to make room for the next crop?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that excellent progress is being made in moving our wheat out of the country for dollars without price reduction.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Does the minister feel that the wheat situation is sufficiently optimistic that -he can say that as much grain will be moved out of country elevators in the present crop year as was moved out a year ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I feel optimistic enough to say just that.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR HIGHER CONTRIBUTION TO COSTS OF HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 22, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Winters-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding ten per centum thereof; to *extend contributions to costs incurred up to December 31, 1960 and to terminate all contributions on May 31, 1961; and to provide further that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of two hundred .and fifty million dollars.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of those matters which is resumed after considerable delay, occasioned mainly by the Easter recess. The last time we discussed it was on March 22. I said a few words prior to the adjournment on that day in which I had just got to the point where I was seeking to demonstrate that the proposal now before the house is neither adequate to ensure the completion of the trans-Canada highway by the date mentioned in the resolution, namely, December 31, 1960, nor is it fair as between provinces which are participating members under the trans-Canada highway agreement. This resolution, if it carries, and the bill which will be based on it, would confine the increased federal contribution to 90 per cent of the now uncompleted portion of the highway, not exceeding 10 per cent of the total mileage in any one province. That will have the effect-and I refer particularly to British Columbia and Ontario, the two provinces with the highest per-mile construction costs -that they will not receive a federal contribution which goes anything like far enough to take account of their actual per-mile construction costs.
It also has this further effect. It will penalize a province which has pressed on with the construction of the highway under the existing agreement because in the proposed legislation there is no feature which takes account of completed mileage. In the introductory remarks of the parliamentary assistant to the minister it was made clear that this resolution and the legislation to be based on it have reference only to the uncompleted portion of the highway, with the result that for those portions of the highway already completed through the mountainous area and through the rock and lake area of Ontario, or any of the other difficult portions of the highway which have already been constructed, the provinces are to get no additional reimbursement. If the province has been vigorous in its construction program in the past, as I say, it is now penalized to the extent that it gets only up to 10 per cent of the cost of the remaining mileage at the increased rate whereas a province which may have lagged behind in its construction program in the past and therefore has a bigger mileage uncompleted, can get up to 10 per cent of the total portion at the increased rate of 90 per cent contribution by the dominion government. That is something which seems to be a discrimination against those provinces which have pursued a vigorous construction program.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the proposal seems to me to leave out of account altogether

the obligation on the dominion government- and I use the term "obligation" deliberately- to ensure that there will be at least one trans-Canada highway completed with the least possible delay. I think it is an obligation of the national government to ensure that there shall be a national highway from coast to coast in Canada, it is perfectly true that the objective involves-and rightly so-the co-operation of the provinces because road building and jurisdiction over roads when built are provincial responsibilities. But I think it is the responsibility of this government to ensure that the road is completed and that it is possible for the provinces to complete the road.
I know for a fact what the situation is with respect to my own province. This matter is not dependent upon what particular government may be in office in a province. I am sure that other members know with respect to their provinces-and it is the situation with respect to mine-that their provinces now are extended nearly to the limit with respect to their commitments on road construction. They have extremely heavy obligations. In British Columbia we have many developmental roads which need to be constructed and many secondary roads which need to be brought up to an adequate standard. The provinces cannot disregard their obligations in this field in order to go ahead and devote all their energies within their road building commitments to the completion of the trans-Canada highway simply because the dominion government says, "We want you to do this and we will pay a portion of the cost but only after December 31, 1960".
The provinces have too many other pressing commitments with respect to road building to allow them to be prejudiced because they can only get a dominion contribution under this program within a limited period. They find themselves in the position where they are only going to get a very limited dominion contribution in any event, that is up to 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the presently uncompleted road, but nothing over 50 per cent for the remainder. I believe that to expect the provinces faced with very heavy per mile construction costs on the portion of the road which exceeds 10 per cent of the total mileage in the province to drop everything else and devote the necessary effort to that uncompleted portion within this period will not make it possible for the road to be completed within the time contemplated. I feel, therefore, that this government should take a new look at the problem in conjunction with the provinces to work out some scheme which would be
Trans-Canada Highway Act more within the resources of the provinces to complete within the time contemplated.
We are left, sir, with this inescapable fact. We are now virtually at the end of the first seven year period of the agreement and we have not got anything like a completed first class trans-Canada highway. The dominion government went a certain distance towards accepting this responsibility in the first agreement, but it did not accept its full responsibility. How can it be denied that there is a responsibility today to see that steps are taken to complete a trans-Canada highway in this year 1956 when you contrast our position with the position in the United States where, with greater wealth and a greater population, they have had a national highway system for many years? In view of the comments that have been made on the present proposal by provincial highways ministers, in view of the facts we ourselves know about the difficulties in connection with the construction of these roads and their tremendous costs, I believe not only that this proposal is inadequate with respect to the one road but that we are stopping short of assuming the full responsibility which the central government should assume with respect to a highway system generally.
Where so much depends on the development programs which are followed, so much depends on the opening up of new territory and so much of the cost of that development in providing the physical plan and equipment -roads are certainly part of the physical plan and equipment necessary for development-rests with the provinces while the nation as a whole receives in large measure the general benefit from such a development program, and the federal treasury benefits to the greatest extent as a result of the increased revenues which accrue from these developments, it seems to me antiquated thinking to say that the dominion government is only partially responsible and only for one road. I am convinced, without going into the details, that the time has long gone by when this whole question of a national highway system, to which the dominion government will make a contribution on an agreed basis with the provinces, should be faced and solved if a fair apportionment as between the dominion and the provinces of the cost of development is to be adequately made.
So I suggest to the minister in all earnestness that he take a further look at the problem. I believe that this resolution falls short of meeting the requirements of the situation, both with respect to the one road and because I believe it is unsound thinking to concentrate all our attention on the problem of a single trans-Canada road and that it
2944	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act is time we were thinking and planning in terms of a national highway system.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group are pleased that the government has seen fit to extend provisions for the building of the trans-Canada highway. Certainly a great deal has already been accomplished in the time that has been spent in the building of that highway. I think the action taken by parliament and by the provinces will provide a genuine service to the people of this country.
Although a good deal has been accomplished much remains to be done. As was pointed out by the Department of Public Works in a statement made on January 5, of the 4,580 miles already in existence, apart from the road going through the province of Quebec, only. 1,315 miles have been paved to date. In other words 30 per cent has been paved to trans-Canada standards and 1,727 miles remain to be graded and surfaced. In other words, 37 per cent of the mileage has still to be paved. So while we have made considerable progress we still have a long way to go.
Hon. members sometimes wonder whether provincial governments, composed of parties different from the party which composes the federal government in power, will in fact co-operate with the federal government on the various projects. I think the co-operation of all provincial governments that have taken part in this program, regardless of their particular party affiliation, indicates that the provinces generally are anxious to proceed with this project and to follow it through to completion.
Because I come from Saskatchewan I am naturally particularly pleased with what I consider to be the excellent showing made by that province on its portion of the trans-Canada highway. As I read the statement released by the Department of Public Works, Saskatchewan has now paved more miles of the trans-Canada highway within its borders than has any other province. I realize that that is not a completely fair comparison because certain other provinces do not have the same mileage and certain other provinces have a more difficult and expensive construction program through terrain that is not nearly as accessible as the terrain in Saskatchewan. Considering Saskatchewan's relatively meagre resources I think the province is to be commended on taking what amounts to a lead in proceeding with this very important project.
The hon. member for Kamloops made one statement which I do not think is correct and which I hope is not correct. He suggested that the provinces which have proceeded with the building of this highway are


now going to be penalized by the terms of this resolution. I hope the hon. member is wrong in saying that, because I fully agree that any province which has co-operated and has built a large portion of its road mileage should in no way be penalized as a result of having co-operated with the federal government. On the face of it, such a penalty would not be fair. If such a penalty were levied by the provisions of this new act, I would be fearful that future co-operation with any of the provinces in federal undertakings would be jeopardized. I merely express the hope that when the legislation is drafted and presented to this house no province will be penalized in any way because it has proceeded with its portion of the highway in good faith and in full co-operation with the federal government. I observe that the parliamentary assistant is nodding his head in the affirmative so I take it that whatever the precise provisions of the new bill are there will be no penalty to any province which has acted in good faith.
I think a project like the trans-Canada highway and the further development of our roads is not something that can be considered as a net expense or a loss to the country; rather I consider such an expenditure by the people of Canada in an adequate highway program an investment that will pay dividends in the future, an investment that will in fact be self-liquidating. I believe it will benefit the people of this nation through greater productivity that will more than offset the actual cost of such a program.
We know that the roads in all provinces of Canada are inadequate and leave much to be desired. If we had an adequate highway system in this modern age of automobile transportation huge sums of money would be saved, I am sure, through a saving in gasoline consumption, a saving in repairs to automobiles and trucks and a saving in labour because transportation would be speeded up.
I believe that the use of new roads to develop mining areas would increase the wealth of this nation and would add to our general prosperity and economic well being. I think the federal government should consider spending relatively large sums of money to promote the building of highways that will open up new mining areas in the great northern part of this country. I think that such development roads would increase the wealth production of our nation to a degree that would offset many-fold the cost of such roads.
I am not well acquainted with all the development roads that might be undertaken, but having some knowledge of the

province of Saskatchewan I would suggest that probably three development roads should be built in that province. I suggest an extension of the highway north through Lac la Ronge to Uranium city; an extension of highway No. 4 north of North Battleford also to Uranium city, both highways opening up relatively large and important new mining areas. I would also suggest a development road from Nipawin to Flin Flon to open up a further area. These are the types of roads which if proceeded with would not be a net expense but would be a self-liquidating investment in the future.
Our country depends for a substantial part of its prosperity on the tourist industry. In 1954 our tourist industry earned more than $300 million. I do not think any hon. member would deny that if we had a better highway system in Canada we could increase our tourist industry by a substantial amount. In view of all these considerations I suggest that the government should take a new look at the highway program and should be prepared to invest federal money in the building of an adequate road system in Canada, not as something that would be a net expenditure or a net loss but as something that would be an extremely important investment in the future of this nation. .
One only needs to point out that at the present time it is estimated that there are four million automobiles in Canada. As far as the number of automobiles is concerned, it is theoretically possible to transport all Canadians in automobiles at one given time. The excellent brief presented to the Minister of Trade and Commerce by the Canadian automobile association pointed out just how important the automobile industry is to our nation. It stated that one person out of every seven owes his employment to the automobile industry. With an industry of such proportions I thing it is well that the government should take active steps to encourage its development. Of course the first essential would be to encourage the development of an adequate highway program.
Somebody may say, "Let us leave it to the provinces, let us leave it to the municipalities". But as a nation we have been leaving it to the municipalities and to the provinces in this field as we have in so many other fields, with I suggest inadequate results. I submit that the provinces and municipalities are already bearing their full share of the burden of building highways. I have in my hand statistics showing the estimated amount of money to be spent on roads in Canada this year. It is estimated that provincial and municipal governments combined will spend
Trans-Canada Highway Act $535 million, while the federal government's total road budget in all its departments will be only $27 million.
When one realizes that the federal government gets the lion's share of taxation revenue he will understand that the provinces have undertaken a most burdensome part of the cost of building roads in this country. The federal budget for this year is estimated at $4,650 million; the provincial budgets for 1955 totalled $1,360 million and the municipal budgets for the last year for which I was able to obtain statistics, 1952, totalled $950 million. It will be seen from those figures that out of each dollar of tax revenue the federal government gets 67 cents, the ten provincial governments combined get 19 cents, while all municipal governments, rural, village, town and city, get only 14 cents of the taxation dollar. I suggest that in all fairness the federal government should consider bearing a larger proportion of the cost of road construction in this country. The provinces are already doing a good deal while the federal government is doing relatively little.
One of the reasons why the provinces are unable to build roads to adequate standards and to have an adequate road mileage is the fact that the number of miles of road related to each provincial budget is not the same as the number of miles of road related to the budgets of other provinces. In other words, some of the poorer provinces in Canada have the largest road mileage to service. Saskatchewan has more miles of improved roads than any other province in Canada. The 1952 highway statistics published by the dominion bureau of statistics give the improved road mileages as follows:
Miles
Saskatchewan	 100,000
Ontario	   74,000
Alberta	 52,800
Manitoba	 17,500
In other words, Saskatchewan has as many miles of improved roads as Alberta and Manitoba combined. Saskatchewan is relatively one of the poorer provinces of this country and certainly when we consider its road obligations it is unable to adequately service 100,000 miles of improved roads. In other words, if Canadians living in all the provinces are to have adequate roads it is essential that the federal government put some real money into a national road building program.
We can take a lead in this connection from the United States. The United States began its federal road program as long ago as 1912. In 1912 the United States government appropriated a certain sum of money to pay one-third of the cost of constructing roads over which the mail was carried. The mail routes
2946	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act in the United States composed most of the important roads in that country. In 1916, four years later, there was a large appropriation of $75 million to be spent over a period of four years on road development.
The United States has gone on year after year to increase the amount of federal money spent on roads. The amount of money spent by the United States government on roads is not confined to one trans-American highway, one road across the country; it is not confined to main highways. The road program in the United States provides money for main interstate highways, for improved highways within states, for farm to market roads, roads over which school buses travel and roads over which mail is carried. The result is that every single mile of road in the United States of any importance has in its construction a certain amount of federal money.
Any of us who have travelled in the United States, and I am sure we all have at one time or another, cannot help but be impressed with the tremendous highway system they have in that country. No one would suggest that Canada could afford to match the United States program dollar for dollar, but I submit that Canada should be able to match the United States program at least in proportion to our population and that we in Canada should provide federal expenditures on roads not less in proportion to our population than is now being spent in the United States on that basis.


Mr. Reinke:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Can he state what percentage of the gasoline tax the federal government in the United States takes?


Hazen Robert Argue: A portion of the gasoline tax in the United States is obtained and used by the federal government.


Russell Earl Reinke: Do they levy a tax of so much per gallon?


Hazen Robert Argue: I cannot tell my hon. friend what the rate is, but the United States federal government does levy such a tax.


Mr. Bourgei:: It is 2 cents a gallon.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am informed that it is 2 cents a gallon. That is the tax they levy on gasoline but there is no tax on gasoline levied by the federal government in Canada.


Russell Earl Reinke: Would you suggest that the federal government levy a tax on gasoline?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I am not suggesting that, but I do suggest that the Canadian government should be doing much more that it is now doing by way of providing money for roads. I do not think it is necessary at all


for the federal government to encroach on the field of gasoline taxation in order to provide money for roads. I have already quoted statistics which I think show that the federal government now takes 67 cents out of every tax dollar. In my opinion the federal government has never been short of fields of taxation and there is no need for it to extend its fields of taxation in order to provide money for such a project.
The hon. member wants me to tell him where I think we can get some money. I believe it is indicated that the Minister of Finance will have almost $300 million extra this year in the form of taxes owed by corporations last year, which money will go into current revenue. I am suggesting that the federal government could match on a population basis the money paid for roads by the government of the United States without increasing taxation in this country in any way, shape or form.
I should like to go on to point out some more details of the United States program. The United States government spends money for a system of primary roads. They have 216,000 miles of rural highways and 18,800 miles of urban highways. The appropriation for the year ending June 30, 1956, for this primary system will be $315 million. If Canada would spend the same amount on a population basis we would be spending something over $28 million, assuming our population to be approximately 9 per cent of that of the United States. If we spent it on the same proportionate mileage, we would be spending such a sum on 19,500 miles of primary roads in this country.
The United States for the same year spent money on 483,000 miles of the secondary highway system. The secondary highway system includes farm to market roads, rural mail routes and school bus routes, and on that secondary system the United States has appropriated $210 million. If Canada spent the same proportionate amount, we would spend $18,900,000 on such a secondary system, or on 43,500 miles in our country.
The urban system, which is also included in the primary system to which I have referred, constitutes 18,812 miles. This year the United States will spend on its urban system $175 million. This is money spent by the federal government of the United States to help take the highways through their large urban centres. Taking highways through heavily populated cities, of course, is very expensive. To enable the cities and the states bear the cost, $175 million is appropriated for this purpose. If we did the same in Canada, we would appropriate for that purpose $15,750,000 on a comparable mileage of 1,700 miles.

The interstate highway system, including the large expressways and the trunk highways in the United States, are limited to 40,000 miles. For this year the federal government will spend $175 million. If Canada did the same, we would appropriate $15,750,000 for this purpose, or for a mileage of 3,600.


An hon. Member:: They do it by taxation.


Hazen Robert Argue: The United States government is spending on all its road systems, for the year ending June 30, 1956, $875 million. On a proportionate population basis, Canada, to equal the expenditures of the United States, should be appropriating $78,750,000 for this purpose. Even if we appropriated this larger sum of money, it would in no way mean a comparable improvement in our highways, because we have so many more miles of roads for our population than has the United States. If we did it on the same proportionate mileage we would be spending money to assist a system of 68,300 miles of roads this year, rather than something under 5,000 miles, expenditures for which are being provided by the resolution that is now under discussion.
I am suggesting that our federal government could do much more in the way of providing moneys in the building of an adequate road system in our country. The government of the United States not only provides substantial sums of money for its tremendous road system in that country but does it on a formula that, I suggest, is very fair. It provides grants to the states based on the area of each state, based on the population of each state and based on the road mileage within each state. Because the federal government has provided money on that basis, the relatively poor states, the states with sparse populations, obtain a larger proportion of the money they spend on roads from the federal treasury.
I have here the estimates of the amounts of money spent during the past year on roads in three of the states. The total expenditure in North Dakota was just over $13 million, and of this $13 million 50 per cent, or $6,500,000, was provided by the federal treasury. In the state of Montana, a state with a small population, out of a total expenditure of $22 million, $13,500,000 was provided by the federal treasury, or 61 per cent. In the state of Wyoming, with a population even less than that of Montana, for a total expenditure of $9,300,000, $6 million, or 65 per cent, was provided from payments by the federal treasury.
I wish to point out that the federal government in the United States does not control 67509-187
Trans-Canada Highway Act the letting of contracts in the construction of the roads in any way. The building of roads and the supervising of maintenance of roads are responsibilities under the full control and authority of each state. If such a program were offered to the provinces of Canada, there would be no need to interfere in any way with provincial jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, every precaution should be taken not to interfere with provincial jurisdiction. But I am suggesting that in the interests of the development of our country, in the interests of making our country more prosperous, we should be providing larger sums from the federal treasury to provincial governments.
I do not think the minister or his parliamentary assistant could estimate the amount of money that will be necessary for road construction in Canada within the next 20 years, or within the next ten years, or within any future period. I do not think any survey has ever been made of the road needs and the requirements of this nation. I suggest that the first thing the government should do in preparing to undertake a comprehensive road program is to make a survey of our road needs for a substantial period into the future, perhaps a survey of the prospective road needs for the next 20 years, and of what our nation needs in the way of road development in order that it can have its maximum economic development within the next 20 years.
Such a survey should, I suggest, be made after we have determined our likely road needs for a substantial period in the future. Then I suggest the federal government should decide what our road program should be and what our target should be for a shorter period, shall we say, for a four-year period, for a term of office-the usual term of office for any federal parliament-to set forth the road program and certain objectives for the completion of such a program, and then be prepared to advance money to the provinces to ensure that such a program is fulfilled.
I believe we are falling behind in productive development in many ways. If we are going to keep advancing in the future, as far as wealth production is concerned, if we are to advance in the future at a rate that will allow this nation to keep up with and to keep ahead of the rate of advance in the U.S.S.R., then I suggest that one of the essential things for the future peacetime development of Canada is an adequate road program. The federal government is doing very little in the way of providing funds for a road program for Canada.
I would suggest that such a road program should have four essential features. We should
2948	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act provide federal moneys, not just for one trans-Canada highway, but for trans-Canada highways. At this time there certainly should be provision for the construction of at least a second trans-Canada highway following a northern route, in western Canada from Winnipeg to Saskatoon to Edmonton and I believe it is through the Yellowhead pass-the northern route-down to Vancouver in British Columbia. We should have more than one trans-Canada highway. The federal government should be providing money for roads going north and south. We might call them, if you like, international roads-Canadian roads going north and south meeting roads in the United States coming up to the Canadian boundary. From a provincial standpoint, those roads have as much importance to the economy of each province as does a road going east and west. That is the second thing the government should do, provide money for a north-south road program.
The third thing I should like to see is the provision of federal government money to assist the provinces to assist in turn the municipalities in the development of interurban roads, roads between cities within a province that have little to do with connecting roads either trans-Canada or north and south. Under this general heading I would suggest the use of federal money to provide adequate farm to market roads. Because a Canadian happens to be a farmer and happens to live a long distance from the trans-Canada highway or a long distance from a provincial highway is no reason why the federal government should not be looking towards his well being in the future as far as servicing him with an adequate road is concerned. I do not think the rural residents of any province in Canada that you wish to mention will have access to modern roads and highways until the federal government provides some money for the building of farm to market roads through grants to the provinces.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, the resolution on the order paper dealing with the trans-Canada highway is now under discussion. While the hon. member for Kamloops was speaking I too noted that he said that those provinces which had come closer to approaching their construction period target were in danger of being penalized and those provinces which had lagged behind in the construction of their portion of the trans-Canada highway would stand to gain under the legislation now being introduced. Of course we have not seen the


bill and I am not in a position to say whether or not that statement is correct. I would indeed be surprised if the Minister of Public Works would bring in a bill having that as part of its contents and I would suggest to him that if the bill does make such provision it should be changed before it is brought into the house. The resolution indicates a revision of the terms of the present agreement. Let me put it on the record. It is as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding ten per centum thereof: to extend contributions to costs incurred up to December 31, 1960 and to terminate all contributions on May 31, 1961; and to provide further that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of $250 million.
We are all very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is reconsidering the whole matter of highway construction. I hardly think there has been a year when this problem has been under discussion in the house that I have not indicated my anxiety to the minister as to when the road would be completed. We in western Canada particularly are very concerned as to the time when the highway is going to be completed because it enters materially into our economic existence. I remember making a wager when the legislation was first introduced, to the extent of $10, I believe, that the road would not be completed in the time specified in the agreement. Now what do we find? We find that the road is not 50 per cent completed. I am going to suggest now, Mr. Chairman, that the road will not be completed by the end of the new term, December 31, 1960.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: You should not gamble.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not get
that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I just said that the hon. member should not gamble.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would agree with the hon. member, and believe me, this is no gamble. You only gamble when there is a chance that you will lose, but in this case that is not so. I think the construction of the trans-Canada highway is probably one of the most important projects under way in this country. In fact, I think it is even much more important than the St. Lawrence seaway because it will have a greater effect on the total economy of our country.
I have here a clipping from the Western Producer of May 4, 1950. I recall that I put the article on Hansard at that time and I want to repeat some portions of it now to

show what was the common opinion about the importance of this highway at that date. The article reads in part:
Course of the highway across the west was never a very important issue, really. The big question was not where, but when the road would be built. Whether it traversed the flat, often treeless and to some travellers monotonous south country or along the more scenic northern path, the trans-Canada road was, and is, of vital importance to western Canada. It will be a strong link between the industrial east and the agricultural west and constitute a sound beachhead on the trade and geographic barrier separating the two. From the standpoint of national defence, the highway is imperative now that Canada is at the crossroads of world history.
There are one or two things mentioned there to which I should like to make reference. I should like to deal first with the beachhead on the trade and geographic barriers separating the east and west. I have often thought, and have so expressed my opinion in the house, that one of the things that has caused a lagging in the construction of the highway is that it has been in the interests of the railways-certainly it has proved to be in their interests-to see that the highway was not completed. In my judgment that has been one of the major factors in holding back the completion of the highway not only during the first term of the agreement but for many years prior thereto. If for no other reason the highway should be completed as quickly as possible in order to develop the economic position of our country and certainly in order to take care of national needs in time of emergency.
We have an emergency coming now in the form of a possible railway strike. Of course everybody is saying that we should not have a strike because it would paralyse transportation in all of Canada. Of course it would, but who is to blame for that situation? Certainly it is not the worker. The ones who are to blame for such a situation are the federal government who have failed in seeing that another means of transcontinental transportation has not been completed which could be of service not only in times such as these but in times of national emergency arising from a war or other like causes.


Mr. Philpoft:: We thought the provinces built the roads.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will come to that in a minute. The provinces are so far ahead of the federal government in building their portion of the road that the federal government will never catch up.


Elmore Philpott: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I am too
busy. You can ask questions later and I will be only too pleased to see what I can do about them then.


Mr. Goode:: Now you have made him lose his place.


Charles Edward Johnston: You know,
Mr. Chairman, the federal government seems to be a little alarmed, although I think not very seriously, about the lagging in the construction of the highway. I was looking through their report the other day. It is for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955. It is put out by the Department of Public Works.
I notice on page 5 something which I think is rather comical and which I think I should put on the record. As they have lagged so far behind in the construction of this road without, I was going to say, making any earnest effort towards its completion, this strikes me rather humorously. It says this: Highway Colour Film
Since its inception, the highway project has created wide interest outside Canada.
The only time I have ever known that to be so was when I was crossing the boundary line and some of the United States officials there would say, "Why do you come through the United States? Why don't you go across by your own Canadian route?" I would say to them, "We have not a trans-Canada highway". They would look at me with a great deal of disgust and wonder why a nation such as Canada did not even have a transcontinental highway. This excerpt from the report continues:
Arising out of this general and public interest, the national film board undertook to share with the department the costs of producing a colour motion picture film which would record construction work in progress and would also be useful in tourist promotion.
That tops the thing, Mr. Chairman. Imagine putting out a colour film showing the rapidity with which this road is being constructed and advertising it as a tourist attraction so that people could come to Canada across this wonderful highway and see what we have developed in the way of tourist attractions across Canada. You could not even. get out of Ontario, Mr. Chairman, and probably that is the less scenic part of the whole country. They would never get the chance to see Banff national park or some of the parks in Saskatchewan. Then the article continues:
During the year, more work was undertaken to complete the film,-
Quite a good deal of pressure was put on to complete the film.


An hon. Member:: Not the road.
2950	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Charles Edward Johnston: No, not the
road; the film. Let me repeat that:
During the year, more work was undertaken to complete the film, which is tentatively entitled-
This is good, Mr. Chairman.
-"Canada's New Main street", and will be given public release by the spring of 1956.
Our road is not supposed to be completed, even under this new agreement, until 1960. It is an amazing thing, Mr. Chairman. Apparently the government can find money with which to provide a colour film to attract tourists to come to this country to travel on a road that will not be ready until 1960.
Joking aside, Mr. Chairman, that is somewhat of a national disgrace. It is indeed embarassing for Canadians to be obliged to go through a foreign country in order to get from one side of this country to the other. Surely after seven years of work on the trans-Canada highway and with not even 50 per cent of it yet completed-


An hon. Member:: Who is doing the work?


Charles Edward Johnston: Since you are talking about this, you had better go down to the Windermere section and settle that matter down there of where the trans-Canada highway is going. I was down there at the board of trade meeting and you did not take a very active part in the debate. Maybe those people would like to hear from you. Or are you waiting for that colour film? This road was started in December, 1949.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: The agreement will terminate-


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) is rising on a point of order?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think I have at least a piece of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you have a piece of privilege, go ahead.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It might be that I was going to give the hon. member a piece of my mind.


Charles Edward Johnston: I expected that.


An hon. Member:: Be careful or you will give it all away.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member has a question of privilege?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, certain remarks were pointed in my direction as though I had made some interjection. So far I have been completely silent throughout the hon. member's speech.


Charles Edward Johnston: My ears must have deceived me then, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member has not interjected. I am quite sure I heard him. If this is one time that he did not interject-it is the only time this session that he has not done so-I shall have to take back everything I said about him, even with respect to the motion picture.


An hon. Member:: It was one of his colleagues.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: O. K. Continue.


Charles Edward Johnston: As I stated, this contract was first entered into in December, 1949. It was to terminate on December 9, 1956. Up to this time the mileage completed is 1,568 miles. The mileage yet to be completed is 2,700 miles. That makes a total of 4,268 miles. That is not a very good record after seven years, Mr. Chairman. If an emergency arose such as you could contemplate under war conditions and this road had to be built, I wonder whether it would take us seven years to complete 1,568 miles?


Mr. Mcllraith:: It would in Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: Alberta has the greatest percentage of hard surface roads anywhere on this trans-Canada highway in proportion to the amount they have had to build. If you want to see some good roads, go to Alberta. You have not anything in Ontario that can compete with them.


Tom Goode: Now you are being modest again.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am always being modest.


Mr. Blackmore:: Just being realistic.


An hon. Member:: It is all on the film.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me say something about the construction of this highway, Mr. Chairman. You will recall that when we first discussed the standards of this highway I made objection at that time. I pointed out that a two-lane highway across this country was not good enough and that the standards with which the roads were being built would in all probability not be sufficient to carry the loads that would be carried on that road. When these specifications were first implemented I think probably they were better specifications than those for any other roads that were being built in Canada at that time. But this was a tremendous project. This was a project which was going to cost millions of dollars. It was one which, in my judgment at least, was to provide an alternative mode of transportation to that provided by the railways. It was to provide transportation by trucks which would carry at least a portion of our freight and other things of that nature

across the country. It was going to be subjected to very strenuous use and it was a road that would have to be built to withstand it. It was my judgment then, as it is now, that this road should be a four-lane highway or at least that provision should have been made for a possible four-lane highway. When they were buying the right of way I believe they should have bought sufficient land in order to be able to extend that road to a four-lane highway when the necessity arose. But that was never done. I also think that the gravel base is not sufficiently deep and that it is not sufficiently compact to carry the loads that it will be required to carry. I think the hard surface on the road is not sufficiently thick to carry the weight that will be put upon it. The provinces now-and particularly the province of Alberta-are using much better standards in building their main roads than that which was used in connection with the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Prudham:: The trans-Canada highway is still the best-


Charles Edward Johnston: Here is another interjection. What did the hon. member say?


George Prudham: I said that the trans-Canada is still the best highway in Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: No; it is not. I will agree with you that the trans-Canada highway was probably the best highway until about a year ago. But in Alberta we have found that, with respect to the new roads they are building, they are going to greater expense in connection with the specifications than they did with regard to the trans-Canada highway. You have only to go to Calgary or to Edmonton, if you ever do any visiting around there, in order to see these new sections of highway for experimental purposes which far exceed the specifications of the trans-Canada highway. With regard to all our main roads that the province has to deal with, we are building to a better standard than that of the trans-Canada highway. Why? Because we have found out that the strength of the road was not sufficient to carry the loads which are going to be carried over them.
Now, I say that at this stage the specifications of the trans-Canada highway should Ip changed. There should be more sub-gravel base and there should be more clay used in it. There should be a thicker hard surface on it. If this were done we would not have to replace this road in a year or two. We are going to have to do that if the road carries the loads which will have to be carried or else we are going to have to put up notices saying that loads must be limited to such and such. Then, these roads will be ineffective in competing with other forms of transportation
Trans-Canada Highway Act in this country. In nearly all the provinces, and this is particularly true in Alberta, traffic is getting to the place where all the main highways coming into cities like Calgary and Edmonton are four-lane highways for 20 miles surrounding the city. This being so, then the federal government should learn a lesson from it. We in the province of Alberta are building four-lane highways leading into our cities.
There is a road which goes from Calgary to Banff, and in the summertime the traffic on that road is tremendous. In the tourist season the cars are travelling bumper to bumper and I do not mean 10 or 15 feet apart. I mean they are right up within four or five feet of each other, and that is a dangerous condition. Several years ago I pointed out that was one part of the road that should have been made a four-lane highway. Last year I again appealed to the government to make that a four-lane highway. I was assured that the provincial government would be only too-happy to pay their share of the cost of a four-lane highway from Calgary to Banff. At the time the federal minister stated, quite properly, that there was no provision in the terms of the contract to allow any section of the road to be four lanes. We are revising the contract now, so why not put in that stipulation? I feel that the trans-Canada highway should be a four-lane highway for at least the 20 miles surrounding any city and any highway that is going to be used a great deal, such as the one between Banff and Calgary, should be made a four-lane highway.
I have some further criticism to make. A while ago one of the interjections was, "Well, who has been building this highway; what have the provinces been doing?" I think the record itself shows clearly what has been happening. This pamphlet put out by the Department of Public Works entitled "Report of Proceedings under Trans-Canada Highway Act," clearly shows what the provinces have been doing and what the federal government has been doing. I notice on page 7 the federal government's pavement construction in Banff and Yoho park is shown as zero. I do not think the federal government has done very well.
I want to speak about Banff and I have some criticism of the department in this regard. The federal government has been complaining, and I think rightly so, about the provinces not getting on with the job. As I look through this pamphlet I see that Ontario is probably one of those provinces that have neglected the construction of trans-Canada highway more than the others. I asked some questions about the Banff portion of this highway which I want to call to the attention

Trans-Canada Highway Act of the house at this time. The answers appear in return No. 129. I believe that the Banff portion of the highway totals something like 51 miles, I am not just sure. I asked this question:
Will the construction of the federal government's share of the trans-Canada highway in Banff national park be completed by the end of the present contract date, December 9, 1956.
The answer is, "No". Almost every year I have asked the federal department if they will be able to complete their share of the trans-Canada highway on schedule. On every occasion except last year the minister has informed me that they hoped to meet that target date. Of course, the fact is that to date there is not one mile completed.
The second question was:
If not, when will it be completed?
The answer was:
At present rate of progress, December 1, 1959.
I would say that at the present rate of progress it will not be completed by 1969. I am not overlooking the fact that there was a good deal of clearance work done last winter, but certainly there was nothing done on the construction end of the project.
The third question was:
How many miles of the trans-Canada highway run through the Banff national park?
The answer was, "51 miles".
Question No. 4 reads:
How many miles in the park are completed, and when will the balance be completed?
The answer reads:
No mileage completed. All but 12 miles will be under contract for grading, culverts and gravel base by March 31. Completion to final pavement expected December 1, 1959.
Question No. 5 reads:
How much of the trans-Canada highway has been completed between the east gate and the town of Banff?
The answer is:
Eight of the 10 miles completed to gravel base stage.
There is not one mile of hard surface road after seven years. This is the progress the federal government has made.
Question No. 6 reads:
Have there been any repairs on this section of the road?
The answer to that is, "Yes."
Question No. 7 reads:
If so, what was the nature of the repairs and what was the cost?
The answer was:
The gravel base course, part of which is asphalt bound, has been scarified and reshaped. The cost has been the normal cost of maintenance of this
IMr. Johnston (Bow River).]

temporary type of surface under the exceptionally heavy tourist traffic, i.e., between $200 and $300 per mile.
I pointed out a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, that because of the very heavy traffic to which these roads would be subjected they would not stand up. Now, we have confirmation of that by the question and answer I have just read. This road, which is finished except for the hard surfacing, is not standing up. Then, how do we expect the rest of it to stand up when that section has the best base for highway construction of any mile of road on this continent. It has a solid gravel base, yet it is not standing up. It has been a disgrace for the last couple of years during the tourist season. One fellow told me he lost the front end of his car in one of those holes. I can imagine that. It was an absolute disgrace. Then, right in the middle of the tourist season they spread about two inches of soft oil over the road. You should have seen the tourist's cars coming in and you should have heard their remarks.
I know my time is almost up, sir, but there is one other thing I want to mention about the road in the park and that is the bridge at Kicking Horse river. I asked some questions in regard to that because I visited it a year ago and I was told that after the footings were put in they began to move. The whole thing had to be done over. The original cost of that bridge was $141,950. Let me read to you a section of the letter from the deputy minister of public works dated February 15, 1956:
The location of this bridge has not changed. The bridge, as originally designed, was for spread footing on wood piles, the available information indicating that the foundation conditions were a gravel bed.
Notice this:
Unfortunately, soil borings were not taken prior to its design so that the class of material underlying the gravel layer was not established.
Imagine constructing a bridge on the trans-Canada highway which would be subject to the most severe traffic, situated in a location which would have to contend with the rushing of water in the spring, without taking borings of the underlying soil.


Maurice Bourget: Where is that bridge located?


Charles Edward Johnston: At mile 4, approximately.


Maurice Bourget: Where exactly?


Charles Edward Johnston: At the junction of the Kootenay and the Kicking Horse river.


Maurice Bourget: Is it in the national park?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, in the national park.

I am not blaming the minister completely for this because I doubt if he was entirely responsible when it occurred, and I think the parks department has some responsibility. You fellows can thresh it out yourselves. The letter continues:
In the design, while providing for timber piles, provision was made that, if the piling could not be driven, the area of footing would be sufficient to support the structure on the gravel bed. In the construction operations, which took place in the winter of 1953-54, a test pile was attempted and found impossible to drive, so in accordance with the design provisions piling was omitted.
In the fall of 1954, one of the river piers was scoured badly during flood conditions and movement was noticed in the pier under the heavy construction traffic which was then using the bridge. It was evident that immediate action was required. An immediate investigation was undertaken-
Incidentally, after the bridge was completed-
-including complete soil borings-
-which, incidentally, should have been taken before construction was started.
-which showed that gravel bed was resting on approximately-
Listen to this-
-100 feet of unstable silty soil.
And they built a highway bridge on that!
Below this, limestone bedrock was encountered. On review of this information it was decided that both river piers should be underpinned.
The last paragraph of the letter reads:
It is regrettable that preliminary soil borings were not taken prior to the design of this structure. If these had been done, steel piling would have been included in the original construction. Doing this after the bridge construction undoubtedly increased the cost to some extent over that at which it would have been possible to do the piling during original construction.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will probably speak on this subject again and complete what I have to say about it.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak very briefly on this matter because I think it is one of the most important issues which will come before parliament this session. The purpose of the resolution is simply to provide federal assistance to the the provinces in a financial way, to help them finish the trans-Canada highway at the earliest possible date. I am quite sure that hon. members of all parties will support the principle of the proposal.
I think anyone who travels across this great country of ours today must be shocked
16. 1956
Trans-Canada Highway Act at the appalling condition of some of our main highways. I think anyone who travels across Canada, must also be shocked when he realizes that 89 years after confederation, he still cannot travel from eastern Canada to western Canada or vice versa on a Canadian highway. These conditions prevail despite the fact that since 1945 we have had booming economic conditions, and despite the fact that we have had the greatest period of economic development in our history.
I think it was in 1949 that parliament brought in legislation under which the federal government would pay up to 50 per cent of the cost of a trans-Canada highway, and all of us welcomed it as progressive legislation. Seven years have elapsed since that time and the progress which we have made has been disappointingly slow; indeed it has been frustrating in the extreme.
As was pointed out by the parliamentary assistant in his speech before Easter, the trans-Canada highway is 4,580 miles in length and yet at this moment only 1,600 miles, or approximately 35 per cent, have been completed despite the fact that the whole project was supposed to have been finished in this present year. I suggest that the project to date is a colossal failure, in view of the fact that only 35 per cent of the original target has been reached. Surely this construction record should emphasize to parliament and to the country the glaring weaknesses of our Canadian highway system.
The legislation which is before us today is going to be useful, but certainly in no way is it going to get at the crux of our highway difficulties. I think, Mr. Chairman, most hon. members would agree that our difficulties go back to 1867. The British North America Act left highway construction up to the provinces and that fact has resulted in a serious financial tangle. While the provinces have jurisdiction over roads, only the federal government has the financial resources necessary to build the kind of roads that Canadians want. I say also that our constitution has meant that instead of having one over-all, comprehensive highway program, we have ten different programs in Canada today. They are seldom integrated and often conflicting; at times they are subject to local and provincial political thinking. I think it is quite obvious that the fathers of confederation envisaged no highway problem such as we have today in 1956. Because of our vast distances and our sparse populations, the municipal and provincial governments simply cannot build the kind of highways that we need. I think that sooner or later parliament is going to have to face up squarely to that fact.
Our Canadian highway situation is completely unique. To the best of my knowledge

Trans-Canada Highway Act every other country in the western world builds its highways on a national basis. I think this is true in Europe, South America, North America and even in Mexico, which we sometimes look upon as a slightly backward country.
It was pointed out earlier in this debate that the United States has a system for building highways which is far superior to our own. In the United States aid is usually given up to 50 per cent, not only on state but also on municipal highways. Sometimes that aid is as much as 80 per cent. As a result of this policy, the United States has a superb national system of highways.
I do not think I am biased in saying that the federal government has displayed far too little interest in this national and crucial problem. I say that it has avoided its responsibility by leaning on the technical excuse of constitutional responsibility. I do not think that Canadian highway development can any longer be held up for that reason. We have excellent precedents in matters affecting our national welfare where the federal government has acted, despite the fact that primary responsibility rested with the provinces. I remind the house of old age pensions, family allowances, grants to universities and the like. Surely the day has finally come when this parliament should consider taking the same kind of action where highways are concerned.
Some may ask, "How would you pay for it?" I believe the hon. member for Hamilton South asked that question this afternoon. A highway program would have to be paid for, of course. If it had to be paid for by a federal gasoline tax, I do not think too many Canadians would object, if as a result they had decent roads to travel over. I would remind this house that in the last four years the federal government has taken $700 million from the motorists of Canada in excise taxes, sales taxes on automobiles and tires, customs tariffs on imported cars, etc. I would also remind the house- that last year the federal government spent only the sum of $27 million on highways; therefore I say that the income and the outgoing expenditures are not in line. I think we Canadians have shown a disconcerting lack of vision and imagination in building highways.
I say again that the resolution before us is welcome, but surely we should go a good deal further. I call upon this government this afternoon to embark on a bold and aggressive highway program which will actually get construction work under way. Personally I should like to see parliament set up a national highway commission similar

to the one they have in the United States. I believe that the duties of such a highway commission should be fourfold.
First, it should provide federal funds to the provinces on a co-operative basis of not less than 50-50 on all east and west and all north and south roads; that is, on all major roads. In the second place, the commission should provide funds to provincial governments on a co-operative basis for maintenance work. In the third place, the commission should devise a master plan for a national highway system towards which the dominion government and the ten provincial governments could work. Fourth, the commission could standardize construction and engineering specifications.
My own thinking would be similar to the views of other hon. members who have spoken, namely that the actual construction work should be left with the provinces, but grants would definitely remain subject to approval by the commission. I suggest that over a ten-year period the federal government should spend not less than $2,000 million, or approximately $200 million a year. Some hon. members may think that I am not being consistent when I make such a suggestion, but I look upon expenditures for highways, not as dead-weight expenditures but rather as an investment, and a self-liquidating asset. I think the federal government would get its money back in the way of extra returns from tourists and from mineral development.
I submit that a proper highway system is vital to the life of this country. I shall vote for this resolution but I say again that it is certainly not an answer to Canada's highway problems.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members who have spoken this afternoon, I have travelled on a number of our highways during the past two years. I was fortunate enough to travel across the country twice, and I have travelled a considerable distance by automobile. Like other hon. members, I was shocked at the condition of a great many of our highways. How we can expect to develop our country, and particularly to attract tourists with the highways we can offer them at present, is to me beyond comprehension.
Today, more than five years after the trans-Canada highway program was started, we find that out of a total of 4,600 miles, which will comprise the highway, as of March 1 only 1,315 miles have been paved and 1,748 miles graded. Each of the provinces participating in the program is lagging behind by about the same proportion.
Why should it be that during five years of unprecedented boom we find that less

than one-third of this highway has been completed? It is simply that the provinces, which have great demands upon them to build roads to serve the people within their own boundaries, do not have funds available to meet their 50 per cent share of the cost. The more they spend upon the trans-Canada highway, the less they have to spend on roads which are their primary concern, and quite naturally they have decided to spend the greater proportion of their highway funds upon roads which are their primary concern.
The present proposal of the government to pay 90 per cent of the cost of not more than 10 per cent of the highway in any province will not get this highway built, for the reason that in each province there is today more than two-thirds of the highway yet to be completed. When this program which the government is proposing is completed, there will still be large gaps which at today's rate of construction will require many years of work before the highway is completed.
I think that we in this parliament, particularly the government, must face up to the hard, cold fact that if this highway is to be built within the foreseeable future, the federal government must assume the financial responsibility for its construction and stop playing around with makeshift methods of trying to get it built.
On grounds of defence alone, the construction of this highway can be justified as a federal responsibility. On the ground of assisting in the development of our natural resources, from which the federal government' is the chief beneficiary, the construction of this highway can be justified as a federal responsibility. On the ground that the present arrangement with the provinces to build the highway has failed dismally, the construction of this highway can be justified as a federal responsibility. In short, if this highway is going to be built in the foreseeable future, the federal government must assume financial responsibility and get' on with the job.
While the proposal which is before us is a move in the right direction, in my estimation it will simply not get the highway built in the next few years. The highway must be built for a number of reasons, and I feel it is up to the federal government to stop fooling around with this important matter. It has done so for five years; it should face the facts and assume its financial responsibility and get on with the job.
In addition to needing badly the trans-Canada highway, this country also needs badly a national highway program by which the federal government would join with the provinces in the building of highways which would
Trans-Canada Highway Act enable us to develop our tourist trade and our natural resources, and also to man properly our defences. Roads into the north, in the western and central part's of Canada and across the maritime provinces, would make available opportunities which would bring new mining fields into production; which would make available new timber resources; which would bring about the construction of pulp and paper mills which could use resources not now available, instead of leaving them to waste; and would permit an expansion in our tourist industry, and to some degree, our fishing and trapping industries as well.
A program for the building of north and south roads not only would bring in many millions of dollars in the form of tourist trade, but there would be extra gasoline, liquor and amusement taxes for the provincial treasuries. Such a program would also provide many millions of dollars in additional corporation and sales taxes for the federal treasury. For that reason I think it is obvious that the building of these roads would be a money-making proposition for the federal government. There would be definite economic advantages which would accrue to the federal government by the building of roads of this kind. If the federal government would join with the provinces to press forward with a program of this kind, there would be possible a development of our tourist industry and of our natural resources as well.
Another thing to be accomplished by the building of these roads would be assistance in the expansion of our manufacturing industries, about which so many speakers have spoken recently in this house. They have pointed out how badly it is needed in this country.
In the past, railway construction and expansion were badly needed to assist in industrial expansion. In exactly the same way today, the building of good highways is needed. Just as we in this country must concentrate on creating an economic atmosphere which will induce new industries to start up and build new factories to process our raw materials, we must build roads by which new industries can receive raw materials and ship finished goods.
As the federal government will be the chief beneficiary from the new taxes that will result from the creation of these new secondary industries, there should be no hesitation on the part of the federal government in contributing-and contributing generously -to the building of these roads, in addition to the trans-Canada highway.
Finally we come to the matter of defence. Because our defences are today stretching
2956	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act farther and farther north, I think it is obvious that we have to build good north and south highways to provide easy access to our defence installations and to the localities we may very easily have to defend in case of attack. The responsibility in this regard is undoubtedly a federal one. So the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, must embark on a national highways program to ensure the construction of highways that are needed for the development of our natural resources and our tourist industry, and to make available defence installations in the localities we may have to defend in case of attack. A program of building north and south highways in conjunction with the provinces must be proceeded with immediately.
Such a program, of course, will cost a good deal of money, but I do not believe that such a program should be paid for out of current revenue. It is a program which will enable this country to be developed; it is a program which will benefit future generations; and I believe it is a program which should be financed by bond issues, both federal and provincial. I believe that the people of this country will be willing to finance in such a way a highway program which will make possible the development and the defence of their country.
Recently, the United States announced a $1 billion highway program in which the federal government pays the cost of construction of federal highways and the state governments pay the upkeep. This is the kind of arrangement that has worked very well in practice below the border, and it results in federal highways being built and maintained to the public satisfaction. I believe that such an arrangement for this country would work very well indeed; an arrangement by which the federal government could build the highways and the provincial governments would maintain them, or an arrangement by which the federal and provincial governments could jointly build and maintain these federal highways.
I believe this is a matter which the federal government should look into and study very seriously indeed. It is a matter which can,
I believe, have very beneficial effects for the development of this country. I believe it is essential for the development of our tourist industry, the development of our industrial expansion and the adequate manning of our defences. I urge the federal government to give this matter serious consideration and I feel sure that, having done so, it will come to the conclusion that such a program, in conjunction with the provinces, should be proceeded with in the very near future.
[Mr. Hees.l


Mr. Batten:: At this time I should like to make a few remarks with reference to this resolution. May I say at the beginning, whilst I recognize that the building of the highways and roads is the responsibility of the provinces, it is my opinion that there should be across this country one federal highway, and the cost of that federal highway should be borne by the federal government.
Dealing directly with the resolution, I may say at the outset that I am going to vote for this resolution, but I am going to do so for one or two reasons. First of all, I welcome the increasing support that the federal government proposes here to give to the provinces, particularly those that have been delayed in trying to carry out their contracts in building this trans-Canada highway.
I do, however, look with some concern on the date for the completion of the highway, May 31. I am not so much concerned about the year 1961 as I am about May 31. I believe that this contract should terminate either at the end of a fiscal period or at the end of a road-building period. For example, as in our case in Newfoundland, it may mean that in some provinces they will be able to continue the building of the trans-Canada highway during the year 1961, but there will be no possibility of ending then, because at that time of the year there is no possibility of conducting any road-building operations.
In Newfoundland, of course, transportation has always been a problem. In the early days, when the major part of the transportation was carried on by ships operating around the coast, it was a necessity to have those ships. Gradually roads were built, and we have reached the point today that our transportation by boat has been tremendously decreased, and therefore we have to rely more on the Canadian National Railways and on our road system. This great increase in the need for transportation has been due, of course, to many things. When I spoke in the house on the speech in reply, I gave to this house some figures showing the increase in traffic in Newfoundland, and that increase has been largely due to a rising standard of living. It has been due to a large increase in productivity and due to a great increase in the amount of trade that Newfoundland does with the mainland. I might say that at the moment Newfoundland is doing $100 million a year more trade with the mainland of Canada than it did with the mainland of Canada prior to 1949.
The provincial government, in trying to provide a highway system for Newfoundland, has made a courageous and very energetic effort. As everybody knows, in an area where

roads have always been inadequate, roadbuilding only generates a further demand for road-building. It is obvious that a great deal of the load has been thrown on to the C.N.R. They too, I agree, have had their problems in trying to cope with this increased traffic, but at the moment they have not been very effective in doing so. In many areas of Newfoundland the requirements that the C.N.R. has been able to provide have not been up to the minimum requirements.
This Trans-Canada Highway Act, which became effective on December 10, 1949, was signed by Newfoundland on June 23, 1950. The length of the proposed route is 610 miles. Over this route, I believe, there is sufficient reason to believe that there is a good argument, from the standpoint of defence, that this road should have been paid for entirely by the federal government. It starts at Port aux Basques, for example, and after 100 miles or so comes into the tremendous United States air force base at Harmon field. It does not go directly there. It by-passes it but a short by-road will take you there. It goes on then to large towns like Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Grand Falls and then on to another major air establishment at Gander. Then it goes on for another couple of hundred miles to two more major air establishments at Argentia and Torbay, and of course thence to the capital of Newfoundland, St. John's.
The road as it was to be built in Newfoundland was to be built in three stages. There was first the rough grading using material along the right of way. Second, there was the strengthening of the sub-grade to withstand axle loads of 18,000 pounds. Third, there was the paving construction. So far we have completed about 200 miles of the first phase. I do not mean to say here that is the only part of the trans-Canada highway over which you can now go. You can go nearly 500 miles but the many miles you can now travel over are due to prior construction.
As to the second phase, we have a great deal of difficulty in getting the right kind of road-building material. It is not very plentiful and it is very expensive. The second phase, strengthening the sub-grade, is a very important part of road building in a country like Newfoundland where over long winter periods you have wide changes in temperature. The result is that if the roadbed is not properly built no paved surface is ever going to last for very long. As to the third phase, paving, we have done no paving on the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland. Nevertheless, we are anxious to
16, 1956
Trans-Canada Highway Act carry out what we consider is our part of the trans-Canada highway, and it will indeed be a very important part of our transportation system.
As I said before, the provincial government has made a very energetic effort. Last year they spent $15 million on highways in Newfoundland. To some hon. members who come from larger provinces $15 million is maybe not a lot of money but let me assure you that $15 million is a lot of money in Newfoundland. We can only raise that amount by very high taxation. We are doing some of it at the moment by paying a gasoline tax of 17 cents per gallon. When we look at the number of miles of the trans-Canada highway that Newfoundland has to build, when we look at our tax potential, the short summer period during which the road will have to be built and the type of land over which the road has to be built, we can see that we have indeed a very difficult problem. Paving at any time is going to be very expensive for the simple reason that in Newfoundland we do not have great quantities of the proper aggregate used for paving roads and the cost of bringing asphalt into the province is very high indeed.
In looking at the amount of road that was to be built, 610 miles, I should like to remind the house that 610 miles is 13-3 per cent of the total mileage now agreed to, roughly 4,500 miles, while our population compared with the population of the provinces in the agreement is only 3 [DOT] 7 per cent. If I may burden the house with a few more statistics, I should like to present this fact. If we rate the number of miles per
10.000	of population, the number of miles we have to build in Newfoundland is more than twice that of any other province in this country. Let me give you just a few figures. In the province of Alberta, for example, the proposed road will be 292 miles long. If we strike a ratio between the 292 miles and the population of Alberta it works out to 2-9 miles per 10,000 of population. In Ontario the same ratio obtains, 2-9 miles per 10,000 of population. In Manitoba the length of the proposed road is 305 miles and the ratio works out to 3-8 miles per
10.000	of population. In Saskatchewan, with 414 miles, it is 4-8. In Nova Scotia, with a mileage of 321, it works out to 4-9 miles per 10,000 of population. In British Columbia the figure is 5-8 miles per 10,000 of population, in New Brunswick 7-2 and in Prince Edward Island 7-4. But in Newfoundland the figure is 15-9.
I should like to point out here that, considering our tax potential, the type of territory over which the road has to be built
2958	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act and the high proportion per capita that we have to build, I believe it would have been well worth while if the road had been built in its entirety by the federal government. There may be those in the house who will feel that Newfoundland as a new province is asking for a lot when it asks for a federal highway across the island, but some day in the near future I am going to take the opportunity to show that, believing that we should have this highway across Newfoundland paid for by the federal government, we are not asking for too much and that when we came to the conference table in 1949 and decided on the terms of union we did not come empty handed. I am going to take the opportunity very soon to show the house that we did not come empty handed and, as far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned, we believe that a good deal more could be put into it by the federal government. I do, however, welcome what the minister has said both with respect to speeding up the work and relieving the financial responsibility on the provinces themselves.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I think the remarks just made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's indicate very clearly the need for a new approach to a Canadian highway policy. When one considers the unspectacular results of the trans-Canada highway legislation thus far in terms of the needs of this country I think one must feel rather disappointed, to say the least. I believe that as a parliament responsible for the needs and the future of all parts of Canada we have got to look at the problem of highway construction in a more realistic fashion.
I grant you that in 1867, when the fathers of confederation brought forth the legislation which forms the basis of our constitution, a different situation existed altogether. Railways and to a lesser extent canals were the main arteries of communication and transportation in Canada. I think it was the realization on the part of the fathers of this nation, that the railroads would be the links between the various parts of our vast country, that caused them to accept the responsibility for railway construction in Canada. By the same line of reasoning I suggest that today, in view of the fact that highways have become an alternative means of communication and transportation throughout the country, the federal government should be assuming its responsibilities in this regard.
We cannot argue today that roads are strictly a provincial or municipal responsibility. There was a time in our history when 

roads unquestionably were designed primarily to lead to a railroad point, to a port or some point on a canal. Today roads are not only interprovincial but international. Yet the government has failed to take that fact into consideration. Thus we find that the highway policy advocated by the government is shortsighed and fails completely to meet present needs.
I think the Canadian Good Roads Association summed up the situation recently when they pointed out that between the years 1945 and 1953 total motor registrations had increased by 126 per cent, yet during that same time surfaced mileage increased by only 38 per cent. In other words we are not even meeting the present needs of Canada, much less the future needs of Canada. Occasionally we hear political leaders in this country talking about the great future ahead of Canada. I am sure we know that the future belongs to Canada. We know that we are going to have a much greater population in the years that lie ahead. Yet in the highway legislation brought forward by this government there is nothing which would lead anyone to believe that the population of this country was going to increase by one individual in the foreseeable future. If we anticipate a great growth in population we ought to be planning now to provide not only for the needs of our present population but of our future population.
In the United States they are aware of the situation. Earlier this afternoon some reference was made to the highway program to the south of us. Without going into details with regard to their program, I may say that one thing is clear. They at least look ahead 20 or 30 years and they recognize the increasing need for more and better highways. But what is this government doing?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Alfred Claude Ellis: They sit idly by. In conformity with their usual practice when they are confronted with a problem of some considerable magnitude, they avoid dealing with it as long as they possibly can and when finally they are forced into the position of doing something, they come along with legislation which meets only one tiny fraction of the need.
Certainly no one can argue that the trans-Canada highway program brought forward by this government has met any great need in Canada. In so far as it goes, it has assisted the provinces to build highways on the route of the trans-Canada highway. But I think none of us could be overly satisfied with the progress shown thus far. The

government are now proposing to bring forward new legislation which they say will considerably ease the problem. Like other hon. members I am going to say that, in so far as it goes, it is worthy of support. Certainly it is inching a little bit in the direction of the type of policy we need. However, I would be loath to think that the government are advancing this legislation as the answer even this year to the highway needs of Canada.
As far as the present proposals are concerned, I think the payment of 90 per cent of the construction costs of 10 per cent of the trans-Canada highway in any one province is perhaps going to do something to even up the balance or to correct the shortcomings in the original legislation. We hear a great deal about this 50-50 proposition, the federal government putting up 50 per cent of the cost and the provinces 50 per cent. But I think we know that in actual practice it is more like a 60-40 proposition, with the province putting up 60 per cent and the federal government perhaps putting up in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent.
In connection with the purchase of the land necessary for the right of way, we know that a heavy financial burden is thrown on the shoulders of the provinces themselves. The federal government insist-and I think rightly so-on a minimum right of way, but at the same time they refuse to measure up to their responsibilities and pay their share of the cost of this right of way. We know that today, in view of the great number of highway accidents and grade level crossing accidents, it is important that wherever possible we should build overpasses and clover leafs wherever traffic is particularly heavy. But what happens? Under the regulations the federal government is not prepared to participate in meeting the cost of the approaches to those necessary parts of a highway system. The limitation, which I believe is 50 feet on either side of the centre line, certainly makes it impossible for the province to go ahead and put in overpasses in many cases and is certainly inadequate in the case of the clover leafs.
It would seem to me that the government, having failed to pay 50 per cent of the construction costs of the existing trans-Canada highway, is now evening up the score a little bit by providing a little more financial aid to the provinces with respect to this 10 per cent of the highway mileage within the province. But I think the actual increase would amount to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the total over-all costs. Hence I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman,
16, 1356	2953
Trans-Canada Highway Act that in this proposed legislation the government is not going overboard in providing greater assistance to the provinces.
In so far as the legislation is concerned, I think we must also realize that the federal government have a financial obligation toward the construction of highways in this country because they are, of course, taking a great deal in the way of revenue out of the sale of automobiles and trucks in Canada. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Automobile Chamber of Commerce put out a little booklet with which 1 am sure most hon. members are familiar. It is entitled "Facts and Figures of the Automobile Industry".
In this publication they outline quite clearly the tremendous increase in the number of automobiles and trucks in Canada. On page 26 they give statistics with regard to revenues obtained by the government in the form of sales and excise taxes. I note here that for 1954 an amount of some $66 million-that is in round figures-was taken in through the sales tax and close to $72 million through the excise tax, making a total of roughly $138 million during 1954. Since the federal government is obtaining considerable revenues from the motorists in Canada, I think it has a particular responsibility to provide a greater measure of assistance to the provinces in building the roads necessary for these cars to travel on.
As to the extent to which the federal government derives benefit from our automobile industry and our tourist industry, I think some other hon. members this afternoon have pointed out that better highways will bring about greater returns to the federal government. There is no question but that as our population increases we are going to have more and more cars and trucks on our roads. This situation, of course, is going to be reflected in higher receipts by the federal government through the sale of these vehicles. It would therefore seem only proper that the federal government should be prepared to substantially increase its contributions to the provinces for the purpose of building more highways.
What about our tourist industry? Canada's tourist industry is of considerable importance to our economy. There is little doubt that better highways are going to do much to encourage a heavier flow of tourist traffic into this country; and of course the more tourists we get into the country, the more money is going to be spent here and the better off we as Canadians will be.
As far as our own motoring public are concerned, there are many Canadians who would be quite happy to see Canada first
2960	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act if they could get around and see it. But at the present time the situation is that persons going from one part of Canada to the other find that they are obliged to travel on roads which simply do not compare with the highways built by federal money south of the line.
It is apparent that we are missing the boat and are losing a great deal of our own tourist trade. I have reference to Canadians travelling from one part of Canada to another. It seems to me that if we had a greater number of hard-surfaced highways in this country we would increase the number of Canadians who visit other parts of Canada. I think that is something we all desire.
As I suggested earlier, the proposed legislation merely scratches the surface. The problem is immense, and with the growth in population it will become more acute. This trans-Canada highway legislation has failed to do the type of job we think it should have been doing, largely as a result of the fact that too much of the burden was left on the shoulders of provincial governments. I think the Newfoundland member who spoke a moment ago was quite correct when he pointed out that it is unfair to expect provinces with sparse populations to pay one-half the cost. I suggest we are going to have unfairness to many provinces in Canada as long as the federal government is trying to get out from under its responsibility and throw so much of the burden on the shoulders of the provinces.
This afternoon some reference was made by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia to United States policy. There will be no need for me to repeat those arguments but I do want to suggest that, taking a leaf from their book, the least we could expect in Canada would be that the federal government would undertake the completion of one highway. I would not be satisfied with that, but it seems to me that in many parts of this country the least we could expect of the government would be the completion of one highway now, on its own initiative and bearing full financial responsibility. I know that in my province there are two main east-west arteries, both of which are exceedingly important. One is the highway which runs from Winnipeg up through Minnedosa, York-ton, Saskatoon, North Battleford, Lloyd-minster and on up to Edmonton. There is a very important east-west artery running through three prairie provinces. Then we have the present route of the trans-Canada, an exceedingly important east-west artery. These two roads certainly ought to be the responsibility of the federal government.
Then there are the north-south roads connecting the United States and Canada.


Certainly the federal government ought to be prepared to take responsibility for building international highways. I suggest that the provinces have all they can handle in providing highways that connect the main cities and towns within a province. Any time a highway becomes primarily an artery between provinces or from one province to the United States, then the federal government ought to be prepared to undertake responsibility for that road.
I suggest that there are two positions which might be taken in this connection. The position taken in former years by the federal government-they relented to a slight degree in the trans-Canada highway legislation- was that the federal government would ignore its responsibilities and persist in an attitude which is 50 years behind the times, that the provinces are responsible for highways. This is an untenable position if there ever was one at the present time. As I suggested before, it might have had some validity back in 1867 or 1890, but it certainly has no validity whatever in 1956.
I suggested the one extreme position would be for the federal government to take no responsibility at all for roads. The other extreme alternative would be for the federal government to step into the picture and do a bang-up job. It seems to me, however, that the least we as members of parliament ought to expect from the government is that they take a middle position and accept responsibility for the main interprovincial highways in Canada, and the international highways. If they do that, then they will leave the provinces free to devote their energies to providing other highways which are long overdue, and to maintaining the highway system which is running far behind present day needs.
This question of highway construction is a problem facing all provinces in Canada. I know that this spring we are having a tremendous amount of trouble in the prairies as the result of a great deal of moisture. This means a great deal of money will have to be spent in maintaining and repairing highways, in some cases rebuilding them. The provincial governments have their hands full in maintaining highways and keeping abreast of local needs without being called upon to meet the heavy financial commitments involved in building a trans-Canada highway.
It seems to me that as an immediate problem we have the proposed legislation and we have the legislation presently on the statute books. I feel that the government, as an illustration of good faith, should be prepared to increase its contribution to at least

75 per cent on the present trans-Canada highway. I believe that is the bare minimum that could possibly be asked of the federal government. This 75 per cent we would ask of the federal government would include all highway costs; the purchase of right of way, the construction of overpasses, clover leafs and the maintenance of the highway in years to come. This is something that could be done immediately.
Then it seems to me that when the present trans-Canada highway is completed there is going to be a need for continued effort on the part of the federal government in co-operation with the provinces. I feel that at this time the government ought to be prepared to announce that on completion of the trans-Canada highway or upon completion of its part by any province, the federal government will be prepared to join with that province in building other main arteries within the province. I believe that would be the bare minimum, and that would only be scratching the surface.
As I suggested, we have a tremendous problem in this country. It seems to me that the government, following the precedent of the United States, ought to take into consideration a complete revision of its attitude toward highway construction. They ought to rid themselves of this archaic idea that because there were no automobiles on the highways in 1867, that lets the federal government out of its responsibility. They ought to be considering a program, as I suggested, based on the assumption by the federal government of the responsibility for building and maintaining the main interprovincial and international highways in Canada.


Mr. Van Horne:: It is becoming increasingly clear, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government has not tackled the program of roads with the bold, decisive initiative that would give Canada the roads required for progress and development. The road problem originated with confederation, as has been so well illustrated by many hon. members here this afternoon. Picture a province like New Brunswick, with over 500,000 people, and the thousands of miles of paved and unpaved roads required to service the traffic in that province. It is true that great strides have been made in my province on a provincial basis during the past three years, but urgently needed road work is being held up because my province simply does not possess the means to speed up our road building program. Roads are a national asset and should be planned for on that basis.
We feel that in New Brunswick the trans-Canada highway should consist of two main branches, one running down from Riviere du
Trans-Canada Highway Act Loup in Quebec down through Edmundston, St. Leonard and Fredericton and on through Saint John to St. Stephen; and one coming in from Mont Joli in the province of Quebec on down through the Matapedia valley, through Flatlands, Tide Head, Campbellton, Dalhousie, Jacquet River and on down through Moncton to Amherst. We also feel there should be connecting links at the north, in the centre and in the south of the province, connecting these two main trunks. The connecting links would run from Tide Head to St. Leonard and from Newcastle to Fredericton and from Moncton to Saint John. We feel that these roads should come under the heading of the trans-Canada highway and should be paid for by the federal government.
We feel that this leads to the vital need of the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. The only bridge now connecting eastern New Brunswick to the province of Quebec is the very old and narrow Matapedia bridge. Every spring this bridge is threatened with a washout because of the ice piling up against it during the ice run on the Restigouche river. Taken from a defence point of view, not to mention the vital and urgent need of the long-sought Campbellton-Cross Point bridge as the means of permitting the economic development of northern New Brunswick, this bridge is a national defence necessity. If something should happen to the Matapedia bridge, which is obsolete by any standards, there would be no connecting link between eastern Canada and the province of Quebec on the eastern seaboard.
Even the Prime Minister while in Campbellton some six years ago praised the worthiness of the bridge project. At that time he suggested that we should continue to think about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is all you are going to get out of this government.


Ralph Byron Horner: We have been thinking about it, we have been asking for it, we have been demanding it for years without number, and we throw up our arms in despair as we realize that only the indifference, the apathy and the neglect of the federal government have kept the bridge from becoming a reality.
I renew the demand that the trans-Canada highway be a four-lane highway for at least 20 miles on each side of every large town and city along the route. The present standards of the trans-Canada highway are 15 to 20 years behind the times. It will be obsolete before it is completed. More vision is needed, Mr. Chairman, but the crux of the problem is this. The federal government must bear the cost.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
I had hoped that the Minister of Finance in his budget address would have announced a new deal for the maritimes in which good roads would have played an important part; but the minister's entire budget, if indeed by some stretch of the imagination it can be called a budget, leaves New Brunswick, as always, out in the cold.
I expected in this barren budget some hope for New Brunswick. Since coming here in January I hoped against hope that the government would see the light and do its duty toward New Brunswick and the maritimes. My disappointment mounts higher and higher as I settle in the depths of discouragement and realize that I live in a country run by a handful of tired, worn out men who have lost sight of Canada and who are supported by this rubber stamp Liberal representation whose trained seal members bow up and down for the herring held before their noses-


An hon. Member:: They do not need herring.


Ralph Byron Horner: -whose eventual reward is a safe seat in the Senate or on the bench or what have you, who give lip service without regard for principle and sell their electors down the drain for a few more dollars in election funds and sit quietly while Canadians suffer severe hardships from unemployment, disease, poverty and despair-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think I should point out to the hon. member that we are not debating the budget today but the resolution dealing with the trans-Canada highway. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to that subject.


Ralph Byron Horner: I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, what is holding up the building of the trans-Canada highway in the maritimes. This is related to the trans-Canada highway as nothing else is related to it. If we were to remove the apathy, neglect and indifference of the federal government toward the trans-Canada highway project the trans-Canada road would now be completed.
I wish to continue in this vein of thought by saying this. It is becoming more and more apparent that the federal government refuses to recognize the financial position which has been imposed upon New Brunswick by confederation and by the tax rental agreements, either through a refusal to learn the facts or because of a subversive attitude toward the government of the province of New Brunswick. Either of these reasons or a combination of both places the choking problem right on the doorstep of New Brunswick's representative in the government, the Minister of Labour. He has either acquiesced where he should have spoken up and fought for the


province, or else he acted in unison with men like the hon. member for Charlotte-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, horrors.


Ralph Byron Horner: -in their expressed determination to block progress in New Brunswick, merely because the people of my province have had the foresight to do away with the decadent old Liberal regime by replacing it with the best administration New Brunswick has ever known.
The Minister of Labour was aware of this and he knew of the government's policy as stated in the Prime Minister's letter of January 14, 1955, to the premiers:
The present government has no Intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreement, which is to make it financially possible-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Byron Horner: This has to do directly with the trans-Canada highway. This is why we do not have a trans-Canada highway.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the hon. member will bear with me for a moment, I have no desire to hamper him in making his argument-


An hon. Member:: Reading it, you mean.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think I should
point out to him, however, that we are in committee and he is restricted by standing order 59(2) which says:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I understand the hon. member is considering that the financial background of the Trans-Canada Highway Act and agreement is in some way connected with the federal-provincial tax agreement. I think the speech the hon. member is making would be strictly in order on a debate such as the budget debate, but I feel it is my duty to the hon. member and to the house to request him to make his remarks, as I think other hon. members in this debate have done so far, strictly relevant to the trans-Canada highway agreement. I have no intention of stopping the hon. member making such criticism as he may see fit to make of the financial participation of the federal government under the trans-Canada highway agreement, but I do not think the committee would want me to permit the hon. member to open up the whole question of maritime rights at this time.


Ralph Byron Horner: I do not wish to go into the whole question of maritime rights; I merely wish to point out that the Prime Minister in his letter of January 14 stated that the policy of the government was to assist New Brunswick to perform its constitutional functions without an unreasonable

burden of taxation. I say that unless the federal government makes it very clear and adopts a policy of greater financial assistance in the building of the trans-Canada highway, New Brunswick simply cannot afford to pay the increased cost involved.
If I may go on, again in the Prime Minister's letters of January 6 and January 18, 1956, he stated in effect that New Brunswick is being denied the right-this was confirmed at the last federal-provincial conference-to provide a reasonable level of provincial services, including roads, without an abnormal burden of taxation. I have figures and schedules for all taxes which show conclusively that the level of New Brunswick taxation is substantially higher over-all than that of any other province.
We have performed miracles in New Brunswick during the past three years in the building of roads, but according to the figures for 1953 the people of New Brunswick have to pay 41 per cent more in taxes out of personal income than the average Canadian. Again we hold the Minister of Labour responsible for allowing the federal government to keep in the vise of federal indifference and antagonism the very province he was appointed to represent and serve. I should like to quote the observations of Hon. Hugh John Flemming at the last federal-provincial conference in regard to roads.


Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as far as I am concerned I am quite prepared to answer to the people of New Brunswick, but I am not going to do it during this debate. I shall take the opportunity to do it on another occasion, but I am sure the remarks of my hon. friend now are completely away from federal-New Brunswick participation in the trans-Canada highway.


Ralph Byron Horner: I should like to quote briefly the remarks of Hon. Hugh John Flemming at the last dominion-provincial conference, when he had this to say about roads:
It is an essential requirement of any provincial government to so manage its affairs that the credit of the province is maintained on a sound basis. This is particularly true for a province in the position of New Brunswick which at the moment is faced with very substantial, indeed I might say staggering, capital expenditures for the development of electric generating facilities, both hydro and thermal, to meet the needs of the new mining developments, the expansion of the pulp and paper industry and to provide the power required for the increase in services and secondary industries which these developments will normally bring in their train.
I am about to complete these remarks and I shall have occasion again-


An hon. Member:: I would not call them remarks.
16. 1956
Trans-Cana da Highway Act


Ralph Byron Horner: Call them what you wish, it is the truth I am saying.


John Horace Dickey: It is the truth that they are out of order.


Ralph Byron Horner: If being out of order means that I am to be prevented from stating that we are asking for an increase in the help given by the federal government in building the trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick, then I am out of order and I do not mind being out of order. If I cannot get up and speak on the subject, then I cannot get up and speak. Sometimes we wonder if this is a democracy at all.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I do not know just what prompted the last remark of the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Halifax did.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If it was directed to the Chair, I think I should point out to the hon. member at this time that it is the responsibility of the Chair to carry out the rules and practices of this house to the best of its ability. While the occupant of the chair may on occasion not be beyond critical observation, the Chair as such is not to be attacked from the floor of this institution.
Having said that, I am going to make my last request of the hon. member who has the floor and ask him to address his remarks to the resolution, which is fairly restrictive in scope and which deals with the financial contributions to be made to the trans-Canada highway. I am not concerned with the merit or truth of the arguments which the hon. member is bringing forward, if I may quote him, but I am concerned with their relevancy. I feel quite certain that the hon. member himself will be able to keep his remarks within the confines of this resolution, but if he is not able to do so I am afraid I shall have to ask him to discontinue.


Ralph Byron Horner: I regret very much to
have had my remarks taken in that way. I intended them for a few hon. gentlemen across the way. I have about concluded my remarks, in any event, in connection with the building of the trans-Canada highway. The building of that highway, especially in the maritime provinces, has certainly lagged behind the progress made in other parts of Canada. We are placed in an inferior position. We always have to take a back seat. We feel that the federal government should recognize this problem in the maritime provinces for what it is and sit down with the provincial governments and work out a modern, up to date schedule which will take care of the

Trans-Canada Highway Act transportation needs in the maritime provinces for many years to come.
Under the present arrangement it is quite evident for all to see, and it is generally the complaint we meet wherever we go, that no sooner will the trans-Canada highway be built than it will be obsolete, if it is not obsolete before it is completed. All we ask is that more realistic and bold initiative be taken by the federal government to make the trans-Canada highway a realization in fact as well as in discussion which has been going on for so many years.
In closing I wish to say that the people of New Brunswick and the maritime provinces generally feel in regard to the trans-Canada highway and in regard to everything else in the maritime provinces that we are consistently and continually being forced to accept an inferior position. We feel that there has been discrimination against the maritime provinces in connection with the trans-Canada highway. We feel that action should be taken now to make the trans-Canada highway, not only across central Canada but through the maritime provinces-sometimes I wonder if the maritimes are considered to be a part of Canada-a reality.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words this afternoon on this resolution because I have always found it hard to understand why Canada does not have a trans-Canada highway, and why Canada did not have such a highway many years ago. For those of us who live on the west coast there seems to be such great value in having a modern highway from coast to coast. By reason of the geography of the country most of our people, when they get into a car to go for a trip, go south to the state of Washington or Oregon or California, and very rarely think of driving east across the mountains. When they want to come east to visit relatives in Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes invariably, for as far back as I can remember, they have driven first to the United States border by the shortest route, driven across the United States and come back into Canada just as far to the east in the United States as possible.
The result, of course, is that all that business is going to the United States, all the contacts are with the towns and various centres of the United States, and they lose the opportunity of getting better acquainted with their fellow Canadians. That has been going on for decades.
Finally in 1949 the dominion government did adopt a policy which was designed to bring about the completion of a modern Trans-Canada highway from coast to coast.


That aroused a good deal of enthusiasm on the west coast. We were all very hopeful that it would result in Canadians of all parts of the country becoming better acquainted, in the building up of national unity, and also in helping our transportation problems. Those provinces, like the maritimes and the western provinces, which are farthest removed from the great centres of Canada have always been bothered by the great costs of transportation, as they are even up to the present time. I could never see why they should not have the benefit of motor transportation on a modern highway. There is no reason why goods should not be carried by trucks right across from one part of Canada to the other, even though it hurts the business of the railways. I think the people who live at the extremities are entitled to that service in just the same way as the people who live in Ontario and Quebec have the great benefits which result from the motor transportation services.
But this plan brought down in 1949 has not worked out as successfully as we all hoped it would. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that when the agreements were negotiated after this original act had become law, the dominion and each of the provinces that participated agreed that the highway would be constructed by the end of 1956. The minister intimated that when he spoke on Friday last. As recorded on page 2919 of Hansard he said:
The fact remains that they undertook by agreement with us to complete their portion of the highway by the end of the current calendar year.
One would have thought that the provinces would have taken some pains to comply with that agreement, but they have not done so. In the annual report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act up to March 31, 1955, which I believe is the latest report available, we find that although the dominion appropriated $150 million for assistance in the construction of this highway in 1949, at the end of March, 1955, the dominion share of the commitments-this was not expenditure but the total expenditure plus commitments-for the highway was only $89,548,291.87. That is not a great deal more than half the original $150 million, and it would be interesting if the parliamentary assistant, when he speaks, would bring that figure up to, say, March 31, 1956.


Maurice Bourget: It is $111 million.


Howard Charles Green: I understand the hon. member to say that the figure is now $111 million.


Maurice Bourget: That is the total commitment up to February 25 of this year.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to learn that the commitments have gone up by so much, but

even at that figure it means that there is still $40 million of the dominion share that has not been used by the provinces.


Maurice Bourget: It is not our fault.


Howard Charles Green: I agree that the dominion is not entirely at fault, and I am criticizing the provinces now for the failure to take more energetic steps to complete this highway. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to comment that in your own province of Ontario we find the longest gap in the highway. It is true that Ontario has by far the largest mileage of any province. I think it is 1,412 miles, which is over twice that of any other province. Of course Quebec is not included, because Quebec has not become a party under the act. I do not know how long the gap in northern Ontario is now, but the report from which I have been quoting indicates that on March 31, 1955, there was a gap of 162 miles. It does seem to me inexcusable that here in the largest and wealthiest province of Canada there should be the largest gap, where there is apparently no road of any kind.
The parliamentary assistant said a moment ago that the dominion was not at fault. The dominion is very much at fault in this regard, that it is responsible solely for the construction of the trans-Canada highway in our national parks. The same report shows that of the total of 83 miles of this highway which is in national parks, only 47 miles was paved. Just slightly over one-half of the road which is the sole responsibility of the dominion had been paved when there was only another year and nine months before the effectiveness of the act came to an end. It seems to me that the dominion would have been wise to set an example by completing the trans-Canada highway in the national parks rather than by dawdling in just the same way the provinces have been doing.
This whole scheme seems to have been bogged down under a blanket of inertia and indifference. Frankly I cannot understand why that has been the case, but the results indicate that something of that kind has been happening. The resolution indicates that the government proposes to extend the time from the end of 1956 to the end of 1960; to provide an additional $100 million, making the total the dominion government will have spent $250 million rather than $150 million, and finally to give an increased incentive to the provinces by this provision for paying 90 per cent of the cost of the gaps or of the roads of inferior standard up to a total of 10 per cent of the mileage in any particular province.
I doubt if these changes are sufficient to bring about the completion of the highway by
Trans-Canada Highway Act the end of 1960. I hope they will, but I am afraid the dominion is not going far enough, and that more vision is needed primarily on the part of the dominion and perhaps on the part of private members of the house, because the leadership on this question must come from Ottawa.
It seems to me that the dominion's plan is still one of helping the provinces until the road is completed and then dropping out of the picture. In other words, if the dominion's present proposals bring about what it is hoped they will, then at the end of 1960 the dominion government will vanish from the highway picture. The government seems to be accepting no responsibility whatever for essential improvements to the highway as time goes on. A highway today must be of a far better standard than a highway ten years ago, and a highway ten years from now will probably be just that much better and that much more expensive. The parliamentary assistant can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is no provision in the legislation for assistance from the dominion in keeping this highway up to modern standards.


Maurice Bourget: It will be the property of the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: That is just one reason why the provinces are not very keen about the plan, and why the whole plan is breaking down. The dominion should be interested in seeing that this highway is kept up to date. I believe personally that the dominion should also accept some responsibility for costs of maintenance of the highway. I said that during the debate in 1949, and I still believe that would be the proper course to follow.
Then the dominion seems to have no idea whatever of planning any national system of highways. It is only interested in this one trans-Canada highway. Today we hear a great deal about a pipe line across Canada. We are all persuaded that is of great importance to Canada's economy, and we are hoping something is going to be done about it and done quickly. Yet the attitude towards a highway across Canada seems to have absolutely no connection with the attitude toward a pipe line. If the government were as convinced that there should be a trans-Canada highway as it is that there should be a trans-Canada pipe line, then I suggest that the resolution being debated would be a great deal more far-reaching than the one which stands on the order paper at the present time. I do hope that even yet it is not too late for further consideration to be given to the plan which will eventually find its place in the statute books.
The government could well afford to offer a larger contribution to the provinces. Several
2966	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act hon. members who spoke earlier in the debate made that suggestion, and I agree that is one step which would facilitate completion of the highway. The government should also, as I mentioned earlier, make provision for keeping the highway up to date. Once a part has been completed, let the dominion accept some responsibility for seeing that that part will be maintained in the best modern condition.
I think there should also be the inclusion of roads into the north country. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories come under the jurisdiction of the dominion exclusively. They are now in the position that they will be needing roads to connect them with the older part of Canada. Because of the developments taking place in northern Canada, roads into the north are of the utmost importance, and certainly the dominion has a great responsibility with respect to such roads. I suggest that the plans should be extended to cover the key roads which will be serving northern Canada.
There has also been a suggestion that the main roads from the United States border should be in part the responsibility of the dominion. In years gone by that has been the case. I remember the dominion government helping in the thirties with the cost of highways leading from the United States border to national parks in British Columbia and Alberta. I think at that time the dominion paid half the cost of the road from Kingsgate in British Columbia to the boundary of the national park. Some plan of that type should be included under the legislation covering the trans-Canada highway project.
Finally I should like to say a word about the situation in British Columbia itself. We have an available road now and have had for quite a number of years. But, as the minister himself knows, because of the proposal to build a huge dam at Mica creek on the Big Bend a hundred miles or so of the present trans-Canada highway will be flooded, and the province and the dominion are faced with the responsibility of either rebuilding the road or finding another route.
There have been three proposals; one, to rebuild the road around Big Bend; another, to build a road paralleling the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway through Rogers pass and, third, to go down to the south through Kootenay national park, across the Selkirks by means of Jumbo pass and eventually back to Revelstoke again.
The minister seems to 'be taking the attitude that it is not his responsibility to have any part in deciding which of these routes is to be followed. I think he is wrong in that attitude. He should be very much concerned, because there is going to be a great deal of 

money involved. It is going to cost the dominion at least half the amount, perhaps more, and it really is the joint problem and responsibility of the dominion and the province. I hope that before the debate on the resolution is concluded either the minister or his assistant will assure the committee that the dominion is accepting some responsibility for helping to arrive at the best decision as to which of these three routes is to be followed, and that it is not just being left to the province to make that decision. The question is a very difficult one. It is very difficult for the province just as it is for the dominion. The province needs the help and advice of dominion engineers in trying to reach the decision which will be best for all concerned.
I am afraid that the whole trans-Canada highway problem is not being met, largely because of a lack of leadership here in Ottawa, and now that we have a chance to review the whole situation again I hope that much more aggressive steps will be taken than has been the case in the past to bring about the early completion of this project, which I am convinced will mean a great deal to Canadians from coast to coast.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate. The hon. member for Bow River seemed to think I had made certain interjections. In reality it was one of my more tranquil moments. He suggested that I rise and discuss the route of the trans-Canada highway.
I shall return to the hon. member in a moment. First I want to say that we all want the trans-Canada highway completed as soon as it is financially and physically possible. The only criticism I can see that should be directed at the federal government at this moment would be with respect to their responsibility for construction through the national parks. Admittedly the highway is not completed through the national parks. However, I am quite confident that ere the highway is completed throughout the provinces there will be a highway of first-class proportions through both Yoho national park and Banff national park.
Under the original legislation the federal government responsibility was to provide 50 per cent of the cost of the construction of the trans-Canada highway. So far the provincial governments have not made full use of that financial assistance. At this time the federal government is bringing in a resolution to provide for further assistance in the way of financing, a greater proportion of the cost being accepted by the federal government, namely 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the more costly sections. I see no reason for criticism

directed toward the department with respect to the financing of the highway.
The hon. member for Bow River pointed out that he had been in my riding attending a meeting which, to all intents and purposes, was to discuss a route through East Kootenay and through a portion of West Kootenay to Revelstoke. I am sure the hon. member did not attend any meetings in Edmonton when a decision was being made whether the trans-Canada highway should go through Banff or whether it should go through Yellowhead pass. He probably deemed it advisable at that point to mind his own business. The reason I am not discussing the route at this time is that I am perhaps one of those who would like to mind their own business.
When the agreement was drawn up a route was decided upon. In the report to which the hon. member referred this afternoon, namely "Report of Proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1955" there appears an appendix it is appendix B-which sets out the specifications. Apparently the provincial government now is not satisfied with those specifications and is endeavouring to find better bases for highways. I hope they will put them to good use in the sections of the highway that are not yet completed. In appendix A which is headed "Route of the Highway" we find the following:
ruUtC selected by the participating provinces
haS re.'relved federal government approval may be described generally as follows-
It goes through the country from Newfoundland to British Columbia, giving the routes that should be followed. For British Columbia we find the following:
From the west boundary of Yoho national park the trans-Canada highway route will follow British Columbia highway No. 1 around the Big Bend of the Columbia river from Golden to Revelstoke. and thence westward through Malakwa, Sicamous balmon Arm and Kamloops following the South Thompson river to Lytton and then the Fraser river canyon and valley route to New Westminster a?d^TVarlcouver- ASain, commencing in the city of Nanaimo on Vancouver island, the route proceeds southward along British Columbia highway No. 1, to reach the city of Victoria, the western terminus of the trans-Canada highway
Then at the end of the appendix there is a further paragraph which reads as follows: In all of the foregoing, where the location of the route is not described in complete detail, the route shall follow the shortest, practical distances successively between the places mentioned. The route may follow the shortest practical diversion around any place mentioned.
I understand that should the provincial governments wish to abandon any of the proposed routes and adopt another route, they should make their wishes known to the
Trans-Canada Highway Act federal authority. It is all very well to say that they need assistance to determine where the route should go, but it is my opinion that the engineering staff of the provincial government department of highways or department of public works, as the case may be, which has the final responsibility for building lateral highways and connecting highways, are in a much better position to determine where the route should go. Once the decision has been made, it is my opinion that when they find some political pressure coming upon them they should not endeavour to throw the blame, if any, on the federal government for one certain area having been overlooked or circumvented. So much for the route.
The hon. member for Bow River has found it necessary to come into the riding of East Kootenay also and to find some defects in the construction of the highway. He had reference to what is known as Kicking Horse bridge No. 1. It appears that test borings were not taken when the bridge was constructed at the confluence of the Kicking Horse river and the Beaver river. While these test borings had not been taken and the bridge showed some defects, it was repaired and the repair which took place on it was work which simply would have been done had the borings been made and had the engineers found the subsurface to be such as it was. The extra cost of the repairs having to be done, or the piling having to be driven after the construction of the bridge, amounted to some $2,000, the over-all reconstruction cost amounting to $54,000.
The hon. gentleman did not go far enough west to go into full detail or he might have found some engineering defects in another part of the highway. The section to which I refer is the part at Park bridge. As we all understand, the engineering and the construction of the highway is the responsibility of the provincial governments, the federal government providing its 50 per cent share. At this particular bridge abutments were placed and certain excavations were continued. Then, of course, there was further construction on that portion of the road leading from the bridge. A landslide took place, and perhaps that could have been avoided if proper engineering data had been available. The over-all cost of making these repairs amounted to $190,000 for removal of the slide and $41,000 for replacement of the abutment to the bridge, a total of $231,000.
I am just mentioning this, and I am not blaming anyone. I can assure the hon. member that if he wants to go from place to place along the highway or look over any construction job, he will find that difficulties arise.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
Certainly very grave difficulties arise when one is constructing a highway through sections of British Columbia where the road runs along the side of a mountain. I do not think anyone should be blamed. I feel it ill behooves the hon. member to bring up this question. He was also concerned because the federal government had not completed its section of the highway through the parks. It just occurred to me that during the period construction has been authorized, the federal government has built a highway from Coleman to Banff for the province of Alberta. This is the eastern slope forest conservation highway, which cost in the neighbourhood of $10 million. The responsibility for this highway really lay with the provincial government, but because of the federal government's desire to help the provinces conserve their forests and their resources, the federal government built this highway. I am sure if there had been any indication that there would be a through connection from Calgary to Vancouver within a year or two, the highway would have been completed. I can assure you also that with the $11 million being spent this year in Banff and Yoho parks, the trans-Canada highway through those parks will be finished long before the provincial sections are completed.


Mr. Regier:: I have listened with considerable interest, Mr. Chairman, to the list of engineering errors as they were put on the record by the hon. member for Kootenay East. I am sure he must have been in Ottawa a little too long, because in British Columbia we now have a minister of highways who looks over the highways every week end. He has several planes at his disposal. I am sure the hon. member must have obtained his information from some unreliable source, because with one minister flying aeroplanes to look over our highways, I am sure such a grave error could not occur.
However, speaking more seriously-although I do not want to intimate that these plane rides are not a serious matter to the people of British Columbia-I think the manner in which we are asked to deal with this resolution is typical of the progress on the trans-Canada highway. Today is April 16, 1956, yet the latest annual report available on the trans-Canada highway deals with the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955. I am sure that if the minister or his advisors had intended us to have a serious or intelligent discussion of this resolution, the members of the house could have been supplied with more up-to-date information.
I find another thing to criticize in this report. That is, I fail to see amongst the


numerous detailed tables here any information on exactly how many miles of highway are yet to be completed in each of the provinces. I see that table I tells us how much paved mileage each of the provinces had on the designated route at the time of the signing of the agreement. Then I find further tables showing how many miles were paved last year, and also how many miles have been paved since December 10, 1949. However, nowhere do 1 find a table indicating to members how many miles of road each of the provinces has yet to complete, and this was back in March, 1955. I feel that for members to properly assess the situation, since one summer of building has gone by, we ought to have been supplied with this information before we were asked to undertake a discussion of this resolution.
Unlike the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska I feel that coming from British Columbia I cannot plead that our province is such a poor province it can do nothing about building the trans-Canada highway. However, highway building costs in British Columbia are very high. In places they run well over a million dollars a mile. I was therefore rather pleased to read in a newspaper some time ago that the federal government was offering a new formula and, as I understood, were going to assume 90 per cent of the cost of any 10 per cent of the mileage in that province. I believe when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra spoke he said 10 per cent of the remaining portion of the highway. I do not think he meant to say that, but if I am in error I hope the minister will correct me very shortly. I understand it is 10 per cent of any section of the highway on the designated route within the province, and not 10 per cent of the remaining unbuilt portion of the highway in any given province. The interpretation of this provision makes a great deal of difference in our province. I am willing to give the minister the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is going to ask for authority to pay 90 per cent of the most expensive 10 per cent of the 600 miles we have in this national undertaking.
I feel that the publicity released at the time the change was announced was somewhat misleading. A number of people have asked me if the federal government is going to pay 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway. Most of the publicity concentrated on the 90 per cent, but if you read the fine print you found the federal government was making no such offer at all.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before the house rose at six o'clock I was saying, in relation to the ability of the provincial governments to pay their fair share of the cost of the trans-Canada highway, that it was a matter of some concern to the people of British Columbia that their local minister of highways charged to the expense of highways his weekly visit to attend to some parish pump matters in his home riding.
I was saying, too, I regretted that the report of the trans-Canada highway is a year later than was necessary, and that its lateness blocks us from being informed of what has happened on this subject over the past year. I also feel that the report itself could have been more adequate, and that information concerning what remains to be done is missing.
I regretted also that the publicity given the whole matter of the trans-Canada highway project within recent months has led many Canadians to believe that henceforth the federal government will be paying 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway, whereas in effect it will be paying only 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage in any one province, and only 50 per cent of the remainder. I made mention of the fact that I came from one of the wealthier provinces of Canada and that we therefore could not plead the poverty which some of the provinces might rightfully be pleading at this time.
I would like now to proceed to point out that despite the fact that we are one of the wealthier parts of Canada, even the Social Credit government in British Columbia is unable to find as much money for highway building as it thought before its election it would be able to find. I am referring to a pamphlet issued May 28, 1952, called the Canadian Social Credjter. This pamphlet was, I think, largely responsible for their winning the election at that time. Under public works it says they will carry out all capital expansion on a-and this is in quotation marks-pay as we go basis. The sentence continues:
. . . priorities being determined by long-range planning and assessment of need.
Underneath that paragraph it says:
Roads should lead to progress-not to bankruptcy.
Even that government has found, after several years in office, that highways are mighty expensive projects these days. They had to invent what they call the toll bridge and road authority. They found they could not allocate enough out of their current
Trans-Canada Highway Act revenues to pay for all the necessary roads and bridges in the province. I therefore imagine they will very much welcome any relief the minister offers to the provincial governments in this resolution.
I feel that it is the responsibility of the federal government to assume a larger share of the cost of this national highway. It is in the national interest to tie this country more closely together from east to west. I would like to say again what I said in this house several years ago. The federal government should assume the responsibility for the building and maintenance of all highways that run east and west from one province into another, and for all highways that run north and south over the international border. I feel that it is in the national interest for it to do so. I do not think there is anything in the British North America Act that would block its efforts to assume complete responsibility for all interprovincial or international roads. If it did so the provincial governments would be enabled to assume the responsibility for all secondary highways, thus relieving the municipal governments of secondary highways and enabling the municipal governments to more ably look after market roads and access highways.
I noticed that the parliamentary assistant to the minister interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra this afternoon and informed him that the commitments of the federal government no longer are what they were said to be in its annual report. In other words the federal government's commitments amount to $111 million instead of $89 million. That is an increase or growth in one year of federal commitments by the sum of approximately $22 million.
Despite this fact, the minister when talking on his estimates the other day said he had put into his estimates for the year ahead the sum of $20 million, even less than what was added to the commitments of the federal government in the year just past. He also said he would be happy to know that the provincial governments would make him use that full amount. He said he would be very happy to think he might be able to increase it. The fact that his $20 million is less than the $22 million growth in federal commitments last year reveals to us that even with the amendments it is now planning to offer, the federal government is not expecting any miracles or any rapid advance in the development of the trans-Canada highway. If he thought his amendment would have any real effect, I think the minister would have provided for a much larger sum in his estimates this year.
2970	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
At this time I would like to mention the alternate route of the trans-Canada highway in western Canada. We feel that the trans-Canada highway, when looked at on a map, should have somewhat the shape of the letter "Y" with the ends closed. In other words we feel that in Winnipeg there should be an alternate route. Not only should Vancouver be connected to Winnipeg through the southern portions of Canada where the greatest population is in the four western provinces; we also feel that from Winnipeg there should be a branch of the trans-Canada highway going northwestward through Saskatoon, Edmonton, and the Yellowhead pass and coming down either through the Fraser canyon or Pemberton Meadows, and up around Garibaldi park through North Vancouver and to our major city there. We feel the population out west is so widely scattered that one highway is not sufficient to meet the national needs of that major section of Canada. We also feel that the northern route is badly needed for the development of Canada's northland.
I believe that the federal government would be money ahead in the long run if it assumed at least 50 per cent of the cost of that northern route, because the industrial development of the northern sections of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan would add a tremendous amount of revenue to the income of the federal Minister of Finance. I feel therefore that in its own selfish interests, if not in the national interests, the government should agree that the Minister of Public Works obtain permission to complete a double trans-Canada highway at least as far east as Winnipeg.
Last fall it was my good fortune to be able to attend for a day a course which was put on by the civil defence people in Burnaby. I noticed that one of the major points in the educational endeavours of civil defence organizations in Canada is the evacuation of major Canadian centres of population. I submit it is an absolute waste of money for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to be advocating evacuation through the civil defence branch if at the same time the Minister of Public Works assumes no responsibility as to ways and means-"ways" is a very proper word to use-of evacuating these people. It is absolutely ridiculous to speak of the evacuation of the people of Vancouver and Burnaby unless we build some major highways and some major bridges out of that city. Not so long ago the government was asked to pay a portion of the cost of the Marpole bridge, and I am afraid they were-


Robert Henry Winters: May I rise on a point of order. Surely this is getting further afield than anything contemplated by the resolution before the committee.


Erhart Regier: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, by means of this resolution the minister is asking us to approve a large expenditure by the federal government for the trans-Canada highway, and we are saying that this resolution is not nearly adequate; that it should cover not only a second trans-Canada highway through western Canada but also provide authority to pay the cost of constructing major highways out of our cities, and by major highways I would-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erhart Regier: -include bridges so that our people will have the means of getting out of our cities.


Robert Henry Winters: May I please have a ruling on the point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will agree that the minister's point of order is well taken. This is a resolution which is quite confined in its scope, and the hon. member will recall that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. Therefore I ask the hon. member to return to a discussion of the trans-Canada highway.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I noted that the minister felt rather keenly that I was getting away from the resolution. Let me make this offer to the minister. Let him assume 100 per cent of the cost of this highway. That would then enable our local governments to proceed with the other bridge and road building that I have been talking about. I noticed this afternoon that the hon. member for Bow River advised the minister that larger highways out of our cities were needed, and he advocated four-lane highways out of such cities as Calgary.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Airways or highways?


Erhart Regier: It is only our "socred" minister of highways who does not know anything about highways because he flies. If a city such as Calgary requires a four-lane highway leading out of it, the minister will realize what kind of a highway is needed leading out of Vancouver.
Apparently this government feels that it must assume responsibility only when the force of circumstances is such and public opinion is so thoroughly aroused that for the sake of re-election they cannot do otherwise than introduce some measure of progressive thought. They have no national

feeling whatsoever except as it affects their own political future, their re-election in 1957.
This year the people of British Columbia are spending almost $80 million on highways and bridges, which is one-third of the income of our government; yet this government feel that all they have to do is offer to pay 90 per cent of 10 per cent. They believe that if they can get the newspapers to publish in heavy black type that they are paying 90 per cent, and then have the 10 per cent in fine type, hidden somewhere on page 7, then the people of British Columbia will think the federal Liberal government is a good government. They will think no such thing.
We have our own opinion of the actions of the premier of British Columbia in introducing this medieval custom of toll bridges and toll roads, but when we come to deal with federal Liberals-


William Alfred Robinson: Surely the hon. member will agree that he is very far from the resolution before the committee. I must ask him and other hon. members to confine their discussion to the trans-Canada highway.


Erhart Regier: The niggardliness of this
government in regard to the trans-Canada highway will not be hidden by the sins of omission or commission of our provincial premier. All I can say is that for their niggardliness I hope they will sink next year in some of the swamps where they should have built a major highway for the Canadian people.


Mr.   Palierson@: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the introduction of this particular resolution dealing with amendments to the Trans-Canada Highway Act. We have listened today to a number of speeches, some of which have been constructive and responsible and other more recent ones which have been destructive and irresponsible.


Hazen Robert Argue: Here we get one more of that kind.


An hon. Member:: What is this coming up?


Mr. Patterson:: If that is so then it fits in with the C.C.F'ers. This afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay East criticized the hon. member for Bow River for referring to some proven facts relative to a certain bridge in the national park in Alberta. He countered with some speculations regarding another construction job on the provincial part of the nighway. The hon. member said that perhaps if the engineers' survey had been carried out as it should this might not have happened.
Then with respect to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I can only say that I was rather surprised at the sneak attack he launched. The New Westminster 67509-188
Trans-Canada Highway Act paper which I have in my hand refers to a particular meeting at which the minister of highways for British Columbia spoke relative to the unfounded charges which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has reiterated just now. After stating his position and refuting the charges he said that until someone suggested a quicker method of travel than flying he would continue to fly. He was not challenged at the conclusion of that meeting with even one question. Among those attending that meeting were some of his strongest critics with respect to this particular matter to which reference has been made in this last speech.
So I would suggest, in view of the fact that the British Columbia government is anticipating a $1 billion expenditure for highways in the next ten years, they certainly should be commended rather than criticized in this particular manner. Perhaps I should say, Mr. Chairman, even in politics let us be a little fair and not try to substitute fantasy for facts.
We have been speaking about the importance of highway construction, and it is supposed to be with reference to this one major construction project, the trans-Canada highway. I realize and we all realize the importance of highway construction in this great country of ours. This has been indicated by many of the members who have participated in the debate, but I think there are several reasons why this matter of the trans-Canada highway is of vital importance.
I think it is important so that Canadians may see Canada. I venture the suggestion that a great majority of Canadians travelling from the west to the east or from the east to the west make detours through the United States rather than try to cross Canada on the highway we have at the present time. We may talk as we like about our great nation, and we may try to promote national pride, but certainly we would have to have a great deal of national pride to try to travel over Canadian highways if we were in a hurry to get from one part of the country to the other. So I would say that for Canadians to see Canada, and not for Canadians to see the United States particularly, I helieve the construction and completion of the trans-Canada highway is of vital importance.
I believe also that it is important as far as the tourist traffic is concerned. I understand that in 1954 the value of tourist traffic to Canada was in the neighbourhood of $302 million. I believe that would be substantially increased if we had highways in Canada that the Americans would consider even on a par with those they have south of the border. May I say I have travelled on some

Trans-Canada Highway Act roads south of the border that are not too good, but even at that they are considerably better than our Canadian highways.
Also in connection with the development of our economy, and for purposes of national defence, I believe it is important that this project be brought to completion at the earliest possible moment. There is another reason, I believe, why it should be proceeded with, and not only the one highway but other highway construction projects as well. That is because of the contribution such projects make to optimum employment. We think of all the other trades, we think of all the other industries that provide the essential materials for highway construction, bridge building and so on, and also machinery. I am sure it would mean a great deal as far as the employment picture is concerned.
So I would suggest that these considerations warrant federal participation not only in the trans-Canada highway but in several east-west highways, especially in the west, as well as other arterial highways designed to provide an adequate road system throughout the entire nation. Reference has been made to the Yellowhead route, possibly branching out from Winnipeg or Portage la Prairie, going up through Minnedosa and Saskatoon and through to Edmonton and to the coast by that central route. Certainly I think they have a very fine argument for the construction of that section of a highway system.
I have stated that federal participation certainly is warranted in all these developments. I should like to refer to the submission of the government of the province of British Columbia to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. On page 26 we read:
British Columbia submits that highways which serve to develop the country and thereby add to the gross national product are now matters of national concern and should be financed jointly by the federal and provincial governments; that participation by the federal government should not be confined to the trans-Canada highway but should also be extended to an approved main trunk highway development program in the provinces; that federal participation should be based on a formula which will make allowance for topographical and other conditions which contribute to higher construction and maintenance costs and to a larger road mileage; and that the Trans-Canada Highway Act be amended to provide for a retroactive increase in the federal share of the costs based upon the said cost differential.
I should like to refer as well to the brief presented by the Canadian Automobile Association. I realize the desire to get this resolution passed and I do not want to occupy too much time in this particular debate, but I should like to refer to this brief concerning

Canadian highways presented to Hon. R. H. Winters, Minister of Public Works, by the Canadian Automobile Association. On page 1 in the second paragraph, it states:
The association believes that the federal government is not fulfilling its obligations to the car owners of Canada. The federal government collects through taxation from car owners millions of dollars every year. The return to motorists in roads and improved highways is only a small fraction of the amount collected. The Canadian motorist is awakening to the fact that he is the most heavily taxed individual in Canada. This burden he has long borne without complaining. He is now asking why Canadian highways are so far below present-day needs when taxes are so high.
It also goes on to give a number of precedents, setting forth other fields in which the federal government has made substantial contributions. Then with respect to the tax collected by the federal government we find on page 3:
We would like to mention here that in the first seven months of this year the federal government collected from the automobile industry in sales and excise tax the sum of $116 million, while federal participation in the national highway program is only $15,750,000 for the same period.
This brief goes on to make certain requests of the federal government which I believe are worthy of consideration. On page 7 it states:
The Canadian Automobile Association therefore asks the federal government to;
1.	Assume more responsibility and leadership in developing a highway program.
2.	Instigate an entirely new highway financing policy by: (a) Completing the trans-Canada highway. (b) Contributing 50 per cent to all arterial highways, (c) Assuming one-third the cost of access roads to urban centres.
Respecting my own province, I think it is readily agreed that in British Columbia we have an exceptionally high cost for highway construction. 1 believe it has already been pointed out in the debate that in certain sections of British Columbia the construction of a trans-Canada highway costs approximately $1 million per mile. Certainly that is a tremendous amount, but it just indicates the difficulties they face in the construction of this highway in the province of British Columbia. It is estimated, I believe, that highway construction there costs twice as much as the average cost across Canada, and several times the cost of construction in the prairie provinces.
I should like to refer to the resolution and point out several inadequacies which are obvious. First of all, it refers to the payment of up to 90 per cent of the cost on 10 per cent of the highway. This particular point was referred to by several speakers this afternoon, and I do not think it has been clarified yet by the minister as to what 10 per cent is involved. The point I should like to have

clarified is this. Is the federal government going to choose the 10 per cent upon which it is going to pay 90 per cent, or is the provincial government going to be allowed to make the choice?
I should like to refer to a news article that appeared in the press some time ago, dated November 15, 1955. It contains this brief statement:
But there's a catch. Ottawa will reserve the right to select the 69 miles-
This is in the province of British Columbia, -on which it will boost its share.


An hon. Member:: What paper?


Alexander Bell Patterson: This is the Province. I do not know whether or not that is right, but I should like the minister to clarify whether it is going to be the federal or the provincial government that will make the choice of the 10 per cent of the mileage with respect to which 90 per cent of the cost will be borne by the federal government. Personally I feel that 10 per cent is not adequate. I believe it should be considerably more than that. In fact I would go along with the suggestion that the federal government should pay at least 90 per cent or even 100 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway.
I believe also that the highway now under construction is not going to be adequate to meet the needs of even the immediate future. It would seem to me quite reasonable to suggest that in certain sections a four-lane highway should be constructed at the present time, and that throughout the entire length provision be made so that in the future two more lanes can be added to make it a four-lane highway right across Canada.
I feel very strongly that the suggestion regarding a trans-Canada highway system should also be given thorough consideration. I am not going to refer to the location of the highways that would make up such a system, but certainly I believe that one highway is not adequate to meet the needs and demands of the Canadian people or the Canadian economy at the present time.
The government has not seen fit to bring in further proposals, and in my opinion those before us at the present time are inadequate. I believe the entire system of financing could be on a better basis, and I certainly urge the government to adopt policies which will enable parliament to use the national credit to provide and finance these services which are so essential to the Canadian people.


Mr. Mang:: 
An hon. Member:: By the Saskatchewan government.


Henry Philip Mang: -with the co-operation of the Saskatchewan government and the assistance of the federal government, without which the Saskatchewan government could not have built the highway. That portion of the highway is completed; therefore I have no particular criticism to make. However, I should like to point out one thing. In listening to the discussion of the resolution this afternoon, I was very much interested in what members from various sections of the house had to-offer by way of suggestions to the government on this particular matter. I think all members will appreciate that we have had an across the board assessment of the highway problem of Canada.
The highway problem of Canada is much akin to very many other problems that we who live north of the 49th parallel must face. From time to time many comparisons have been made of the Canadian economy and the economy south of the 49th parallel. Comparisons have been made of the grain marketing problems on one side of the parallel compared with the problems on the other side. I submit that our highway problem has also been compared with that of the nation to the south of us, from the point of view of what it is doing and what we north of the 49th parallel are doing.
I have emphasized before that geographically and climatically we north of the 49th parallel are in a different position from our friends to the south. The same thing is true of highway construction. As I said at the outset, I have no complaint to make. The part of the highway running through my constituency is completed, and I think Saskatchewan leads all of Canada in mileage completed. But that again is because of the geographical conditions and the terrain of Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: And the fact they built the road.


Henry Philip Mang: As pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, it is much cheaper to build the highway on the prairies than in certain other parts of this 4,600-mile route, and that must be borne in mind. We are progressing quite well, I believe, and the Minister of Public Works as an engineer recognizes the geographical, climatic and financial difficulties the federal government would face in assuming the full cost of the trans-Canada highway.
2974	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
The view has been expressed on both sides of the house, and I agree with it wholeheartedly, that the nation as a whole, the taxpayers as a whole, Canada as a whole, should assume the cost of the transcontinental highway. I agree with that statement but I would point out one thing that has not been referred to yet. Any government of Canada, whether it is this government which is in power now or any government of the future, will have to receive a mandate from the taxpayers of Canada before adopting a policy of total assumption by the government of Canada of responsibility for the building of a trans-Canada highway.
I am very happy to hear from all sides of the house that there is general agreement that there should be an assumption on the part of the people of Canada of responsibility for the construction of a highway across Canada. I feel quite sure that when again the people are asked for a mandate as to the policies that are to govern this nation, they will probably be asked whether they are in favour of having the people of Canada, through their government, assume responsibility for a trans-Canada highway; and I shall do whatever I can to see to it that this is one of the things the people are going to decide upon at the next federal election.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words in connection with the trans-Canada highway. After listening to the hon. member who spoke last and the sentiments he expressed, I am confident that he probably has the right idea when he suggests that the trans-Canada highway should be in full charge of the federal government. They should have full responsibility for both its construction and upkeep. In that way, and in that way only, can we get the trans-Canada highway through in a decent time. However,
I was shocked today to hear that only 35 per cent of the trans-Canada highway has been built to date. I was really shocked, because I had hoped that at least 75 per cent of it would have been finished to date. We have not had a progress report, so we did not know.
However, I would point out that British Columbia is away ahead of 35 per cent. As the hon. member who spoke last has pointed out, some of our roads were constructed at the cost of $1 million a mile. If that is the case, there is something lacking in the way of idealism in connection with the trans-Canada highway. I blame that on government policy. They have not enthused the various provinces with what is possible with a trans-Canada highway in the way of the great growth of commerce between the various provinces. [DOT]	*


We in British Columbia stand to gain, I admit, if we have one decent road running east and west whereby we could transport our fruit and vegetables without, as at the present time, damaging them more than the cost of the trip from the Okanagan valley, for instance, to the prairies. When we have a decent road I am satisfied that we shall do much better with regard to our prairie market.
As someone suggested this afternoon, I often wondered whether the railway companies are not interested in holding back the trans-Canada highway. I am not going to suggest that that is so. However, another hon. member did so. I remember that, 30 years ago when we wrere trying to get the Hope-Princeton road built from the Okanagan valley to Vancouver, the railway companies were much opposed to it. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company particularly took steps to oppose that particular highway, and it was only after pushing them aside and getting them more or less in agreement that the road was built. However, they offered opposition for a long time. I am afraid there, is something in what the hon. member said this afternoon when he suggested that some influence is at work in preventing construction of the trans-Canada highway.
I would also suggest that in these modern days a two-lane highway is not satisfactory. I think in British Columbia you will find that everywhere possible we shall have a four-lane highway. I would suggest that with the added cost, the federal government should be prepared to increase its offer to the provinces in order to bring the standard highway up to four lanes.
What I particularly want to mention is the fact that we in British Columbia have a slightly different problem, probably, from that in the other provinces. We have east to west roads going through narrow ravines and valleys. In British Columbia we have a situation not paralleled in the rest of the provinces. I refer to the Fraser canyon. We have spent $2 billion a year preparing for the defence of Canada. We have spent it and no one has grumbled. But I often wonder whether we are not foolish in our policy of defence or whether we have grasped the significance of the bottleneck in the Fraser canyon. We have the main trans-Canada C.P.R. line going through there and we have the main trans-Canada Canadian National line going through about a couple of hundred yards away; in places they cross each other. In the same canyon within a few feet of the railway is the trans-Canada highway. One well-placed bomb would destroy the whole

communication system from Vancouver into the interior through the Fraser canyon.
For that reason I am going to suggest to the government that they advance the same assistance to the southern trans-Canada highway as they are advancing to the Fraser canyon highway. I think this southern highway would be cheaper. It would be an alternate route, and at no time would Vancouver or the coast be cut off from the interior. In order to get a trans-Canada highway that is feasible all the year round, under war conditions, peace conditions or any other conditions, I think there must be two highways in our province.
I seriously suggest that the minister consider the southern trans-Canada highway. A great deal of work has already been done. There is perhaps just one small portion as to which we would have to negotiate with our United States friends in order to pass through their territory. In the meantime, lacking this trans-Canada highway, our people are traversing, east and west and north and south, mostly United States roads. That is possibly one of the reasons we are influenced today to such a great extent by United States thought and United States capital. It cannot be helped. We are getting closer and closer to them each day through having to pass through their country, stay in their towns and deal with stores in their towns. Obviously we are getting closer.
On the other hand, if you want to go from British Columbia to visit Regina, Calgary or Edmonton you may possibly go through the dust during the summer time, if you like dust. Otherwise you do not think of driving to those places. I would therefore urge the minister to take steps immediately to give a little bit of leadership with regard to this trans-Canada highway, show a little bit of enthusiasm and give a little bit more money and encouragement to the provinces to carry out the project as quickly as possible, before we find it is too late.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one brief word on this matter. I have often spoken about what I consider to be the inferiority complex of Canadians. I do not know why it is, but for some reason we do not seem to appreciate our own greatness. When I say "our own greatness" I am not talking about our greatness as personalities; I am talking about the greatness of this vast country and what it may become.
I think this government has always been shortsighted in this matter of highways. I think we have not had enough federal aid to the provinces in the matter of roads. We have heard here today of what the great government to the south of us has done. There is
Trans-Canada Highway Act now no major road in the United States in which the federal government of the United States has not a financial interest. Who can say that this fact has not been for the benefit of that great country?
I should like to say something about a federal system of highways in connection with the matter of the promotion of national unity. I would suggest to you that back in 1867 when the question of building the Canadian Pacific Railway was being mooted, one of the great arguments in favour of that scheme was that it would join together Canadians, of whatever racial origin, from one end of this country to the other. I believe the building of the railroad had a tremendous influence in that direction. I am going to ask you, sir, if in these days the existence of a road across Canada, which would make every part of Canada available to every Canadian, would not be a great thing for the promotion of Canadian unity.
If a man in the province of Quebec, for instance, knew that in two or three days by the use of his automobile he could reach Manitoba or Saskatchewan and meet his fellow Canadians there, would that not be a great thing for the promotion of Canadian unity, which I am sure all of us desire? When I say there might be more travel from the east to the west, I have in mind of course that there would be more travel from the west to the east as well, because we in the west need to understand our eastern friends in Quebec or the maritimes, just as our eastern friends need to understand the people in the west.
There is one thing I should like to mention, and that is that I feel we need not one trans-Canada highway but two, and particularly from Winnipeg west. If you look at the geography of that country you can understand why. I can see why, at the present stage of development, one might argue that one Canadian highway would be sufficient across those rocks from Ottawa to Winnipeg, but when you get to Winnipeg and beyond to those vast agricultural plains the trend is already shown by the railroads. We have Winnipeg which is a sort of bottleneck through which everything must go. Then we have the two great national railway lines, one going across the southern part of the country and one striking northwest and going up to the northern part of the country, and both of them ultimately meeting at Vancouver.
If you look at Trans-Canada Air Lines you find exactly the same situation. You do not find simply a single trans-Canada air line following the main line of the Canadian Pacific, but you find another one following the line of the Canadian National Railways up through

Trans-Canada Highway Act Saskatoon and Edmonton. My belief is that a trans-Canada highway up through Saskatoon, Edmonton and the Yellowhead pass is just as important as a trans-Canada highway in the place where it is now located. I think it is something of a disgrace that this country, which was unified in 1867, has not as yet a road over which a Canadian from eastern Canada can reach the west coast while remaining in his own country.
There is a question also of the tourist trade, which is one of our greatest assets. If one begins to do some research into the tourist trade one finds that there is a considerable imbalance in favour of the United States. We find that Canadians are annually spending more in the United States than United States tourists are spending in our country. I would suggest that one might ponder the reason for that. I may be wrong, but in my opinion the greatest reason is simply that the United States has better roads. We Canadians know that when we cross the border into the United States our difficulties cease so far as automobile travel is concerned. I am convinced that if we had better roads we would be able to eliminate that imbalance and reach a state of equality in attracting tourists. Those of us who live in this country often meet United States tourists, and when we ask them if they are going here or there they say they will not take the risk because they have no confidence in our roads.
For these reasons, then, sir, I would urge upon this government that it take more responsibility in creating throughout this country roads under complete federal jurisdiction, or give assistance to the provinces in completing roads which may be considered as passable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant is going to reply to some of the points we have put forward?


Maurice Bourget: I did not prepare any notes with which to answer all the criticisms that were made on this resolution because I thought every member in this house would approve of it. As hon. members know, this resolution is only seeking authority to introduce a bill. All kinds of information will be available when the bill is up for second reading.
I want to be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because I think all the criticisms I have heard since this resolution was introduced were mainly directed to the part this government has been playing since the introduction of the trans-Canada highway scheme in 1949. There is one thing that has been said upon which I agree with all hon. members, and this has been said on many occasions when bills were


introduced in this house. It is that the government is heading in the right direction. I agree entirely with that. However, there was one criticism made by some hon. members that I cannot accept. It was stated that the fact that no better progress had been made toward the completion of this highway resulted from the appropriation of too little money in 1949. Well, Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts, and I suppose the facts speak for themselves.
Hon. members will recall that in 1949 we authorized $150 million. Up to February 25 of this year the total federal commitment amounted to $111 million, which means that out of the $150 million we authorized at that time there is $39 million still in the treasury of which the provinces' can take advantage. I do not think hon. members are fair when they say that if no better progress was made it was due to the fact we did not appropriate enough money.
Another criticism which was made, and which is generally made under similar circumstances, was that we were not doing enough. Well, Mr. Chairman, we of course do appreciate the demands that are made upon provincial treasuries, but we also cannot lose sight of the fact that heavy demands are made upon the federal government for national defence and for social security measures. We frequently hear demands to increase social security measures such as family allowances, old age pensions and the pensions of superannuated civil servants. If we are going to meet all the requests that are made by hon. members of the opposition we certainly will have to find new sources of revenue. We will have to be practical and increase taxes. We must not lose sight of that fact.
I simply cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, how hon. members can get up in this house and repeatedly ask for more money and in the same week accuse us of taxing the people of Canada too heavily. We will probably hear that accusation tomorrow when we resume the debate on the budget. Hon. members opposite will say that the people of Canada are too heavily taxed.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: I think I am quite in order, Mr. Chairman, because after all we have been discussing this resolution for at least five or six hours and we have heard many hon. members tell us that we are not doing enough.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


Maurice Bourget: My hon. friends accuse us of not doing enough. If the hon. member who

just interjected will go back to 1930 and read Hansard of that date he will perhaps-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will go back to 1912 and 1913 when the Conservative government introduced such legislation and your party defeated it in the Senate.


Maurice Bourget: We remember the campaign of 1930, when the Conservative party sent its leaders and candidates across the country promising the people that they would build the trans-Canada highway-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And your party defeated it in the Senate.


Maurice Bourget: Well, the Liberal government has already begun it. Let the hon. member look at the record-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have.


Maurice Bourget: You cannot compare what we are doing today with the program that has been offered by the Conservative party-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are fifty years too late.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Kamloops spoke this afternoon I did not interrupt him-


George James McIlraith: You are more courteous than he is.


Maurice Bourget: And I do not think I have ever interrupted any hon. member in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I was not as provocative as you are.


Maurice Bourget: I think this government, Mr. Chairman, is doing its utmost to see that the trans-Canada highway will be completed in time. I might say that we are very generous when one considers that in Canada highways are primarily under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. On that point I must say that I find it strange when I hear some hon. members asking not only for a trans-Canada highway from east to west but also asking for roads from north to south, which certainly are under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
We have often been criticized in this house for trying to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the provinces. The Minister of Transport who at one time sat in the provincial house in Quebec surely remembers how many times we have been criticized for trying to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the provinces. I think we should be commended for the effort we are making in dealing with matters that concern the provinces.
Some hon. members expressed the fear that the roads located in the national parks would not be completed on time. I can assure
Trans-Canada Highway Act them that the program we have set for this year and next year will ensure that 90 or 95 per cent of the road will be graded by the fall of 1957-


An hon. Member:: That will be election year, will it not?


Maurice Bourget: -and we are sure that by
1959	at the latest those parts of the road located in national parks will have been paved from one end to the other.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this government is doing its share in endeavouring to complete this highway from one end of Canada to the other. I hope that with fewer speeches from the opposition and more action, and in collaboration with the provinces, we will be able by
1960	to enjoy a nice ride on the trans-Canada highway from Newfoundland to Victoria.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if I was inconsiderate in interrupting the hon. member, I apologize.


An hon. Member:: You should.


An hon. Member:: Now you will be torn apart.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree that he did not interrupt me while I was speaking this afternoon, but as I pointed out while he was speaking I was perhaps not as provocative in my remarks as was the hon. member.
In the speech the hon. gentleman has just delivered he has rehearsed and presented to us more fully than any of us could have asked for, all the reasons why this government should be criticized with respect to its trans-Canada highway policy. Since this session began I have not heard such a completely negative approach as that just outlined by the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: You are an expert at it, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman says with fewer speeches and more action he may hope that we will all be able to ride on the trans-Canada highway from Newfoundland to Victoria. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know which we are getting less of, whether it be less speeches or less action, but I do know we are getting no action whatsoever from this government; and if speeches from this side of the house can goad, prod and drive this government into action, then every speech will have been fully justified. At the present time we are not getting any action. We are not going to have a trans-Canada highway by 1960 as this resolution calls for because this government does not have a sensible, progressive, far-reaching trans-Canada highway policy.
2978	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
We have had six years of so-called action and we have not yet a trans-Canada highway. How many miles remain to be completed? Over 1,500 miles. That is a long way, even in Canada. That is how far short we are of the objective the government set for itself. We told the government that its policy was not going to produce the results in the time limit it laid down when it commenced the project. And so we heard tonight from the hon. gentleman with the support of his superiors, the Minister of Public Works, who was behind him applauding him and goading him on-


Robert Henry Winters: I always applaud a good performance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and registering every sign of approval. We heard the old cry which we expected when we advocate a far-reaching, constructive policy for the building of a greater Canada. We were told that we were irresponsible, because they said, "Where is the money going to come from?" Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this committee that when it comes to the contemplation of constructive projects, projects which are themselves going to lead to the creation of a greater and more productive Canada, which are themselves going to lay the foundation for a much more productive country, it is a shortsighted policy to say, as this government says, that we are being irresponsible when we suggest expenditures for such a program. When it comes to unproductive programs, when it comes to programs which the government think are going to bring them votes because they are immediately attractive, then there is no difficulty in finding money. There is no difficulty in finding money which they think is going to serve their political interests.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what.


An hon. Member:: For what?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are thousands of them scattered through the estimates. There are the publicity and the propaganda items which my hon. friend is so good at.


An hon. Member:: Family allowances.


An hon. Member:: Old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend thinks that family allowances and old age pensions are unproductive and unjustified, let him get up and say so. Those are the words he has uttered. I am thinking of the hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars which are spent oh propaganda efforts on behalf of the government.
[Mr. Fulton. 1


An hon. Member:: Such as?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are scattered throughout your own department. I do not know how far off the track you are going to allow me to get, Mr. Chairman, but if I have the time-


An hon. Member:: You are away off.


An hon. Member:: Always off the track.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I have time I will pick out the items and show my hon. friends, for there are many amounts for propaganda, publicity and travelling expenses.


Mr. Weir:: My hon. friend says we could save money in connection with certain lines of propaganda, publicity and so forth, but a little while ago either the hon. member or some other hon. member opposite criticized the government for not selling the trans-Canada highway sufficiently to have it built. Which side do they want to be on?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would my hon. friend repeat his question. I did not understand either the question or its import. Perhaps if my hon. friend would repeat it I would be better able to understand it.


An hon. Member:: Read it in Hansard tomorrow.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know the purpose of my hon. friends. They are trying to lead me off the track because they do not like criticism. The main point is that to build a trans-Canada highway in this country, indeed to create a national system of highways, would be one of the most productive measures this country could undertake; but because my hon. friends opposite cannot see beyond the ends of their noses-unless it be in connection with the political purposes they are trying to serve, when they are very farsighted indeed-they get up and say that to suggest expenditures for this purpose is irresponsible. The simple answer to that sort of criticism is that it is a proper expenditure for productive purposes which will create employment, which will create industry, which will serve the future of this nation. Such expenditures are always justified provided they are based on sound, efficient and sensible grounds.
My hon. friends opposite boast when it suits their purpose of the tremendous increase in the gross national product, but when we suggest that the increase in the gross national product that would follow from these productive expenditures which we advocate would more than take care of the burden of such expenditures, they forget immediately what the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech. He did not say much, but one thing he took credit for was the increase in the gross national product.


An hon. Member:: Thank goodness he did not say much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend says, "Thank goodness he did not say much." It took him an hour and a half to say what he had to say, and I hate to think how long it would have taken him to say something when it took him that long to say nothing. I know my hon. friends are very good at putting hon. members off the track, but we are not going to be put off the track on this issue. The simple issue is first, whether expenditures by the federal government designed to create one trans-Canada road, which is what we are discussing here, and second, the advocacy of expenditures to create an adequate system of national highways, are irresponsible.
If my hon. friends opposite think that suggestions based upon a realistic appreciation of the future of this country and of what is the responsibility of the government in Ottawa in creating and bringing about conditions under which this country can realize that future; if they think that is irresponsible, then we accept the charge. But by the same token my hon. friends are guilty of the charge of shortsightedness, lack of leadership and lack of imagination. It is those characteristics of theirs which have brought this country to the point where unless we are careful, unless we take certain positive steps, not only are we going to find that our own resources have passed out of our control to the control of people in the United States, but we are going to find that in fact the development of the country as a whole and its future are stultified simply because of lack of leadership and action at this level.
In his reply my hon. friend made some reference to the question of infringement on provincial jurisdiction. That is a real problem, the problem of getting agreement with the provinces for a trans-Canada highway and particularly for the larger project of a national highway system. He talked about infringement on provincial jurisdiction, but in this resolution now before us there is a measure of dictation to the provinces such as I would have thought would make my hon. friend hesitate before advancing that criticism against us.
What has happened under the program as we have had it so far? The provinces have been urged to spend money on the construction of a highway along a certain route, and after they have completed construction to specified standards they are entitled to a 50 per cent contribution. Take any provincial government which is a party to this agreement; take especially any of the provinces 67509-189
Trans-Canada Highway Act which are faced with the construction of difficult sections of the trans-Canada highway; speak to them, and they will tell you they have been hard put to spend anything like their portion of the amount which the federal government is anxious to have them spend. The result is that to which I referred this afternoon.
The province of British Columbia has been most conscientious in its efforts to live up to its obligations, its obligation to its own citizens and its obligation under the over-all agreement, to get on with the trans-Canada highway construction. But that province now finds that it is penalized as a result of the 10 per cent proposal. Take the case of a province which has built a large proportion of its highway through difficult mountainous terrain and has left large sections of easier construction to be done later. To use the term which the parliamentary assistant used, those gaps are partly in the low-cost areas. That province will get only 90 per cent assistance when it completes the gaps, which lie partly in low-cost areas.
Another province may have built only the easy sections, leaving the more difficult sections for the future, but that province will receive 90 per cent assistance applied exclusively to the more difficult areas of their construction. It is certainly a fact that British Columbia has already built some of the most difficult sections of its portion of the trans-Canada highway, leaving some of the stretches of less difficulty for future construction. That forms the gap which is under discussion here. Yet we are told, in the words of the parliamentary assistant, that the 10 per cent applies only to the gaps. That is the 10 per cent to which the federal government will contribute 90 per cent. I refer to his words as reported on page 2522 of Hansard.
Here I may say that some of my colleagues were somewhat critical of my suggestion earlier this afternoon that the resolution, in the terms in which we find it, would penalize those provinces which have been most conscientious in their efforts to build the road. These are the words of the parliamentary assistant which, I say, prove the point I was making:
In no province does the gap or the combined lengths of gaps where there is no highway of any kind exceed 10 per cent of the total mileage in that province.
I would hope not. There is no stretch of British Columbia in which there is no highway of any kind. Then the parliamentary assistant continued.
The resolution therefore indicates that the bill will seek authority for the Minister of Finance to pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding 10 per cent

Trans-Canada Highway Act of the mileage. The federal government contribution for these gaps will be increased from 50 per cent to 90 per cent of the cost of construction.
If those words mean what they say, they mean the provinces will only get a 90 per cent contribution with respect to those portions of the highway not yet completed; but if a province has pressed on, as our own province has, in spite of the tremendous difficulties of construction there, and constructed substantial portions in the mountainous and difficult areas, it means that it cannot get 90 per cent for the portions it has completed-even the most difficult ones- simply because these portions have already been constructed; whereas a province that has left its most difficult portions can get this 90 per cent contribution applied exclusively to those portions. Nothing could be more obvious than that there is inherent, in fact there is actually contained, in this proposal, a proposition which will penalize the provinces which have done most in the past to build this trans-Canada highway. So this proposal requires substantial amendment.
In connection with this matter of the national highways system, upon which my hon. friends opposite cast such scorn, I should like to point out that on January 18, in this session, I introduced a resolution which under the new rules has disappeared from the order paper. I should like now to commend it to the government and to the house for consideration generally as an approach toward solving this question of highway construction in Canada. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, (a) the requirements of national defence, as well as the need to serve existing and to promote further development of Canada's territory and resources dictate that there should be more than one east-west trans-Canada highway, as well as several main north-south highways to provide connection with routes in the United States and access to Canada's northland; and (b) the cost of providing such an adequate system of highways built to the standards of modern requirements is beyond the resources of the provinces alone, with the result that Canada is not served by any adequate system of highways or even one adequate trans-Canada highway at the present time;
And therefore the government should take into immediate consideration with the governments of the various provinces the advisability of enlarging the scope of the existing trans-Canada highway agreements so as to develop a system of national highways, both east-west and north-south, financed and maintained jointly by the dominion and the provinces on an acceptable and realistic basis.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the speech we heard from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works, in which he was invited to reply to the suggestions which were made from this side of the house-and indeed to some of the suggestions made from his own side-that there is an 
increasing measure of responsibility which must be borne by the federal government, simply confirms us in the opinion, which has been growing for some time now, that this government is unable to appreciate its responsibilities, and, even if it were able to appreciate them, is completely incapable of taking any action with respect to them.
As I see it, this resolution in its present form, first, is inadequate to deal with the problem; and second, is going to work a discrimination as between provinces with respect to their existing road construction. Therefore, not because it will make the resolution perfect but simply because I can only move an amendment within the scope of the resolution introduced by the government, I move the following by way of amendment:
That the resolution be amended by adding thereto after the words "not exceeding 10 per centum thereof" the following words:
"the portion of the highway to which such increased payment is to apply to be designated by the province."
This would have the effect that the resolution would read as follows in its introductory portion:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may pay a higher contribution for a portion of the highway in a province not exceeding 10 per centum thereof, the portion of the highway to which such increased payment is to apply to be designated by the province; . . .
Then the province, if it had completed some of its most expensive portions, could say that it will claim against the federal government 90 per cent of the cost of those portions.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I might say that at the moment it does not appear to me that this proposed amendment would extend the financial commitment of the crown. If the hon. gentleman who just moved the amendment is correct in all the arguments with which he moved it, then perhaps by the merit of his argument his own resolution would be out of order. However, at the moment, before asking the committee to vote,
I would be willing to consider the matter further. At the moment I am not refusing to accept the amendment.


Mr. Lesage:: My intervention will be very brief. If I understood the hon. member for Kamloops correctly, his main criticism against the government is, that first, the federal government's share in the building of the trans-Canada highway is not sufficient and, second, that the federal government should participate financially in the building of a national highway system.
I suppose I should conclude from that, knowing with what respect the hon. member

for Kamloops is considered by the members of his party, that in offering this criticism he was stating what is the policy of his party. However I was much surprised, because on January 30 last I was listening over television to the hon. member for Three Rivers, who had just been elected president of the national Conservative association, in a program which is called "Press Conference". The hon. member for Three Rivers was answering questions asked him by Mr. Langlois, the parliamentary reporter for the newspaper La Presse of Montreal. He said, and I quote in French:
... si le parti conservateur venait au pouvoir la constitution serait mieux respectee.
"If the Conservative party came to power the constitution would be more respected". That was the hon. member for Three Rivers. Now, Mr. Langlois asked:
But how is the constitution being sabotaged? Give some examples.
Or in French, as he asked it:
...en quoi la constitution est-elle sabotec? Don-nez des exemples.
The hon. member for Three Rivers gave certain examples and then he said:
... et puis a part de ca, le federal cherche 5 s'immiscer dans toutes sortes de domaines. Comme par exemple: les routes...
I translate:
And further, the federal government tries to mix itself in all sorts of domains like, for example, highways or roads.
My question, Mr. Chairman, is obvious. Where does the policy of the Conservative party lie? Should we listen to the criticisms of the hon. member for Kamloops, who is a well respected member of the Conservative party, or should we follow the advice of the national president of the Conservative party? I have said many times, I am going to say it for the first time in the house, and it has been proven true again, that the Conservative party has always been and always will be in Canada the party with two faces.
Mts. Fairclough: What about the Liberals? They have three.


An hon. Member:: It depends whether they are speaking in French or in English.


Mrs. Fairclough:: You're not kidding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be interested to hear the policy of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in this respect.


Jean Lesage: My policy is the policy of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I will hear it in his own time and not in mine. I will say, however, that he has just entertained us by easy and
67509-189i
Trans-Canada Highway Act facile criticism of the remarks of a particular member of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: The president of the Conservative party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yours is not even in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The remarks of that member were based upon the actions of the present government. The hon. member for Three Rivers was discussing this matter under the impact of the policy of the present government, which does attempt to dictate to the provinces and to discriminate between them, as I have just shown in connection with the resolution now before the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me say this to my hon. friends. Under the present highway policy of the government they do attempt to dictate to the provinces. I have just read my resolution which sets forth the policy that I advocate. My hon. friend can ascribe to it such authority as a party statement as he wishes. I am flattered by his reference to myself in that connection, but I point out that it comes from his lips and not from mine. In the policy which I have advocated I have said that this national highway system should be worked out by consultation with the provinces so an agreement might be reached whereby it would be financed and maintained "jointly by the dominion and the provinces on an acceptable and realistic basis."
May I ask the hon. member to remember this. The hon. member for Three Rivers was on a television program where, as I say, he was replying to a particular question under a particular set of circumstances with reference to the policy of the present government. This is my answer to my hon. friend, and this is where I find it rather amusing-


An hon. Member:: Skate, boy, skate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that my hon. friend would say the Conservative party is the party of two faces, because never in the history of any country has there been a party so successful as the Liberal party of my hon. friends in saying one thing in one part of the country and another in another part of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Piclcersgill:: Just read the advertisements of your friends in Quebec.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
. Mr. Fulton: Not only that, but my hon. friend the. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources knows very well that he himself advocates one policy and his colleague the Minister of Fisheries advocates another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I may say to the minister that that is a matter of public record, as I will have occasion to show later. As for the question of one policy, I have read the resolution which I advocate in this house, and we do not say one thing in the house and another in the country. We say the same thing everywhere in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Ask the president.


An hon. Member:: You cannot deny it.


An hon. Member:: Ask the president. He is here now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friends have some criticism or disagreement, let them express themselves one at a time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Oh, shut up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The resolution I read appeared on the order paper on the 19th of January. The annual meeting of the Conservative association of Canada was held on the 16th and 17th of January. During that meeting a resolution was presented to the policy and resolutions committee of the Progressive Conservative association of Canada which was discussed by members of that association from Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: What did they think about social credit?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That association, representative of the Conservative party from coast to coast in Canada and speaking with one voice-


An hon. Member:: Very small.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -adopted that resolution,
which advocated exactly the same policy as is contained in the resolution which I have just read in this house to my hon. friends. I would suggest that to my hon. friends as an example of a party speaking with one voice from coast to coast, instead of running around in one province and saying that if you vote for Mr. Drew you will be voting against the interests of French Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Jean Lesage: On a question of privilege-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: So the shoe pinches.


Jean Lesage: -the hon. member for Kamloops is attributing to me certain declarations that I have never made outside of the house.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Were you guilty? The shoe pinches.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend wishes to claim it-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Will all hon. gentlemen kindly resume their seats and let me make myself heard for a moment.


Mr. Hodgson:: What about the gang
standing behind the curtain?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order, please. I should like to point out to the committee that we are discussing a resolution dealing with the trans-Canada highway and those of us who have occupied the chair have knowingly permitted the consideration and discussion of this resolution to include matters of general policy dealing with highways which might be said to lead up to or have some effect on the policy of the government in connection with the trans-Canada highway. As a result of the latitude which has been allowed by the Chair-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would ask hon. members to remain silent for a few moments while I am on my feet. As a result of the latitude which has been allowed by the Chair this discussion is in very great danger of getting far beyond highways and particularly trans-Canada highway policy. I am going to ask all hon. members to come back now to the trans-Canada highway resolution and to the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops, which is actually what is before the committee at the moment.
I believe that at least one hon. member who sat down when I rose to my feet considers that he has a question of privilege. If he so considers I will hear it, but following that I am going to insist that for the balance of the evening hon. members come back to the trans-Canada highway resolution and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, before your ruling I was intending to rise on a question of privilege. As the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is the one who started this discussion about one policy in one part of the country and another policy in another part, I think it would be proper for me to remind him of what happened during the 1953 campaign. I remember very well that I even heard the hon. member for Champlain, who sits in this house, say over

the radio that the people must vote against George Drew because he was Protestant and English-speaking.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I thought I had made it clear that if any hon. member wishes to raise a question of privilege or to state that in the heat of this debate he has been misquoted or misinterpreted, we shall hear him. But I do not propose-and I do not think the committee will expect me to do so-to permit this committee to go back to campaign speeches which may have been made in the last election campaign, unless they directly apply to the trans-Canada highway.


Jean Lesage: I rise on a question of privilege. I cannot allow this accusation to go unchallenged, Mr. Chairman. 1 completely deny that I ever used in any electoral campaign any such argument as the one which has just now been mentioned by the hon. member for Three Rivers.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jean Lesage: To go on with the debate-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am reaching the stage where I am inclined to advise this committee that this is a deliberative body representative of the people of Canada, and not a circus. If anybody feels that those remarks are not particularly respectful, may I say that perhaps they were intended to be taken in that way. I repeat that if any member considers that during these last few minutes he has been misquoted, we shall hear a denial or an interpretation as a matter of privilege. However, the merits of any statement which may or may not have been made in any election campaign in 1953 or previously are not pertinent to whether or not the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops should be included in this trans-Canada highway resolution.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, to come back to the debate-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order. I believe I had the floor when the minister rose on a question of privilege.


Jean Lesage: I thought the hon. member had finished.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I resumed my seat because certain discussion on a question of privilege then had priority. If the question of privilege has been disposed of, I suggest that I have the right to the floor in order to complete my remarks. I shall not be long, but I should like to say just one or two more things on the question of privilege and the general discussion which followed. I hardly think
Trans-Canada Highway Act that just because someone alleges that he has been misquoted, he would want to raise a question of privilege. The trouble is that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has spoken all too clearly and that he made the statement all too clearly which applies to him and his party rather than to us.


Jean Lesage: What statement are you
speaking of?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is one point made by the parliamentary assistant which remains to be dealt with, and I should like enlightenment on it. In the course of his reply he entered the defence that we had no right to be critical of the federal government for having failed to carry forward this trans-Canada highway construction on the ground, if I understood him correctly, that in 1949

I think that was the year he used-parliament had voted, he said, $150 million toward this project and that $150 million had not been spent. My understanding is that that was not a supply vote of this house.
I have checked quickly through the estimates for 1949-and I am speaking subject to correction because I checked quickly-and as far as I can find there was no vote of this house of $150 million. There was, as I understand it, a statutory authority in a bill which was passed in 1948, I think, for expenditures by the federal authority up to $150 million if the provinces were able to get on with their portion of the construction up to that amount.
I therefore do not think it would be accurate or fair to the people generally and to the provinces in particular to suggest that there was appropriated and lying, as it were, available in the federal treasury the sum of $150 million, just waiting for the provinces to spend their portion. The truth of the matter is that the federal taxpayers would still have had to raise their portion up to $150 million at any time the provinces had been able to make or had in fact made that equivalent expenditure.
The point then is this, and this is the nub of the criticism. The provinces now find themselves extended to the limit with respect to their normal road commitments, and they are going to be little if any better able to proceed, whether it be 90 per cent or 100 per cent that the dominion government ties strings to and says must be spent within a certain number of years. They are not going to be much better able to complete this trans-Canada highway, because they have their continuing commitments for developmental roads, secondary roads and the improvement of their road systems generally.
2984	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Until this government accepts the principle -the details are open to debate-we are not going to get the desired result. It is the principle we are talking about. Until this government accepts the principle that it has an over-all responsibility in connection with the facilities for communication between the different portions of Canada we are not going to get the desired result, namely an adequate system of national roads or even one adequate trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Beaudry:: Mine is not a point of order nor a question of privilege. It is merely a point of curiosity, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask the hon. member for Kamloops- and I have not the full terms of the resolution in my mind-if the word "consultation" in the amendment is similar to the word "consultation" used in an amendment suggested by a similar group of people in 1948 when it was suggested that we add a tenth province to Canada; and whether the meaning of the word "consultation" as used today has the meaning that was then slightly amended when a further amendment from this side requested that we further qualify the word "consultation" in this, that it could possibly mean "approval". I should like the hon. member for Kamloops to enlighten me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think about all I can say is that if the hon. member would stick around a bit, he might get enlightenment.


George Harris Hees: Once a year Beaudry.


Jean Lesage: We have heard the explanation of the hon. member for Kamloops about the discrepancies between the policy he advocates and what the hon. member for Three Rivers had to say over television in January. But it would be much more interesting if we had the explanation from the president of the national Conservative association himself. It would be interesting to have answers to two easy questions. First, is the hon. member for Three Rivers in favour of the financial participation of the federal government in the building of the trans-Canada highway? Second, is he in favour of the financial participation of the federal government in a national highway policy as understood by the hon. member for Kamloops?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, in about a year from now I will be sitting in the minister's seat.


Jean Lesage: You will be back in Three Rivers by that time.


Robert Henry Winters: I think I am quite safe in asserting that the hon. member's prediction is no more likely to come true than his amendment to this resolution is sound.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Pour a little oil on.


Robert Henry Winters: It was my purpose in having this resolution put on the order paper to enable the government to introduce a measure which I thought, and I sincerely believed and hoped, would enable the provincial governments more expeditiously to come to grips with this matter of building a trans-Canada highway. The resolution is straightforward. There is nothing complex about it. It only seeks authority to introduce a measure. I think if hon. members had waited to see the bill much of what has been said here today would not need to have been said at all.
It seems to me this amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops seeks to anticipate certain definitions that might be contained in the bill. Its purpose is clear. It carries the hope by adopting the wording suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops, that federal government expenditures will be larger than they otherwise would be under the arrangement he fears will be in the bill. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, then I submit the amendment is clearly out of order on that ground.
But if that is not to be the ruling and we are to consider the amendment on its merits, then I suggest that it is not good on its merits for reasons which the hon. member will be able to see more clearly when the bill is before the house. We have been debating this simple resolution on two separate days. It simply seeks permission to introduce a measure. I think there would be far more enlightenment if hon. members availed themselves of the opportunity of seeing the bill, and I hope that might be done before the house rises this evening.
In the light of what I have said, Mr. Chairman, the government is not able to accept this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that for our benefit, and also for your benefit, the minister should make much clearer what the resolution means. I have read carefully what the parliamentary assistant said the last time this matter was under discussion, and if I took the time to quote from him at two places it seems to me it would indicate he said two different things. If I may say so with deep respect, I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra took one interpretation and the hon. member for Kamloops took another interpretation.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite proper for two different members in the opposition to take two different interpretations, because the parliamentary assistant gave two different interpretations.

I think what Your Honour has to know is what is the 10 per cent to which the greater contribution is to apply, so far as the minister's resolution is concerned. Is the 10 per cent the 10 per cent that remains by way of a gap? Is the 10 per cent any 10 per cent of the highway that may be chosen by the federal government or the provincial government, or is it just 10 per cent of the total cost of the highway in the province? I think I am justified in asking those three questions on the basis of the different things that have been said.
Some of my colleagues have asked me during the course of the debate on the resolution for an interpretation, and I gave an interpretation which I now must correct because the minister has left us in a state of confusion. I think Your Honour will not be able to rule upon whether or not this amendment is in order until you know what the resolution means, and I think the minister should tell both you and the committee.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot remember saying anything that could possibly be construed as giving two interpretations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the parliamentary assistant to whom I referred.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the 10 per cent?


Robert Henry Winters: This whole operation is supposed to be a gap-closing operation, designed to enable the provincial governments to complete this highway across Canada as expeditiously as possible. We have examined the whole program of construction in the provinces, and we have found that in every province there is still at least 10 per cent of the highway that has not been completed. In some provinces it is more than 10 per cent. The object is to pay 90 per cent of the cost of closing the gap; the work under this formula to be restricted to mileage still uncompleted. Now, that gap will be a matter for determination. It is 10 per cent of the entire mileage-


Some hon. Members:: That is better.


Robert Henry Winters: -but it will be limited to the highway that still remains to be completed. The gap itself will be determined by agreement between the provincial government concerned and the federal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister has added very nicely to the confusion that already exists, Mr. Chairman. Let me read what his parliamentary assistant said on March 22, as reported on page 2522 and then on page 2523 of Hansard for that date. On page 2522 he said:
The federal government contribution for these gaps will be increased from 50 per cent to 90 per cent of the cost of construction.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Over on page 2523, after a statement had been made by the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) the parliamentary assistant replied:
The federal government proposes to pay not 10 per cent of the gap but it proposes 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the total length of the mileage in any province.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the previous page the
parliamentary assistant said that the federal government's contribution for these gaps will be increased from 50 per cent to 90 per cent of the cost of construction. Does the 10 per cent apply to the gaps that are unfinished, or is it 10 per cent of the whole highway in the province?


Robert Henry Winters: It is 10 per cent of the
total mileage in each province applied to those gaps that still remain to be completed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, it is quite
clear that the 10 per cent applies only to the portions which are not yet completed.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the substance of my
amendlnent, it seems to me, is completely established. If a province has already completed some of the most expensive mileage in the province, they cannot apply this 10 per cent to that.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member can disabuse his mind of any such apprehension. We have examined this whole program, and I can assure him each province can take advantage of this 90 per cent gap-closing formula with great benefit to itself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a very easy answer.


Robert Henry Winters: It is a correct one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept it in the spirit in
which it is given. A province can accept it with advantage to itself, but it applies only to the closing of the gap. My point is that those provinces which have already completed substantial portions of their most expensive construction, cannot apply this formula to those portions already completed. My view is that they should be left free to do so, and that it why I moved the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If what the minister said
in the last sentence he uttered when he was on his feet is the case, then I submit the amendment is quite in order.


Mr. Harris:: Let us have a vote on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister has declared that the provinces already have the right to avail themselves-

Trans-Canada Highway Act The Deputy Chairman:	If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt, I might say that there is a maximum provided in the resolution; that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of $250 million. Therefore I do not think it is possible for the amendment to increase the commitment. I have accepted the amendment.
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 38; nays, 74.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 214, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.