1956-04-19

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister oi Transport) 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 authorize and to provide for the construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of a line of railway from Bartibog to the Tomogonops river, in the province of New Brunswick, being approximately 22 miles, at a total estimated expenditure of $2,800,000. The measure will include authority for the issue by the company of securities, which may be guaranteed by the government, to finance the construction. To enable the company to proceed with construction forthwith, temporary loans may be made to the company out of the consolidated revenue fund upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, and may be secured by company securities.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible to deal with this resolution later this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I promised the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that I would make a statement today with respect to the incident which occurred at Mount Hope airport near Hamilton on Tuesday last.
About 1.30 in the afternoon a United States air force Cl24 Globemaster, carrying a crew of 15 in addition to 81 United States air force servicemen as passengers, made an emergency landing at the Royal Canadian Air Force station, Mount Hope. While en route from a base in Ohio to a base in Newfoundland, the aircraft developed gasoline leakage in its starboard wing. Efforts to stop the leakage failed and, because of the serious fire risk, the pilot stopped the two starboard engines. Inability
to maintain altitude, a continuing fire hazard and weather limitations at other airfields in the vicinity led the pilot to select Mount Hope for an emergency landing.
During the approach to the airfield attempts to lower the undercarriage failed and the pilot correctly decided to carry out a wheels-up landing in a grass area clear of the concrete runways. This he skilfully accomplished without injury to any of the 96 servicemen aboard, who hastily evacuated the aircraft, some carrying the arms which were part of their service equipment.
Spectators quickly gathered and soon included press reporters and photographers. Only a small detachment of Royal Canadian Air Force personnel was available and Squadron Leader C. A. Bayley, officer commanding at Mount Hope, immediately conferred with the captain of the Globemaster and arranged that the small R.C.A.F. detachment would endeavour to control access to and from the airfield and that the U.S. air force members would stand guard over the aircraft. The aircraft was still carrying 4,000 gallons of gasoline which was leaking from the plane, and there was extreme danger that the escaping fumes would become ignited by electrical shorts, flash bulbs or sparks from some other cause. For this reason no U.S.A.F. or any other personnel were permitted to come near the damaged aircraft for two and a half hours after the crash landing. In the course of carrying out their duties the guards restrained all persons from approaching closer than approximately 50 yards, explaining to them the great danger of fire. Photographers were permitted to take photographs of the aircraft from beyond this distance.
News reporters who requested information from the guards were asked to proceed to the entrance office where Squadron Leader Bayley and the captain of the aircraft would endeavour to answer their inquiries. Those newsmen who availed themselves of this opportunity later expressed their satisfaction for the co-operation thus extended.
One small group of three news photographers, unobserved by the guard, came closer than 50 yards before they were seen. They were told that they could take photographs but not closer than 50 yards because of the fire hazard. They were also told of the facilities arranged to provide information.
The news photographers then withdrew, but one of them again came forward and was

Inquiries of the Ministry asked to move back by Lieutenant Davis, U.S. Air Force, who was in fact third pilot during the emergency landing. This news photographer, Godfrey Scott, ignored the request, whereupon the officer drew his revolver and, although not pointing it at anyone, again warned the photographer not to come any closer. After some words Mr. Scott asked the lieutenant to put his revolver away. This he did, and the photographer then withdrew, having in the meantime, I think, taken a picture.
Shortly after this incident, some news photographers and/or newsmen asked a U.S.A.F. sergeant, who had his rifle slung over his shoulder, if he would unsling his rifle and hold it in his hands in front of him to be photographed. This request was complied with, the sergeant explaining as he did so that the rifle was not loaded. It was this photograph which appeared on the front page of yesterday morning's Globe and Mail, and I am told that it was pictures of this sergeant and his rifle which appeared in the television news Tuesday evening and again last night. Hon. members can form their own opinion of posed pictures under such circumstances.


Mr. Knowles:: One ear or two?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have mine. On the facts as presented to me, I cannot find anything to criticize in the incident except possibly the judgment of the U.S.A.F. lieutenant in drawing his revolver. It should be borne in mind, however, that this man had just miraculously survived a crash landing, that he was very cognizant of the danger of fire and explosion and that he had been posted to guard the plane against further accident. Anyone, under all these circumstances, might have been guilty of an error of judgment, if such it was.
Yesterday afternoon Hon. Donald Quarles, secretary for the air force of the United States, telephoned me and expressed in a most courteous way his sincere regrets concerning the incident.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that the minister accepted the apology. There is one question that I should like to ask and it is this. Did Squadron Leader Bayley receive advance notice that this aircraft was going to land at Mount Hope? If so, at what time was that information received?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Squadron Leader Bayley's station had the aeroplane under observation for quite some time, tout in the initial stages of the trouble that the pilot had gotten into, he tried to make first one airport and then another in the United States. As he was losing height rapidly, this proved impossible, and it was only about five minutes before he 
actually came into the airport that he asked to make an emergency landing. He was endeavouring to get back to his own country but was obliged to land at Mount Hope.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like
to ask a supplementary question. The minister mentioned in his statement that at the station there were not sufficient personnel available, as I understand it, to provide a guard at the time. Was the station not fully manned by R.C.A.F. personnel?


Ralph Osborne Campney: May I say that, while there are a considerable number of personnel at Mount Hope, it is a small station and the men all have various duties in which they are engaged on the station throughout the day. This was an emergency landing. As I have just said, they had only about five minutes' notice, and the number of men quickly available were much less than the number of men available from the aircraft. Squadron Leader Bayley, I think very properly, as soon as he took control of the situation, divided up the duties and gave his instructions, which were carried out.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: 1
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the prevailing flood conditions on the prairies, would the minister give consideration to postponing by one month, in the areas affected, the deadline date for filing of income tax returns, as was done in 1950?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Although we are aware somewhat of the conditions that obtain in Manitoba, it is not our intention to postpone filing of income tax returns beyond April 30. It should be borne in mind that taxpayers are now in their fourth month in which they have the opportunity of making their returns.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I should imagine the minister is aware that the precedent was established in 1950?


James Joseph McCann: That was not a beneficial
experience.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris of the Minister of National Revenue? While it is true that income

tax returns can be filed during folir months, it is very well known that most of us leave it to the last moment. Will the minister not consider finding out whether in fact the conditions described by the hon. member are such as to make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out this duty in the next 10 days, and will he not look into it and consider whether it would be reasonable to make this concession?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, we are
in touch with our offices in the west almost every day, and this is a matter of which we have knowledge. In talking it over with the officers of the department we find that should there be under any circumstances an extension of time for filing reports it interferes greatly with our staff in doing the work which is planned to be done within the year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sorry I could not give him notice. Is there any foundation in fact for the good news that came over the radio at noon that a cease-fire truce has been signed between Israel and Egypt?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have not heard the news that came over the radio at noon, but a telegram was received this morning to the effect that it was hoped that a cease-fire agreement would be signed this morning. I assume from the radio news that that has been done, and I am sure all members of the house will be very glad indeed to hear it.


[Stage Direction]
1955 CROP
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister comment on the story in this morning's newspaper regarding the wheat surplus reported at the end of March and whether anything further can be said about closing out last year's harvest?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not know what I can say about the figures. I read the article, and it seemed to me that they are not correct, but they may be; I do not know. Everyone 67509-191
Trans-Canada Highway Act knows that after we harvested the last crop we had large stocks of grain in the west. As far as the final payment on the last pool is concerned, I hope to make a statement shortly.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State? In view of the fact that sessional paper No. 215, which was tabled yesterday, having to do with cabinet ministers and directorships, contains information from only six of the 19 members of the cabinet, can he say whether there will be a supplementary return?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of Stale):: shall look into the matter.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 214, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the Trans-Canada Highway Act became law on December 10, 1949, it was our hope that within seven years of that date there would be a good all-weather transcontinental road in Canada. When nine of the ten provincial governments subsequently signed agreements with the federal government we had good reason to anticipate that by the end of this current year, that is, by the end of 1956, Canada would at least have a high standard paved highway from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, along the shortest practical route.
I do not believe there were many people then who felt we were guilty of overoptimism. After all, Canadian history contains many illustrations of our ability to bridge our great spaces in the interests of transportation and communication.
It is interesting in fact to look back to the nineteenth century when Canadians were engaged in spanning Canada by rail. That was a lamplit horse-and-buggy era, and there were far less conveniences and construction tools to work with than we have today. Yet it took just eight years to link Quebec to the Atlantic seaboard by rail after the route was finally selected and managers were appointed in 1868, and it took just 11 years to push the C.P.R. through to the Pacific despite
3068	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act acrimonious disputes, scandal, lethargic progress for a time, absence of human settlement and tremendous obstacles in the land itself.
The bill now before the house would extend the term for building the trans-Canada highway from seven years to 11 years, which is the same time it took nineteenth century Canada to build the C.P.R. The future of the west and of Canada itself was at stake in those days. There has apparently not been anything like the same sense of urgency to goad this new highway building project, but there thas been for some years a sense of national awareness that a country of this size and importance should have a coast-to-coast highway; that our people should be able, in this automotive era, to drive in comfort from Newfoundland to British Columbia on Canadian soil.
This feeling had actually provoked a number of attempts to build such a road before 1949, the last being in 1930 when the federal government undertook to pay part of the cost to help cope with unemployment. I find upon review that from 1931 to 1941 about $45 million was paid to the provinces for road-building projects, which helped to eliminate the unemployment prevailing during that period. This 1930 effort did assist in the construction of additional highway mileage but it fell far short of the objective and the concept of a coast-to-coast highway remained a hope for the future.
It remained for the second world war and the buoyant post-war period to give new emphasis to the need for a trans-Canada highway. When Newfoundland entered confederation in 1949, there was a new concept of enabling vehicle traffic to flow with comparative ease-not from Nova Scotia but from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia. Newfoundland needed a paved trans-island highway of its own and its need fitted into this broader picture that Canada has been contemplating.
I may say here that in building roads there is a matter of jurisdiction which the federal government and all the provincial governments have always had clearly in mind. In this, as in all matters, the federal government has no wish to invade the jurisdiction of the other levels of government. Roads are normally considered to be the direct concern of the provincial governments. It seemed clear, however, that most provinces were anxious for federal financial participation but it has never been responsibly suggested that the provinces should surrender their initiative or their position under the constitution with respect to roads.
If the project were to go forward there seemed to be a need for co-ordination which


appeared to be a valid role for the federal government. Moreover the road would have a national character. It would help to weld the country more closely together and it would also, we felt, contribute to national growth and development just as the railways did in the nineteenth century and as other major transportation projects in various fields have done since.
Having regard to these factors and to what we considered to be the wishes of the public, the federal government in 1948 invited all ten provincial governments to participate in discussions to determine how to give Canada one long main street as quickly as possible.
Committees were set up to recommend standards, routes, completion dates and so forth. Neither the federal government nor the provinces laid down any one-way rules or standards. It was a matter of amicable discussions and mutual understandings. It was agreed that the portion of the highway across each province would be built by the provincial government concerned, that it would remain the property of the provincial government and be maintained by it with no disturbance whatever to its own sovereign jurisdiction and that the road when completed would conform to the standards mutually decided upon.
We agreed in 1949 that if parliament approved, the federal government would make contributions to a provincial government of 50 per cent of the construction costs of the highway over a seven-year period. Moreover the federal government undertook to contribute up to one-half of the cost of a highway constructed prior to the date of the act and which could qualify for inclusion in the trans-Canada highway.
That was the formula which we brought before parliament in 1949 in the form of a bill which was enacted more than six years ago as the Trans-Canada Highway Act. It provided, amongst other things, for an amount of $150 million for the federal share of half the anticipated over-all cost of construction. Under the authority of the act federal-provincial agreements were prepared which provided for federal financial contributions, terms and conditions for inviting tenders, methods of determining the cost of new and prior construction, routes, standards and inspection. Within six months, eight of the provincial governments had signed agreements to build their portion of the highway by December 9, 1956. By May, 1952, nine of the ten provinces had become signatories.
Exclusive of the province of Quebec, the length of the trans-Canada highway is 4,497 miles in the provinces and 83 miles in the national parks, a total of 4,580 miles in all.

Of this distance approximately 2,850 miles are now paved although the equivalent of only 1,600 miles, or 35 per cent, has been constructed to trans-Canada standards. Thus there remain approximately 1,545 miles of unpaved highway and there still are physical gaps totalling about 185 miles where there is no highway of any kind.
Broken down by provinces, the length of the highway together with the distances now paved, the equivalent mileages that have
Trans-Canada Highway Act been constructed to trans-Canada highway standards, together with the distances for which there is no highway of any kind, are tabulated as follows, and with the permission of the house I should like to place this table on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister permission to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: The table is as follows:
		Length of highway	Distances now paved	Equivalent mileages built to trans-Canada highway standards		Distances with no road of any kind
			Grading	Paving	
miles	miles	miles	miles	milesNewfoundland	
610	70	216	-	50Prince Edward Island	
74	55	55	52	-Nova Scotia	
310	268	33	19	-New Brunswick	
388	370	67	60	-Ontario	
1,412	781	417	351	135Manitoba	.... 305	231	152	154	-Saskatchewan	
414	330	367	305	-Alberta	
292	242	214	196	-British Columbia	.... 692	497	204	177	-Totals	.... 4,497	2,844	1,725*	1,314*	185
* Note.-The equivalent of approximately 1,600 miles constructed.
As to the 83 miles in the national parks, while this is not included in the terms of the agreement, the federal government has been making progress toward completing this mileage under some of the most difficult conditions of construction encountered anywhere in Canada. Hon. members are aware, I am sure, that to date the trans-Canada highway in the national parks is in Banff and Yoho where the mountainous conditions make road building very difficult. We aim, however, to have the work completed within the time specified in the bill now before you.
On the basis of progress to date it seems clear that in no province will the trans-Canada highway be completed by December 9, 1956, the expiration date of the present federal-provincial agreement. There are various reasons advanced by the provincial governments-many of them valid and justifiable-for the construction lag, such as a shortage of engineers, weather, the Korean war, great physical obstacles imposed by all sorts of topographical handicaps, the urgent 67509-194J
demands for highways in areas not covered by the national route, and others. But in the main progress has been disappointingly slow despite periodic conferences and efforts to accelerate the work. Consequently it has been necessary once again to review the whole operation and to recommend to parliament additional steps calculated to hasten the realization of this long-awaited project.
Now, if the federal government is to provide a further incentive to the provincial governments, it would seem evident that priority should be given to highway construction in those areas where no highway exists at the present time. The first objective then, I feel, should be the elimination of these gaps and the linking of the various completed sections to form a continuous route. A study of the road has revealed that in no province do the gaps exceed 10 per cent of the total mileage of the route within that province's boundaries. In fact, most provinces now have a continuous road although many sections may not conform to
3070	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act trans-Canada highway standards. The main incentive therefore in the bill now before hon. members is to close the existing gaps.
Now as to road already paved, I feel it would be unrealistic for a province to tear up a reasonably good existing paved highway merely for the purpose of rebuilding it to trans-Canada highway standards. There is no suggestion here that we should depart from the agreed standards when new construction or reconstruction is involved. High standard highways for modern vehicle traffic are a necessary and sound investment. I believe, therefore, that the aim should be to construct as much mileage to the agreed standards as is within the capacity of each provincial government. However, there is no good reason why an adequately paved road, even if slightly below trans-Canada highway standards, should not be used until its normal life has been exhausted unless, of course, traffic requirements demand a higher standard of highway now.
It has been suggested that federal contributions should be increased above the present level of 50 per cent. In fairness to those provinces which have made the greatest progress, any general or over-all increase beyond 50 per cent would have to be retroactive to the dates upon which the federal-provincial agreements were signed. Retroactive legislation of this nature gives rise to many problems and moreover I have serious doubts as to whether this approach would achieve the desired end. Further, no advantage would be gained if the federal government increased its contributions only to have the provincial governments reduce expenditures on the highway by a similar amount. What is required is an increased effort on the part of all concerned.
To discuss ways and means to accelerate the pace of work on the trans-Canada highway, we invited all provincial ministers concerned to attend, with their officials, a conference in Ottawa last November. This conference was again characterized by a harmonious and constructive approach to the problem and a mutual desire to complete the project. At that time I outlined some of the suggestions the federal government was prepared to incorporate into legislation to be placed before parliament if the participating provinces so wished. While some of the provincial ministers expressed the hope that we might have gone further, I believe they all felt that the approach we suggested was reasonable and that it would go a long way towards achieving a completed highway.
Following the conference, the officials of the trans-Canada highway division of the Department of Public Works visited and discussed with officials of the participating


provinces matters of detail and various engineering approaches. As a result of the conference and these subsequent discussions, we were able to draft the bill which is now before you and, moreover, we have prepared draft agreements which are now in the hands of the various provincial highway ministers for their consideration, so that no time will be lost in starting work under this new formula if and when the legislation is approved by parliament.
With the foregoing considerations in mind, I wish to turn to the four proposed amendments to the act contained in this bill. Since it seems certain that additional time will be required for the completion of the highway, one amendment contemplates the extension of the construction period to December 31, 1960. This will permit four additional construction seasons over and above those now authorized by the act, or five full construction seasons from this date. A further five months will be provided to wind up the accounting. The termination date for all federal contributions, therefore, would be set at May 31, 1961.
I might say here that the termination date for construction, December 31, 1960, was a matter of virtually mutual agreement. For the benefit of those hon. members who have said that the provinces simply cannot complete the highway by that date, I would say that the provinces themselves say they can. At the conference I suggested a termination date of December 31, 1959. Some but not all of the provinces thought that was a bit tight. I thereupon asked their wishes individually and it was they who said they thought they could complete the job if they were given one year longer, and they recommended a target date of December 31, 1960. We met the wishes of the provincial governments in this respect.
I have mentioned that in no province is there more than 10 per cent of the total mileage where no highway exists at the present time. On the other hand, there is one province that has little more than 10 per cent of its total mileage left to complete and some others are pretty well advanced. As an incentive to closing these remaining gaps, the bill contains an amendment which would authorize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to increase the scale of contributions to a province for highway construction on the route, with the higher payments limited to 10 per cent of the provincial mileage.
The proposed formula will provide for the payment of 90 per cent of the construction costs of one-tenth of the total mileage in each province and 50 per cent of the other nine-tenths whereas at present the act limits the federal government to 50 per cent of the cost of construction of all the mileage along the

route. Based on the present route, the supplementary formula would permit the federal government to pay 90 per cent of the construction costs on approximately 449 miles of highway. The approximate mileages by provinces to which the gap closing formula would apply are as follows:
Newfoundland	
61	milesPrince Edward Island	
7	milesNova Scotia	
31	milesNew Brunswick	
39	milesOntario	
141	milesManitoba	
31	milesSaskatchewan	
41	milesAlberta	
29	milesBritish Columbia	
69	miles
In the case of British Columbia the mile. age is for the Big Bend route. If another route is selected this figure will, of course, change accordingly. The conditions upon which the supplementary formula is applicable are:
1.	The location of the section, or sections, of road upon which the 90 per cent-10 per cent formula is to apply must be approved by the federal government and each section, to qualify, must have a minimum continuous length of five miles. This latter limitation is to encourage the construction of road mileage and not just bits and pieces here and there. In every province there are continuous lengths of five miles or more where this gap-closing formula can be used to good advantage.
2.	The provincial government concerned would be responsible for construction, as it is on other portions of the highway.
3.	The supplementary formula would remain in effect from the date when the new agreements are signed to the end of the construction period, December 31, 1960.
The application of the supplementary formula in a province would be contingent upon provincial agreement:
(a)	That the provincial section of the route would be completed by December 31, 1960. As I have indicated, trans-Canada highway standards need not apply rigidly where a good paved highway is already in existence.
(b)	That during the period from the date of signing of the agreement to December 31, 1960, the province would maintain average annual outlays on the trans-Canada highway, exclusive of the 10 per cent provincial share under the supplementary formula, at least equal to the average provincial outlay for the two years 1954 and 1955. In other words, what we are now looking for is an extra effort.
For other portions of the highway the basis of sharing costs will remain as at present, which is that the federal government will contribute 50 per cent of the costs of new and prior construction. Under the act the provision for prior construction remains in
Trans-Canada Highway Act force for a seven year period expiring December 9, 1956. This prior construction period dates from April 1, 1928, and in practice severe problems have been encountered in establishing a realistic basis for evaluating construction carried out over such a long period prior to the passing of the act. These difficulties have been disproportionate to the amount of funds involved and in most cases the determination of value has been at best a fair estimate. This whole matter has been discussed with the provincial governments, and having regard to the circumstances I have mentioned and the fact that the prior construction clause would in any event elapse on the expiry date of the present act, it is not intended to continue this provision beyond the agreed date of December 9, 1956. An amendment is included accordingly.
I might mention here that during the November conference the question of the federal government's policy of contributions to the construction of cloverleafs and similar type intersections was discussed at some length. Canada has been sharing the construction costs incurred within 50 feet on each side of the centre line of the trans-Canada highway. That is the 100 foot right of way contemplated by the agreement. As a result of discussions at the conference, a thorough review of this question was made and we have now agreed to broaden federal participation. In addition to contributions with respect to construction costs along the trans-Canada highway, including a grade separation structure, the federal government will participate in costs incurred on ramps or connecting legs within the limits of the intersection. The principle is that facilities such as these ramps or connections should be of equal value to each intersecting highway. The cost of providing them will be apportioned between the two roads and will have regard to the proportion of the total cost that is borne by the provincial government. There is a wide variety of designs of grade separations and each new one will be considered separately to see how the revised basis of sharing costs will apply.
The original estimate of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway was $300 million and the act authorized the expenditure of $150 million as the federal government's share. As of April 14, 1956, the nine participating provinces had awarded contracts totalling $227,231,474.85 for construction work on the highway. Of this amount the federal government's share is $113,615,737.43. The federal government has paid claims in
3072	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act the total of $78,934,163.95 to that date of April 14, broken down as follows:
Total
Province	commitment Claims paid
Newfoundland	$19,797,411.05	$ 7,343,009.96
Prince Edward Island 5,126,620.24	1,625,910.87
Nova Scotia	
4,780,615.00	309,903.60New Brunswick	
9,533,934.14	3,577,757.77Ontario	
76,146,801.70	22,785,104.94Manitoba	
18,466,371.91	6,820,576.17Saskatchewan	
21,336,039.85	9,008,746.43Alberta	
25,307,306.93	10,029,209.42British Columbia __________ 46,736,374.03	17,433,944.79
Federal government funds committed on approved highway projects have approximated $20 million a year. That is on the trans-Canada highway. The 90 per cent formula applying to 10 per cent of the highway mileage will increase the federal commitments by $10 million to $15 million per year for the next five years. Construction costs have also increased during the past six years. These two factors have necessitated a revision in estimates and it is now anticipated that the federal government's share of the costs of construction will amount to $250 million. Accordingly, the bill seeks authorization of an increase in the total federal government expenditure from $150 million to $250 million.
In summary, the bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act proposes these four major amendments:
(1)	The extension of the highway construction period to December 31, 1960, with federal contributions terminating May 31, 1961.
(2)	An increase in the federal government's contribution to include 90 per cent of the construction costs on one-tenth of the total mileage in each province, such contributions to apply only to work done after this agreement is signed pursuant to the bill now before us.
(3)	The termination of federal contributions for prior highway construction, as of the previously agreed date of December 9, 1956. There is no change there as far as the present statute is concerned.
(4)	An increase from $150 million to $250 million in the amount which the federal government may contribute towards the costs of highway construction.
I believe that the proposed amendments to the act will have the effect of accelerating the rate of construction and I sincerely hope that by the end of 1960 our goal of a trans-Canada highway will be realized.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether it will be possible for him to table that draft agreement between the dominion and the provinces?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the agreement is in the hands of the provincial governments


at the present time. With nearly all if not all of them we have had an exchange of correspondence about various points that are still under discussion. The agreement is not finalized. I should be glad to table the draft agreement in the form in which it exists at the present time if hon. members will understand clearly that it has not been finalized and that it is subject to change.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would be helpful if the minister would table it.


Robert Henry Winters: With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the minister started off by dealing with two important projects. The first was the building of our first transcontinental railway system and the second was the building of our first transcontinental highway system. Our first transcontinental railway system, namely the Canadian Pacific Kailway, was built under the Conservative government of that day, and the project was carried out swiftly, smoothly and efficiently.


George Carlyle Marler: You are going a long way.


George Harris Hees: With regard to the second project, the building of our first trans-Canada highway, which has been carried out under the Liberal government of today, the situation is just the reverse. It is a sad story of delay, miscalculation, mismanagement and lack of leadership by the present government. To prove that statement I have here the record of performance which was given to me less than three hours ago by the chief highway engineer of his department. Of a total of 4,600 miles which will comprise the highway, as of today only 1,319 miles are completed. That means that after five years of unprecedented boom, we find that less than one-third of this highway project has been completed. The reasons why the provincial governments have not been able to get ahead with more of this project are simply financial.


Robert Henry Winters: Did Ontario tell you that?


George Harris Hees: The provincial governments
have serious drains upon their finances for building highways, in the form of requirements to build highways to serve the people within their borders. Those are their prime responsibilities in highway building. For whatever portion of the trans-Canada highway which is built within their boundaries, they must divert funds from provincial highway projects, and quite naturally these provincial highway projects receive the higher priority.
Let us for a moment take a look at the government's performance in the building of

highways which are their sole concern. I refer, of course, to the portion of the highway built within our national parks. Those highways are 100 per cent the concern of the federal government. The federal government has no other highway-building responsibilities.


Robert Henry Winters: That statement, of course, is not correct.


George Harris Hees: Then I should be glad if the minister would correct me. What other highway commitments have the federal government?


Robert Henry Winters: They have certain responsibilities in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and in connection with the Alaska highway. My hon. friend chooses to forget about them.


George Harris Hees: I should be glad to hear the
minister tell us just how much mileage the federal government plans to build in those territories this year. I should be glad to have him give us an example of what those commitments are for this year, and to show us the size of those commitments. Compared with the provincial responsibilities in connection with building highways, they are minuscule, and the minister knows it.
In our national parks there are 83 miles of trans-Canada highway which are the sole responsibility of the federal government. As this program began more than five years ago, and as the federal government has been continuously haranguing and criticizing the provincial governments for not getting ahead fast enough with their sections of the road, you would expect to find that after, say, two years of this program this 83 miles of federal highway in our national parks would have been completed -or after, at the very most, three years. But what do we find? On examination today do we find that 75 miles have been built, 83 miles have been built, or any other number of miles have been built? The answer is that not one single mile of federal highway in those national parks has been completed, and that is by the word of its own federal highways engineers.
That is nothing less than a disgraceful performance. It is a shocking example to set to the provinces, which are being called down almost daily by this federal government for not getting ahead faster with their sections of the highway. We find that, while they on the average have built one-third of the highway, this federal government, with practically no other road-building responsibilities, has completed not one single mile of the 83 miles that are its sole responsibility within the national parks.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
How in the world does this federal government expect to persuade 10 provinces, which have tremendous road-building requirements within their own borders, to get ahead with this project if it sets a disgraceful example like this? The answer, of course, is that it cannot. It has made itself a laughing-stock. Many of the provincial highway ministers ask, "For heaven's sake, how can we be expected to go ahead with it when the federal government puts up a show of this kind? The answer, is, of course, that they cannot. This is the kind of leadership the federal government is giving in this project, and that is why I say the trans-Canada highway project is nothing less than a sorry story of delay, miscalculation, mismanagement and lack of leadership on the part of the federal government.
Is it the government's present attitude that it wishes to get this highway completed? I do not think for a moment it is, for this reason. It will still leave large gaps to be completed which, judging by the rate of progress over the past five years, it will take several years to complete. Nobody knows when this highway will be completed. So, particularly because of this very sorry showing in giving no leadership in the past five years in the building of this road, because for a number of reasons this road is the government's responsibility, it must take the financial responsibility immediately of seeing that this road is completed.
For reasons of defence, it can be readily agreed-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have in my hand at the moment pages 2954 and 2955 of Hansard of this session, on which is recorded the speech the hon. member made on the resolution in committee of the whole. I have been following him very carefully. Except for the excursion he took in the national parks, he is repeating with very slight modifications exactly the speech that he made on the resolution in committee of the whole. He is now dealing with the question of the responsibility of the government in highway construction on grounds of defence. I shall point out to him that, if he could avoid these repetitious arguments, I think it would be better. See Hansard, volume II, page 1782, March 10, 1939, and pages 4055, 4056, May 15, 1939. Also see Hansard of February 28, 1956, page 1620 and Hansard of February 28, 1956, page 1627.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that Your Honour is not planning to make a ruling along the lines of
3074	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act Your Honour's recent remarks. When a resolution is under debate in committee, a member taking part in that debate naturally raises the various points with which he is concerned. Surely to goodness there is not going to be a ruling now in this house that, because a member has done that at the resolution stage, he cannot get up on second reading and amplify his remarks.
I am really somewhat astounded that Your Honour would make this suggestion to the hon. member for Broadview, who is opening the debate for the official opposition on the second reading of the bill. As we all know, this is the main stage of any debate. 1 suggest that it is absolutely beyond comprehension that a member should be told that he cannot deal with this bill in the debate on second reading as he wishes, as long as he is confining his remarks to the subject under discussion. The hon. member for Broadview has not strayed one inch from the bill during this debate. I hope Your Honour will not attempt to make any ruling along the line you have indicated your thoughts are running at the moment.


Mr, Speaker:: I am sorry to have aroused the indignation of the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra. I certainly never wanted to do that, but I would just leave that to him. It is true that, let us say, the main stage of a debate on legislation is on second reading, when we decide the principle. But it is also true that the various stages of a bill constitute one debate. If a member chooses to make a statement at the resolution stage, and if he wants to make the same statement on the second reading of the bill-


Howard Charles Green: He is entitled to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say he should not have done it at the resolution stage. He cannot do it twice. I was not here, and I do not know whether the hon. member was here, but I would just point this out to him. Here are the particular paragraphs we heard from the hon. member for Broadview. I quote his words at pages 2954 and 2955 of Hansard for Monday last:
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-
Today he has corrected that to 1,319 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-
It was at this point that I intervened. I say again that, except for the excursion into national parks, what he has said today is substantially what he said at the resolution stage on April 16, 1956. We have a standing order to the effect that repetition should be avoided, and I do not suppose that any hon. member would seriously expect me to disregard such a flagrant violation of the rule against repetition.


Howard Charles Green: If Your Honour would take the trouble to read the remarks made at the committee stage by the parliamentary assistant to the minister in introducing the resolution you would find that the minister himself today has covered practically the same ground.


Robert Henry Winters: I must rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would allow the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to finish.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I should rise on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there is one at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: I was saying that Your Honour could make the same ruling with regard to the minister's remarks today because after all the parliamentary assistant was speaking for the minister. This very same thing happens on practically every occasion when there is a debate in this house; that is, when there is a debate on the resolution stage and then a debate on second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt?


Howard Charles Green: I submit it is unfair for Your Honour to get up in the middle of a speech by the hon. member for Broadview when he is leading off for the opposition and criticize him because he is repeating some of the

arguments he made at the resolution stage. The circumstances at the resolution stage are entirely different. We do not have the full information. We have not the actual bill, and of necessity there must be a great deal of repetition in the second debate. I submit there is no rule of this house which would support the stand that Your Honour is taking this afternoon, namely that the hon. member for Broadview is wrong in making his arguments as he has been doing.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I now cite my point of order? I think I have several which I could cite, but the one which I wish to cite at the moment is that there were two different members from this side who spoke. One was my parliamentary assistant and the second was I. It was not I who made the two speeches to which my hon. friend alluded.
My second point is this. My parliamentary assistant very carefully addressed his remarks at the resolution stage to those aspects that were covered by the resolution stage, namely the financial aspects of the bill. The resolution requires that they be stated in seeking permission to introduce a measure. I think the remarks of the hon. members of the opposition at the resolution stage went far afield, and I said so. I do not think there should be duplicate debates on one measure, at the resolution stage and at the second reading stage. I said then I thought it would be more appropriate if we waited until the bill was introduced and discussed the broader aspects of this measure when the second reading was before the house, and I am still very strongly of that opinion, and I base my point of order accordingly.


Howard Charles Green: As the party carrying the main responsibility of the opposition in this house we cannot agree for a minute that there should not be a full debate at the resolution stage and also at second reading. Your Honour will remember that it is only a very few years ago when there was a full debate on the resolution stage with the Speaker in the chair. Then, that was followed by a debate in committee, and then of course there was a debate on second reading. To suggest now that one cannot repeat anything in the debate on second reading that has been said in committee is, I submit, taking away a right which belongs to hon. members, and there is no ground for having that right whittled down.


Mr. Speaker:: I submit that perhaps too much time has been spent in regard to this matter. I was merely asking the hon. member to try to avoid repeating the same arguments between now and the end of his speech. I must immediately disagree, much to my regret, with the theory of the hon. member 67509-195
Trans-Canada Highway Act for Vancouver-Quadra with respect to repetition. What we had before on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair was a debate regarding the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; we had the previous debate on this matter in committee, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, there was a debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair on a money resolution at one time. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to that. That is prior to a few years ago. We had that a few years ago, but prior to that there was none, and the situation was brought back to where it should be. There was a debate then on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair. Then later, when we went into committee, speeches would be made again and, on second reading, speeches would be made again. But it is true that when the resolution stage comes up the main features of the bill are not known; the bill is not printed; it is not distributed. It is printed only after first reading.
The purpose of the committee stage is to inquire into the general outline of the proposal. The minister is not even allowed to divulge the details of the bill, and hon. members usually content themselves with putting questions. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 439.


Howard Charles Green: They do not have to.


Mr. Speaker:: They do not have to; but this is perhaps why hon. members should reflect upon the meaning of their own rules. All our rules are made to the effect that there should not be any duplication of debate nor any repetition inside the same debate. That is why we cannot make the same motion twice in the house. That is why, once a matter has been disposed of, we cannot come back to it in the same session. This is the spirit of all our rules, both in the United Kingdom and here. According to theory, if an hon. member has chosen to make a speech at the resolution stage which he meant to make on second reading of the bill, and he repeats the speech on second reading, which is almost so much word for word that it strikes anyone who has listened to it or read it that he made it in committee of the whole, what do we do with this standing order which gives the Speaker the authority to call someone to order because of repetition? I refer to standing order 34 (2). Of course, it has not been used very often, but it has been used. The hon. member for Broadview perhaps has been much too often, I am sorry to say, the victim of my interventions with respect to this rule. See Hansard of February 28, 1956, page 1620.
3076	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act I was not going to make any more of it. I had hoped that repetition could be avoided if at all possible.


Howard Charles Green: Surely Your Honour does not contend that if an hon. member makes an argument at the resolution stage, then he cannot make the same argument again on second reading of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: The various stages of a bill constitute one single debate. This is a money bill introduced with preliminaries, namely, a resolution. If an hon. member chooses to throw all his arguments in debate at the resolution stage he runs the risk, if he repeats the same argument word for word, of being warned not to continue along that line when it comes to the second reading stage. It is one debate throughout from the resolution stage, second reading, consideration of the bill in committee of the whole and third reading.
I have here the words of the speech of the hon. member at the resolution stage, and I was just following them. I notice that except for a variation of expression, or an additional incidental sentence here and there, he was following the same pattern of the speech that he made at the resolution stage. As I see it, we are now up to the sixth paragraph: On grounds of defence. I want to be fair in this.
I want to put the case to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and to any hon. member who has at heart, as all hon. members have, the respect that we must give to our own rules, your own rules, not mine.
Now, suppose the hon. member goes on and it so happens that at the end of his speech, which appears on page 2954 of Hansard-the speech which he made at the committee stage runs from page 2954 to page 2958-if it appears that he gives us exactly the same speech on second reading that he gave at the resolution stage and he is to be allowed to do so we might as well amend rule 34 (2) and eliminate the word "repetition" from it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, if you had not called me to order I would have been through in about 30 seconds. Secondly, I claim I have not been making the same argument this afternoon.


Robert Henry Winters: The same speech.


George Harris Hees: If the minister had taken the trouble to be in the house when the discussion in committee was taking place he would know that I was not making the same speech.


Robert Henry Winters: I read your speech and I heard Mr. Speaker read it again today.


Mr. Speaker:: We will have to leave the matter at that, and perhaps allow the hon. member to finish his speech.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to point out to the minister how my speech is vastly different. This afternoon I was outlining the responsibility which provincial governments have to meet in highway construction in order to show how deplorable and inexcusable is the showing, if you can even call it that,-perhaps I should say the lack of showing-the federal government has made in building, or rather in not building the 83 miles in the national parks, which are its complete responsibility. This afternoon I showed that the provincial governments have tremendous calls upon their limited funds to build roads within their own boundaries to serve their own people.


Mr. Reinke:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


George Harris Hees: Surely.


Russell Earl Reinke: The hon. member made the assertion when he began his speech that the provinces were in a very bad financial state. Is the hon. member aware that when the report was made by Mr. Porter as reported in the Globe and Mail of March 2 the provincial treasury reported a transfer of $28 million to the highway reserve fund and that last year the province of Ontario paved only 28 miles of the trans-Canada highway?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario very fortunately is under a Conservative government and so can discharge responsibilities of that kind. I am talking on behalf of those provinces which are less fortunate from a financial point of view than is the province of Ontario. Many of the provinces have a great deal of difficulty in raising resources because this government has not allowed them tax sources from which to raise the required revenue and they have a great deal of difficulty. I am speaking for those governments and I am not doing what this government does, which is to forget about the governments which have not the financial resources, and carry on as though they had such resources.
I am speaking for those provinces which are less fortunate from a financial point of view and if the hon. member has studied Canadian history past or present he knows which provinces those are.
I was pointing out to the minister that this performance, or this lack of performance, as I choose to call it, by the federal government, is completely inexcusable because it has practically no other road building responsibility and it has infinitely larger funds with which to build these roads than have the provinces. The provinces have great responsibilities to meet in order to serve the people within their

own borders. They have many, many highways that have nothing to do with the trans-Canada highway, and these are their prime concern. The federal government, with a mere 83 miles to build in the national parks, and with only a few other paltry highway building commitments in various parts of the country which do not amount to very much, has been unable to meet the responsibility of building 83 miles of road. It has no other road building responsibilities of any consequence. The provinces have been averaging one-third of their completed construction, but this government has not completed a single mile. That is nothing more or less than a disgraceful performance, and that is what I was pointing out to the minister this afternoon. That is why I went over again what I had already said about the provincial picture, and I do not believe I repeated the same speech I made before.
I hope that having said this three or four times this afternoon I have finally been able to drive it into the heads of the members of this government that their past performance is deplorable and I hope this will perhaps make some little contribution toward urging them to make a better performance in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his remarks today said that he hoped this bill would have the effect of accelerating construction of the trans-Canada highway. If it will do that even to any extent he knows, of course, that the house will vote for the bill. I am sure he is also aware of the fact that we on this side of the house, and we over here, believe we reflect the thinking of the Canadian people in this regard, are not at all satisfied with the rate at which the trans-Canada highway is being completed.
The minister drew upon a bit of nineteenth century history this afternoon, pointing out that it took 11 years to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. He seems to think that it will be a feather in the cap of this government if the trans-Canada highway can be built in the same length of time, in a period of 11 years. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are a great many differences between the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the building of the trans-Canada highway in the second half of the twentieth century.


Robert Henry Winters: I quite agree. I think the hon. member misunderstood my intention there.


Howard Charles Green: That is what you said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be very glad if the minister would repeat what he said, if he can avoid the rule of repetition in so doing, 67509-195J
Trans-Canada Highway Act and make clear what he did mean. Certainly he said, as I took it from listening to him, that we should be proud or satisfied if we can build this second highway in the same length of time it took to build the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Henry Winters: No. That is not what I meant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to let the minister have a minute of my time in which to repeat what he said.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not wish any of your
time. I think a reading of my speech-


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the minister closing the debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, the minister is speaking while I am still on my feet. I think the minister would have done better not to mention a comparison between the 11 years it took to build the Canadian Pacific Railway and the 11 years that he says it is now going to take to build the trans-Canada highway. After all, the Canadian Pacific Railway was built at a time when the line had to be put through many sections of the country that had not been traversed. The kind of equipment that was available for building railways or roads in that day was much less efficient than is the modern road building machinery we now possess. The railway had to be built where there were no roads before the Canadian Pacific tracks were put down. This highway is being built in many places by improving roads that are already there; at least it is being built in areas where we already have roads of some sort.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by this reference to nineteenth century history the minister has simply highlighted the fact that the present project is being proceeded with at a snail's pace for the times in which we are living.


Robert Henry Winters: That was my intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know, of course, that when the government wants to boast of anything that has been accomplished, even if it is a 30 per cent accomplishment, it is of course because of what the federal government has done. On the other hand if there are complaints made because things have not been accomplished the federal government blames the provinces for that lack of accomplishment.
As has already been expressed by my colleagues speaking on our behalf, we contend that the main reason for the slowness with which this highway is being built is because the federal government has not yet recognized its national character and the fact that federal financial responsibility should be much greater than has been set out in the
3078	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act legislation that is now on the statute books. It should be greater than that which the legislation provides as amended by the bill which is now before us.
Up to the present time the arrangement has been for the federal treasury to pay 50 per cent of the cost of constructing the highway without any participation by the federal government in the maintenance of the highway after it is built. This interesting formula that we now have, whereby the federal government will contribute 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the highway, seems to add up, if my arithmetic is correct, to what amounts to 54 per cent of the total cost of the highway in the provinces. I arrive at that figure by taking 50 per cent of 90 per cent, which amounts to 45 per cent, and then I take 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the highway, which is 9 per cent, and by adding 45 per cent and 9 per cent one gets a total of 54 per cent. That is still a long way short of the figure of 75 per cent which is what we feel the federal government should be doing by way of participation in the cost of a national project such as the trans-Canada highway.
Frankly we feel that the fact that the government has fallen down on the financial aspect of this matter is the main reason that in the twentieth century it is taking just as long to build the trans-Canada highway as it took in the nineteenth century to build the Canadian Pacific railway.
We feel that there is still a tremendous lack of vision on the part of the federal government as to the possibility of uniting this country more closely, as to the possibility of development both in economic terms and in terms of tourist traffic, and also in getting our people to move about and know better all parts of Canada. We feel that with respect to all this the government has not yet caught the vision which is shared by a great many people in this country. We still call upon the government to catch that vision and to translate it into a greater federal financial participation in the trans-Canada highway.
It seems to me that another indication of the lack of vision on the part of the federal government is the fact that there is a cut-off date in the present legislation, and that a cut-off date will still be in the act as amended even though it is advanced to December 31, 1960, with one more year to clean up the accounts. That is the attitude which the federal government takes towards the trans-Canada highway, toward a national highway program. It has not really got into this program with both feet, it has got into it temporarily and it envisions the day when 

this act will be spent and the federal government will have no more responsibility. When this point was raised the other day the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works accepted that implication by saying that once this project is completed, the highway in the various provinces will be the property of the provinces; in other words, the federal government responsibility would be finished. I say that is the mark of the attitude of the government toward this whole program and it is certainly one of a lack of vision.
The provinces have to concern themselves, not only with finding their percentage of the cost of building the highway; they have to concern themselves also with acquiring the necessary land and then they must think of the costs of maintenance after the highway is built, not only during the period of time when this act will be in effect but after the act has been spent and the federal government has bowed out of the picture. On top of all that, the provinces must concern themselves with their other highway programs, so that when you survey the whole picture the fact of the matter is that what the federal government is doing is really very little compared with the responsibility of the provinces and compared with the important part that a well planned national highway program could play in the development of this country.
As has been indicated in previous debates, we feel that there should be not just one trans-Canada highway but a second transcontinental road, and also highways running north and south connecting with highways that come up to the border from the United States. Indeed we feel that any government with vision regarding this matter would have a total, over-all program that would involve a formula for federal financial participation in the various road programs of the provinces of this country.
We in this House of Commons today find ourselves in the position of having to support what is offered to us because it constitutes some improvement. We cannot vote against it; we have to accept it if we want the program accelerated. This legislation does that to a certain extent and therefore we must vote for it. But we know that once this legislation has been passed the government will do nothing until some crisis develops later on or until some government with vision sits to the right of Your Honour.
A few days ago I happened to be standing in the main central hall of this building waiting for a friend. While waiting I read once again the inscription which appears on the main centre column in the lobby in the central

part of this parliament building. Although I have read it before I was struck forcibly by what it said when, I read it again. It refers to the fact that on July 1, 1917, this building was dedicated in memory of those who gave their lives in the first world war. That was done, as the inscription says, on the fiftieth anniversary of confederation.
What struck me rather forcibly was that that date, which in the lives of most of us who are here seems so recent, July 1, 1917, was the date on which this country was celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. I realized as I have done before, because I have had a resolution on the order paper suggesting this, that already we are much closer to the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of this country than we are to that fiftieth anniversary. A little more than 11 years from now we shall be celebrating Canada's one hundredth birthday.
When that time comes I hope we will be celebrating it with something more than fireworks and speeches and programs over the radio and television. I hope we will have achieved some really noteworthy signs of development in this country. There are many fields in which we could really launch a gigantic program of development so that we could have a birthday which could be celebrated proudly on July 1, 1967. I suggest to the Minister of Public Works that several of these fields are in his department-I think of fields such as housing-and that the one we are dealing with today, the trans-Canada highway, offers such a field, as would a national highway program. I hope that by July 1, 1967, we will have, not just a Liberal government still trying to complete the first trans-Canada highway but a vast program of highways connecting all parts of this country, adding to the economic development of Canada and making it possible for our people to travel about with ease and comfort on good highways.
That will be accomplished only if in the years that are with us right now, not ten or twenty years from now but in the years in which we are working right now, the government catches the vision of this project and brings before parliament an adequate highway program.
Parliament can do no other than to support the bill which is before us today as it accelerates the construction of the one highway that is now under construction. But it is only a piecemeal solution. I hope the government will rethink the whole question of its financial responsibility in relation to our highway program and bring down with the least possible delay a plan that will make possible
Trans-Canada Highway Act the building of a network of roads and highways in this country such as this country can support and such as the people of Canada deserve.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the bill on this occasion. When we were discussing the resolution the other day I made some general remarks, but there are one or two other things I should like to draw to the minister's attention. In the first place, I am quite sure that the minister would be the last person in the house to say that he was satisfied with the progress that this development has been making. Certainly after five years the progress that has been made in the development of the trans-Canada highway is a disgrace, and I think the minister agrees with that. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister would be in very bad taste if he were to criticize the provinces too much because, as has already been indicated this afternoon, the federal government has set an exceedingly poor example on that portion of the trans-Canada highway which they have to build.
It is true, as the minister suggested when making his remarks a while ago, that the work which the federal government has to do in the national parks is possibly a little different from some of the other construction work throughout the provinces. But do not let anybody be misled about the matter. There are sections in the national parks that can be constructed more easily than sections of the road in the prairie provinces or in the province of British Columbia.
For instance, let me give the minister one stretch by way of example, the 8 miles running from the east gate of Banff park to two miles east of the town of Banff just before you cross the river. That was one of the easiest sections in all Canada to build a road. After the bush was cleared, which was not a major problem under present day methods of removing bush, a solid gravel bed was found and there was practically no gravel to haul at all. What little gravel they did haul for the base was obtained from a mountain right at the side of the road. Yet after five years that 8 miles of road is not even completed. Indeed, not only is it not completed but they have not even got a road with a good base. The minister knows that is so because, according to the answer given the other day to a question of mine, we are spending $200 to $300 a mile for repairs.
The present asphalt-bound 9-inch gravel base is all going to pieces and it is only a short period of time since it was constructed.
3080	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act The minister can say if he wishes that when the hard surface is laid it will protect the road, but it will do no such thing. In the province of Alberta we are endeavouring to leave our hard surface roads without the final top coat for two or three years in order to see if they will stand up, and wherever we find a place where the road does not stand up the material is removed all the way down and a new sub-grade is put in. We .find it is cheaper to do that than it is to put on the final coat, then find that there are defects underneath and have to tear up the whole thing.
Let us not get the idea that just because the government section runs through the national parks which are part mountainous all of the road being constructed there is in mountainous terrain. It is not. I am not belittling for a minute the difficulties that one finds in the construction of highways, but after five years' work surely the government should have at least 8 miles finished. Instead the program now calls for 11 years and unless the federal government gets a real move on they will not even have it finished in that 11 year period because there is still a tremendous amount of work to do in the national parks.
While the minister was speaking I could not help but wonder if this is really a trans-Canada highway. What efforts is the minister putting forth to see that it becomes such? There is one province in the dominion that is not taking any part in the construction of the trans-Canada highway. I think that is bad from the point of view of both provincial and federal relations. I should like to see the minister do something about this matter and try to see if he cannot get the province of Quebec to co-operate a little more with the rest of Canada in the construction of the trans-Canada highway so that people will be able to travel from one coast of Canada to the other on a trans-Canada highway. They will not be able to do so unless the minister can induce the province of Quebec to assume its share in the building of the trans-Canada highway.
That brings up another point. What is the purpose of a trans-Canada highway? I noticed when the minister was speaking, and I am not disagreeing with what he said particularly, that he wanted a road so that people would be able to travel across Canada and enjoy themselves. I hope they will. That is one purpose but it is only one of the purposes. The minister wants the road to attract tourists and assist our tourist trade. It is nice to have a film in colour showing the beautiful


scenery along the highway and the rapidity with which it is being constructed, if that is so.


Mr. Fulton:: A slow motion picture.


Charles Edward Johnston: Part of it will have to be in slow motion. That is certain. But, Mr. Speaker, in my judgment there is another purpose of a trans-Canada highway. I think the trans-Canada highway should be built not only to attract tourists and give them pleasure but for the purpose of transporting goods and passengers. I make no apology for saying that then we will have a trans-Canada highway that will provide competition for our railway system. We in western Canada have hopes that that is what the road will be used for because that will be the only form of competition for our two national railway systems.
Every time there is a boost in freight rates we in the west and the people of the mari-times as well have to bear the brunt of it. That condition should not be allowed to continue. Therefore I am going to take a few minutes to speak about the specifications of the trans-Canada highway. When I was speaking the other day about this matter the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) interrupted me and said, as found at page 2951 of Hansard of April 16:
The trans-Canada highway is still the best-
I replied, "No, it is not." I will agree that the specifications of the trans-Canada highway were probably the best until about a year or two ago. I think that statement is quite correct. When the trans-Canada highway specifications were first drawn up they were a good set of specifications compared with those applying to other roads then being built. This is why I particularly want to draw the attention of the house now to the fact that this highway should not be built solely to attract tourists and for the pleasure of tourists but should also be built to carry heavy freight traffic. Of course the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was endeavouring to imply that the trans-Canada highway specifications were far above the specifications of provincial highways in Alberta. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has drawn my attention to the fact that the minister was referring particularly to Alberta. But we should not be concerned whether the specifications are equal to those of the provinces because the financial ability of the provinces enters into the picture. As has been pointed out this afternoon, the provinces are finding difficulty in carrying out their share of this program because of the question of finances, but the federal government has not got that reason to fall back on. We

should be giving every attention to improving the specifications, especially when it has been so clearly pointed out in all parts of this continent that present road structures are not strong enough to carry the traffic required today. I think the minister made reference to this matter when he was speaking. I could not hear him very well because there was some conversation going on around here. Hence if I am not interpreting him correctly, I am sure he will correct me. I thought he said that some mention had been made about the specifications but that this was a little bit late to do it.


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: What reference did you have in that regard?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think I made any reference in that context to the specifications at all. What I was talking about at that stage was the financial formula.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sorry if I was in error. I will draw this matter to the minister's attention now. I think we should re-examine those specifications so that when this road is completed it will be capable of carrying heavier traffic than just tourist traffic. I am going to say to you now, Mr. Minister, through the Chair, that the present specifications will not stand up under even moderate truck traffic.


Robert Henry Winters: They provide for carrying a load of 18,000 pounds per axle.


Charles Edward Johnston: In the province of Alberta we found that was not sufficient, a specification providing for an 18,000 pound axle load. I am sure you will find that out. It just will not stand that traffic. When you are going to haul loads clear across this continent-and I refer to pay loads-they must be greater than 18,000 pounds per axle. I would hope that we certainly will not stick up signs along the road and say that no truck shall carry more than 18,000 pounds per axle. What I fear is that when that road is completed, if it is completed under the present specifications, before very long we shall have regulations barring trucks from taking pay loads across that highway. That is one of the things that we should guard against now. Even though about one-third of the trans-Canada highway has been built, I am saying to the minister that we should now change those specifications. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), when he interrupted me the other day, I suppose had in mind the thought that the roads in Alberta were inferior,
Trans-Canada, Highway Act


Mr. Low:: That is what he wanted hon. members to believe.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the impression, no doubt, that he was trying to convey. In my judgment he has never been too much of a booster for his own province.


Solon Earl Low: That is putting it mildly.


Robert Henry Winters: Oh yes, he has.


Charles Edward Johnston: This session is not over yet, so don't put yourself out on a limb. I would not want to be obliged to saw that limb off.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't put yourself out on the highway either.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to compare some of the specifications of the trans-Canada highway with the specifications in the province of Alberta where they have found out that the present specifications as applying to the trans-Canada highway just will not bear the traffic. I want to give some of the instances where the Alberta grading specifications exceed the federal trans-Canada highway specifications.
We have highway No. 2 which runs from Airdrie to Crossfield. That is a highway with four 12-foot lanes. May I say right here that the minister will recall my saying, I am sure, when we were first talking about the trans-Canada highway. I then suggested to him that we should build a four-lane trans-Canada highway, and that if we could not see our way clear to build the four lanes at present, we should at least buy the right of way so that we could extend the road when it became necessary from two lanes to four lanes. He now tells us, I think, that the specifications call for a 100-foot right of way. Of course a 100-foot right of way will not provide for a four-lane highway with a medium in between, as there should be. In fact, a 100-foot right of way will not be sufficient to build a proper four-lane highway with proper drainage on each side, even without a midway. It seems to me that that is negligence of the highest degree when we are speaking about a national highway.
The No. 2 highway running from Airdrie to Crossfield is a highway with four 12-foot lanes, divided with a 30-foot medium and 10-foot shoulders. That far exceeds anything that the trans-Canada highway has. Then highway No. 2 from Crossfield to Bowden is one with four 12-foot lanes, with a 20-foot medium and 10-foot shoulders. Highway No. 2 running from Aldersyde to High River is one with four 12-foot lanes, undivided, with 12-foot shoulders. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to notice this about all these highways that I have mentioned. They are of


Robert Henry Winters: They may be asphalt.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes. That
provision was made in order to comply with the specifications in certain provinces. In our province those shoulders are asphalt, but in large sections of Ontario they are not. Although I stand subject to correction on this point, I do not believe there are any 10-foot shoulders on the trans-Canada highway in Ontario that are asphalt. We have a 14-inch stabilized base course against the trans-Canada highway 9-inch base course. But we are not even satisfied that that is going to stand the strain. Then on those highways that I have mentioned we have a 4-inch asphaltic surface course whereas the trans-Canada highway has a 3-inch asphaltic surface course; and that makes a tremendous difference.
We have other four-lane undivided highways, Mr. Speaker. The ones I have mentioned were divided highways. While I am speaking about these highways may I say also that I suggested to the minister when I was speaking the other day-and I am going to repeat this point because I am afraid the minister was not in the chamber just at the moment when I was speaking about it- that surely we should make all our trans-Canada highways which lead into the cities four-lane highways at least 20 miles outside these cities. Not only in the province of Alberta but in every large city across Canada it is found that wherever the trans-Canada highway or any main highway goes into the city traffic is so terrifically heavy, at least within 20 miles of the city border, that two lanes will never handle it. As one particular instance I point out the road between Calgary and Banff on holidays. The traffic is terrific there and it is a dangerous hazard that should not be permitted. That road is yet to be constructed. They are surveying that portion, about 85 miles in length. Now is the time to make it a four-lane highway. Now is the time to raise the specifications. The freight which goes between Alberta and British Columbia will be obliged to go over that section between Calgary and British Columbia because there is no other trans-Canada highway across the mountains. Those specifications will never carry the traffic.


The minister may say that as far as four lanes are concerned there is no provision in the regulations to allow of the construction of four lanes on any portion of the trans-Canada highway. In reply I would say this. We are now revising this act. Now is the time to make those -conditions available to the provinces.
Let me give you the names of these other roads which are undivided: From Edmonton to Nisku; from Calgary to Airdrie; from Calgary to Aldersyde. Then we have in addition highway No. 11, the road which runs from Sylvan Lake to Condor. That has a 12-inch minimum stabilized base course, which is 3 inches more than the trans-Canada highway. Then we have highway No. 12 going from Stettler to Gadsby, highway No. 16 going from Pedley to Jasper park and highway No. 43 from Gunn to Cherhill and Whitecourt to Valleyview. It is all four-inch asphaltic surface course with twelve-inch base being used on these projects.
This is in the province of Alberta. I am sure other provinces can speak for themselves and that they have much the same story, but we are finding without any qualification that the present standards of the trans-Canada highway will never stand up to the traffic unless we are going to bar trucks from using it, and that is what I fear. Make no mistake about it. I never expected to be a prophet, but you do not have to get into the field of prophecy to foresee that, and I am looking at the Minister of Transport right now.


George Carlyle Marler: Don't look at me.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: We should take precautions in this regard. I said a moment ago we in Alberta were not even satisfied with the superior qualifications of the Alberta highway, and so we are carrying on tests in that province. We have a test mile north of Calgary on highway 2. It is non-divided with four lanes, with eight-foot asphalt bound shoulders. There are two sections in this test, each one mile long. One is the concrete section, which is a six-inch stabilized base and eight-inch unreinforced concrete. I do not know of a section of road in Canada that betters that. Then the asphalt section is an 18-inch stabilized base course-that is twice the base course of the trans-Canada highway-with a four-inch asphaltic surface course, with, 10-foot gravel shoulders and asphalt bound. These roads are built right in the highway No. 2 coming down from Edmonton to Calgary so that all the traffic which goes over that main highway No. 2 has to go over these two test strips. If it is found that those two sections wall bear the traffic better than the others, then of course

we shall have to begin improving the already improved roads that we have now.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be accused by the Chair of repetition, and I do not want my conscience to bother me after I sit down to the extent that it will say to me, "You should have said this and you did not." I want to be able to say to the minister later on, if this road does not hold up, "Well, I told you so." That will be poor consolation for either me or the minister. I am not saying this to be critical of him, because I have always found him to be a very reasonable minister, but I say to him that he should have a second look at these specifications.


An hon. Member:: A second talk with the Minister of Finance.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, when this bill is being amended, is the time to do it-[DOT] before we start further construction-and to see if there could not be some reasonable way in which we could improve these specifications to take care not only of the tourist traffic but of all the truck traffic that we hope and expect will be on the road when it is completed.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have just a brief word to say about the leadership of the present minister. He showed today the leadership that he is capable of giving and has been giving, in the statement that he made before us today. This statement will read well. He told us early in the statement how, with his officials and the ministers of highways of the provinces, he held a conference. They came to their plan of how that highway should be built, and the provinces would do the work and the dominion government would pay 50 per cent of the cost. Is that not right?
Therefore, the leadership that the present minister had to give during those years was to see that his 50 per cent was paid. I shall ask the minister, "Is there any other type of leadership you are asked to give?" Fifty per cent of the leadership to the provinces and no more. I do not know one case where that 50 per cent of the cost was not paid, except in Fort William, and I commend him for holding back the money when some officials disgraced their provincial government. I would say that the premier of Ontario did a fine job in cleaning that up, and I pay my tribute to him.
The present leadership could not be better. Every dollar that was needed from the dominion government was paid. What more could he do? He could not interfere with the provincial government. I am not going to use the words describing the leadership
Trans-Canada Highway Act of the minister; it is not necessary. But it was honest, it was fair, it was just and it was reasonable.
What has happened in the second place? The provincial ministers and their officials and the dominion government with its ministers and officials held another conference. They agreed on the present bill. What leadership has the minister to give to see that that bill is carried out? He should give the leadership that he is capable of giving and see that the money is paid and nothing else. He has no business to interfere in the construction of the highway. I will admit that sometimes I get criticized in Fort William for not trying to see that the dominion government had something to say in the building of that highway. I want to see the highway go ahead, and I want to see this bill accelerated. I do not intend to take 40 minutes, and I shall end in about half a minute. We want to see this highway built because it will show to the rest of Canada one of the beauty spots of Canada: Fort William. You will see something there. That highway into Fort William is good.
There have been those who have said that we should have a road north and south. Our provincial government-and I pay this tribute to it-has just as good a road from Fort William to Pigeon river as there is on the other side, and the tourists from the United States tell us that. We want this highway because there is so much to see in Fort William and Port Arthur-the finest scenery in Canada, bar none. Therefore, I shall close by saying to the minister, "Just carry on, do what you usually do, do not try to take the chip off the other fellow's shoulders, just wink at him and tell him to go ahead, have your say, and be a good boy."


Mr. Hayden Slanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour will not chastise me for being repetitious, since this is the first time I have spoken either on this bill or at the resolution stage. It would seem to me that the federal government has been taking its responsibilities too lightly in the past to be prepared to be more active in the future in adding its contribution to a national road. At this time I should like to quote a paragraph from the "Canadian Tax Foundation":
An interesting speculation is what the probable pattern of financing would have been had the motor vehicle been fully developed in 1867 and its financial implications for government had been foreseen. It would certainly have been a logical move in the circumstances of confederation to put highway construction under the well-financed new national government. As it is, the federal government has played a relatively minor role in financing road communications.
3084	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
After five years of trying to build a transcontinental highway I believe the difficulty is this. The provincial governments are not able to finance their share of that road. I am speaking specifically now of my own province of Ontario. We have in the south an abundance of population which is calling for roads and more roads, and it is impossible for the government of Ontario, as well as the governments of other provinces, to contribute their 50 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway and still build and maintain the roads which they must build and maintain in the southern part of the province. It is estimated that the cost to the province of Ontario for building provincial highways and contributing to county and township roads and urban streets during the next ten years will be $1,969,000,000.
At this time I should like to draw the minister's attention to the tremendous number of vehicular miles travelled in the province of Ontario and the increase that is expected in the next 10 years. It was estimated that 13 billion miles were travelled in the province of Ontario in the past year, and that in 1965 some 25 billion miles will be travelled by vehicles. That brings out most forcibly the contributions the different provinces must make in fulfilling their duties to their own people. We must admit, Mr. Speaker, that this transcontinental highway is not what we might call a provincial road; it is interprovincial. It is even more than that; it is international in its aspects and as such I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the federal Liberal government is not contributing its share. It is not contributing what it should to build this road speedily so that traffic can travel from east to west and from west to east.
At the present time we can visualize the tremendous number of Canadian tourists who go from east to west and from west to east over the United States highway system. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just stated that he hopes when in 1967 we celebrate the centenary of confederation we shall be able to celebrate it by the residents of Canada being in a position to travel over this trans-Canada highway from east to west and west to east and thereby gain a fuller knowledge of what Canada is. But I am afraid that if progress is not any speedier in the next five years than it has been jn the past five we shall not have that privilege.
I must say that the responsibility of the provinces to their own residents is tremendous. The governments of the provinces are contributing not only 100 per cent of highway costs in their respective provinces, but they are also contributing tremendously to municipal and county roads. I will give an


illustration of that. In the year 1954 the Ontario government contributed to our municipal and county roads the sum of $32,787,000. In 1955 it is estimated that they contributed $41 million. That figure will have to be increased, because the municipalities have gone practically to the limit in financing schools, roads and so forth, and the government must come to their rescue and contribute a greater proportion of the cost.
It is up to the dominion government to cease its mollycoddling way of doing things, which it has been using in the past five years. Let it contribute 75 per cent, 80 per cent or even 90 per cent to the cost of the transcontinental road. Let it get on with the work and get it done. Some hon. members from the west have recommended that we have two transcontinental highways, and some of them have suggested feeder lines going from the south to the north, and from the north to the south from this transcontinental road. I say let us forget all this for the time being. Let us set our sights on the transcontinental highway. Let the government pay an appreciable share of the cost. Let us get on with the work and get it done; let us have one highway completed as soon as we possibly can so we can travel from east to west and west to east and enjoy the scenery which is ours.
I could not help but notice the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River about the specifications for this road. I was wondering whether the road would stand up to the traffic, when we realize there are tractor trailers using our highways at the present time and carrying 30, 34 and 35 tons of freight. Now is the time to take a second look at this bill; now is the time to'make this road adequate for the needs of the Canadian public, not for now but for 20 or 30 years from now.


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the minister a couple of questions.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot answer them now.


George Ewart Nixon: I trust the minister will answer them at the appropriate opportunity that arises. First, is it a fact that before any route can be officially designated as part of the trans-Canada highway it must be approved by the minister at Ottawa? Second, could the minister say whether or not a request has been received from the Ontario government for approval of a most scenic and natural route known as highway 17 north of Sault Ste. Marie along the shore of lake Superior and on through the Michipicoten area as part of the trans-Canada highway? And lastly I should like to ask the minister, if such a request were made, would it receive favourable consideration?


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few brief remarks to make on this occasion. I did not take part in the debate earlier because I felt there were members present who were more familiar with this bill. But in listening to the debate so far it has seemed to me that though this bill provides for some acceleration in the construction of the trans-Canada highway, it is certainly not the answer to the kind of speeches that have been made from all sides of the house in this debate.
As I listened to the debate at the resolution stage I was perhaps unduly encouraged by the vision and spirit that was being manifested on all sides of the house, and particularly on this side of the house, as to the possibilities that lay before our nation if we had a proper network of highways. We have now come to the bill itself and we find, of course, it is a very narrow bill that deals only with the completion of the trans-Canada highway and does not take into consideration many of the objectives which have been expressed by speakers during the debate.
There is one particular part of the bill which is interesting to me because it may involve a change of policy. I do not know whether or not it does involve a change, but I should like to raise that question at this time in order that the minister may reply to it later if he so desires. I notice the bill provides that the Minister of Public Works is to be responsible for this act instead of the minister of resources and development. It so happens that in this case the minister is taking the act along with him into another department.
If that is the only object in that change, then perhaps no harm will be done. But if the change involves what it appears to involve, in that it takes away the idea of resources and development from the trans-Canada highway and makes it a straight public works proposition, then I for one would feel very disquieted because, as the hon. member for Bow River so ably stated in his address this afternoon, there are two particular objectives that can be served by a trans-Canada system.
I have used the word system rather than the words "trans-Canada highway", because it is my considered opinion that it will not be long before we shall feel the need of a trans-Canada highway system rather than just one road. I am very doubtful whether one trans-Canada highway from coast to coast will serve the needs of an expanding nation such as ours with its buoyant economy. The hon. member for Bow River mentioned the fact that there are two aspects of service in such a highway system; that is, the commercial and the recreational aspect. My contention is that
Trans-Canada Highway Act both are equally important. It is also my contention that no single route can hope to serve both these objectives.
I realize that the provincial governments perhaps had more to do with the choosing of the route of the highway than had the federal government; therefore I am not being critical of this government for the route that has been chosen. In my opinion, however, the route that is now being followed, through the prairie provinces at least, is the most uninteresting part of the provinces through which a tourist may hope to travel. I say this with all due respect to that part of my own province of Manitoba which I know is dear to the hearts of those hon. members who have constituencies along that highway.
So far as the commercial objective is concerned I would say the highway follows an excellent route in that province, but certainly from a tourist's point of view anyone who is familiar with the province of Manitoba will know that the scenic beauty and recreational interests of the province start a considerable distance north of the present highway route. It misses entirely, for example, Riding Mountain national park which is one of the greatest national parks in this country. It misses many other scenic areas in the northern part of the province which are developing quickly at the present time.
Even from a commercial point of view it can easily be seen that if a loop of the highway system were to pass through northern and western Manitoba and go as far north as Flin Flon, then link up with Nipawin, Saskatchewan and carry on through that province, in addition to passing through some of the most wonderful tourist country in Canada it would be useful in opening up valuable mining districts which today are served only by railway and in some cases are not served by transportation at all.
In my opinion attention has to be paid in the very near future to enlarging the concept of the trans-Canada highway to a trans-Canada highway system. There will be areas in which the commercial and tourist objectives can be synchronized along one route. That may be true to some extent in the province of Ontario, but certainly once you hit the prairies where you find the population spread over a much larger area to the north and south than is the case in Ontario, you can see immediately that one route will not adequately serve either the commercial or recreational objective of this highway system.
Apart from these considerations I for one am very glad the government has gone this far at least. The adequacy of the provisions of this bill have been thoroughly discussed
30S6	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act by previous speakers, and I need not add my comments. I am glad the government has at least gone this far in helping what we hope will be the acceleration of the completion of this highway.
At times I have felt quite embarrassed, and I am sure we have all had that experience, in travelling between eastern and western Canada in that we have to pass through the United States because of their splendid highways. It is not that we have anything against the United States; it is a fine country and its inhabitants are fine people. It does seem a bit of a national embarrassment, however, that in a country as beautiful as ours we have to by-pass what is from a tourist's point of view perhaps the most beautiful part of a trip between, let us say, Montreal and Winnipeg, and go around on the south side of the great lakes in order to stay on good roads. That is one aspect of the matter. I believe it would be a good thing for us if we could travel across Canada from coast to coast, and we hope to see that accomplished in the future.
There is also another aspect of the matter. We talk about tourist trade, and we go to quite an expense and a great deal of trouble in advertising Canadian tourist attractions in the United States and even further south in Mexico and other countries, endeavouring to sell our tourist attractions to foreign nations, which is a good thing. Unfortunately we do not get as much benefit from that as we would if we had a good highway system. One matter we overlook, and I think this is our greatest loss from the point of view of the tourist, is that we are unable to attract Canadian tourists, for example, from eastern Canada or the eastern coast to the western coast and vice versa. This is not necessarily a loss in dollars and cents, but I think we are missing an opportunity in this field.
In this house and in the provincial legislatures we talk a great deal about national unity, about building up a pride in our country and building up a feeling of belonging, of citizenship and patriotism. This is all to the good. I would point out, however, that one trip through Canada from coast to coast on a good highway would do more for the average person than 200 speeches in the House of Commons on the subject of citizenship, patriotism and love of our country. One has to see to believe and to truly appreciate.
I think it represents a national loss which cannot be measured in dollars and cents when many hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens who are travelling from east to west or from west to east each year must pass through the United States in order to


reach their destinations. That is one thing I think we should bear in mind when considering this bill.
I believe it should be emphasized that our highway system is needed not only from commercial and recreational points of view but because it would form part of our national defence system. Recently conferences have been held across Canada in connection with civil defence. I have read reports of those conferences, as no doubt other hon. members have, and one of the things that struck me has been that civil defence co-ordinators, local captains and so on, who are concerned with this phase of our activity, have stated that from the national and civil defence point of view our present transportation facilities are shockingly inadequate.
It has been said that if there were a crisis- it does not necessarily have to be war; it could be some other form of crisis which would be just as serious as war-we would find a great number of bottlenecks in our transportation system which would prove to be most serious. As reference has been made to bottlenecks I want to take advantage of this opportunity to refer to what was said the other day about Winnipeg being a bottleneck in transportation to western Canada. I do not like that term being applied to the city of Winnipeg, which we regard as the gateway to the west. I particularly do not like that term bottleneck being applied at this time in view of the excitement which is taking place in our province in connection with beer and liquor. I hope that term will not be used until after this issue has been settled in the city of Winnipeg.
I do not wish to hold up the house any longer. I have expressed a few thoughts. I hope that apart altogether from the provisions of this bill this parliament will not long delay giving attention to the provision of an adequate trans-Canada highway system which will serve the country from the point of view of commercial, recreational and civil defence needs.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworlh (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended participating in this debate this afternoon but a few remarks were made by the hon. member for Broadview which I should like to discuss.
First I should like to congratulate the minister upon introducing these amendments, which indicate that the federal government is going to pay for more of this road. I think that is a good idea. I also like the idea of the extension of federal aid. I had the privilege this past summer of seeing some of the work being done on this highway in the British Columbia-Alberta area. When one travels from Field to Golden I think he

realizes the tremendous physical difficulties encountered in building a highway through the mountains. Also if one travels through northern Ontario he becomes aware of the physical difficulties faced by the engineers and contractors in building a road through that territory.
I think hon. members on this side of the house are a little fed up with the references made by the hon. member for Broadview, particularly-this is the impression I received -when he seems to imply that it is a federal responsibility to build highways through Canada. It is true that we certainly have an interest in doing this, but it must be continually kept in mind that roads are primarily within the jurisdiction of the provinces. After listening to the hon. member for Broadview I certainly have the impression that he wants us to take over the whole business of roads throughout the country.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege may I correct the hon. member and say that I never said it was a federal government responsibility to build roads in Canada. I said it was a federal government responsibility to see that the trans-Canada highway was built and that the road through the national parks was built. That is all.


An hon. Member:: Yet you spoke for 40 minutes.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: I am glad to have the hon. member explain his viewpoint, because I received an impression which was somewhat different.


George Harris Hees: You happen to be particularly stupid.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: That is coming from a fine source, is it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is being stupid a federal or provincial responsibility?


Allan Henry Hollingworth: We have heard several references to the fact that the province of Ontario cannot afford to build roads, that it has no money for education, that it has no money for anything; but the hon. member knows quite well that last year the province of Ontario had a budgetary surplus of $50 million. Hon. members know quite well that a special fund of $30 million was set aside for highways. But we are told that the province of Ontario has no money for roads, that it has no money to pay its share of the cost of the trans-Canada highway. What nonsense. The hon. member says this is a national disgrace. I take strong exception to those words, because if there is any national disgrace or provincial disgrace it is the way highway 401 is being built north of Toronto
Trans-Canada Highway Act to connect Hamilton and Oshawa. That is a provincial disgrace. Whose responsibility is that?
I want the house left with the impression that the federal government, with all its expenditures for social security and for defence, has shown by this amendment its willingness to put up $250 million. Already in Ontario $22 million has been allocated for this trans-Canada highway. Surely no hon. member in this house can say we are not paying our share.
I want again to congratulate the minister and urge him to keep up his fine work. I am sure the Canadian people are very proud of the federal government's contribution in this sphere.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for York Centre that when he says that anything that happens in Ontario is a national disgrace I would not subscribe to it as coming from the maritimes-


Allan Henry Hollingworth: I said provincial disgrace.


Thomas Miller Bell: I can assure the hon. member that people from outside Toronto and Ontario are not as concerned about things that he may think are national disgraces in his province. That is something strictly of a provincial nature.


An hon. Member:: Roads?


Thomas Miller Bell: Since the Minister of Public Works has now accepted certain responsibilities with respect to the construction of highways within national parks from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I should like to point out one matter which I consider to be unfair and worthy of consideration by him. I hope he will not think I am extreme when I point out that the two provinces in which national parks are located where the highways within those parks are being completely financed by the federal government are gaining a considerable financial benefit, while the provinces other than Alberta and British Columbia are placed in an unequal position. As I say, it may seem extreme, but the minister has made a point about the financial and other difficulties that have arisen in the parks out west. He said that extra expense is incurred and additional delay is caused because of the costs involved. It is my contention that the provinces of the east are not benefiting to the same extent as the provinces of the west in the development of various scenic roads that are perhaps outside the park areas but which lead to the parks.
I have an example in mind, as the minister may have guessed. I refer to Fundy national
3088	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act park in New Brunswick. There is the possibility of a delightful scenic drive from Saint John along the shore of the bay of Fundy to the park. It is known as the Fundy trail. Here is our problem. The cost of construction there is fairly high. I suppose it is comparable with the cost of highways within the two western parks I have mentioned. I suggest that while the matter does not come completely within the orbit of the minister's responsibilities he certainly would have something to say about it. It may be that an alternative route for the trans-Canada highway which would go through the park is necessary, or it may be that the boundaries of the park should be extended to include the expensive part of this road which has to be developed. The tourist possibilities of the Fundy trail would be immense. The tourist trade aspect has already been dealt with, and great emphasis has been laid on the benefits that accrue from highways. I suggest this is an important factor that should be considered.
Second, there is the question of defence. We learned recently of a super-highway that is being built up the coast of the United States and which will probably end at the New Brunswick border. I suggest to the minister that here is an opportunity to continue this defence highway up through New Brunswick. It would aid in the development of this area which is faced with such terrific construction costs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave this thought with the minister inasmuch as he is involved directly in responsibility for the construction of highways within our parks. To repeat what I have said, I suggest that these provinces which are attempting to develop routes in connection with the national parks are faced with financial inequality and unfairness compared with the western provinces, where highways in connection with the parks are being paid for completely. I suggest that the minister consider that matter.
I admit that it is not his responsibility entirely. The provincial authorities and the minister in charge of parks also come into the picture. However, the Minister of Public Works undoubtedly will be involved in the matter, and I suggest that he remember that there is considerable financial disparity. I believe it might amount to thousands of dollars from the way costs are mounting out west, and every thought should be given to these provinces of the east which are faced with costs that they find are beyond the capacity of their financial resources.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the observations made during the course of the debate by the hon. member for Bow River,


and of course I agree with him that everything possible should be done to see that the specifications for the trans-Canada highway are of a type that will carry heavy loads and heavy traffic. But I do not think the minister should take the advice of the hon. member for Bow River too seriously when he says that the roads of Alberta are superior to other roads. Nor do I want the people of Ontario to take too seriously the statement made by the hon. member for Bow River when he said on April 16, as found at page 2950 of Hansard:
If you want to see some good roads, go to Alberta. You have not anything in Ontario that can compete with them.
A lot of members are laughing, and of course it is worth a laugh. I am always a booster of Alberta but I certainly am not in a position to boast about Alberta roads. The fact is that we have some of the finest potholes on our roads of any place in Canada in spite of the huge expenditures-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Ottawa?


John Decore: -made on the road program by the Alberta government with its huge revenues from oil, and despite the heavy gasoline tax imposed by that government.


Charles Edward Johnston: The oil was there when the Liberals were in power. Don't forget that.


John Decore: The best way I can make my point-


Charles Edward Johnston: Is by sitting down.


John Decore: -is to read some editorials. I shall start with an editorial in the Calgary Herald of May 4, 1954. The heading of the editorial is, "Spring Breakup: On Roads Not Rivers." Of course we are having spring right now and that is a sure sign that our roads in Alberta are breaking up. The editorial reads in part as follows:
A sure sign of spring in Alberta is the heaving and buckling of our main highways and motorists are now reporting that spring has sprung. The government's revolving road plan is in full swing. From Claresholm to Calgary the Macleod trail is gradually beginning to resemble a tank proving ground with large potholes and breaks in the hard top. A few of these are marked to warn drivers, but mostly the driver is on his own in picking his way through the ruts. It is safe to say that by the time the spring thaw is over the number of red flags needed to mark the holes would give the south road the appearance of Moscow on May day.
I shall read another editorial that appeared in the Edmonton Journal of August 25, 1955.

The heading is, "Stronger Highways Needed." It reads in part as follows:
The breakdown of parts of the four-lane highway between Edmonton and Nisku should warn the provincial government to re-examine its standards for highway design and construction. The vital question is whether they are yet high enough to meet the burdens of traffic not merely today but during the next few decades when still higher traffic loads are to be expected. This section of highway 2-
Highway 2 is the road between Calgary and Edmonton.
-is not the only piece of road built under provincial contract in recent years which has broken up or given way long before its time. But it is part of the province's main artery between the major cities-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: hate to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his argument, but before he proceeds further I think I should ask him if he would indicate whether the highways that he is discussing are part of the trans-Canada highway. This house is not debating at the moment the merits or demerits of the road program of the province of Alberta, but a bill dealing with amendments to the Trans-Canada Highway Act. While I do not wish to curtail the hon. member's remarks, I must inform him that if the roads about which he is now reading are not part of the trans-Canada highway system, I am afraid he cannot continue along that line.


John Decore: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Speaker. All I am trying to do is warn the minister not to take too seriously the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River, wherein he tried to indicate the superior qualities of our Alberta highways and to leave the implication that our trans-Canada highway should be built to similar specifications.


Charles Edward Johnston: What paper are you reading from?


John Decore: I was reading from an editorial in the Edmonton Journal.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a Liberal paper. You cannot put any trust in that.


John Decore: This is the first time I have heard that the Edmonton Journal is a Liberal paper, or that the Calgary Herald is one.


An hon. Member:: Keep going.


John Decore: To continue with this editorial:
But it is part of the province's main artery between the major cities; it is only four or five years old; and it was widely regarded by the motoring public as something of a showpiece-
Just as we hear today.
-and as the herald of a new and better order in Alberta's highway building. In these circumstances.
Trans-Canada Highway Act it is extremely disturbing that very extensive reconstruction should be required so soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I do not want to appear unduly harsh, but I must warn the hon. member that unless the highway that he is now discussing is part of the trans-Canada highway it will be only fair that some defender of the Alberta government system should be allowed to meet the argument he is now raising. We would then find this house debating the merits of a provincial road system and not the trans-Canada highway. I think we must come back to the bill which is before us.


John Decore: I appreciate the comments you have made, Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing out again what has been brought out by the hon. member for Bow River. He pointed out the so-called superior form of the Alberta roads. I just wish to warn the minister not to take the hon. member for Bow River too seriously.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to draw to your attention the fact that I was not discussing Alberta roads. I was only using the specifications that Alberta uses for road construction as a guide for the federal government.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the subject matter which is before us, and to comment on some of the ideas that have been given to us by the minister. While it is encouraging for us to learn that there is growing concern in the ranks of the government with respect to the discouraging delays in completing the trans-Canada highway, the terms of the bill before us will in no way eliminate the fact that an adequate highway program for our dominion, with the urgent need of substantially assisting the various provinces in order to carry out a proper road program, is perhaps the most neglected item in the federal program.
The position which we in the Social Credit group take on this matter is that a new and realistic approach must be made to the whole question of Canada's highway requirements. Instead of a dynamic effort to meet one of the most pressing problems facing our communities in Canada we are considering a bill which, while it is a step in the right direction, in my estimation is a patchwork of previous inadequate legislation that was enacted with respect to the building of roads in Canada. Actually we are trying at this late date to correct what was essentially inadequate financial assistance to the provinces of Canada when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was first passed by parliament away back in December, 1949.
3090	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
I recall that at that time it was widely predicted by government spokesmen that the target date for completion of the trans-Canada highway would be about the year 1956. From the terms of this amendment to the act which we have before us, it appears that the government has now revised its forecast to May 31, 1961. Judging from the amount of construction completed to the present date and using the number of years from 1949 to 1956 as some sort of measuring rod, I am afraid the government will be compelled to extend still further into the future the completion of the first national highway in Canada.
I believe the situation is becoming scandalous. Let me point out that last year a program of highway building costing federal and state governments over $101 billion for the next ten years was adopted by the Eisenhower administration.


Robert Henry Winters: It was recommended, not adopted.


Ambrose A. Holowach: They have ten national highways.


Robert Henry Winters: It was recommended; that is all.


Ambrose A. Holowach: In Canada we are still waiting for the completion of our first trans-Canada highway. I say we should be thinking in terms of not one trans-Canada highway but numerous trans-Canada highways, and the time of commencement of these should be now. I think the situation in our country is that we are too retarded in our thinking on this important subject.
On numerous occasions in the past I have stressed the urgency of undertaking such a program. In this connection I urged in previous debates that a department of roads be set up to accomplish this objective. Speaking for my own area in western Canada, I again suggest that a northerly east-west route from Winnipeg by way of Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper park and the Yellowhead route to the west coast merits immediate attention. I think the terrain along this route, the elevation and the snowfall conditions, lend themselves ideally to a super four-lane highway. Such a route would connect the industrial and developing areas of western Canada with the east.
There is something further I wish to mention. There is the matter of the urgency of defence considerations which I believe are involved in this matter of roads in our country. On many occasions we have heard desperate pleas from competent sources urging study of mass evacuation of our cities. I think we must try desperately to prevent such action from ever becoming a necessity; but


should the time ever come when it is necessary, how in the world can we possibly evacuate our cities unless we have proper roads and highways? I say to you that it would be monumental cruelty for us to continue procrastinating on this important subject.
I have in my hand an important article which has a significant message. It is taken from the New York Times of March 12, 1955. It is headed "Clay Backs System of Superhighways" and reads in part as follows:
Washington, March 11 (UP): Gen. Lucius D. Clay, retired, said today it would be "just about impossible" to evacuate United States cities in an atomic attack without a multi-billion dollar new system of interstate super-highways.
In a strong appeal to a Senate public works subcommittee he asserted that it would be the "greatest mistake we ever made" if congress failed to vote "roads for survival" . . .
He headed President Eisenhower's highway committee that recommended a 10-year, $101 billion road building program . . .
Gen. Clay agreed it would be "very difficult" to empty cities even with the proposed system. But he said a "many, many times better job" could be done. . . . He asserted, however, that "we could save many lives" by evacuating "secondary" areas tainted with radioactivity after a nuclear attack.
While we are appropriating again this year several billions of dollars for munitions and arms, we hand out a few peanuts to the provinces for roads which can serve defensive and peaceful purposes. Considering along the civil defence angle, it is not unreasonable for us to suggest that the federal government should provide substantially all the funds needed for modernizing a strategic network of highways in our country. I think the government would be right in breaking with its existing policies and thinking along the lines I have mentioned.
There are other reasons why the government ought to revise its thinking respecting highways and road construction in our dominion. We can hardly expect the respective provinces of Canada to continue shouldering the financial burden of building roads while the federal government reaps the colossal revenues derived from excise and sales taxes on vehicles and industries associated with roads. It is true that under our constitution the responsibility for building roads lies with the provinces. Let me point out, however, that aiding the provinces in their road programs would mean aiding provincial economies, which field is taxed heavily by the senior government.
The controversy that has been carried on in this house during the past two days over whose responsibility it is becomes a joke when one considers that the matter is linked with our national economy and our national defence.	-

I believe the verdict of the people of Canada would be for the calling of a conference of representatives of the various provincial governments to aid, and objectively formulate, a national highway program truly worthy of our great country. Such a request was made by Premier Manning of the province of Alberta as far back as March of 1953 and again on April 10, 1953. At that time he was acting in accordance with the wishes and with the consent of the governments of the three western provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. I am sorry to say that nothing came of those requests for such a meeting. What we actually need are less words and misunderstanding and a little more action and performance.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, one thing we are quite sure of by now is that there is a considerable difference of opinion about the condition of the roads in this country. I am a little worried about speaking today after that lecture the hon. member for Broadview received earlier. Though I did not take part in this debate at the resolution stage, I have gone to the trouble to see if I have ever said anything like this in past years, so I think I can be reasonably clear that I am not going to be guilty of any repetition in so far as this debate is concerned.
One of the things that depresses me about this subject was something I recall was stated by the Conservative member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). I think he referred to an Indian potentate in his example, but it amounted to this, that you can go broke buying bargains. It appears to me that that type of solution is being offered by this government to the various provinces. There is not very much point in suggesting that we are going to be prepared here to match a certain number of dollars when those dollars in fact do not exist.
I might refer specifically to the remarks by the hon. member for York Centre. Of all the people in this house I think he is quite well aware of the restrictions in connection with municipal and provincial financing. He was a member of the municipal council in his own district of York Centre. I think he must realize that although the province of Ontario may be showing a surplus in so far as its budget is concerned, it is building roads at an expanding and accelerating rate. I am afraid it is having to finance them on an amortization plan, which may cause us considerable heartache in the future. Yet if it does not do so the true seriousness of the situation is going to be reflected in the fact that many other essential services such as
Trans-Canada Highway Act the building of schools may be affected. I am not going any further with my remarks in that connection because I can almost see you ready to rise, Mr. Speaker, and say that at this point I am out of order.
However, the provincial situation is such that no matter what province it may be, the continuing financial strain is almost getting to the breaking point. I say to hon. members of this house that that is just as applicable to the so-called rich province of Ontario as it is to any of those that might consider themselves less fortunate.
I listened to the hon. member for Fort William. I respect his opinion and I like to talk to him regularly, but when he says we have had remarkable leadership in this connection, I think he is far off the mark. As a matter of fact the chief thing that is the matter with this particular program is that there is no pioneering spirit being shown in it. When we try to compare this with the building of the C.P.R. in the early days of confederation, the two just do not go together. At that time there was a spirit throughout this land which was fostered by the people in charge of the government at that time, and which ensured that that very necessary railway was built and apparently built just as quickly as we are going to have this trans-Canada highway built in the years to follow.
I should like to say that in the last six months I have seen some road construction in Mexico. Taking a look at the time that is involved, I believe that road construction in Mexico is going on just as quickly as on this trans-Canada highway. It is being done with picks and shovels and without any of the automatic equipment that we have to carry out the construction program here in Canada. It is a sad state of affairs when lands of that type, building in country just as difficult as our own, are able to keep up to us with the use of picks and shovels.
I have seen some of the trans-Canada highway, and I might say I have seen a part in the riding of the hon. member for Bow River. When I saw it I thought you could use it as a pedestrian way if you wore hip boots, but from the standpoint of using it as a highway, it is going to be many years, if we continue the present pace, before it will be in use for the moving of people and goods.


An hon. Member:: You must have been having a dream.


John Borden Hamilton: I said the other night that the government can always find an excuse for not going ahead. They can tell us about provincial rights, but when they find something for their own political purposes they can forget them very easily. I say this

Trans-Canada Highway Act is one of the occasions when they might get down off the pinnacle and deal with the people at the level at which we can accomplish something. I do not think they should tell us they have no money. No, sir; they have the money, all right. They collected it from the people to whom it should be returned in the form of highways which will be of some benefit to the whole country.
At this point I am going to say I am repeating, because I used these figures once before, but I think they can bear repetition. According to the public accounts of Canada, volume I, for the year 1954, this government collected $94,715,040 in excise taxes on automobiles. It collected $11,381,716 in taxes on rubber tires, tubes and articles of that kind. From figures it is almost impossible for me to calculate the amount of sales tax, but the Canadian Automobile Association presented a brief to the Minister of Finance on September 10, 1954, and their estimate was that the government also collected approximately $90 million in sales tax. In addition the government has collected on an annual basis somewhere between $25 million and $50 million of taxes on imported vehicles.
I am not going to refer to the tremendous amount of corporation tax which has been collected from the automobile companies, but obviously that tax in fact is paid by the consumer, the person who buys the cars and trucks. How many millions of dollars it is I would not even dare estimate. But even the figures I have given you here today, sir, indicate that approximately $250 million can be collected in this manner annually. What did this government do for the people who paid this tax? Well, I will tell you. In that year they spent $13,378,998 on the trans-Canada highway. At the same time it cost about $400,000 for the administration of that highway, and I think they spent about $750,000 on the parkway system in the Ottawa area, so all told it was something like $14 million or $15 million.
Now, sir, they are collecting $250 million annually and they are spending for the motorist, for the person who buys the trucks and cars, approximately $14 million or $15 million. As a matter of fact they collect enough in a year to cover the total expenditure that I heard read out Dy the minister since the inception of this program. One years' collection of taxes from these people would pay the complete cost of this particular highway so far. It is high time, sir, that this type of taxation was used for the benefit of the people who pay it. As long as we continue to have this type of taxation, as long as there is no responsibility to plow it back into the facilities that are required by the


people who pay the tax, so long you are going to continue to have this type of headline: "Frost Asks $100 Million More". Why does he ask that? Because this government does not put it back where it belongs; and so long as it continues that policy so long will every province of this dominion require a greater amount of money from the federal treasury.
There is only one other item I should like to speak about. You know, sir, since I have been moved over to this area I have had a couple of letters from people congratulating me on being appointed parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for the Yukon. As a matter of fact I cannot think of anyone better to be parliamentary assistant to. When I heard him speak the other night about the problems of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories and of the access roads that are required to the coast I thought it would be a wonderful thing if hon. members here could see some of the roads out there and see some of the country out there. I have seen it, and I was very much impressed with it. It is a long way from York West to the northwest, but it was a wonderful experience.
It seems to me that at this time-and I shall relate these remarks to the trans-Canada highway and the trans-Canada highway system-when the natural resources of this country are so much in demand by our friends to the south and when I would venture to say that the demand for those resources is going to increase, it is a wonderful opportunity for this country to bargain from strength for the privileges the hon. member for Yukon spoke about the other day in the budget debate.
The minister has said that we in this house are responsible for the operation of the highways in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. There is no question about that, or about our having to share that responsibility with anybody else. It boils right down to us. It seems to me that if we are to develop the north, sir, one of the things we should be aiming for is an integration of the highways in that northwest area with this trans-Canada highway system. If I can make any plea in this house today for the future of the northwest it would be that we heed very much the warning of the hon. member for Yukon and see whether we cannot integrate that highway system with the trans-Canada highway system, and whether we cannot bargain from strength to obtain the corridors required to ensure that we open up those areas.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Borden Hamilton: I heard someone say "order", Mr. Speaker. I think we are

a long way off the track when an hon. member says I am out of order in asking that the highway system in that area be placed along with the trans-Canada highway and made a part of the responsibility of this house. I hope, sir, that all hon. members will consider the plea made by the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: I intend to take only a minute, Mr. Speaker. I hold in my hand a report of the proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. Inside the cover they have a beautiful picture of a piece of the British Columbia highway which tells a story in itself. The piece of the trans-Canada highway that is pictured here is much wider than the ordinary trans-Canada specifications. The reason it is wider is that truck transportation moving up hills requires a certain section of the road, and it is left wider so the passenger traffic can get by. I should like to call the minister's attention to this, because I think the trans-Canada highway specifications should include wider specifications for the road on the hills throughout the system.


An hon. Member:: Who paid for it?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Someone asks "who paid for it?" In this particular case, of course, British Columbia paid for the additional width of road that is shown in this beautiful picture in the report. I should like to suggest that when consideration is given to taking on more expenditure, account should be taken of this because it is very important that on those hills there is an extra width for the trucks to travel on.
If we judge by the procedure that has been followed in British Columbia it is evident that they expect the trans-Canada highway to be one that will carry truck traffic. I was impressed by the words of the hon. member for Bow River, who expressed his concern over the fact that perhaps the trans-Canada highway was never intended to carry truck traffic. I was a little bit amused-and I mean that-by the reference of the hon. member for Vegreville to certain highways. Certainly if the highways he referred to are of a higher standard than the trans-Canada highway, the minister should take note that even those highways which are of a higher standard are going to pieces, if that is what the hon. member was saying. I think that is what he was trying to get across. Certainly the trans-Canada highway, built to less stringent specifications, is not going to stand up nearly as well.
Therefore it only emphasizes what the hon. member for Bow River said when he gave the specifications for the Alberta highways. I recall in the words that were spoken that the
Trans-Canada Highway Act base and the black top were heavier on the Alberta roads that are now supposed to be going to pieces. That serves to emphasize the need for a much greater base and a thicker black top surface to be put on the trans-Canada highway.
I am somewhat concerned, too, over that part of the bill which deals with the number of miles that have to be linked together in one piece. I believe it is five miles. I think we should look at the highway construction program with a view to achieving the accomplishment of the program as economically as possible and with the greatest amount of speed. I see no reason for stipulating the distance of five miles unless perhaps the government wanted to eliminate certain tough spots in the highway construction or some bridge that might cost much more money than would an ordinary piece of road. I would suggest the revision of that part of the act in order to make sure that it is going to meet the needs of the trans-Canada highway.
That is all I have to say at this time. I would certainly urge that the senior government, which is taking the biggest share of the tax revenue, reconsider the whole matter of the trans-Canada highway and the trans-Canada highway system. I believe when I came into the house in 1953 I mentioned in the throne speech debate at that time that the government should have a highway system under consideration, and I have not changed my mind one bit since that time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the minister opened the debate this afternoon he pointed out very clearly what he thought of the present situation with regard to the trans-Canada highway by several significant remarks. You will remember that he referred in the first place to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and pointed out that, after all, it had taken 11 years to build that railway and that by the time this amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act had expired it would have taken 11 years to build the trans-Canada highway, so perhaps we are not doing too badly after all. It was certainly not a very enthusiastic introduction.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that what I meant to convey was that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built in 11 years many years ago, so surely we can build a trans-Canada highway in 11 years.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not very enthusiastic either, and it is not very inspiring. I am afraid the minister will have to be a great deal more convincing than that if he wants to get the highway completed even by the end of 1960.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
There is one fact which must be remembered. Even before the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed there was a passable road across Canada with the exception, of course, of the province of Newfoundland. Many years ago it was possible to drive even through Ontario, although you had to go up into the vicinity of a place called Longlac, I think. The hon. member for Fort William will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there was a passable highway from one coast of the country to the other.
This condition existed quite a few years ago. It is amazing that we now require another four years to complete a paved trans-Canada highway, and there is no certainty at all that it will be completed even within that four-year period.
There are two points which the minister did not clearly explain in his opening speech, and I hope he will deal with them when he closes this debate. The first has to do with the gaps. He referred several times to gaps. My idea of a gap in the trans-Canada highway is a portion over which you cannot drive, but it is obvious that this is not what the minister means when he refers to a gap. He seems to mean any part of the highway that is not completed up to trans-Canada standards. I suggest that he keep before the eyes of the provinces and the Canadian people the gaps over which you cannot drive at all. I do not know even yet how many miles there are which come under that category.


Robert Henry Winters: I said so.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said there were 185 miles over which there was nothing built at all, but at page 5 of the report of the proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, we find there were at that time 160 miles in Newfoundland which were not passable and 162 miles in Ontario which were not passable. They are described in this table as non-passable mileage. It is the other way around; the table describes the passable mileage, so I take the difference between the total mileage there should be in a province and the approximate passable mileage is the amount that is impassable.


Robert Henry Winters: I think the report you are referring to is of March 31, 1954.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the report is up to March 31, 1955. I believe the house should be told exactly what gaps a car cannot be driven over and where those gaps are.


Robert Henry Winters: It is all in my statement.


Howard Charles Green: There certainly is no gap of that kind in western Canada, and I do not think there is any gap from the eastern

border of Ontario right through to Halifax. The only two remaining provinces are Ontario and Newfoundland, and we should be told exactly what mileage there is in each of those provinces over which a car cannot be driven.


Robert Henry Winters: If you read my statement you will find it.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that these gaps should be the object of concentrated attention so a Canadian can drive from coast to coast in Canada, and I hope he or she will not have to wait until 1961 to be able to do that merely because there are a few miles in Ontario over which a car cannot be driven at the present time.


Robert Henry Winters: We are of the same mind on that matter.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should take far more aggressive action to see that this particular gap is closed. I have here the brief submitted by the Canadian Automobile Association just a few months ago. They emphasize this need very clearly in these words:
In a nation which has risen to fourth position in world trade, which is recognized in the world as one of the most progressive and far-thinking nations of the day, it is most regrettable that a Canadian motorist cannot drive across his own country.
The minister announced this afternoon that the government is now dropping its insistence that the whole of this road must be brought up to trans-Canada standards. He said that where there is a paved road he will not require the province to tear it up. That, of course, is quite a departure from the standard which was set in 1949. I hope that from here on he will focus his attention on getting a road that can be driven on in those portions of the country where there is no road at the present time.
The second point he did not make clear in his remarks is what is to happen to this highway once it has been completed. We have been lead to believe that this is to be Canada's national highway, but government policy seems to be that once the road has been built to certain standards then the dominion government fades out of the picture and the highway becomes ten provincial highways. The other day I asked the parliamentary assistant about that and I think his interjection, to be found at page 2965 of Hansard of April 16, is very significant. I said:
-but I believe there is no provision in the legislation for assistance from the dominion in keeping this highway up to modern standards.


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

How can you expect to have any national enthusiasm over this highway when it is going to be national only until it is completed the first time? The minute it is completed and the dominion pays its share the highway is to be handed back to the provinces and the dominion will have no more concern with it. Not only do highways have to be maintained, they have to be improved. As larger trucks are used heavier highways and bridges are required, and that is going to be the case indefinitely. There will have to be improvements made on this highway even after it has been graded, and made a continuous highway.
If the dominion does not stay in the picture then the provinces will do exactly what some of them are doing today. They will say, "Oh, we want to spend our money in another part of our province where there are more people; we are not going to put out any additional money on the trans-Canada highway, as that is not our first responsibility." The result will be that shortly after this national highway is completed it will no longer be a first-class national highway. It may well turn into ten second-class provincial highways, and the whole vision of a great national road will have been lost.
I would hope the dominion government will change its policy in this regard and determine to stand behind this national highway even when it has been completed for the first time. I see no reason why the dominion should not pay its share of the cost of modernization of the highway indefinitely. Let it be a truly national highway.
I should like the minister to explain also why, once the road has been finished, the dominion should not assume some share of the cost of maintenance, why it should not see that the highway is kept up. Otherwise I am convinced that the minute we reach the point where we have a national highway it will start to go downhill and none of us will be very proud if that situation should *develop. I hope when he closes the debate the minister will see fit to deal with these two questions.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, probably what I have to say will be ruled out of order with the statement that the remarks of the hon. member for Vegre-ville were out of order. The hon. member was permitted to put on the record some editorials which gave just about as thoroughly a distorted view of the highway situation in Alberta as any editorials possibly could. I should like to take just a few minutes to set before the house and the country the facts
Trans-Canada Highway Act pertaining to the situation in Alberta. I hope I can do this in five or ten minutes without being called to order.
Nothing has been said by any of these newspapers which were quoted by any of these brilliant Liberals who come down here to kick their own province in the face about the fact that in 1935 there were 80,000 miles of road to be built in Alberta, and that at that time there was not one single mile of graded and paved road in that province. The territory which had to be served by those 80,000 miles of road was settled almost all over because of the peculiarities of the settlement of Alberta. There were great areas along the Canadian Pacific railway and great areas owned by the Hudson's Bay Company and other concerns which resulted in the spreading of population all over the province.
The result was that these roads had to be built. The people in all these areas were clamouring for roads; they needed them. Any government which in 1935 undertook to build a road system that was suitable for Alberta could not afford to spend all its money on a few hundred miles of road and leave the rest of the 80,000 miles unserviced. They simply had to spread out their money and their work, which meant that no single mile of road in Alberta could possibly be up to the high standard which might be prescribed. They had to build the best they could, realizing that a tremendous area had to be covered. It was something like a man with 15 children who all needed shoes. He could not buy every one of those children a pair of shoes costing $15; probably he would have to get them shoes costing $3 or else buy them moccasins.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is now six o'clock, but before leaving the chair may I point out that we are discussing a bill dealing with the trans-Canada highway. When I was in the chair this afternoon one hon. member discussed, I think quite properly, the specifications of the trans-Canada highway in general terms and also with respect to a particular province. At the present time I would think it would not be in order-the hon. gentleman more or less invited me to bring him to order-to discuss provincial road-building programs except in so far as they affected the trans-Canada highway. I did not interrupt the hon. member while he was laying the groundwork for his speech, but I do feel that we must confine ourselves to the principle of this bill which concerns the trans-Canada highway.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Trans-Canada Highway Act AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, one of the bones of contention among hon. members as they have talked to each other across the floor ever since this measure began to be considered has been whether or not the provinces should bear a more generous share of the cost of the trans-Canada highway or whether the dominion should. I think each province has particular difficulties which give it just about all the troubles it can bear. I was on the point of mentioning some of those difficulties as regards Alberta to show that she certainly is not in a position to spend any more money on the trans-Canada highway than she absolutely has to spend.
I mentioned before the house took recess that we had 80,000 miles of road to build in Alberta; that with a population spread over so large a part of the province there was a great demand for roads in nearly every part of it. I should like to draw attention to two or three other aspects of our provincial situation which are disregarded by many of our Alberta Liberal members who come down here and report about the province.
In the first place, Alberta is a foothill province. I do not believe there is another area of land on the North 'American continent that has conditions identical with those of Alberta. Because of the fact that there are so many swamps, so many areas where drainage is sluggish and such a tendency for springs to come up in wet years, we frequently build first-class roads over a certain area never dreaming that there are springs under those roads. Then when a very wet year comes along we have springs coming up right in the middle of the roads. We have had that happen in a good many cases. We have had to dig down 15, 16 or more feet because of the deterioration before we could build another road over the top.
Things like that need to be borne in mind in dealing with Alberta. Because of the fact that she is a foothill province she is very different from other provinces. Consequently when the engineers went to work planning roads in Alberta they had nothing to go by, and although we had the very best engineers we could obtain there had to be a good deal of experimentation which resulted in losses of roads and great additional costs.
There is another important matter which indicates the difficulty that Alberta has. That is the great variety of climate. Sometimes we have very wet years and sometimes we have four, five, or even ten dry years. People


would become accustomed to the dry years and build a road where they thought it would certainly be secure and safe, but lo and behold when a wet year came it was anything but secure and safe. There was always the danger of having roads heave in the wintertime as the result of frost, especially if we had wet falls.
When the hon. member for Vegreville read the editorials from those two papers he made no mention of facts like these. The two editorials made no mention of these facts, and if they were going to be fair they should have done so. It needs to be borne in mind that every mile of road in Alberta from the time Social Credit took over in 1935 was built under the direction of the very best engineering advice that could be obtained. I will challenge anyone to show wherein that was not true, or wherein there was any wastefulness or inefficiency in building roads. The simple fact is that roads did not stand up because of the reasons I have given, and we had to build roads over again.
There is another most pertinent thing. The important major oil discovery in Alberta was in the Leduc field in 1947. Roads which stood up to the traffic in Alberta up to 1947 simply were hopelessly inadequate when the great machines and the great trucks laden with very heavy oil equipment and machines started to travel over those roads in great numbers. Consequently nearly all the north and south roads which we had and which we thought would stand up were simply destroyed by the tremendous traffic over them from 1947 and 1948 onward especially in wet years.
There is another thing that has to be borne in mind. In addition to the great number of roads we had to build, our revenues were very meagre. The first Social Credit budget in 1936,1 believe, was in the neighbourhood of $15 million. When you bear in mind that practically 49 cents out of every single dollar of revenue that was acquired had to go for the payment of interest on bonds alone you can see the conditions under which the government laboured when it endeavoured to provide roads in a province like that with the conditions I have already mentioned.
I do not think I need to say anything more, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who is realistic, anyone who is inclined to be honest and fair, will realize that under the circumstances editorials like those read by the hon. member for Vegreville were published by papers that did not intend in any way to be fair. They were deliberately trying to hurt the province and deliberately trying to hurt the government of that province which, as I have said in times past, is in my opinion the finest government

that is to be found on the North American continent, if not in the whole world. All we desire is that men tell the truth about us, and give us a chance to go on and do in the future work comparable with what has been done in the past.
What I have said certainly indicates to the minister that we have no money to spend on the trans-Canada highway other than what we absolutely have to spend. Yet Alberta has, I believe, built her share of the trans-Canada highway-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-right up to date and has in many cases built far ahead of the money the minister has paid. In other words, I am told that she has built sections of the road and has had to wait six, seven or eight months before receiving the dominion's share.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make these few observations. I think my hon. friends from Alberta will find what I have said completely unanswerable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two Questions that I should perhaps answer in winding up the debate at this stage. The hon. member for Broadview spoke today in the capacity of official critic for the official opposition. Therefore I would imagine that the views he expressed were those that the Progressive Conservative party wish to convey on the measure before the house at the present time. I rather gathered that he is under some misapprehension as to the role of the federal government in the trans-Canada highway and the relationship between the provinces and the federal government with respect to this project.
This all came about, as I said in my statement, because of what seemed to be the wish of the provincial governments and on the part of the public generally to have the federal government provide some financing and to co-ordinate the project, but it was never suggested by anybody responsible that the federal government should insert itself into the prior position, that it should assume any responsibility for ownership of the highway or that it should contribute toward maintenance once the highway was completed. The concept was to join up ten provincial roads to form a trans-Canada highway; and since that had some national complexion the federal government was justified in participating, but only on the grounds that the provincial autonomy would be protected at all times, that the highway would be constructed
Trans-Canada Highway Act By the provincial governments, and that provincial practices as to highway construction would be adhered to to the greatest possible extent.
The hon. member talked about the limitation of federal funds on the rate of construction of the trans-Canada highway. I do not think that is a correct concept. At no time have the federal funds voted by this parliament been a deterrent or a limiting factor on the pace of construction of the trans-Canada highway. The money has been available, and we would have been gratified had the pace proceeded faster than it did. Our mutual regret-and when I say "mutual" I mean the provinces and ourselves-is that they have not been able to do as much work as they contemplated originally for reasons which I gave this afternoon when I opened this debate on second reading. The provinces themselves have never suggested or asked that we take over ownership of this highway or assist with the maintenance of it. Those were clear understandings from the start.
I referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I said that extremely important project took 11 years to complete. I also said that if this measure is passed, parliament will be providing 11 years in which to complete the trans-Canada highway. When we view this present project in the light of present-day techniques and construction methods I think 11 years for a trans-Canada highway is far more than was comparable when the C.P.R. was built. The impression I intended to convey was that if the C.P.R. could be built in the last century in 11 years, then surely with the nine provinces working together and with the financial assistance and the co-ordination of the federal government, we should be able to build a trans-Canada highway in less time than that.
I wish to make one more reference to that matter. The hon. member said the C.P.R. was built smoothly, efficiently and without any difficulties at all.


George Harris Hees: No; I did not say "without difficulties". I said "smoothly and efficiently".


Robert Henry Winters: As reference reading I would commend to the hon. member "The Old Chieftain", which is a very good book and which gives a clear picture of the difficulties and some of the other problems encountered in the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
This whole operation as envisaged by the bill now before us is a gap-closing operation. I say that now for the benefit of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). Later on I shall have cause to deal with some of the other remarks he made. It is not

Trans-Canada Highway Act intended to be an invasion of provincial juris1 diction, as some of the remarks made by hon. members of the opposition would seem to be inviting the federal government to undertake.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) was concerned primarily about the standards of the trans-Canada highway. I should say to him that the specification was a matter of agreement. From the outset we have said that we would be guided by provincial practices so long as the ultimate requirements are met. The hon. member stated that the base course set out in the agreement is not adequate. Actually there is no dimension specified for the thickness of the base course. The specification requires that the road shall be built to carry an axle loading of 18,000 pounds. I know of no province in Canada that specifies a load-carrying capacity greater than that. The method to achieve that load-carrying capacity is up to the provincial government. If the aggregate or granular material available in any one area requires a greater thickness than that- if it requires a 2-foot thickness-it is up to the provincial government to specify the thickness of a base course that will provide the load-carrying capacity set out in the agreement.
The hon. member mentioned the thickness of the asphalt and rather implied that it is limited to 3 inches. Actually the specification states that it shall be 3 inches, but there is no reason why it should not be more than that. We have actually approved and paid for a greater thickness than 3 inches. We have accepted and paid for a thickness up to 5 inches.
In Alberta as in some other provinces there is an asphalt stabilized base course which is usually something of the order of three inches thick and sometimes thicker, so that the total asphalt is usually at least six inches, with three inches top asphalt and three inches stabilized base course.


Charles Edward Johnston: Do you think that is thick enough to carry the traffic?


Robert Henry Winters: Schedule B that is before the provincial governments now will specify 3 inches as a minimum. I think trans-Canada highway specifications have helped to set the standards in Alberta and elsewhere. It was on the trans-Canada highway in Alberta that the first shoulders were paved. My hon. friend made quite a point of that fact this afternoon. He referred to the matter of the right of way and deplored that it should be limited to 100 feet. The 100 feet width is specified as the minimum. As the provinces acquire and pay for the right of way, they are of course free to acquire any width they wish.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would be an additional expense to the province not shared by the federal government.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right; the provincial government is required to acquire and pay for the right of way.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) deplored the lack of progress at Banff and said there is not any mileage completed. There are some reasons for that fact. I assured the hon. member this afternoon that this highway would be completed within the period now set in this legislation. But there is one thing that I think I should, in all fairness, point out. That is that there are 37 miles of paved highway from the east gate at Banff to lake Louise. That had been the route of the trans-Canada highway until 1954 when it was decided to go south of the Bow river, so we have an entirely new route. We chose it in 1954, as I said, and we have already awarded contracts for grading along that route and in fact we have now under contract the grading of some 61-4 miles along the route of the trans-Canada highway in Banff and Yoho national parks.
The hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon) asked me three questions about the route of the highway in western Ontario. He asked: Before the location of the trans-Canada highway can be determined, must it be referred to the federal government? The answer of course is yes. He asked: Has the route through Sault Ste. Marie been requested by the government of Ontario? Today I received a letter from the minister of highways of the province of Ontario. It is dated April 17. They wish to build two roads in that area, one north from Thessalon and the other north from Sault Ste. Marie. They will of course ask for federal participation with respect to only one of the roads. The road now delineated in the schedule to the present agreement is from Sudbury to Chap-leau. The road will either follow approximately the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway or will follow an alternate route via Thessalon, Ontario, depending on surveys yet to be made.
The Ontario government is now contemplating, and has asked for approval of, a route from Sudbury to follow highway No. 17 to Thessalon, continue along highway No. 17 to Sault Ste. Marie and then continue along highway No. 17 northerly from the Sault to the end of the presently constructed highway at Agawa, then to follow the surveyed location from Agawa northerly to Michipicoten, White River, Marathon and Schreiber. If that is the route the Ontario government requests, we shall certainly be pleased to give it favourable consideration.

The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) said we should participate in the cost of climbing lanes for trucks, and he quoted an example. In that particular illustration, he was under the impression that the federal government did not contribute, whereas actually we did pay one-half the cost of the climbing lanes as well as our share of the other costs of the road, and that is provided for under the terms of the agreement.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said that this should be an effort to close the gaps. With that, of course, we are all in agreement. The whole object of this exercise is to make an assault on these gaps, so as to enable people to travel in comfort by vehicle from one coast of Canada to the other. The remaining gaps are in Ontario and in Newfoundland. There is a 135-mile gap in Ontario between the Agawa river and a point east of Marathon, assuming the route chosen is the one through Sault Ste. Marie to which I have just referred. In Newfoundland there is a 50-mile gap between Clarenville and Gambo. Those gaps are shorter than the mileages to which my hon. friend referred this afternoon. As he pointed out, his figures were the mileage as of March 31, 1955, whereas I am speaking of gaps obtaining at the present moment.
I do not think it is asking too much of the provinces collectively, with the measure of assistance that is being provided by the federal government, to build a trans-Canada highway in the period now being sought in this legislation before parliament. I should hope it could have the support of all hon. members. On this point, however, there are some doubts in my mind.
The hon. member for Broadview, who was speaking on behalf of the official opposition, although he was quite critical of the federal government's role in the development of the trans-Canada highway, did not criticize the role of the provincial governments despite the fact that one of the gaps in the highway is in his own province. He did not say whether he was for or against the legislation.
He was followed by four other spokesmen from the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton), the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, none of whom gave any indication of their attitude or that of their party with respect to this legislation.
There were three speakers from the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Cariboo and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and none of them gave any indication of whether 67509-196
Trans-Canada Highway Act they support this measure, which is designed . to accelerate the construction of a highway across Canada. The only member who indicated that he intended to support the legislation was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I think the country and the house have a right to know where hon. members stand on this legislation. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker if you would be kind enough, when putting the vote, to call for the yeas and the nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Call in the members.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the present situation with regard to the route through the Selkirks?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. I presume the hon. member is referring to an alternate route to the Big Bend between Revelstoke and Golden in British Columbia. The Big Bend is a long way around between Revelstoke and Golden. It follows the course of the Columbia river and as my hon. friend knows, because he said it before, there are several good sites for dams on that river and they bring with them the possibility that some of the present highway might be drowned out if the dams are built. It therefore seems expedient to find a more direct, or at least an alternate,

route through the mountains between Golden and Revelstoke. Both the provincial government and the federal government have been looking very carefully at Rogers pass, which seems to be a feasible route.
I am well aware that there are interests in British Columbia which feel that another route has possibilities, the route known as the Jumbo pass which goes from Mount Eisenhower on the east, I think, southward and then up to Revelstoke on the west. It is a much longer route than the Rogers pass, but I believe the provincial government is conducting some investigations into it at the present time. That is pretty much the situation at the moment.
I have been in touch with the minister of public works in British Columbia on a number of occasions recently in relation to this matter, and we have exchanged correspondence. I asked him yesterday in a telegram what his views were on the matter. He stated in a reply which contains other information as well that preliminary studies indicate the Rogers pass may be the route to be chosen but that he wished to do more investigating of the Jumbo route before he made that a final decision. I have told Mr. Gaglardi that I believe the Rogers pass has much to commend it, and if the British Columbia government decides that is to be the route we will give very favourable consideration to it.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question or two on this location because it is of particular interest, as the minister knows-


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but may I interpose here. If his question is one as to route, might it not more appropriately be asked under clause 2 which is the operative clause? You will note that clause 1 deals with a matter of interpretation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall do that, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Limitations.
William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Kootenay East.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Kootenay West, Mr. Chairman; there is a difference.


An hon. Member:: Fortunately.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the minister knows, I raised this question when the resolution was under discussion. Quite a large number of people in southeastern British Columbia are concerned about a thorough investigation of the Jumbo pass route, which they are of the

opinion has not taken place to date. I was very pleased to read a newspaper report in which the minister was quoted as saying that no decision on any route would be made until all routes had been thoroughly investigated. Was that report correct?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have no recollection of making any such statement. I think my hon. friend knows that the determination of the route is the responsibility of the provincial government and of course is subject to our approval. As I have just said now in reply to the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra, if the provincial government chooses Rogers pass-and I indicated that they say that may be the pass chosen-then we will give it very favourable consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, another question. Is it correct that the minister has had his federal engineers investigating the Rogers pass route?


Robert Henry Winters: The federal engineers have made a walking survey through Rogers pass. We have not done a detailed survey but we have participated financially, as we are authorized to do under the terms of the agreement with the government of British Columbia, in a more detailed survey which I understand they are making.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, my further question is why, then, would the minister not co-operate with the provincial government in making a further survey of the Jumbo pass route before a decision is made?


Robert Henry Winters: We are quite willing to cooperate with anybody who asks us to co-operate with them within the terms of our statute. We have not been asked to participate in a detailed survey of Jumbo pass. I personally hope regardless of what surveys are to be carried out we can at an early date come to a decision about what the route should be through the mountains of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue this point a little further. I am very doubtful whether the minister realizes just how serious and difficult a problem this is. In the first place there have been many millions of dollars spent by the dominion on the Big Bend highway. I think half that highway was built by the dominion exclusively, without any money being put in by the province, and the other half was paid for on a fifty-fifty basis. I may be wrong in that, but certainly in the thirties and forties the dominion government put many millions of dollars into the Big Bend highway.
While it is probable that there will be a dam at Mica creek at the northern tip of the 67509-1964
Trans-Canada Highway Act Big Bend, that of course would not flood out the whole of that highway. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only the eastern half of the highway would be affected. It seems to be most indefinite as to whether the highway will be flooded or the extent to which it will be flooded.
Are the dominion and the province planning to abandon that highway? Have the dominion and the province decided that the Big Bend highway must be abandoned? If that is so, then they have gone a good deal further to reach agreement than they have in working out a joint plan for the development of power which could be made available at Mica creek. They seem to be getting ahead very slowly with regard to any program for the development at Mica creek.
The Rogers pass route, while shorter, has a history of disaster from snowslides so serious that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company abandoned that route after many lives had been lost and much equipment destroyed. They built the five-mile Connaught tunnel, perhaps the longest tunnel in Canada, at great expense during the first great war or immediately thereafter simply to avoid using Rogers pass. It may look like a good idea to put a highway through that pass, but the fact is that it is about the worst snow area in southern British Columbia. The snow belt continues beyond the pass right down to Revelstoke. I doubt the wisdom of the dominion agreeing to a road through that pass without having more than what the minister has just described as a walking survey. Apparently he had two of his engineers walk through that pass in the summer.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member did not listen. I said there was a more detailed survey.


Howard Charles Green: There is a detailed survey as well? I have no doubt those engineers have reported that many miles of snowsheds will be required. I am very doubtful whether it will be possible to keep that road open in the winter.
The Jumbo pass is further to the south, and a road through this pass would go through the Kootenay national park for quite a long distance. There is already a good highway there. I urge the minister to have his own engineers make a survey of that pass, either jointly with the provincial government engineers or as a venture of the dominion alone.
It is obvious that this highway is not going to be completed for some length of time, no matter which of the three routes is followed. It would be far wiser to get the most complete surveys possible before actually making a final decision. To go ahead now and accept

Trans-Canada Highway Act the Rogers pass route and then four or five years from now, after many millions of dollars have been spent', find that route would have to be abandoned for highway purposes, would not seem a wise thing to do. If the road is put through that pass and an attempt is made to keep it open in the winter I have no doubt that many Canadians will lose their lives from snowslides as the years go by. I do urge the minister to take steps to have a proper survey made by his own officials at an early date, and certainly before making any definite commitments.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to support briefly what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said without repeating his argument. I am quite confident that unless further investigation is made a decision is going to be made as between these two routes without sufficient information to warrant a decision. The provincial government has had a walking survey made of the Jumbo pass route. The report has not been made public tout quite often things that have not been made public are let out. I understand that there was a favourable report by the engineers in question. This is just hearsay, but sometimes there is quite a lot of truth in hearsay.
The information is that a walking survey was made from Duncan lake to Windermere under poor weather conditions, during which some camp supplies were lost and that sort of thing. That would be quite insufficient to permit anyone to have accurate knowledge of the topography and the suitability of the route for a road. I do support the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his urging of the minister to make certain, by co-operating with the provincial government, that a thorough survey of that route is made. This will be a most important decision to be made because whichever route is accepted it will cost a great deal of money. We in British Columbia believe that the situation merits a thorough survey being made of both routes before any decision is made by either the provincial or federal governments.


Mr. Byrne:: Would the minister consider the advisability of the highway going south from Golden to Windermere and then through the Jumbo pass to Revelstoke? Has that ever been suggested by the minister of highways for British Columbia?


Robert Henry Winters: The situation is that the determination of the route is the responsibility of the provincial government. I shall inform the minister of highways of British Columbia of the advocacy of the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra of the Jumbo pass route

and tell him that they believe it has great merit which he should consider.
The fact of the matter is that if the road is to go through Jumbo pass from Mount Eisenhower in the east to Revelstoke in the west we will have to give consideration to what highway has been built already between Golden and Mount Eisenhower. The provincial government has done a considerable amount of work between Golden and Leanchoil, and the federal government has done a considerable amount of work in the national park east of Leanchoil.
If we are to consider that portion to be part of the trans-Canada highway and that the route will go south from Golden through Jumbo pass to Revelstoke, then we have these mileages. The Big Bend route would be 196 miles. We have made no agreement nor given any undertaking that the Big Bend route is going to be abandoned. The Rogers pass route is 88 miles, just over 100 miles shorter. The Jumbo pass route is 234 miles. Hon. members can see the mileages that confront us in making a decision of this kind. I say to my hon. friends that we are not in a position to make a decision on this matter or to approve any route, and will not be, until we have a final and firm recommendation from the government of British Columbia.


Mr. Quelch:: Surely the minister is not suggesting that if the route follows the Jumbo pass it would go around by Golden, because that would be going away out of your way.


Robert Henry Winters: I was not suggesting anything; I was simply replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay East.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Has the minister of highways of British Columbia ever indicated to the department during the past several years that he was giving consideration to altering the route of the highway through that area?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not quite clear that I know what the hon. member means. The present route is the one designated by way of the Big Bend highway. I presume the question is whether he has given any indication that he would like to alter the route.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes. The telegram today is very opportune, but over the past several years has there been any indication?


Robert Henry Winters: There have been indications that the government of British Columbia would like to find an alternative route to the Big Bend highway.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this subject is terminated I should like to point out to the

minister and the committee that the suggestions made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra and myself are not our suggestions. They are suggestions made as the result of a reconnaissance survey of the route by a qualified engineer and other persons who know the topography very well. We are representing the wishes of the great majority of members of all parties in southeastern British Columbia, of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, farmers' interests, in fact all representative community organizations that a thorough survey of the Jumbo pass route be made before a final decision is reached.


Mr. Hanna:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a discussion in the past few minutes about the almost impossible job of constructing the trans-Canada highway to reasonable standards through and west of the Kicking Horse pass. We have even seen the hon. member for Calgary South vote against this bill although it is proposed that the highway will go through the city of Calgary. We have heard the hon. member for Edmonton East make pleas in the house on several occasions that the trans-Canada highway be routed through the city of Edmonton and the Yellowhead pass, which is a much more feasible proposition by any standard than the route through the Kicking Horse pass and then westward through that most difficult country that we have heard described here by members representing that particular part of Canada. I presume they know of what they speak.
Therefore I should like to ask the minister if he would please tell the house how he came to make the obvious or apparent error of choosing the present route, which apparently is not finally settled yet, and I should also like to ask him whether he will not consider, even at this late date, changing the route so it will go through the city of Edmonton and through the comparatively low and easily graded Yellowhead pass to Kamloops and on to Vancouver?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, while not commenting on whether or not the present route is in error, I must say that the decision to have the route go through the Kicking Horse pass was made in the first instance by the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. With respect to whether or not we can change at this stage and go through the Yellowhead pass, I think my hon. friend need only review the discussions and correspondence of the past to see what my answer must be on that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps my question was not plain enough. What I want to know is whether the minister of highways ever suggested that he was going to abandon the
Trans-Canada Highway Act Kicking Horse pass route. To be more specific, I realize that in doing so he would have to abandon the section from Golden to Mount Eisenhower.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no recollection of any such suggestion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let us keep the record straight. None of the discussions involving an alternative as between Jumbo pass, Rogers pass and the Big Bend route in any sense involved abandonment of the Kicking Horse pass, so the hon. member for Kootenay East is asking a question that has no relation to the discussion that has been taking place.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I do not quite see the hon. member's argument. Abandonment of the Kicking Horse pass would certainly mean that Golden would not be on the route. To abandon the Kicking Horse pass would mean that the route would go to Mount Eisenhower and then south to Radium and over the Jumbo pass. Therefore my question is whether the minister of highways has ever indicated that he wished to abandon that section of the highway and reroute it through Jumbo pass.


Mr. Philpott:: I should like to add my views to the opinions from British Columbia. There is tremendous interest in the question of the route, and certainly it is my belief that the vast majority of the people of British Columbia would be very grateful to our federal minister if, before there is a final decision, he would make absolutely certain that a thorough study is made of both available routes, the Rogers pass route and the Jumbo pass route. That, as I take it, is what we have heard here today.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: I should like to ask the minister if the province of Alberta ever suggested that the route be through the Yellowhead pass. I should also like to ask him if the province of Alberta favoured the Yellowhead pass today, would he reconsider and possibly have the route changed to a more northerly one which is much more feasible from the point of view of grades and where there is much less snowfall.


Robert Henry Winters: The answer to the first question is no. I would think the second question would be regarded as a hypothetical one, and I do not think I should be called upon to answer it.


Mr. Nickle:: If I may toss in a few words here, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona has implied that perhaps my vote against the bill meant that I was opposed to the idea of a trans-Canada highway. May I set his mind at rest right away. I am strongly in favour of a trans-Canada highway. I am

Trans-Canada Highway Act strongly in favour of the present route of the highway which, after all, passes through a section of Alberta that offers to Canadians and tourists from outside Canada much more in the way of attractions than a more northerly route. There are also other reasons, of course, in favour of the present route adopted for the trans-Canada highway. When we voted against the bill we did so mainly for one reason.


Robert Henry Winters: Is the hon. member at liberty to comment on the reason why he voted in a certain way.


An hon. Member:: Certainly.


Mr. Lennard:: Why not? It was brought up by another member.


William Alfred Robinson: I might remind hon. members that, after all, we are in committee, and I think possibly the minister's point of order is well taken.


Frank Exton Lennard: What about the other member? Why not the same ruling for him?


Mr. Fleming:: On the point of order, what the rule prohibits is reflection on a vote. It does not forbid an hon. member in committee explaining how he voted on second reading.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: It does provide that he must be relevant to the section under discussion.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Eglin-ton perhaps forgets that we are also governed by the rule respecting relevancy. Discussion must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Therefore I think the hon. member for Calgary South should confine himself to a discussion of this particular clause of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you suggesting it is
relevant when the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona mentions it but not relevant when the hon. member for Calgary South mentions it? That does not seem to me to be a correct application of the rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite evident that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was making a reflection on the vote of the hon. member for Calgary South. Surely the hon. member for Calgary South is properly entitled under those circumstances to rise and explain his vote.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps both the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Calgary South have had sufficient latitude in that respect and we can consider the incident closed. After all, we are dealing with the operative clause of the bill, and I think if we limit our discussion to the operative clause we will perhaps make much better progress.
[Mr. Nickle.l


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the operative clause of the bill, my criticism is that it simply involves too little and too late, and that explains why-


An hon. Member:: Careful.


Carl Olof Nickle: -my colleagues and I voted against the bill. We feel that the federal government's action with regard to the trans-Canada highway should be much more constructive and on a larger scale than what is involved here. We also feel that the deadline for the completion of the highway should be set well ahead of 1961. There will probably be some amendment to the wording of this particular section of the bill, and I will await it with considerable interest.


Mr. James:: Would the minister care to comment on the latest developments with respect to the route of the trans-Canada highway in the Peterborough area? Does it by any chance happen to hit a corner of Durham county-I hope?


Robert Henry Winters: I know of no change of route.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word about the location of this highway. I myself, as have most other hon. members, have travelled over those three routes or I have travelled nearly all three routes. I have been over the Big Bend on many occasions. I think the engineers are very well acquainted with all the difficulties in constructing a highway around that long turn in that area. Then too I have been part way around the Jumbo section. I think most hon. members are forgetting that if the route-and I am not now arguing which way it should go-went through the Jumbo pass there would have to be a tunnel about half a mile long.


Robert Henry Winters: Three miles.


Charles Edward Johnston: Two miles?


Robert Henry Winters: Three miles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is raising the ante.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is what no one knows, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just a minute. That tunnel is going to entail a big expense. As the minister pointed out, that route is 131 miles, I think he said, or something like that whereas the one going across from Golden to Revelstoke is only 81 miles. I am sure the provincial government, with the cooperation of the federal government, is taking all these matters into consideration. With the advice of their engineers who are experts in this line I think the decision will be a much more proper one than that of some of the members here who are giving voice to

their desires and who do not know much about engineering. After all, this is an engineering question, and it is one which the government of British Columbia has said that they are having thoroughly gone into. They have made a survey of the Jumbo pass.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With a pack horse and an aneroid.


Charles Edward Johnston: You do not
know anything about it. If you did, they would have made you their engineer, I suppose. I am sure I would rather trust the decision of the engineers of the federal government and of the provincial government than that of the hon. member for Kootenay West or of the hon. member for Kootenay East either. I think that is the most reliable way in which the decision can be made in this regard, and I think the federal government and the British Columbia government will make the proper decisions in view of the advice they are given by their engineers.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: There has been a change in route which to me is more important than the Kicking Horse pass route or any of the others up there, and more important to Ontario and to the lakehead. When the trans-Canada highway was built to Nipigon it was decided to turn to the left and go off to Geraldton and Little Longlac and along to Hearst and a good road has been built. The reason that road was chosen was that there were feeder towns to get the highway going. I would ask the minister this question. As the highway has been changed again and has gone to Schreiber, Terrace Bay and Marathon and will go on to Sudbury, is that the definite route? We at the lakehead will support him thoroughly in that new route.


Robert Henry Winters: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Ontario government has now recommended that it be one of the roads they propose to build in that area. They propose to build northward from Thessalon and also to build northward from Sault Ste. Marie. From the letter I understand it is the one northward from Sault Ste. Marie to which they will ask us to contribute. If that is the case I see no reason why we cannot contribute.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That will be very popular at the lakehead and very important to Ontario.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to say a word or two with regard to this matter of the route through the Rocky mountains. I am afraid we are in some danger of getting back to the position we were in before there was ever a trans-Canada highway agreement. I have
Trans-Canada Highway Act always held the view that one of the reasons we have been delayed in getting on with the trans-Canada highway, or one of the reasons we were so late in starting, was first the apathy of the government and second the fact that they were encouraged or it was made attractive to them to sit back and say, "We cannot do anything because you people out there cannot even agree on the route".
I am satisfied that the controversy and conflict of opinion as to the route of the one trans-Canada highway that went on out there for a number of years gave this government the excuse to sit back and do nothing. I think it would be a great pity if we were again to get into that area of controversy. I believe what we must concentrate on is the fact that there is to be a trans-Canada highway and that there should be not just one. There should be, in our view, a national system of highways.
That is what we should press for, namely an adequate and proper highway policy by this government rather than bickering over which is to be the route of the one road which has so far been agreed on or which so far is the only one which this government has agreed to have any part in. Let us concentrate on getting a system of national highways, not fighting over the route of one highway. Let us keep after the federal government to have an adequate highway policy, not make it easier for them to sit back and do nothing because people out in the area that has just been under discussion are fighting over what should be the route. We should have more than one highway. There is no question about that. It is the obligation of this government to take the steps to make it possible to continue the road.
As a matter of fact I sometimes wonder whether there has not been more heat than light generated here. As I understand it the Big Bend is still the designated route. I wonder whether we should not concentrate on getting it started at least from Revelstoke north to where it would not be subject to flooding and, in the area where it might be subject to flooding, contemplate the possibility of putting it higher up, something which I understand is quite feasible, so that even when the Mica creek project is built it will not be a detriment to that road.
I am sure that the one thing this government here would welcome is to get Alberta and British Columbia into a fight, and to get the members from Alberta and British Columbia into a fight. Then they could say, "There you are. We are always willing to do our part but they cannot agree on what should be the route". Let us not give the minister an alibi. Let us keep our eye on the objective,
3106	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act which is that this government must take the steps necessary to get at least one trans-Canada highway built, and then press on from there to insist that the government must accept its responsibility with respect to national highways generally.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to correct my friend the hon. member for Kamloops. We are not fighting over routes. The people of the Kootenays and the interior are most peaceably inclined. What we are asking for is that the facts be obtained before decisions are made. I was glad to hear the minister say that he would bring the representations of the members tonight to the attention of the minister of public works in British Columbia.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, in case we may get the idea that this is a trans-British Columbia road instead of a trans-Canada road, I should like to ask a question with reference to what I suppose will be the most beautiful section of the trans-Canada highway, namely the section along the Saint John river in New Brunswick. I should like to ask the minister whether the route along the Saint John river has been definitely decided for the trans-Canada highway? If such is the case, I should like to ask whether it is to be on the east or the west side from Edmundston to Fredericton, and whether it will involve the building of a bridge across the Saint John river. If so, what portion of the cost of construction of the bridge would be paid by the federal government?


Robert Henry Winters: We have had discussions between our officials, and the route of the highway is fairly well determined. There are some places where I understand we have yet to make final determination. It has not yet been finally determined as to what the gap section will be in New Brunswick. Until that matter is determined I am not in a position to say whether the federal government will pay 90 per cent of the cost of the bridges or 50 per cent of the cost of the bridges. My hon. friend can be assured that we shall not be paying less than 50 per cent on any bridge on the trans-Canada highway route. I expect that very soon the route will be finally determined. We are having no difficulty in that respect, and it will be included in the schedule which will be attached to the agreement which we shall be shortly sending to the government of New Brunswick for its approval.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This may be a hypothetical question, but I know there are a number of bridges to be built. Could the provincial government ask for assistance in the sections with those bridges as long as they amounted


to five miles, and would 90 per cent be paid in the event that it was chosen where the bridges were to be built?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, if they are bridges included as part of the gaps, then the federal government will pay 90 per cent of the cost of the bridges too.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would that include the bridge across the Saint John river?


Robert Henry Winters: If it is included as part of a gap on the trans-Canada highway.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that the further one is down on this side the stronger should be the springs with which these seats are equipped, so we can be sure we are able to rise at least four or five times before we get the opportunity to speak.
Before going on, I might say that I noticed from reading the blue copies of Hansard that in the cold light of the written word it might be inferred that I had cast some reflection on Mr. Speaker's ruling this afternoon in dealing with the speech by the hon. member for Broadview. I should like to assure the house that the remarks I made were, as I thought, on the humorous side, and there was no reflection cast on him.
In regard to clause 2, with which we are dealing now, I think there is a great question of principle involved. Probably, from the section from which I am speaking, it may be that I have looked at this principle a little differently from others. At the risk of repeating to a certain extent what I said this afternoon I should like to say again that you can go broke buying bargains. I think that is the position the minister is putting the province in, as regards this section.
It is absolutely useless to say to any of the provincial jurisdictions, "We are prepared to match certain dollars that you put up," if in fact those jurisdictions do not have the dollars to use. I think I said this afternoon that the collection of moneys by this government from those who would make use of these highways now totals almost a quarter of a billion dollars per annum, and all the money that has been spent by the minister on this project to date could be taken care of by one year's collections.
It is obvious, then, to me that if there is any hope of success, if there is any hope of reinstilling the pioneer spirit to which I referred previously, and which is going to be required to build this highway within 11 years, then something will have to be done about it. If you ran a company in this manner, if you took all the money and distributed it in some other way and did not put back

into the effort of your company the funds you had collected, in order to expand your facilities, then your company would not last very long. I feel today that if the government is going to continue to extract every last dollar from the motor driving public of this country and then not provide them with the facilities they could have, then our highway system is going to break down.
I might say that, if I have voted in a certain way, I intend to continue voting that way in connection with any further legislation this government proposes on the basis of matching dollar for dollar with some other jurisdiction. It is time these things were brought to a head. It is time we dealt with them on a basis of bringing all three parties to road construction together to determine how we will divide the road construction dollar, once and for all. It seems to me that is the only way we shall get this trans-Canada highway completed satisfactorily.
So 1 say it is not a case of whether or not we want this highway finished. It is a case of whether in principle this is the manner in which it should be done. Had I the opportunity, if I did not know that I would be ruled out of order, because I know a private member cannot propose an amendment which will increase the expenditure of the government in a case of this kind, I would have seen that an amendment was moved that this government assume all of the cost of finishing this highway from here on. It seems to me it is only right that it should.
(Translation) :


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, I would not like section 2 of this bill to carry without making a few remarks.
May I first congratulate the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Bourget) for the way they have handled the debate on this resolution which nearly received the approval of all members of the house.
I find that, through this bill, the federal government wishes to improve the conditions which govern its contributions to the provinces towards the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
During the Godbout regime, the government of the province of Quebec, prior to 1954, had started to build part of the trans-Canada highway, called highway No. 9, more particularly between Quebec and Montreal. However, I have noticed that since that time, the government of the province of Quebec, on grounds of autonomy that I cannot understand, rejects all grants, although the people of the province of Quebec have to pay 2 cents 67509-197
Trans-Canada Highway Act more than their neighbours of Ontafio for each gallon of gasoline they use.
Recently I travelled over that highway from Levis to Montreal, and found it in poor condition. In fact, on at least half the distance it is a gravel road or a partly paved road. I noticed, particularly in Lotbiniere county, stacks of heavy wire which was meant to be used as concrete reinforcement on that highway which was never completed. And I could not help thinking that these were the skeletons of the lack of co-operation between the present government of the province of Quebec and the federal government.
I wish that instead of telling Mr. Duplessis unkind things about his lack of co-operation, Quebec members of the opposition had at least pointed out to him the urgency of putting an end to his obstruction so that, at last, our province might have that highway for the building of which we are paying taxes while millions of dollars offered for that purpose by the federal government are being stubbornly refused.
I noted however that the hon. members for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) and for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) have been consistent enough to vote for the resolution. I take it that their vote may be construed as favouring the principle of federal provincial co-operation about the trans-Canada highway. Theirs is a far more consistent attitude than that of their provincial leader, and I feel that in deciding to refrain from seeking provincial co-operation, they probably feel, as we do ourselves, that the present government of the province of Quebec will administer that province for only a few months more.
I understand also that this lack of cooperation comes from the fact that, in some provinces and particularly in ours, the governments do not like to award contracts to the lowest bidder. In fact, I remember thci one day, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) said, at the Reform Club in Quebec, that if the federal government had not adopted the policy of awarding contracts to the lowest bidders, the Duplessis government would long ago have accepted money from the federal government to carry out that project.
In concluding these few remarks, I congratulate the government on further cooperating in the completion of the trans-Canada highway which will help Canadians to know themselves better and will improve their means of communication and at the same time their relations.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I hope when this government lifts itself out of its present

Trans-Canada Highway Act lethargy and decides to set an example to the provinces in getting this highway built by at least completing its meagre 83 miles in the national parks, and when we finally get this national highway built, it will give serious consideration to two things; one, participating with the provinces in properly maintaining this highway and not just handing it over to the provinces and leaving it to them; two, the building of a second route in the west from Saskatoon to Edmonton and on to the coast, which is badly needed.
Also, as the hon. member for Kamloops has suggested, once this national highway has been built and a possible second route built, I hope this government will give serious consideration to undertaking a national highway program. As one hon. member has just correctly suggested, this government will not be the government then. That is quite right. I hope the government of that time will give serious consideration to a national highway program in conjunction with the provinces which will open up our country and develop our tourist trade and our national resources, and make it possible to man adequately our defences.
Since the federal government will be the main beneficiary of the revenue which will accrue from the development of our national resources and our tourist industry through the medium of sales taxes and corporation taxes, there should be no reluctance on the part of the government to participate in such a program. Since our national defence is solely a federal responsibility, there should certainly be no reluctance on the part of the federal government to participate in the building of such highways.
I believe such a program should be considered an investment in Canada's future, an investment in our national development, and that it should not be paid for out of current revenue but by the issuing of long-term bonds. I feel sure that the people of Canada would be willing to lend the money needed to the federal and provincial governments to build such highways in order that our tourist trade and our resources may be adequately developed and our defences adequately manned.
With regard to this particular section, Mr. Chairman, in paragraph 3, subparagraph (b), the minister is given the right to decide the length of the highway, and he has also to decide which 10 per cent of that highway will be contributed to, to the extent of 90 per cent of the cost, by the federal government. We believe that the minister should have the right to decide on the length of the highway, but we believe that the provincial government should be given the right to decide which 10 per cent
[Mr. Hees.l

of the length of the highway in the province should be participated in to the extent of an additional 40 per cent by the federal government. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton):
That section 2 of Bill 214 be amended by deleting paragraph. (3) (b) thereof and substituting the following:
"The length of the highway in the province to be taken into account for purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 2 shall be such as is approved by the minister and the particular portions thereof to be taken into account for such purpose shall be selected by the province."


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this is substantially the amendment that was moved when the resolution was being considered, and I was obliged at that time to say that the government could not accept it. My position is the same tonight. Under the legislation, and the agreement which will be pursuant thereto, it will be the prior role of the provincial governments to choose the locations they wish to have considered for the application of the gap formula; but their selection will of course be subject to the approval of the federal government. I do not expect that there will be any matters of great disagreement between the provincial governments and the federal government in the determination of the locations. I think the section as it stands gives the federal government no more than a proper opportunity to exercise the authority that I believe the taxpayers would expect it to exercise when dealing with amounts of money of the magnitude contemplated by this bill. The government is therefore unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the facility with which this government and the minister dodge from position to position is extraordinary. The minister takes the position on the one hand that the federal government is to be given credit for the fact that they conceived the idea of the trans-Canada highway program. Then when we say to him: "Well, why do you not get on with it?" he says, "Of course we can do nothing because the main responsibility for roads is with the provinces". Then we say to him, "But you have said that there is difficulty in getting the provinces to do what they should. We have explained to you why they cannot get on any faster than they are with the building, and we suggest that you assume a greater responsibility". Then he says, "No, we cannot do that. All we can do is call a conference of the provinces". He tells us of the number of conferences they have had and the efforts they have made to spur the provinces on to greater activity. He told us that this afternoon.

We now say, "All right; if that is your position and if this thing is a provincial responsibility, then give the provinces the right to determine what would be to their greatest advantage with respect to the selection of the route on which you now give them 90 per cent assistance". Then he turns around and says, "No, we cannot do that because the responsibility in this matter is that of the federal government". Which position is the minister going to take?
If in fact what is to be done is to give the provinces the opportunity and the encouragement to get on with this construction, why does he not do it? If on the other hand he is not going to give them that opportunity, why does he not take the other course we urge him to take and say that the federal government should have the full responsibility for this highway and not a paltry 10 per cent of its length? The minister is trying to straddle both positions and he is going to find, just as we forecast when this trans-Canada proposal first came up and we said it could not be completed within the time that was then set, that his present position of blowing hot and cold on the question of whose responsibility it is, and this refusal on his part to give the provinces the responsibility to get on with the job, will result in the trans-Canada highway not being finished by December 31, 1960, either.
If the minister conscientiously takes the position he has now taken that this is a matter where the dominion must keep control, that he cannot trust the provinces and cannot allow them to say which 10 per cent they will select for the receipt of 90 per cent assistance, then let him follow up the logic of that position and say, "Very well, the dominion government will assume responsibility for the whole thing".
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite who are going to be asked to make up their minds and vote on this amendment now before us which position they want to take. Do they want to take the position that it is a federal responsibility or a provincial responsibility? So far the theme of the minister's speech is that it is a provincial responsibility. If that is the case we urge hon. members opposite to be logical and support the amendment, and not find themselves placed in the hopeless and inconsistent position in which they would be placed if they were to follow the minister's lead and vote against the amendment.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the discussion this evening, in so far as irresponsibility is concerned the ones who would appear to me to be irresponsible 67509-1974
Trans-Canada Highway Act are those who are suggesting the expenditure of additional funds which belong to the taxpayers of this country.
It is quite obvious to me that if any one of the ten provinces of Canada can make an agreement with this government whereby they have to pay only 10 per cent of the cost of any road, they will use every means in the world to have that road go just as far as possible. That is human nature. I believe that the stand taken by the minister is a most reasonable one. I have heard one suggestion made by an hon. member who spoke tonight. He suggested that the government did not allow sufficient time in which to complete the road. A few minutes later another hon. member of the same group suggested that the government wanted to delay the matter as long as possible. It would therefore appear that they do not get together in their arguments.
I for one feel we have a responsibility here as federal members. These fabulous suggestions as to the spending of the taxpayers' dollars must have some consideration. The hon. member who suggested that the federal government should pay the complete cost of the trans-Canada highway will be out on an economy program in the next election campaign. It does not make sense to me. I believe that we as federal members have a responsibility in this matter, and I believe we should not be spending the taxpayers' dollars any more freely than the provincial legislatures wish to spend theirs.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 47; nays, 72.


Mr. Michener:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what is his interpretation of clause (b) of subsection 2, where it refers to one-tenth of the highway. Is it his intention that it should be one-tenth of the highway in miles, or is it one-tenth of the cost?


Robert Henry Winters: It is one-tenth in miles, Mr. Chairman.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps the minister would help me with my understanding of clause (b) in subsection 3, which deals with this same one-tenth, I take it. It says:
The length of the highway in the province . . . shall be such as are approved by the minister.
Is it the intention of that clause to have the minister's discretion extend to reducing the length below one-tenth of the highway?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it does not mean that, Mr. Chairman.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


Daniel Roland Michener: In other words, whatever the interpretation might be, the intention is that each province shall have 40 per cent of the cost with respect to 10 per cent of the length?


Robert Henry Winters: There is an additional 40 per cent over and above the 50 per cent?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister one more question before this section passes. Has the minister at any time received any communications from the minister of highways of British Columbia that would indicate whether or not the government of British Columbia has made a decision with respect to the route between Mount Eisenhower and Revelstoke?


Robert Henry Winters: Well, Mr. Chairman, I received the telegram to which I referred and I also received a letter. These are the words in the telegram received from the minister of highways:
Preliminary studies indicate that Rogers pass may be the route to be chosen.
I understand, however, that no Anal determination has been made by the government of British Columbia.


Mr. MacLean:: I should like to have some clarification as to how this clause will apply to Prince Edward Island, as I believe the application to that province might be slightly different from the application to other provinces due to the fact that the length of the highway in our province is so short. The total length of highway in Prince Edward Island is 74 miles and one-tenth of that would be 7-4 miles. That would mean that there could be only one gap in Prince Edward Island to which this 90 per cent formula could be applied, since a gap must be at least 5 miles in length. There being only 7-4 miles altogether that would mean that in the case of Prince Edward Island there would be one gap the length of which would be 7-4 miles. There would not be adequate mileage to allow for two gaps of 5 miles each.
That being the case, and in order that the intention of the amendment might be more properly understood as it applies to Prince Edward Island, I wonder if the minister would consider a slight amendment to paragraph (b) of subclause 2, and instead of the third line which reads:
-but any portion of the highway taken into account for the purposes of this paragraph shall be at least 5 miles in length.
I would suggest an amendment reading something like this:
-but not more than one portion of the highway taken into account for the purpose of this paragraph shall be less than 5 miles in length.

That formula would give Prince Edward Island an opportunity to apply the principle to one section which would be 5 miles in length and to another gap which would take up the remainder of the 10 per cent of the total mileage.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I can see what the hon. member has in mind. The total mileage in Prince Edward Island is 74, of which the gap would be 7-4 miles. We have discussed this point with the department of highways in Prince Edward Island, and I am told that it can apply to good advantage in its present form. I would not like to accept an amendment at this stage because of that understanding with the government of Prince Edward Island. If it is found that that is not the case then we will consider ways and means of solving that problem.


John Angus MacLean: There still remain two difficult gaps in the trans-Canada highway in Prince Edward Island which have yet to be closed. One is the Hillsborough bridge area, and one is the Pinette bridges. They are too far apart to be included in the one gap.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall bear in mind what the hon. member has said.


Daniel Roland Michener: Having considered what the minister has said just now, and looking at paragraph (b) of clause 2, which reads in part:
-but any portion of the highway taken Into account for the purposes of this paragraph shall be at least 5 miles in length.
Should not that be the total length? If it is not the total length and if it is limited to 40 per cent, then it seems to be inconsistent. I suggest to the minister that it would clear up the point if in paragraph (b) of subclause 3 the word "total" were inserted before the word "length".


Robert Henry Winters: We have discussed this with the Department of Justice and our own legal officers have drawn it up. They gave a considerable amount of attention to the wording. I would be inclined to think it is all right. I do not enjoy the privilege of being a lawyer; I am not one of that select group, but I have been told that it is all right.


Daniel Roland Michener: I do not want to delay the matter, but it seems to me that total length is what is intended.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Paragraph (a) of subclause 3 reads:
The cost to the province of the construction of the highway or any portion thereof shall be such amount as is approved by the governor in council.
That seems to be an arbitrary way for this government to decide what the cost to

the province will be, because it makes no reference to the actual cost. What would be the situation if a dispute arose between the province and the federal government with respect to what was the actual cost? I imagine the basis of settlement would be the actual cost, but the way this clause reads it would simply be as approved by the governor in council without any reference to the actual cost.
I should like to ask this specific question. What would be the situation if a dispute arose between a province and the federal government with respect to the actual cost of the highway?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, on that particular point there is no change from the existing statute. It is a matter of determination by the governor in council now, and there has been no dispute. I do not anticipate any dispute, because it is a matter which is readily determined. If there were a dispute I think it would be simply a matter of discussion or if necessary some sort of arbitration, but I do not anticipate any trouble.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I wonder if the minister would care to enlarge upon paragraph (b) of subclause 2 regarding the 5 miles in length. I am wondering just why that is in there. Why do they want it 5 miles instead of 4 or 3? There are some sections of the highway in British Columbia which might be most difficult to construct for a short distance, and
Trans-Canada Highway Act then there might be parts of the gap to be filled in that would be a lot less than that.


Robert Henry Winters: When I was making my statement on the motion for second reading I said that this exercise is one to complete highway mileages. It seemed to be the general agreement of all parties that we should come to grips with long sections of the highway and not simply deal with bits and pieces here and there which would not really achieve the construction of mileage. Five miles was taken as what we thought the minimum should be that would result in the construction of mileage and still constitute a gap.


Mr. Goode:: Has the provincial government of British Columbia suggested to the minister that the western terminus of the trans-Canada highway be at Vancouver, or has there been any suggestion made to him that the trans-Canada highway should carry on to Horseshoe bay.


Robert Henry Winters: There has been no suggestion that the western terminus should be anything but Victoria, where it is now.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: We shall take estimates tomorrow, public works and agriculture.


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