1959-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a portrait of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, former prime minister of Canada, will be presented to the House of Commons immediately after 6 p.m., when today's sittings close. There will be a brief ceremony in the rotunda at the entrance to the chamber of the House of Commons, and I am happy to say that the original of the portrait will be present in person. I hope all hon. members will be able to attend.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received the report of the royal commission, presided over by the chief justice of the high court in Ontario, on sexual psychopaths?
2.	If so, on what date was the report received?
3.	Why has this report not been tabled and made public?
4.	Will the report now be tabled?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions, of which there are four, are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	March 21, 1958.
3.	It will be tabled and made public as soon as it is received from the printers.
4.	See answer to question 3 above.



A. V. ROE LIMITED  DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
Question. No. 32-Mr. Mcllraiih:
1.	Did the government or any of its departments or agencies have a development contract with A. V. Roe Canada Limited for the completion of 37 Arrow aircraft?
2.	Did any minister of the government hold any conversations with A. V. Roe Canada Limited or any of its officials on the future of this particular contract?
3.	If so, were any assurances given by any member of the government through conversation or otherwise, that this particular contract would not be cancelled?
Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secreiary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three questions are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.



CHIGNECTO CANAL SURVEY

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has a survey been made on the feasibility of the construction of the Chignecto canal?
2.	If so, has enough data been compiled to determine the feasibility of this project?
3.	If not, when is it expected the data will be completed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might deal with all three parts of this question in one answer. The hon. member is, I know, aware that over the years there have been many studies made of this proposal, the earliest one recorded being dated 1822. Because of this I rather think the inquiry arises from the statement I made in the house on August 28 last when the estimates of the Department of Transport were under consideration. At that time I said the Department of Public Works had been asked to give us a preliminary engineering estimate on the cost of the Chignecto project, on the basis of which it was proposed to have another economic study made, and that I would report the findings to my colleagues.
Arising out of the work that has been done to date, I have asked that certain other estimates be worked out, and it is consequently not possible to say at present when a complete report will be put before me.



JUDGES ON CONCILIATION BOARDS

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Is the government of Canada giving consideration to the withdrawal of judges from conciliation boards?
2.	Are judges now precluded by government policy from acting as members of arbitration boards?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer to part 1 of the question is that the government is considering whether there should be any change in the law governing the employment of judges in connection with matters outside their judicial duties.
The answer to part 2 is that there has, as yet, been no change in the law in so far as it is within the jurisdiction of parliament.

Orders for Returns
The law remains as set out in sections 37 to 39 inclusive of the Judges Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 159.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Were any meetings held by the government or any member of the government, with officials of A. V. Roe Canada Limited in connection with the Arrow aircraft, between September 24, 1958 and February 20, 1959? If so, how many?
2.	In connection with such meetings, what member or members of the government attended in each case?
3.	What official or officials of the company attended?
4.	On what dates were they held and where?


TRAIN SPEEDS, OTTAWA  TRANSPORT BOARD ORDERS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What orders have been issued by the board of transport commissioners governing the speed of trains within the limits of the city of Ottawa?
2.	What is the date and number of each such order?
3.	What is the operative nature of each such order and to what lines or areas does each apply?


CEDAR POLES, TERRACE, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	From January 1, 1957 to date, were any cedar poles purchased for use at Terrace, British Columbia?
2,	If so, for each individual purchase (a) to what use were they put; (b) what price was paid; (c) whom were they purchased from; (d) where were they shipped from?



DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD


Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What acreage was acquired by the government of Canada at Shirley's bay for the use of the defence research board?
2.	From what persons were these lands acquired?
3.	How many acres were acquired from each such person?
4- Was this acreage acquired by (a) expropriation; or (b) purchase?
5.	In each case, what was the date of the expropriation or purchase?
6. What was the (a) total amount; (b) amount for land; (c) amount for buildings; (d) amount for interest; (e) amount for other reasons, paid to each such person?



STABILIZATION BOARD EGG PURCHASES

Mr. Argue: 1.	Are eggs being purchased by the agricultural stabilization board?
2.	If so, what grades are being purchased and what price is paid for each grade?
3.	Is there a minimum quantity lot that the board will purchase at any one time?

4.	If so, what is the minimum quantity lot?
5.	What are the names of all the firms from which the agricultural stabilization board has purchased eggs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, in the years 1957 and 1958, and what grade and quantities of eggs were purchased from each firm in each year?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a report I have just received, concerning which therefore I have not been able to give him notice. If he prefers to take this question as notice and answer it at a subsequent time it will be, of course, quite understandable. My question is, has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the statement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister in the House of Commons in London today to the effect that he is calling on the west to study the possibility of a partial pull-back or disengagement from central Europe in the interests of the prevention of war?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that matter has not been brought to my attention, and I shall take it as notice.
Mr. Speaker, I might refer as well to one other matter in connection with discussions which are taking place at the present time. As the house knows, the Soviet government delivered notes to the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France on March 2 relating to the possibility of negotiations taking place on problems relating to Germany. On the same date a note was addressed to the Canadian government by the Soviet union. This was in reply to the Canadian note of February 17, which was tabled on the same day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The note addressed to Canada does not contain anything of significance that is not to be found in the notes addressed to the United Kingdom, the United States and France. Consultations among NATO governments and in the NATO council are now in progress, and naturally any matters such as the one referred to by the hon. gentleman would receive that consideration by the NATO council.
The house will, of course, be aware of the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is planning to visit Washington later this month, I think around the 15th or 16th. The matter of having an invitation extended to Mr. Macmillan, which invitation has always been an open one in any event, has

been discussed informally with the United Kingdom high commissioner, and I have today sent Mr. Macmillan a message expressing the hope that following his visit to Washington he will come to Ottawa to consult here with the members of the government and, I might add, the hope that consideration might be given to his addressing both houses on that occasion.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise the house when Dr. Clark's report on the old age security system of the United States will be available?


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the minister-I am afraid I could not hear for the noise-whether we may expect the report tomorrow or some time later? Would he mind repeating his answer?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If the hon. member would care to read Hansard he will find that I said "tomorrow".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend for his courtesy.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Can he tell me whether the bridge at Prince Albert is to be paid for entirely by the federal government, or whether the provincial government is paying part of the cost?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is able to answer without notice he may do so, but this is a question which should more properly be put on the order paper, as it asks for statistical information.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister been in contact with the government
Inquiries of the Ministry of Nova Scotia with regard to the establishment of a camp ground and picnic area in the Oxford-Springhill area of Cumberland county? If so, would the minister care to comment?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisier of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I do not have my papers before me, but there were representations concerning this area some time ago. There has been correspondence between the department and the government of Nova Scotia. I spoke to the premier of the province about the matter last week end, and action is going forward along that line.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the R.C.M.P., the Minister of Justice. In the light of the reported request, found in this morning's Montreal Gazette, of Montreal police director Langlois for the assistance of the R.C.M.P. in connection with the C.B.C. producers strike, will the minister assure the house that the R.C.M.P. will not be used to molest peaceful picketers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that is one of those questions which, whether in order or not, does not deserve a reply.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the recently signified intention of the C.B.C. to construct a 600-watt French television station at Moncton, New Brunswick, can the minister inform the house whether the transmitting power of such a station will provide adequate service to the Kent county area?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question a day or two ago, and I have just received the information from the C.B.C. since coming into the house. I am advised that most of Kent county in so far as area is concerned may expect to receive between B and C contour

Inquiries of the Ministry coverage. I will let the hon. member interpret that. B and C coverage is fair to good-


Mr. Winch:: Fair to rotten.


George Clyde Nowlan: -but it is certainly not excellent. The northerly part of Kent county and the extreme westerly part are outside of the normal coverage area of the proposed station, and I am afraid will not even receive either B or C contour coverage.



PROSPECTIVE U.S. PRICE CUTTING    INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of bills having been introduced in the United States congress calling for a program of price cutting on world markets in order to underbid Soviet competition, can the minister tell us whether any representations have been made to the United States as to the effect that such a program would have on Canadian sales abroad of such products as wheat, aluminum and oil?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman's question takes in a great deal of territory. I am not sure that I fully comprehended it myself, but it seems to me it is not one that could be answered simply. Both questions and answers should be dealt with briefly at this stage.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises out of an article on page 1 of the Vancouver Sun of February 24, 1959. The question is this. In view of reports that the University of British Columbia finds it necessary to increase its fees by $100 per student next year, and in view of the prospect that other universities may find it necessary to do likewise, has the government considered the necessity of increasing its grants to universities in order to ensure that Canadian youth have every opportunity to obtain an education commensurate with their ability?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Without taking the time to comment on some of the questionable assertions contained in this question, I can only say that no consideration has been given to the subject.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received any protests against the proposed increase in commuter rates in the Montreal district, as announced a few weeks ago? If so, does he propose to do something about this matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was asked last week, I think it was, by the hon. member for Laurier, and at that time I told him this matter had been brought to my attention. I had discussed it with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners, and if protests were received by the board, judging by action that had been taken in cases of this kind in the past the likelihood was that the increase would be set aside pending a hearing. However, I could not answer for the board.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I understood that the hon. member's question followed a question I had asked earlier, as to whether any municipalities had protested the increases in the tariffs?


George Harris Hees: I have not received any such protests myself.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the fact that the railways have cancelled passes formerly issued to railway employee commuters in the Montreal district? If so, does the minister propose to do something about this matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that such action has been taken.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is it true, as reported today, that the government has bought Grumman Supertiger fighters for the R.C.A.F.?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: This is the first information I have received about it. It is not true.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Labour a somewhat belated supplementary question. Yesterday I asked him a question concerning unemployment insurance for discharged members of the armed forces. In his reply he indicated that he was seeking information on this question. In view of the importance of the matter to the unemployed former members of the armed forces, has he any further information to give the house?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was awaiting a report of what had transpired previously in connection with this matter so far as the Department of National Defence and the unemployment insurance commission were concerned. The report is that some three years ago the unemployment insurance commission had a prolonged discussion with the Department of National Defence about the possibility of bringing the members of the armed forces under the unemployment insurance scheme so that contributions would be paid on their behalf in the same way as for employees in industry, but the Department of National Defence finally decided against this course.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired of me with respect to the water supply at Caughnawaga. I can now assure him that there is a good and sufficient water supply available there. The facilities have been installed for all those who are near the seaway operation.
As I reported to the house last August, almost a quarter of a million dollars has been expended on this project, a large part of which came from the seaway authority and the rest from the vote for Indian affairs. All the connections have not been made, largely because of the severe winter we have had. When the spring opens up we expect that the rest of the connections will be made without any undue delay.
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gale):: If I may, I should like to ask the hon. lady a supplementary question. Does she know whether the council of the band and the prospective consumers of the water are satisfied with the arrangement?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: So far as I know, yes; they are satisfied in that area. Of course, as the hon. member knows, the rest of the village has not participated in this scheme, mostly because of their own wishes in the matter.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-29, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -are we not going to hear from the minister on the second reading of this extremely important measure? If we are not to hear from him, then I am prepared to proceed with my remarks.


Howard Charles Green: As Your Honour well knows, I was prepared to proceed but I had a great deal of help from behind me suggesting that I allow the motion to be carried without making a speech.
The fact is that the bill is a simple one because it merely substitutes the figure of $350 million for that of $250 million. Of course there is the matter of $100 million involved in this amendment, but at the resolution stage I made a statement explaining the measure and I should not like to trespass on the time of the house by repeating the remarks I made at that time. When the bill goes to committee I shall try to answer the various questions that were raised.
Perhaps hon. members will be interested in the total cost involved in so far as the federal government is concerned. It is estimated that by the time the highway has been completed there will have been spent by the federal government, in conjunction with the nine provinces, the following amounts: Prince Edward Island, $6,500,000; Nova Scotia, $19,500,000; New Brunswick, $38 million; Ontario, $97 million; Manitoba, $20 million; Saskatchewan, $15,500,000; Alberta,

Trans-Canada Highway Act $22,500,000; British Columbia, $97 million and Newfoundland, $20 million. These are estimates and include, of course, the expenditures to the completion of the highway.
In addition to this cost it is estimated that the federal government will have paid for constructing the highway through the national parks approximately $61 million. Thus the road will cost Canada, aside from provincial contributions, roughly $400 million. In so far as the highway through the parks is concerned, there had been expended to March 31 of last year, $31,186,269. The additional estimated expenditures would bring the total cost of the road through the national parks to $61 million.


Mr. Bourgei:: Would the minister permit a question? Has he got the average cost of construction per mile in each of the provinces?


Howard Charles Green: I do not have those figures with me. Maybe the officials can produce them and I will have them before me when the bill is in committee.
The distribution of the cost of the highway in the national parks as among the provinces is as follows: Terra Nova park in Newfoundland, $9,200,000; Banff national park in Alberta, $19,900,000; Yoho national park in British Columbia, $13,900,000; Glacier park, also in British Columbia, $14,500,000 and Revelstoke national park in British Columbia, $3,500,000. The figures of the money actually spent in those three provinces of Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia should be increased by the amount that is to be expended on the national parks program in those provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this bill is made necessary because of the need for additional money in order to proceed with the completion of the trans-Canada highway program in the nine provinces to which the program applies. This project, I suggest, is an example of the kind of leadership which can be provided by the federal government with regard to an important national development. Though from time to time the federal government may embark on projects which do not immediately receive the full or unanimous support of the provinces of this country, nevertheless I think in the light of its experience the government will agree that in almost every instance in which the federal government has endeavoured to enact, with the co-operation of the provinces, legislation designed to improve the lot of Canadians the provinces generally have been most cooperative.
Nine provinces are engaged in this project. Some have made more progress toward the completion of the highway than others. There
[Mr. Green.l
is one province, the province of Quebec, which has not seen fit to take advantage of this measure. Premier Duplessis in his own good judgment has decided that this project should not apply to the province of Quebec.
I would think that the people of Quebec are in as great need of good highways, and deserve them as much, as people in any other part of this country, and I believe from my study of this problem that the premier of Quebec has fallen into great error by refusing to co-operate with the federal government in this field. It is an error which I suppose does not impose any real hardship or suffering or inconvenience upon the premier of the province, but I am certain in my mind that it withholds from the people of Quebec a very important service and a very important right, namely the presence in their province of a part of the trans-Canada highway built to the standard which has been set for this highway and, what is equally important, the advantage of having money contributed from the national treasury for this purpose. I would suggest that the premier of Quebec has allowed his ancient quarrel with the federal government to deprive the people of that province of a very important service, a project which is national in character and which will serve the people of this country well.
I think the present government has made an error in the opposite direction. Progress has been made toward the completion of this project in many of the provinces. The western provinces are making great progress. Saskatchewan has completed its project; Manitoba and Alberta have announced that their highway is almost completed.
I asked earlier, when we were discussing the resolution, what if any consideration the government had given to the expansion of this very important undertaking. I suggest that within the scope of the trans-Canada highway there is room for expansion. There is room for the second trans-Canada highway project that we have heard so much about. I submit to the government that it is time this very important undertaking should be extended into a national highways program to meet needs of Canadians generally, and that the government should undertake such a program in co-operation with the provinces.
As a good Canadian citizen, I do not believe that in this field we should be 40 years behind the United States. There is no reason why we in Canada, when we have the manpower and the resources available, should be satisfied with one project, important though it is. We should go ahead at this moment, this year, to provide an extension of this legislation to meet the highway needs of the people of this country.

There is another very important reason why, I submit, now is the time for such a development. We have heard about the government's winter work program. We were told the other day that as far as on-site work is concerned, employment is now being provided for more than 30,000 Canadians. What will happen to the 30,000 people who are employed on the winter work program when their employment ceases? Are these people to be added to the unemployment rolls during the summer months? In the early years of the trans-Canada highway project, when we asked for an extension we were told by the government of the day that our resources were fully employed, that we had no more manpower available for such an expansion and that, desirable though it might be, our resources should not be used in that direction.
That argument cannot be used today. We have a tremendous surplus of idle manpower, men anxious to be engaged in useful work. We have the material resources that are required for a great advance in this project, and I would suggest that now is the time for this government to show leadership in the provision of adequate highways and in the provision of a program that will help deal with the vexed question of unemployment.
I asked this question earlier and I repeat it now. Has the minister within his department, or has the Department of Labour or any other department of the government, undertaken a survey to see how an expanded highway program could be used to help reduce the large number of unemployed in Canada at this time? I believe that the government is very concerned about the unemployment problem, and indeed any government that accepts its responsibilities in this day and age must be concerned with problems of this magnitude. I would suggest that one of the obvious things the government could do would be to undertake a survey of the great public works projects that might be instituted to put people to work.
I ask the minister whether there has been any survey as to what effect an expanded highway program for either a second trans-Canada highway or highways of this standard or any other standard running north and south would produce. Has there been any encouragement given to the provinces and municipalities by the federal government to undertake this kind of road development? I suggest that this kind of leadership is required at the present time more than at any other time in recent years because of the financial difficulties that are being faced by the provinces and municipalities.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
It is no secret that provincial finances are more difficult now than they have been in the last several years. The same is true of municipal finances. The difficulty of raising municipal and provincial budgets for their important works programs is becoming more and more acute. Are the minister and the government prepared to allow these difficulties to grow? Are they prepared to have it become increasingly difficult for provinces and municipalities to meet the problem of providing adequate road facilities for the public? These remarks could also be extended to include urban areas. The provision of roads through the great cities of our country taxes the financial resources of those cities.
We urge the minister to have a comprehensive study made of this question to see how a program of this kind could be utilized in 1959 to help solve the question of unemployment. There are provinces that are ready to embark on such a program. The province of Saskatchewan has been urging the government to co-operate in just such a project. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the estimated labour content in building the trans-Canada highway in that province was 27 per cent. I suggest that is a high labour content. This is the kind of project which if extended would provide substantial employment in Canada at this time.
I express the hope that the minister will tell the house what study the government has given to this problem and what study it has made concerning how such a project could fit in with a program designed to put people to work, and what the government intend to do by way of action in the days ahead.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the trans-Canada highway as it affects my area. As the minister is well aware, it has not been possible to build No. 17 highway because the costs of construction in that area are high. Consequently highway No. 11 has been used as an alternative route.
My request is perhaps in keeping with what was mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he referred to a second route. The area served by the highway now designated as No. 11 will not be served when highway No. 17 is completed, because it will pass through another part of the country. When he was in opposition the Minister of Public Works often pointed out that provinces should not have to bear the brunt of the cost of maintenance of the trans-Canada highway but that they should be assisted in the maintenance of the highway by the federal government, and that in some areas the highway should be maintained solely by the senior government.
1600	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
At the present time highway 11 carries the full weight of trans-Canada highway traffic. There has been an increase in traffic due to the rerouting of heavy transports from the northern United States into northern Ontario. Consequently the road is much more expensive to maintain and the costs are greater than they would have been if trans-Canada highway traffic were using highway 17.
I urge the minister to give serious consideration to assisting the province in the maintenance of highway 11, the present trans-Canada highway link, and that he also give consideration to making highway 11 an alternative route to highway 17 as a second part of the trans-Canada highway.
(Translation):


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have joined in this debate on the trans-Canada highway but for the remarks made a moment ago by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He stressed the fact that the province of Quebec is not sharing in the trans-Canada highway project.
It is not my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to judge the matter on its merits. However, I feels its significance is such that it should not be turned into a political football. It is significant enough because it involves a principle of no mean value, a legal principle rooted in history, namely the principle of provincial autonomy.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into the details of the matter, but I would point out to all those who seek to discredit the government of the province of Quebec with regard to that particular matter of the trans-Canada highway,-and they should be examining the problem in the light of the principles which lie at the base of this juridical fact of provincial autonomy-that it is not merely a question of highways. It is a question of determining under what conditions the trans-Canada highway is to be built. The province of Quebec has on several occasions expressed her opinion on the subject through the provincial authorities, and more particularly last week, when the provincial minister of highways said what he had in mind, stating that provincial autonomy is involved in the building of that highway and that the government of the province of Quebec cannot, at this time, accept to take any part in this project because, he said, the conditions set by the Ottawa government are


not in accordance with the sovereign policy of the province.
To my mind, this is the only standpoint from which the problem must be faced.
I think, moreover, that the provincial government of Quebec has, until now, made some considerable effort to provide the people of the province of Quebec with an adequate network of roads, so that no one need accuse it of all sorts of partisan and small-minded intentions with regard to the matter.
A few moments ago, in this debate, I heard a C.C.F. member say,-as I understood it,- that the province of Quebec does not need to improve its highway network and that Quebec people are perfectly satisfied with what they now have, as their government is refusing federal aid in this respect. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that we must in all fairness commend the provincial authorities of Quebec for having given our province an adequate road network. Considering the magnitude of this network and the considerable mileage involved, we have in the province of Quebec perfectly good roads-in fact excellent roads-that earn praises from tourists who visit the province. The project is, I think, not yet completed, as improvement work is continually being carried on and because this year's provincial budget for highways amounts to some $134 million. This shows, Mr. Speaker, how much importance the provincial government attaches to the highway problem.
In the past, some political opponents have taken the Quebec provincial government to task for spending too much money on highways. Yet, last week I heard them say in this house that Quebec's highway network is altogether inadequate, and that the roads are quite outdated.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be proper to consider the problem, to approach it in the only way it should be approached, from the angle of provincial political sovereignty. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the government consider the problem from the angle of provincial autonomy and consider the possibility of entering into arrangements which would not impose such conditions as are now being refused by the Quebec provincial government.
In closing, I again emphasize this aspect of the problem: this is not a matter of partisan politics, but one of basic principle and a vital one, since it was historically confirmed in 1867.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Yes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the hon. member mean to say that he intends to vote against this bill?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is a difficult question to answer. We have to deal with facts. The trans-Canada highway system, as submitted to the provinces, was not accepted by the province of Quebec for the reasons I outlined a moment ago. However, and precisely in view of that national unity which is being preached to us, we do not want to embarrass provinces which, for reasons which are not mine to take up here, have agreed to the present trans-Canada highway system.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to take part in this debate on the trans-Canada highway, but the sound remarks just made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) impose upon me, I think, the duty of saying a few words on the matter.
I do not of course deny the right, neither to the province of Quebec-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member wishes to pursue the line which was followed by the hon. member for Roberval, and which was initiated by the hon. member for Assini-boia. I cannot very well stop him since it has gone so far, but let me say that the principle of this bill, an act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act, is to increase the amount available for trans-Canada highway construction. It does not alter the principles which was decided when the initial bill was passed. At that time the question of constitutional problems and other matters were presumably before the house, and when the policy was adopted that there should be federal contributions to the trans-Canada highway those questions were settled.
Strictly speaking, those questions are not open again on the second reading of this bill which in principle raises the question whether it is desirable to spend more money along the lines of the previous decision of the house or whether it is not desirable to spend more money. It does not reopen all the issues which were originally decided on that occasion. I will hear the hon. member, but I think the issue that we are off on is really not strictly relevant to the principle of this bill.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have just raised I should like to say this. By the principle of this bill we are asked to increase the amount of money available to the provinces with regard to the
Trans-Canada Highway Act trans-Canada highway. The hon. member for Assiniboia has said that the province of Quebec is not participating in that increase. The hon. member for Roberval expressed his view as to why the province of Quebec is not participating, and I think I am in order in trying to answer the hon. member for Roberval in saying why the province of Quebec should participate.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not objecting to the hon. member spending a reasonable time in dealing with the issue which has been discussed and which I have allowed to be discussed, but since I consider the discussion to be out of order I hope his remarks will not be too extended.


Gabriel Roberge: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. To cut the matter short I would say this. If the hon. member for Roberval would look at section 92 of the British North America Act, paragraph 10, he would see that it is within the jurisdiction of the legislature of a province to act or to pass legislation on:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the Canadian parliament has a perfect right to legislate in matters pertaining to the trans-Canada highway, since the highway is designed to link the province of Quebec or the other provinces to one another, and it is within the ambit of federal jurisdiction to legislate in this matter.
I do not intend, at this stage, to criticize the decision of the province of Quebec as to whether it should share or not in the project; this will be a matter for the electors in the province of Quebec to decide in due course.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on second reading but since the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) has raised this issue I think I might reiterate the position I took at the resolution stage. I am aware of the rule regarding repetition, sir, and I will be very brief. I do not think that any of the four Atlantic provinces would feel that their autonomy was being interfered with in any way if the minister and the government would yield to the plea I made at an earlier stage and pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in those four provinces.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


Howard Charles Green: Why did your government not do that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has asked me a question and I am sure he wants to hear my answer. The minister is very adept at prolonging his own legislation in the house. I have never seen his equal in that regard and I will be delighted to answer him and at some length. The trans-Canada highway, which, of course, was in no one's program until it was started by the St. Laurent government in 1949, was a very big project and when it was found after a number of years that the project was not proceeding quite as rapidly as had been hoped originally the government of which I was a member, a government which I might say, sir, had some regard for public treasury and the taxpayers, something which seems to be lacking in the present government, did undertake to pay 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the road in order to get it completed more quickly. As the minister pointed out, those of the provinces that still had some to complete, and I think they all had at that time, were not slow to choose the most expensive 10 per cent for the federal government to pay 90 per cent of the cost of.
In line with the progressive attitude which has always been taken by the Liberal party, when we came to review our policy to see what further could be done for the advantage particularly of the four Atlantic provinces, where there was really no scope for building railways,-at a time when we were seeing railways built in practically every other province, we took the view at our recent national convention that in order to provide a kind of equalization of transportation facilities in the four Atlantic provinces it would be appropriate for the government to pay 90 per cent of the cost for completing the road.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: What year was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That being the policy of our party, I am appealing to the minister and to the government to make it the policy of the government of Canada and the policy of this parliament, thus making it unanimous.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Aggregate limited to $350 million.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask. When the minister was speaking at the resolution stage he made what I thought was a very interesting statement,

particularly in view of the interest of a good many people in southeastern British Columbia in the building of that section of the trans-Canada highway that goes through Rogers pass. I believe the minister made some reference to meeting the problem caused by avalanche conditions by the use of artillery fire. This is the first time I have heard of this technique in road maintenance and I wonder whether the minister can give the house any information in that respect. Is General Young responsible for that proposal?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there is quite an interesting story about that. The department engaged Swiss experts who have had great experience in providing protection against snow slides. This was done through the national research council. A new difficulty developed in that bears ate the powder which would have been set off by electricity. Then the officials had to turn to a system of using mortar fire. Avalanches are a great problem in Switzerland and I believe have been dealt with there with considerable success. We are very hopeful that the highway through Rogers pass can be kept open all winter and that there will be no hazard.
The hon. member knows the views that I expressed about this some years ago, but the decision was made that the route should be through Rogers pass and made, incidentally, by the provincial government. So we are doing the best we can with the pass. This section will probably be the most spectacular part of the whole route when it is finished. Apparently there are many glaciers. Of course, it is extremely mountainous country and I believe that a trip through Rogers pass will be very much worth while. I hope I can take one myself this fall.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his very interesting explanation. I might say that if the officials of the national research council had simply consulted a few old prospectors in the area they would have told them that you cannot leave powder within a mile of a bear. I want to ask this question. Are snow sheds to be built on certain sections of the highway in Rogers pass?


Howard Charles Green: About 3,000 feet of snow sheds are planned now and it may be necessary to build more.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister able to comment on the question I asked him earlier with respect to whether any survey has been made as to how an expanded highway or road program might meet the requirement of the nation at this time for increased employment? Has any survey been made as to what the effect of a second trans-Canada highway would be in this respect? Has any survey been

made of the possibility of building highways running north and south to connect with highways in the United States? I think the comments of the minister as to any study that has been made in this regard would be most helpful to the committee.


Howard Charles Green: The officials of the department have of course, been studying the best type of highway policy to follow the completion of the trans-Canada highway program. I am not yet at liberty to disclose what policy would be followed at that time. All of these points which the hon. member, and other members of the house have raised in the course of this debate, will be very carefully considered in this connection.
I take it that what the hon. member for Assiniboia really has in mind is the question of a highway policy which would be of a national nature. He raises the need for providing employment which, of course, is another problem. Highway construction does not provide employment to anything like the extent that the money spent on housing does. A great many more jobs are given by encouraging the building of homes than by highway construction because much of highway construction is done by expensive machinery. I think the Department of Public Works estimates that the labour content in highway construction is only from 25 per cent to 30 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his reply. I would think that the labour content is very substantial. While on a dollar basis it might not result in the same proportionate gain in employment as the expenditure on the current winter works program from the federal standpoint, but in connection with winter works one must always bear in mind that the federal government's money is contributed toward sharing the labour cost of the program itself and does not in any way contribute to the very substantial additional cost.
I thank the minister for the information as to the study that is being made. This act, as I understand it, will terminate December 31, 1960. I do not know if the minister expects that at that time the whole project can be wound up in a satisfactory manner or whether parliament, some time prior to that date, will have to give consideration to the continuance of the present program so that any parts that are not completed at that time may be completed at a later date. I express the hope, of course, that the program will be completed within the present target date and, further, that all provinces will find it possible, in keeping with their constitutional responsibility as I submit this is, to participate in the trans-Canada highway program.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
The minister has said that the question of employment, so far as a project of this nature is concerned, is another problem. I think it is, in the context of over half a million Canadians being unemployed, a very important and very essential part of a highway program. I think, in keeping with the government's responsibility in considering any extended highway program or any national policy, it is necessary to take into account the labour content of such a program. I am quite certain in my own mind that in any consideration of such a policy and in the formulation of such a policy the labour content will very definitely be considered. The minister has put before the committee the position of the government at this time, but I would urge once again that the government re-assess its policy, that the government have a look at its policy and see whether or not there cannot be an expansion of the government's road program to provide now, and not a number of years from now, a highway policy which I take it from the minister he thinks this country should have.
Apparently, it is a matter of time. The province of Saskatchewan is not only prepared but is anxious to co-operate with this government, as it did with the last government, in building further roads of this standard within Saskatchewan. There is no doubt in my mind but that the province of Manitoba, the province of Alberta-yes, I would think almost every province in Canada- would be most agreeable to considering the expansion of this highway program. Here we have one outstanding case of a province that has co-operated to the full, a province that has completed its section, and a provincial government that is so anxious to co-operate with the minister and so friendly with him on a personal basis. I can tell him, not only from reading the correspondence but from private conversations, that they were greatly disappointed that the minister could not attend in person at the time of the official opening of the trans-Canada highway across that province. I am as much a partisan in this house as any other member, and I make no apologies for that at all. I think that is part and parcel of parliamentary debate. However, that does not in any way detract from the belief of the members of the C.C.F., and the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan, that it is their responsibility to co-operate with whatever federal government may be in power at any given time to undertake beneficial projects that will be of assistance to the citizens of Saskatchewan who are also citizens of this nation.
I know, as I have said to the minister already, not only from statements in writing

Trans-Canada Highway Act but from private conversations that the government of Saskatchewan is most anxious to proceed with any further development of a highway policy. The minister, in weighing the timing of the announcement of a new highway policy, in considering how broad such a policy should be, could weigh on the side of action the co-operation of the C.C.F. party of this country and the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan. I express the hope that the government may be able to bring in such a highway policy. I am quite certain that, although some people from some parts of Canada may consider such a policy to be of a controversial nature, it will so commend itself to this house as to obtain a unanimous vote.


Howard Charles Green: I neglected to mention one other aspect of the problem of providing employment through highway work. It is not very good in the winter. It is all right in the summer, but in most of Canada, in fact all of Canada except the west coast, it is very difficult to do highway work in the winter. This is another important factor. We are able to carry on the brushing out of the right of way and the assembling of materials; activities of that kind have been pushed to the greatest possible extent, particularly in the Northwest Territories where employment has been furnished by plans of this type.
Then the hon. member should not forget that in addition to the trans-Canada highway program we have initiated a roads to resources program designed to give better access to northern Canada and, in the maritime provinces, to give access to resources. There is to be a total of $75 million spent by the federal government under that program, and there has been a great deal done under this plan. The province of Saskatchewan has done quite a bit of work under this program. We appreciate the fact that Saskatchewan got the trans-Canada highway completed before any other province. They deserve great credit for having done that, although the mileage is not as great as in some of the other provinces and the construction is a great deal cheaper.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked at the resolution stage for the cost of the by-pass around the city of Winnipeg. That figure is approximately $10 million.


Mr. Benidickson:: Is that part of the 90-10 program? I refer to the Winnipeg by-pass?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: Just on that point with respect to St. Boniface and Winnipeg, am I right in thinking that streets in St. Boniface and Winnipeg were originally designated as the trans-Canada highway route and that
[Mr. Argued

this is a change of thought to by-pass these cities? Am I also right in thinking that when you make a contribution to the by-pass you deduct anything you may have contributed previously on the formerly designated route?


Howard Charles Green: Yes; that is correct.


Mr. Nixon:: As the minister well knows, an extremely important scenic part of this trans-Canada highway is along the north shore of lake Superior, north of Sault Ste. Marie. I wonder whether the minister could say how much of that part of the highway is being built on that 90-10 per cent agreement? I also wonder whether he would be good enough to give the provincial government a bit of prodding and urge them to rush this road along to completion as soon as possible so that there will be an outlet for those people living in the isolated area of Michipi-coten and in that particular part of the country.


Howard Charles Green: Approximately 135 miles in this gap area is on the 90-10 basis. The provincial government of Ontario has been making good progress with the construction in closing this gap and it is expected that they will have the highway completed by the end of next year.


George Ewart Nixon: That 90-10 per cent agreement was started under the previous government?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to mention another matter to the minister. It has reference particularly to the mountainous section of the trans-Canada highway, and more particularly to those sections which go through Rogers pass where the road is built on precipitous slopes. I have met a good number of tourists going through the mountains

people from the prairies, eastern Canada and the United States-who enjoy travelling a great deal indeed. But these people are not accustomed to travelling on these mountain highways, even when they are the standard width, and they are extremely nervous when travelling along those portions of the highway that are built on precipitous slopes or where the highway takes a curve around a bluff of something of that sort. As the minister knows, persons who are accustomed to travelling in the mountains are not so concerned about that sort of thing. But I have met people who were frozen, who actually stopped on the road and would not move until somebody moved their car for them. This is only a detail of construction but I think it is an important one in connection with securing the fullest possible utilization and enjoyment of the highway. I refer to the provision of satisfactory cable guards or other safeguards

Trans-Canada Highway Act
at points where they are necessary. Can the in a press release by the department that they minister inform the house as to the standard would undertake that responsibility and have of cable guards and guards of other types the two roads completed at approximately that are being used on this highway?	the same time.


Howard Charles Green: Through the Rogers pass there will be what is called a metal guard rail system. The hon. member will be pleased to know that this highway route through the pass is going to be 44 feet wide, there being a 24-foot pavement and a ten-foot shoulder on either side. It is not going to have the remotest resemblance to the highways over which he and I have gone so frequently in that part of the country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the northern Ontario part of the highway. As the minister knows, back in 1955, I think it was, or 1956, the route of highway No. 17 was along the north shore to Iron Bridge; north of Iron Bridge to Chapleau; from Chapleau to lake Superior and on. That route was later changed to the great delight of the hon. member for Algoma West so that the route went through the Soo and along the shore. But at the time the change was made a beginning had been made on the road from Iron Bridge north to Chapleau which was understood to be part of the trans-Canada highway. The residents of Chapleau were understandably exercised by this alteration in the route. At the time it was stated by the Department of Public Works in a press release of December 29, 1956 that when changing the route the Ontario government undertook to build a good standard road to Chapleau and to complete it by about the completion date of the trans-Canada highway; and then to begin and complete a highway of trans-Canada highway standard from Chapleau to Wawa in order to connect with the other branch of the trans-Canada highway. I should like to ask the minister whether he can tell me what progress is being made in carrying out that undertaking so that both roads will be completed?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the provincial government is now working on the road from Iron Bridge to Chapleau although it is not to be of the same standard as the trans-Canada highway. Then they are also planning to build a road from Chapleau to the trans-Canada highway under the roads to resources program. There was never any undertaking that this road would be of the same standard as the trans-Canada highway,


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps that is true, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this is not the minister's responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Ontario government. It was embodied 66968-9-102


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the minister to say that this road which the Ontario government undertook to build on its own is now being partly paid for by the federal government under the roads to resources program?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this is brand new construction on the part of the road from Chapleau to the trans-Canada highway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. But I understood my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, to say that according to this press release in 1956 the Ontario government had undertaken to build this road itself. It now appears that the present government is going to pay part of the cost of that road as well.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this is permissible under the original arrangement which was made.


Mr. Howard:: I want to put a question or two to the minister. A comment made by him just a few moments ago points up again what I think is a ridiculous arrangement in that there are two separate departments of the federal government dealing with financial participation in our road building program. The minister made reference to the so-called roads to resources program which, so far as administration is concerned, properly comes under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. However, I think we could make a comment on it here for two reasons, first, because the engineering work is done under the trans-Canada highway section of the Department of Public Works and, secondly, because the minister himself has referred to it. I am certainly not defending the Liberal party in this respect, but the minister was quite incorrect when he said that the present government initiated the roads to resources program. That is not a factual statement, because he knows that when the Liberal government was in office it arranged to enter into a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement with regard to building the Stewart-Cassiar road on the basis of which our present so-called roads to resources program originated.
While we are on this subject I will suggest that if it is the desire on the part of this government to continue paying 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage of the trans-Canada highway constructed in each province, in addition to paying 50 per cent of the cost, then it would clearly be sound for it to make some arrangement of this kind at least with respect to the Stewart-Cassiar road
1606	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act and other roads which run from north to south. I realize that it may not be within the sphere of the Minister of Public Works to engage in financial arrangements respecting the roads to resources program. In that case I am making my suggestion to the wrong minister. However, if this should be beyond his responsibility, I hope he will put pressure on his friend from Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and induce him to go at least as far as the Department of Public Works is agreeable to going, that is, to paying toward the cost of the Stewart-Cassiar highway and other north-south highways on the same scale as is applicable to the trans-Canada highway.
My colleagues raised some questions on the resolution stage with regard to the possible expansion of our present highway building program. In particular, the hon. member for Assiniboia dealt again with this matter this afternoon. I merely wish to point out how important it is that this government should evolve a complete highway program as soon as possible; not some time within the next year or two, not some time after the end of 1960, when the minister expects that all his work will be completed except for the portion through Newfoundland; not some time, even, right on the eve of the next general election, whenever that may take place, but right now in order that the program may be made known to the provinces in time for them to make their plans and in order that those who live in the middle northern portion of western Canada, in particular, may realize their hope that the federal government will make some financial contribution toward the cost of road building in this area.
I should like to take this opportunity to refer once again to the need for expanding this program immediately so that it will include what we generally classify as a second trans-Canada highway, a road which, geographically located, would run through Prince Rupert, Prince George, Edmonton and northern Sakatchewan into Manitoba. I hope the government will immediately make some announcement that it intends to arrange to play its part financially in co-operation with the provinces in building such a highway as this.
The minister probably noticed in the Vancouver Province on Friday last an announcement by his friend and fellow British Columbian, Premier Bennett

I notice the minister smiles and nods when I refer to Premier Bennett as being his friend-


Howard Charles Green: That was not why I was nodding and smiling.
IMr. Howard.]


Charles Benjamin Howard: I quite appreciate that, inasmuch as the premier was one of those who deserted the Conservative party some years ago.


An hon. Member:: He is sorry now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The unfortunate thing is that not having my earphone hooked up I cannot hear any of the delightful interjections that are being made from time to time. If they are all friendly, a great change has taken place over there.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Premier Bennett announced on Friday last that the province of British Columbia was embarking on a one billion dollar highway building program over the next ten years. Some of that money is going to come from cheques written by the Minister of Public Works, because those cheques are included in this billion dollar program on which we are supposed to be embarking out there. In these circumstances it would be only fitting that the minister should announce immediately, not two years from now, that he is desirous of contributing financially to this billion dollar highway program. We all know, of course, that Premier Bennett's announcement that a billion dollars will be spent on highway construction over the next ten years is more verbal than factual, and that the premier does not really mean it. We heard when I was in the provincial legislature three or four years ago that we were going to embark on a billion dollar highway program. All the premier is doing is advancing the date, so that he will be able to keep on making this announcement over the next 20 years.
However, it is clear, I think that we are embarking on highway expenditure on an enlarged scale, and if the minister would give us some indication that he wants us to have some decent highways free of mudholes and pot holes and all the other defects we encounter, in northern British Columbia in particular, we should be very grateful to him. We do not want him to say that we shall have the best highways in the world; a good standard of public highways is all we are asking. I think the minister should not allow this opportunity to go by without saying something like this: yes, indeed, though we have not worked out details with regard to financing, this Conservative government intends to participate financially in the extension of road building plans in the province. That is all we are asking. If the minister would make such an announcement he would, I remind him, get some of the glory from Premier Bennett's announcement that one billion dollars is to be spent on highways in British Columbia in the course of the next

ten years. I hope the minister will be able to go beyond merely saying that suggestions are being made and plans being worked out. I hope he will be able to give us some clear hope that he intends to participate financially in the cost of provincial road building, especially in the area in which I live and in comparable areas of the western provinces.
I, for one, have been putting off buying another car for some time because I know it is hardly worth while buying a new car considering the bad state of the roads up there. However, if the minister would give us some hope along the lines I have suggested, I might buy a new car. The government would, in turn, derive some revenue from the excise tax, employment would be created and thus, in a minor way we would be spending our way into prosperity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Buy the car you
have in mind in Windsor.


Hazen Robert Argue: Or Oshawa.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have been putting off buying a car for another reason; I have been expecting the excise tax to go down. Here is how we can spend our way to prosperity to a limited degree. If the minister will just tell us he is willing to write out the cheques I will buy the car.


An hon. Member:: Buy him the car; it would be cheaper.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised that the hon. member for Skeena has been taken in so completely by the statements made by Premier Bennett in the legislature the other day and furthermore that he should come on to the floor of this house and advocate Mr. Bennett's cause. I remind him that this is a very dangerous thing to do and I hope he will not get into trouble himself.
I have had a little experience with the British Columbia government and more particularly with the present minister of highways who came to see me when I was in Vancouver last September. He had with him a long list of highways costing several hundred millions of dollars. He was just bursting with the idea that if we would only pay half the cost, all of these roads could be built and everyone in the province would have employment. I asked him if he had left out any roads at all in compiling the list and he said, "No, I think I got them all in." However, for the winter he wanted us to share in about $30 million worth of highway construction which was purely the responsibility of the province. I told him I would have to take it into consideration and that gentleman walked right over to the Vancouver hotel, sent for the press and gave them a complete statement to the 66968-9-1021
Trans-Canada Highway Act effect that only the dominion government was preventing all the highways being built and everyone in the province having employment.
Subsequently I found out that there was about the same amount of work valued at approximately $30 million that could be done on the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia for which we were legally responsible to share in the cost and the excuse that had been given for not proceeding with the work was that the province had no money to go ahead with it. That project, of course, would have provided just as many jobs as $30 million spent on roads that were purely the responsibility of the province. I simply warn the hon. member for Skeena to beware of just how far he goes in sponsoring these policies put forward by the provincial government of British Columbia. I can assure him that we will treat British Columbia fairly but we cannot give one province any better treatment than is given to the others because this is not a British Columbia highway policy that is being administered by the government of Canada, rather it is a national highway policy.
May I also point out that under the trans-Canada highway provisions there will have been spent in British Columbia on the trans-Canada highway-mind you this includes the national parks-a total of about $128,900,000, far more than is spent in any other province.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I may
comment on the minister's answer I would say I am quite sure he did not misunderstand what I said in my earlier remarks but rather he chose not to deal with what I said. The minister is well aware that I have an interest in British Columbia by virtue of living there and I mentioned the province a number of times during the course of my remarks. I also mentioned Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba because those are areas with which I am familiar. I was, however, talking about an extension of the highway building program to include financial participation in building roads in all of the provinces. Within the prairie provinces there is growing interest in the prospect of the development of a second trans-Canada highway and my friend the hon. member for Northumberland-Mira-michi mentioned the interest that exists in the maritimes in what he classified as a trans-Canada highway. Although I mentioned British Columbia specifically a number of times it was not my intention to convey the impression that I was asking the federal government to participate with British Columbia and not every other province. I am sure the minister knew that was not the approach I was taking.
The minister has still failed to announce what the policy will be. Is the government

Trans-Canada Highway Act going to participate financially with the provinces in building additional highways or is it not? The question is simply that.


George Ewart Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the minister could say what is the length of the gap still to be completed along the north shore of lake Superior north of Agawa?


Howard Charles Green: The total mileage of what is
known as the gap is 164 miles. This is now all under contract. Some of it has been paved, some of it has been graded and some of it has not yet reached that stage.


George Ewart Nixon: You cannot say just how
much is left that is actually to be built?


Howard Charles Green: Not at the moment.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up the question raised by the hon. member for Algoma West and his earlier question with respect to the so-called gap north of lake Superior in Ontario. As I recall it, when the minister was introducing the resolution before presenting the bill he indicated the general terms under which 10 per cent of the mileage in any one province would receive a 90 per cent contribution from the federal government. He indicated with a smile that naturally the provinces advanced the most expensive section to claim that 90 per cent contribution which is quite natural. In the case of Ontario is there an option or has it already been decided that the 90 per cent must apply to the gap? If that is so, is that true of any other province or has every other province the right to select its own mileage when it claims the 90 per cent?


Howard Charles Green: The policy required that the gaps must be completed first and then if there was any mileage over and above the gaps which would be entitled to the 90 per cent contribution, of course the provinces had the right to choose.


William Moore Benidickson: The gap was about 180-odd miles and the minister a few moments ago indicated that the 90 per cent would probably apply to about 135 miles. Is that situation the same in any other province? Did the federal government and the provinces decide ahead of time what particular sections would receive the 90 per cent contribution irrespective of the fact that some road construction in other locations might actually be more expensive per mile than, say, the cost of constructing the gap in northern Ontario?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we strongly suspect that the most expensive portions were the ones upon which agreement was reached.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr, Chairman, I have three other questions with respect to the Rogers pass section. Could the minister tell the committee the maximum degree of curvature that is permitted at Rogers pass, the maximum percentage of gradient and the depth and type of asphalt being used on that section?


Howard Charles Green: Six per cent curvature, six per cent grade and three-inch mat on a six-inch bituminous base; variable depths of granular base, depending on whether the road is being built on rock or soil or whatever the nature of the earth is. I can assure the hon. member that it is going to be a first-class highway.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is quite obvious.


Hazen Robert Argue: A few moments ago in discussing the possibility of an over-all comprehensive highway program and the extension of highway construction on a co-operative basis this year, the minister said it was difficult to build highways in the winter time and that therefore this would be a summer project. In the references I made to highway construction I had in mind that the employment situation would be as important in the summer time as it is now. I do not think the minister was implying that when spring arrives the whole question of unemployment will be solved automatically. The need for employment will still be a major factor during the summer.
I can remember a few years ago when everyone said you could not have construction work going on in the winter; that is, construction work of any kind. New methods have made it possible to engage in a great deal of construction during the winter and I do not think it will be impossible in the days ahead to have highways constructed in the winter time. I think the construction of highways will be something that at least in part can be undertaken during the winter.
The minister made some reference to the other program of road construction with which the government is associated, namely the roads to resources program. In speaking on this question on February 24, as reported at page 1345 of Hansard, the minister said:
We have undertaken a roads to resources program which could involve a total of $150 million, divided into $15 million for each of the provinces.
This, of course, is in another department, namely the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but I would suggest that in evolving this road program the Minister of Public Works and his department because of their experience in this road program would likely be able to develop a more efficient program than has been developed in

this other department. I shy that the program
in the other department is one which was arrived at very quickly. I am all for the quick arrival at programs but it is rather an amazing thing that that program should be based on $15 inillion for each province. I can tell the minister that ivheh I was in Prince Edward Island last fall the people of the island were very , pleased with the roads to resources program. They said that it was a wonderful thing for the island. Well, I said, "Now, would you explain to me the resources that these roads are leading to?" They said, "Every resource that we have, including the beaches in the province." They said, "The roads to resources program in the island are roads to our summer resorts and to our cottages," That appealed to me as being a part of the vision of the Prime Minister so to extend the roads to resources program that one could build roads to beaches and to summer cottages which are used by Canadians and by our good friends to the south. The people of Prince Edward Island were very pleased with the roads to resources program in that province.
I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works that the same kind of program, the same proportionate program, on the basis of equality, should be provided to all of the provinces in this country so that we can have full co-operation in this roads to resources program. I express the hope to the Minister of Public Works that in the evolving of any policy for an extended and improved highway program such a program should be based on principles that apply equally in all provinces in relation to the needs of those provinces and should be one that has attached to it and implicit in it an over-all policy and not one that on the basis of the statement of the Minister of Public Works provides the one opportunity for many roads to all the resources in parts of Canada and, of course, is a program that goes but a very short distance toward a comprehensive roads to resources program in other provinces.


Maurice Bourget: Is the minister now in a position to give us the average cost per mile in each of the provinces?


Howard Charles Green: My officials advise me that it is quite impossible to get that figure because quite a lot of the road is not finished yet. We can get that for a province where the construction is completed but in the others we cannot.


Maurice Bourget: I understood the minister to say a few minutes ago how much the cost of the road would be; therefore, I thought that some calculation could be arrived at. Even if it is not done today probably the minister could give me the figures later.
Trans-CanadaxHighway Act


Howard Charles Green: I will be glad to see what we can do.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to ask the minister a question about this 10 per cent. When a province selects 10 per cent, of which the federal government will bear 90 per cent of the. cost, does that 10 per cent have to be all in one piece, or can, it be made up of a number of pieces? Also, are bridges included in the cost of that road?


Howard Charles Green: It is possible for the gap td be split; it does not have to be a continuous road and it does include bridges. This is one of the reasons why it is very expensive'. Incidentally, there is a five-mile minimum. In other words, the distance covered has to be at least five miles.


Chesley William Carter: But that five mile stretch includes the cost of a bridge or bridges? They would be included as well?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, up to a width of 44 feet, which is the width of the road across Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rea): When shall the bill be, read a third time, by leave now?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the passing of the bill but so that we shall get a clear expression of opinion from all members regarding the constitutional aspect of this legislation I would ask that a recorded vote be taken.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, as the one who raised the matter in the first place which generated discussion on this point, I feel that a vote at this time would serve a very useful purpose. As the minister conducting this legislation through the house well knows from experience and votes he has called in the past, a unanimous vote by the house is very often an important procedure. I would hope that at this time all members of the house from all provinces would show that this is a project in keeping with national unity and national development. I would hope and expect that a vote would show leaders in all provinces that this project commends itself to members of parliament and to the Canadian nation. I express the hope that all members will support this very impbl'tant legislation and demonstrate once

Trans-Canada Highway Act and for all that members of parliament are in full support of a program that means a great deal to national development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is the house ready for the question? The Minister of Public Works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the minister has the right to speak a second time on third reading, and in moving the motion the minister has spoken.


Harold Edward Winch: Let him speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am willing to agree by leave, sir.


Harold Edward Winch: We want to show every province that the minister has the support of all members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is the house ready for the question? Does the minister wish to make a statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By unanimous consent.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all hon. members for allowing me to say a few words. I think there is no doubt that the bill has the unanimous support of everyone in the house. In fact, expressions to that effect have been made, and I think it would be of doubtful value to the promotion of unity in Canada if a vote on this measure should be interpreted as something having to do with national unity. It would be against the rules for me to say anything whatever which might lead to the imputing of motives in the calling of a vote at this stage. I do not do that.
I merely say that in the province of Quebec there is a first-class highway. The Canadian public is not inconvenienced in any way because Quebec has not seen fit to participate in any way in this program. That province has its rights under the British North America Act and if the men who happen to form the government of the province see fit to follow a policy then I doubt very much the wisdom of attempts being made in the house to blow up a storm in the province of Quebec either on this measure or on any other.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no intention to do that.


Howard Charles Green: We live in a nation which has the finest partnership of races of any nation in the world and in my opinion that partnership is becoming stronger every year. I have seen it grow during the 23 years I have been a member of parliament. This is a very fortunate thing and it would be a great tragedy if an attempt were made to interpret

a unanimous vote on the trans-Canada highway measure as something that could be used to stir up feelings between the two great races of Canada. For my own part I am very doubtful about the statesmanship involved in a vote being called at this time. I thank the house for allowing me to make this short statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak but in view of what the leader of the house has said I want to say two or three words. A vote taken in this house directly concerns the members of the house and nobody outside the house. If, as the minister says and as I believe, this is a good measure for all Canada and if the minister's supporters think it is a good measure for all Canada there should be no embarrassment to them in having this vote. There is certainly no embarrassment to anybody in our party in supporting the extension of a measure we started and we are very happy to vote for it. We intend to exercise our right to have a recorded vote on the subject. We cannot see how having a vote on it can conceivably injure any national interest whatsoever.



VETERANS REHABILITATION ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill C-31, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a short bill, and it does not contain much either in the way of new or highly controversial material. May I say that I intend to move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I wonder whether hon. members leaving the chamber would do so quietly in order that we might be able to hear the minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke of the intention to have this measure referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. However, before I so move, I think I should make a few comments.
The Veterans Rehabilitation Act has been the means of providing important rehabilitation aids to veterans of world war II and of the action in Korea. The principal benefits under the act have been of an educational nature and veterans have received vocational, technical, pre-matriculation and both undergraduate and post-graduate university training under the provisions of this act.
This training has proved of inestimable value to many veterans of whom more than 100,000 completed their courses. As the members of this committee know, the largest part of this training was given during the immediate post-war years. There are still, however, nearly sixty world war II veterans taking training, of whom over 40 are in university. There are about 25 veterans of the special force who served in Korea still pursuing their studies, of whom all except two or three are in university. There may possibly be a few who for reasons of illness may yet have courses made available to them.
Of the number now taking training some 20 are pensioners. The authority for the training of pensioners is contained both in section 15 of this act and in the pensioners training regulations authorized under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. It is considered desirable from an administrative point of view that the authority for the training or retraining of pensioners should flow from one source. This bill accordingly proposes the repeal of section 15 of the act in order that the pensioners training regulations may in future be the sole authority for such training.

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
The act also authorizes the payment of allqwappes for tjie, purpose. of assisting veterans'during the progress of their training. It also provides for the payment of allowances while veterans are awaiting returns from a business venture. This now applies only to those who are participating in the benefits offered under the Veterans' Land Act. There were also allowances given to certain veterans who years ago were out of work or temporarily incapacitated.
: The bill proposes an amendment which, in a limited number of cases, would allow a refund to those veterans who had less than nine months university training and later made certain repayments in order to qualify under the Veterans' Land Act. Qualification under the latter act required the repayment of educational allowances and costs paid by the department. In some cases a veteran decided not to proceed with a contract under the Veterans' Land Act, or terminated his contract shortly after it was entered upon and received little benefit. This amendment will provide the refund to the veteran of the amount by which his repayment exceeds any benefits under the Veterans' Land Act. There is no new policy involved in this amendment. In the past the amount required for these refunds has been obtained by means of a special vote in the estimates. It is better that it be a statutory item as now proposed.
There are a number of administrative amendments proposed by the bill. Many of these are desirable because of provisions of the act which have now become obsolete as the conditions they were designed to meet no longer apply. I do not think it necessary to describe these amendments as there are no matters of policy involved.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which the minister has just introduced reminds us all very sharply of the swift passage of time. The legislation which this bill proposes to amend was enacted in December, 1945, on the unanimous recommendation of a sixty-member special committee on veterans affairs. It is to the great credit of the federal government that action was taken so early after the war to make provision for the re-establishment of Canadian veterans. As early as 1941, prior to the enactment of the present legislation which is now being amended, veterans rehabilitation benefits were set forth in a post-discharge re-establishment order in 1941, and in 1944 this was revised by order in council No. P.C.5210. The act now being amended sets forth in legislative form the benefits contained in that order in council. Briefly, those benefits included payments to veterans of allowances graduated in proportion to family needs under certain conditions.

Two of those allowances related, as the minister has pointed out, to unemployed veterans, to those who were unemployed because they were temporarily incapacitated, and to those who were able and willing, fo work but who were unable to find suitable jobs. The other provisions of the act had to do, as the minister has stated, with assisting veterans to establish themselves on farms and to provide them with vocational training and higher education and university training.
We welcome the amendment in tHis bill which will permit, reimbursement to those veterans who expended some, of. their own money, or agreed to forgo some of their credits with the 'intention of becoming Established on farms but who later were unable to take advantage of legislation designed for this purpose.
Today we are amending this legislation largely because the passage of time has made it no longer possible to apply the terms of this measure any further because there are no veterans who are now able , to take advantage of the provisions or to whom the sections of the legislation being repealed can apply. Canada has, therefore, implemented the principles of this legislation as far as humanly possible. In some respects this concludes a chapter in the history of veterans rehabilitation which, I think, will remain among the shining chapters of Canadian history.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the group which has a larger percentage of members who have served in the armed forces of Canada than any other party in this house. Sixty-two point five per cent of the C.C.F. group in the House of Commons has seen service in the armed forces of Canada. I thought perhaps that members of other parties would be interested in this figure.


An hon. Member:: What happened to the other .5 per cent?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What happened to your larger percentage?
The value of the original legislation with respect to veterans rehabilitation has been proved by experience in the return of veterans to civil life. I remember that when the legislation was discussed in the early days some doubts were raised in certain quarters that some who served for several years overseas and had been subjected to military life with all its vicissitudes and hazards would not respond very well to educational benefits or possibly for some time would not be capable of taking the fullest advantage of the educational benefits provided under this act. I believ'd that the - experience in the

administration of this act proved that the fears expressed in certain quarters were totally unjustified.
This measure is one of the most forwardlooking measures introduced in the House of Commons with respect to the rehabilitation of many of those who served this country. The experience with the legislation has laid a foundation that may be extended even into civilian aspects of life particularly with respect to federal assistance to education in terms of grants to universities and schools of higher learning.
I had the honour and privilege of serving with the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) on the committee that considered this legislation. The minister has explained to the house the new amendments that are being introduced to meet changing conditions and circumstances. As the hon. member who preceded me said this bill is an illustration of what happens with the erosion of time. I am glad that the minister suggested the bill be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. I am sure the committee will give it its usual close attention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS respecting definitions, reestablishment CREDITS, ETC.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: the second reading of Bill C-32, to amend the War Service Grants Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 is very much the same as the bill we have just had before the house. It is one of those bills referred to by previous speakers as having been par of the veterans' charter. It has served an excellent purpose for many years as far as veterans are concerned. It is my intention to recommend that this bill also be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs but before doing so I thought it appropriate to give a brief explanation of the intentions embodied in the bill and the effect of the amendments proposed.
The War Service Grants Act has been an important rehabilitation measure which has provided for the payment to veterans of world war II and of the action in Korea a war service gratuity based on length of service and payable in cash. It also introduced a new philosophy into veterans legislation which provided for the payment of a re-establishment credit devised to assist the economic rehabilitation of our veterans.
The ways in which this credit may he used are set forth in section 12 of the act where it, 66968-9-103
War Service Grants Act will be seen that credit is available for assistance in the securing and equipping of a home or business, for veterans insurance or as a factor leading to qualification under the Veterans' Land Act.
Over the years I have observed the importance of this credit in assisting materially in a practical way those veterans whose economic resources were limited. The payment of gratuity has been virtually completed but there are still a large number of veterans, well over 100,000, who have for various reasons such as family circumstances not applied for all their credits. There still remains some $18 million unpaid.
It has become evident that it would be unwise to limit too severely the time within which veterans may apply for the use of this remaining credit as we wish to make sure it will be used in the best possible way. For most world war II veterans there are only a few months left in which to use this credit. The bill therefore proposes that the time limit be extended for all world war II veterans to September 30, 1962, and veterans of the action in Korea would have until 15 years after the termination of their special force service in which to use the credit to which they are entitled.
This opportunity has been taken to propose other amendments. A number of these are of practical importance and some are of an administrative nature. The bill proposes, for example, to extend the use of re-establishment credit to permit the repair or modernization of a dwelling in which a single veteran resides with his dependent parent or parents. The department has observed that there are a number of single veterans who are not intending to marry and who have been living since the war in the family home which in many cases is owned by one or both of his parents. We have found that aside from their equity in the home the parents are dependent on the veteran for support. It is only right that such a veteran should he able to use his credit for the improvement of this dwelling. At present this is not permitted under the act. This amendment will therefore be of material assistance to these veterans.
There are a number of circumstances where re-establishment credit has not been used nor is it likely that it will ever be used under the present provisions of the act because of the mental illness of the veterans where recovery is unlikely before the end of the period during which credit is available. It is most desirable that the credit of such veterans should not be allowed to disappear because of these tragic circumstances. An amendment is accordingly proposed to make the unused credit of such a veteran available to his wife or dependent children. ...

War Service Grants Act
Hon. members are aware of the relationship between re-establishment credit and the benefits under the Veterans' Land Act and that these are alternate benefits which provide in different ways for the rehabilitation of veterans. Thus, a veteran who has used his re-establishment credit for the purposes set forth in the act is not able thereupon, in addition, to qualify for benefits under the Veterans' Land Act. It was not thought, however, that the use of re-establishment credit, perhaps prematurely, for other purposes should permanently deprive a veteran of eligibility under the Veterans' Land Act nor would it be equitable to allow him to enjoy both of these substantial benefits. The amendment therefore provides that on repayment of the used re-establishment credit he may then, if otherwise acceptable, qualify under the Veterans' Land Act. There have been instances arise where, following such repayment, the veteran changed his mind or did not proceed with the Veterans' Land Act, or he did proceed but the contract was soon terminated. He may thus have received no benefit or one smaller than his repayment. In the past, the excess of repayment over the benefit has been refunded to the veteran by means of a special vote in the estimates. An amendment now proposed would make this refund statutory.
At present the act provides that a veteran must qualify for benefits under the Veterans' Land Act by January 1, 1960. As the time within which re-establishment credit may be used is being extended by this bill it is evident that there should be a similar extension for the period within which a veteran may qualify for Veterans' Land Act benefits. Consequently it is proposed to extend this period also to September 30, 1962 for world war II veterans and for veterans of the action in Korea to 15 years after the termination of their service in the special force.
The remaining amendments are of an administrative nature. I think they are not of sufficient importance to require an explanation at this time.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, we on this side certainly welcome these amendments to the veterans rehabilitation act particularly those which will extend the time limit in which veterans can take advantage of their rehabilitation credits and of the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act. I am sure every hon. member was surprised, as I was, to hear that there were still $18 million in re-establishment credits available to veterans who had not yet applied for them.

As the minister pointed out, the original act, which was enacted in August, 1944, introduced a new philosophy of veterans reestablishment and rehabilitation and certainly was a great step forward in thinking as compared with what was done for veterans of the first world war. My colleagues who served in that war will remember that on discharge we were given, I think, a month's pay and allowances which was a sort of severance pay, plus a clothing allowance, and that was that. This new legislation went much farther in that it provided three separate cash payments to veterans. One payment was the war services gratuity, which was based on pay and allowances; the second was the rehabilitation grant, which was related to the period of service; and the third was the reestablishment credit.
Like other pieces of legislation, as the minister pointed out, this, too, was a part of the veterans' charter and was the result of the deliberations of a committee of the whole house which was anxious that no stone be left unturned to see that everything possible was done for our war veterans. In particular, it showed a sincere concern for the veteran himself, for his welfare and for the welfare of his family and dependants and a sincere desire to offset or minimize any financial loss of earning power that the veteran may have suffered because of his war service and to do everything possible to restore that earning power at least to the point he would have enjoyed had he not enlisted in the armed services.
As the minister pointed out, I am sure that this is the main amendment to this legislation. I refer to the extension of the time limit. The others have to do with extending the use of restablishment credits and with changes in administration. But I am sure we all hope that, as we are coming to the conclusion of the application and the extension of those benefits, there will never be again any future occasion for parliament to enact this kind of legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this group to express our wholehearted support for the proposal in this bill to amend the War Service Grants Act, but before proceeding with the few comments I wish to make I want to apologize sincerely for my off the cuff reply to an unseen member's voice on the government side respecting the percentage of this group who served in the armed forces of Canada. I did not in any way intend to offer any slight to hon. members who had not the opportunity to serve in the armed forces of Canada.

As the hon. member who has just taken his seat said, and as the minister mentioned, this legislation represents an important change in the outlook for rehabilitation legislation on behalf of veterans. We have established a completely new philosophy in that respect and I was very pleased to serve on the committee which dealt with this legislation during the war. I was surprised to hear that there was $18 million still unpaid in war services grants. Although it appears to be a large sum, it is indicative of the very large amount which has been paid out for war service grants over the years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: About $500 million.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am pleased to hear that figure, Mr. Speaker, because it is some indication that parliament and the people of Canada have been willing to recognize in a substantial way in this legislation the services of the men who fought for freedom who, in my opinion, were the real freedom fighters. When I think of freedom fighters, I think of the men who fought on behalf of this country and in defence of freedom when freedom was being threatened by the nazi and fascist forces.
I am pleased to notice that the amendment provides for an extension of the time to the end of 1962 for world war II veterans and for Korean war veterans. I am very taken with the amendment which makes it possible for the veteran to use his credit to improve, repair or modernize his home. I am sure this is the result of the experience of the officials in administering the legislation of the country, and is another indication of the type of administration that veterans legislation has had in Canada throughout the years. There are no officials of any other department of government who are in closer touch with the human beings for whom they are administering legislation than the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Another thing which I am pleased with, and I am sure hon. members generally are also, is that amendment which provides for the credit to be used to the advantage of dependants and also the proposed amendment providing for an extension of the time to qualify for loans under the Veterans' Land Act. This is also another amendment which springs from the experience with the act and with the changing circumstances in the last year or two.
I am very pleased to know that the changes which to many members would appear to be inconsequential will provide advantages to those who would be denied them unless the amendment were passed. It will be a further recognition of the continuous consideration by members of all 66968-9-1031
War Service Grants Act parties in this house of the welfare of those who served this country in war.
(Translation):


Mr. Louis Foriin (Monlmagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few remarks with regard to this bill because, as I previously stated in the house, I am the only representative of the immediate Quebec area who has seen military service. Moreover, I live in a district of Quebec which is generally referred to as the veterans' centre, and I would like to stress that all benefits which the government has granted to veterans in the past, in the matter of housing or in other respects, have induced in those people a noteworthy spirit of responsibility and enterprise.
Back home, in my constituency, I am surrounded by some 400 veterans, and I might say to the government that everything that can be done to help those who, when called upon, came forward and accepted the sacrifice that was requested of them, will be highly-appreciated. I am, I think, speaking for all veterans in my district, and more particularly for those in the immediate vicinity of my home, when I express our satisfaction with the bill now being considered by the house.
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on the bill. I realize it will go before the veterans affairs committee when I will probably have another opportunity to advance the point I want to draw to the attention of the minister. It is a few years since the minister and I were associated quite closely in the work of the veterans affairs committee. Shortly after the war it was a very busy committee and I remember the very close attention that the minister always gave to the meetings of that committee. I happened to be a member at that time and was a member until last session. I am a bit out of touch with some of the intricacies of the veterans legislation.
However, I think the minister will recognize that in the early postwar years, in fact, up until the time I ceased to be a member of the committee, we had great difficulty in trying to be fair and equalize some of the war gratuity benefits among the various classes of people who made sacrifices for the war effort. I think the minister will recognize at once that I am thinking of a class of people who still feel that they have not had adequate consideration either from the present or former governments. I refer to the corps of Canadian overseas fire fighters. I think the minister will recall that in the early days we both voted to

War Service Grants Act try to see that these people got a little better consideration than seemed likely to be provided for them.
I personally, so I am told, and it has been said publicly, was helpful in obtaining certain income tax concessions which were of some benefit. But there are still some difficulties about which they continue to write us. I think the nub of the problem is contained in a letter I received in November last from the corps of Canadian overseas fire fighters. They sum it up in this way:
We got the first part of the gratuity for time spent overseas, $15 per month. We did not get the supplementary gratuity which amounts to a week's pay and allowances for every six months overseas.
They indicate that the majority of the corps served overseas for a period somewhat in excess of two years and eight months. I do not have the date of the reference I now wish to make but I think it is reasonably reliable for the purpose of our present discussion. This question was asked in the house a few years ago:
What was the total number of men sent from Canada to the United Kingdom in the Canadian fire fighters corps?
The answer was "408". An answer was also given as to the average overseas sojourn and it agrees with the statement in the letter to which I have just referred.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but if he will look at section 5 of the Fire Fighters War Service Benefits Act he will see that there was entitlement to the rehabilitation grant of one week's pay for half a year. That was over and above the gratuity which they received in the same way as other veterans.


William Moore Benidickson: Is my hon. friend saying that what they claim is a discrimination has been corrected?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is in the act and has been for quite a number of years. Perhaps I might read the section for the hon. member. It reads as follows:
Every fire fighter who performed service for a period of not less than 183 days, exclusive of time in cells, detention prison-
That provision is the same as in the case of a soldier.
-in a state of desertion, and complete days of absence without leave is, upon discharge, entitled to a rehabilitation grant as defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act-
That is the act we have under consideration.

of the same amount and subject to the same conditions as he would have received had he been a member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada.
This gentleman must have been mistaken in the letter he wrote.


William Moore Benidickson: As I say, it is a fairly recent letter and he made that definite distinction with respect to their entitlement. It is one of the few discriminations he complained about and he indicated that he thought that on an average there was an amount of $150 involved that was not available to those who had served in this corps as opposed to the treatment given to almost every other class of serving man or woman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
52. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,199,386.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on the immigration section of these estimates. I am certain the minister will understand that in some of the things I will say I am seeking answers to certain questions and an expression of opinion from the minister as to what she may have in mind with regard to changes in policies now that she has had the opportunity to spend quite a few months with the responsibilities which are hers.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend this point to the attention of the minister and ask what consideration has been given by her in particular and the department in general to the immigration policy of the department with respect to those who are rejected and not given any opportunity of knowing the reasons why they are rejected. I know that during the six years I have had the honour of being a member of this House of Commons I have listened to replies from three previous ministers. In my opinion, these replies were not at all satisfactory. I hope that a new approach is being considered by the present minister.
The reason I say those replies were completely unsatisfactory is because of my own knowledge that although it took a great many months to get final answers I did find that when a member of parliament took up the case of those who had made application for landing permits and were rejected, if he was persistent in following the case up it was eventually found that the information lodged with the overseas department of immigration was untrue. In one case the applicant had been turned down for 18 months because of something that was completely untrue. I am

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
reminded of one case in particular-and this did not occur while the present minister occupied her position-where an entire family came to Canada and one member was rejected. It took 18 months to find out why and then it was ascertained that a complaint had been lodged by a rejected suitor who maintained that this chap was a criminal. If the man could have known of the charge laid against him and who laid it, or at least the nature of the charge against him, the matter could have been settled very quickly. This is just one illustration.
I know that there are many arguments for and against this practice. It is not a right to come to Canada, it is a privilege. I should like to hear from the minister what her attitude is now compared with what her attitude was when she sat in opposition concerning the right to a hearing and the right of an applicant to know of any charges or implications against him. So far as I am concerned, because I feel very proud of what we call British justice, this is a matter of importance. I sincerely hope that she finds herself in a position, on this occasion when her estimates are before the committee, to be able to give us her views on this matter and also any changes that she may have in mind with relation to past policy.
There are one or two questions that I should like to ask and I only do so because I feel that now, after her months in office, the minister must have given some consideration to the Immigration Act itself and the regulations which are made under the authority of the act. I should like to ask the minister whether there are any indications of alterations in the act. I should like to mention only one or two points. May I ask the minister whether or not consideration has been given to the interpretation under the Immigration Act of the term "moral turpitude". The Immigration Act, section 5, paragraph (d) says:
persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed any crime involving moral turpitude-
These people are not eligible for admission. In looking at that in the first instance, I would say I completely agree. But, what is the interpretation of moral turpitude? I ask that because of a case which is now before the courts and to which I cannot refer because it is sub judice. However, from my own investigation I have ascertained certain things. A businessman who has a business in the United States and in Canada has been refused admittance under that section to carry on his business in Canada. The reason given was that he was found guilty in the United States seven or eight years ago on a charge of impaired driving, so he is ineligible
to enter Canada under that moral turpitude section. I do not know, but it just does not sound right to me. I do not know what the legal interpretation of the wording of that section is under the present administration.
May I, Mr. Chairman, go beyond that and speak about something about which I know the minister has always been sincere, and that is that there shall never be any second class citizens in Canada, and also that this idea shall be carried forward on a commonwealth basis in so far as immigration is concerned. We are all very proud of being members of the British commonwealth of nations. We hear a great deal, we read a great deal, especially in recent months, about the growing understanding, the awareness and power of those who may not be of the same colour as most of us in Canada and all of us except one in this House of Commons. The real strength of the commonwealth, Mr. Chairman, lies in the fact that there shall never be a religious nor a colour bar. The fact still remains, however, that Canada, even within the commonwealth of nations, maintains a colour bar.
I should like to ask the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, does not the maintenance of the commonwealth mean the removal, so far as immigration is concerned, of a colour bar? If we are members of the commonwealth, we are members of the commonwealth irrespective of our colour, whether we be white, black or yellow.
But the situation is still the same even under the minister. From what she has said so often from this side of the house I know of her belief in equality in commonwealth citizenship and understanding. As yet, however, she has given no indication of a change in the situation. It has been unfortunate that Canada has been held up to a bit of stigma and ridicule relative to Jamaicans and others of that type. If it is not possible nor practical to have any wide open immigration from all countries of the commonwealth, we in this group sincerely hope that the minister will be able to announce at least serious consideration of a greater honesty on behalf of Canada with respect to the landing permits for entry into our country required from those peoples who are part of the commonwealth, irrespective of their colour.
May I also state at this time that basically we are in complete agreement with her, on a planned immigration policy, as mentioned in her brief announcement when her estimates were up for consideration a week ago. We in this group have always stood for a planned immigration policy. Although we welcome immigration, it must be on a planned

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration basis and on a basis of understanding, whereby the immigrants are taken care of, because of previous commitments, and there is employment and housing for them and so that, when they come in as immigrants there is not an automatic displacement of our own Canadian citizens. May I say something to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This may not be a completely popular thing to say but I believe it is something that must be said. In a planned immigration policy whereby, most likely on a humanitarian basis, certain provisions are made for those of non-British stock, cannot similar consideration be given to the assistance and maintenance of those who are of British stock?
I am certain that no one in this committee would express any regrets at the $14.5 million expended on behalf of the Hungarians. But, Mr. Chairman, admitting that-we voted for it-we say this. If this government is prepared to continue to spend money for their maintenance, why should not the same policy be adopted with respect to those who come from the United Kingdom? If we are prepared to pay, as we are now doing, not only the entire cost of transportation of the refugees but of their maintenance and education-and I may say that we are happy to do it-I ask the minister whether we do not owe the same consideration not only to those who come from the United Kingdom but to those of our own people who would like to be maintained in universities?
I hope that I am making it completely clear that we have never objected and do not now object to what was done. But what we say is this. How about thinking of our own people and their cost of education and how about thinking of our immigrants from the United Kingdom and their needs? There has never been one iota of assistance given in the directions which I now mention. We think it is time that the government made provision for such assistance.
I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what consideration she is now giving or has given, or what change she may have in mind, with respect to the removal of a most iniquitous and vicious section of the regulations under the Immigration Act dealing with Canadian citizens of Chinese origin being able to bring their parents into Canada.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the leader of the house what the program is for the next two days?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and on Friday the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Monday will be a private members' day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the leader of the house.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.﻿MARCH 4. 1959
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	jean gabus
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Hardie: 1.	What was the total amount paid to McNamara Construction Company Limited from April 1, 1958 to January 31, 1959, for work done on the road between Yellowknife and Fort Rae (Mile 0 to Mile 20 out of Yellowknife)?
2.	Does this amount cover the total contract?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	$247,561.68.
2.	No. The total amount of the contract is $1,072,684.24.



CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	How many ships composed the Canadian merchant marine at the end of world war II?
2.	Of these, how many had been built during the war and were retired or disposed of in the immediate post-war years up to the end of 1950?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1. In 1946 there were 151 ocean going ships of 1,000 gross tons and over on the Canadian register.
2. Of these, 140 had been built during world war II and all were disposed of by the crown by the end of 1950.



E. A. COTE

Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date was Mr. E. A. Cote appointed to his present position as assistant Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	What position did he hold prior to this appointment?
3.	What are Mr. E. A. Cote's duties and administrative powers?
4.	Does Mr. Cote directly administer the affairs of either branch of the national museum of Canada?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	July 1, 1955.
2.	Head of the American division, Department of External Affairs.
3.	To assist the deputy minister in the discharge of his duties as deputy head of the department and, in particular, to supervise the operation of some branches of the department.
4.	No.

Question No. 153-Mr. Argue:
1.	Was a Mr. Jean Gabus employed under contract by any department or agency of the federal government since January 1, 1957, for any purpose relating to the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, (a) what were the terms of the contract? (b) by what department was he so engaged?
3.	Were any recommendations received from Mr. Gabus? If so, what was their nature?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Under authority of the treasury board, the contract with Mr. Gabus, one of Europe's leading museologists, provided for a maximum payment of $5,000 during the period March 25, 1958 to March 24, 1959 inclusive. Payment was based on a rate of $100 per month plus $40 per day and travelling expenses for each day he was required to be away from home in connection with this assignment. Provision was also made in the contract with Mr. Gabus for a rate of $2 per hour to cover the services of an artist on his staff and up to $40 per month for stenographic services. Under this agreement, $2,802.08 has been paid to Mr. Gabus. (b) The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
3.	Yes. A preliminary report was submitted by Mr. Gabus to Dr. Jacques Rousseau, director of the human history branch of the national museum of Canada on August 19, 1958. His recommendations dealt not only with the physical facilities but with the function and organization of a national museum.
Mr. Gabus found both storage and exhibition space inadequate, with the result that specimens were frequently crowded, damaged and poorly displayed. He recommended that storage facilities should be expanded and provided with proper temperature and humidity control. He also suggested that facilities for registration and cataloguing should be improved and additional staff and space provided for the educational services. He recommended the establishment of a restoration laboratory under a trained technician. Finally he proposed certain rearrangements in the exhibition halls themselves.
Mr. Gabus also dealt with some of the desirable features to be included in a future museum, namely, three additional sections for history, pioneer life and technological discoveries.



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL MUSEUM

Mr. Argue: 1.	Who is the present administrative officer of the national museum of Canada?

Questions
2.	On what date did the civil service commission select him for this position?
3.	On what date was he appointed to his present position?
4.	On what date did the former administrative officer terminate his position with the national museum?
5.	What was his reason for leaving this position?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	Mr. George Edgar Charron.
2.	May 17, 1957.
3.	July 1, 1957.
4.	Mr. Charron was the first administrative officer to be appointed to the national museum. There was no former administrative officer.
5.	Not applicable.



DR. MARIUS BARBEAU

Mr. Argue: 1.	Was a Dr. Marius Barbeau ever employed in any capacity by the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so: (a) in what capacity was he so employed? , (b) What was the date he first accepted such
employment?
(c) on what date did his employment with the museum terminate?
3.	Has Dr. Barbeau been offered a position with the national museum since then?
4.	If so, has he accepted the position?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilfon (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) At time of retirement-ethnologist grade 5. (b) January 18, 1911. (c) March 5, 1949.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.



DR. JACQUES ROUSSEAU

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 157
Hazen Robert Argue: 1.	Has Dr. Jacques Rousseau, director of the human history branch of the national museum, made any requests since January 1, 1957, of the .Prime Minister or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or their deputies, for an appointment with either of them to discuss the problems of the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so: (a) on what dates were these requests made?
(b)	was an appointment ever granted for this purpose?
(c)	did such a discussion ever take place?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilfon (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1. Speaking only for the present ministry, Dr. Jacques Rousseau sought and was granted one interview with the Prime Minister on February 19, 1959. He met the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on several ocasions but has not made a request to the minister or his deputy minister or the minister's personal staff for an interview
with the minister to discuss the problems of the national museum of Canada resulting in the enquiry to which I referred in the house bn January 20, 1959. From time to time, Dr. Rousseau met with the deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers to discuss matters relating to the human history branch of the national museum of Canada.
2. Answered by No. 1.



R. G. ROBERTSON

Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date was Mr. R. G. Robertson appointed to his present position of deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources?
2.	What position did he hold prior to this appointment?
3.	What are Mr. Robertson's duties and administrative powers?
4.	Does Mr. Robertson, either directly or indirectly, administer the affairs of either branch of the national museum of Canada?
5.	If so, to what extent does his jurisdiction extend?
Answer by: Hon Alvin Hamilfon (Minister of
Norihern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Mr. Robertson was appointed deputy minister of resources and development by order in council P.C. 1953-1452 of September 17, 1953, with effective date November 15, 1953. Following the change to the present name of the department, he was appointed deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources by order in council P.C. 1953-2009, effective December 16, 1953.
2.	Assistant secretary to the cabinet.
3.	Insofar as the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is concerned, Mr. Robertson's duties and powers are the normal duties and powers of a deputy head of a department as set forth in the Civil Service Act and regulations. Mr. Robertson is also commissioner of the Northwest Territories and chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission.
4 and 5. Mr. Robertson does not directly administer the affairs of either branch of the national museum of Canada. As deputy head of the department he is, however, responsible to the minister, as head of the department, for the operation of all branches of the department. His jurisdiction with regard to the branches of the museum is the normal jurisdiction of the deputy head of a department as set forth in the Civil Service Act and regulations.



GRANTS TO TELEPHONE COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 173
Mr. Racine:: 1.	Has the government made any grants to private telephone companies since April 1, 1958?
2.	If so, to what companies and on what dates were such grants made?

Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.



W. B. CROMBIE  D. FORGAN

Mr. Argue: 1.	Have a Mr. W. B. Crombie or a Mr. D. Forgan been employed by the St. Lawrence seaway authority during the last two years, and are they presently so engaged?
2.	If so: (a) What positions do they hold? (b) On whose recommendation and by whom were they appointed? (c) What are their duties and salaries? (d) What are their qualifications for their positions? (e) Have either of them graduated from any university? (f) If so, what degrees do they hold?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes, since January 20th, 1958.
2.	(a) Consulting engineers on claims, (b) The St. Lawrence seaway authority, (c) To investigate claims from contractors; per diem basis, $50. (d) Long experience as construction engineers and project managers. Both are members of the association of professional engineers of the province of Ontario and as such are entitled to advertise and practise as professional engineers, (e) No. (f) Answered by (e).



MUSEUMS, BOTANICAL GARDENS, ZOOS

Mr. Argue: 1.	What museums, botanical gardens or zoos are there in Canada which are operated and owned by a municipality or province?
2.	When was each of these established?
3.	What was the annual budget of each of these for each year since 1950?
4.	How does each rank in its respective field?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1, 2, 3, and 4. This question should be directed to the municipalities and provinces. However, there is a list of museums and an assessment of their budgets, etc., contained in the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences as well as in the directory of the Canadian museums association, 1955 (available from the secretary treasurer of that association, 16 Haworth avenue, Scarborough, Ontario.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Fisher: Questions
1.	Did the Department of National Defence sponsor any tours of newspapermen in Europe during 1957 and 1958?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of such tours, who were the participants, what newspapers did they represent, how were they chosen, and what was the total cost to the department of such tours?
3.	Is such a tour under consideration for 1959?
4.	If so, what is its purpose, scope, and estimated cost?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	No. However, individual Canadian correspondents have been, on occasion, transported to the United Kingdom on scheduled flights of R.C.A.F. aircraft to cover the activities of the Canadian forces stationed in Europe.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.



SURPLUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS STOCKS

Mr. Benidickson: What stock of surplus agricultural products were held in storage by the federal government on January 31, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
As at January 31, 1958, the agricultural prices support board held the following stocks:
Butter, 31,848,805 pounds; Dry skimmed milk, 28,714,624 pounds; Shell eggs, 167,201 cases; Frozen whole egg, 8,820,484 pounds; Whole egg powder, 58,902 pounds; Fowl, 7,345,417 pounds.
Stocks held by the board as at January 31, 1958, were not necessarily surplus since quantities of many of these products have been resold in the domestic market since that time.



FARM BOARD LOANS, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Argue: How many (a) loans; (b) applications for loans, have been made by and to the Canadian farm loan board in each year since 1950, in each of townships 1-4 inclusive in ranges 27-30 inclusive, west of the 2nd meridian, and in each of townships 1-4 inclusive in ranges 1-3 inclusive, west of the 3rd meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister
of Finance):
The Canadian farm loan board does not maintain records respecting applications and loans by federal constituencies or parts thereof as it does not require to do so for administrative purposes and the information requested is therefore not available.

Thursday, March 5, 1959



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.