1959-03-09

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):

Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to put a matter right following a report published in a local newspaper Saturday concerning the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and myself. The report quotes me as saying: (Text):
This newspaper article quotes me as saying, "The Minister of Agriculture is one of the worst ministers that Canada has." This is not what I said. I referred to the "ministry of agriculture", and I did explain my sentence properly. It might have been better if I had said that the portfolio of the Department of Agriculture is the worst among the portfolios. I gave the details to support my statement by saying that many lines of farming are different in the various provinces, that the western provinces produce mostly grain; Ontario and Quebec produce mostly dairy products and meat, while the maritimes produce mostly fish and potatoes, far from the marketing centres. We consume only a part of our production.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, when I started my remarks I said that I had known the minister for 14 years and that I considered him a very honest gentleman. However, I mentioned that being a minister in a Conservative government conducted by only the master we may expect him to make this so-called small politics, but I hope this will not happen.
(Translation):
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I said, at the outset of my remarks, that I have known the minister for 14 years and that I consider him an honest man and a nice gentleman. I mentioned, however, that since he is a cabinet member in a Conservative government, run by only one man he might be expected to play a little bit of politics, but that I hoped he would not do so.
(Text):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps for
the sake of the record and for posterity, because some day someone may be looking in Hansard and wondering what happened to a matter which has caused some concern to the house during this session, I should be permitted to say what hon. members know now, that the C.B.C. strike was settled on Saturday afternoon. In the early hours of Saturday morning the wording was agreed to as to the interpretation of the section which had caused some doubts heretofore.
This agreement was reached largely through the efforts of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), who has worked tirelessly on this matter for weeks. As a result the wording was brought to Ottawa and was agreed to by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and on Saturday afternoon the documents were signed. Shortly afterward the picket lines were brought to an end.
I should like to express my appreciation to the staff of the C.B.C. for the pressure under which they have been working, the difficult circumstances, the long hours and in general the co-operation which they have shown. I am also sure I am speaking for all when I express appreciation to the officers of the corporation for the long hours, the hard work and the trying circumstances under which these negotiations have been carried on.
I should also like to say a special word indirectly with respect to Mr. Quirion and to the president, Mr. Ouimet. When Mr. Ouimet was stricken with illness during these negotiations the responsibility, as acting head of the corporation, fell upon Mr. Bushnell. He and his associates I feel have worked tremendously hard on this matter. With the removal of Mr. Ouimet from the active negotiating field there was a danger of injecting other issues into this matter, and a suggestion of racial problems might have arisen. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Quirion and those who were closely associated with him for having resisted any suggestion of that kind and for maintaining discussions on the issues and not on extraneous matters.
The strike is over, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that all concerned will unite in working together for the corporation and with the corporation and will strengthen, develop and re-establish the French network so that shortly it will again have achieved the
1724	HOUSE OF
C.B.C.-Announced Settlement of Strike position which it had prior to the strike, namely the best French network in the world.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house join wholeheartedly with the Minister of National Revenue in expressing our happiness and delight at the settlement of this long strike. We were delighted to learn on Saturday that notwithstanding what had been said earlier, that the television producers had been recognized as a bargaining agency and that, furthermore, they had agreed that they would not affiliate with any other group.
I want to join also with the minister in extending to all those who were responsible for the settlement of this strike our thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of those who are particularly interested in the French network of the C.B.C. I refer not only to those officers who represented the producers and the unions representing the other 1,200 or 1,300 people who were on strike. I include also the C.B.C. officials and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers). To use an expression which is well known in the French language, I think this is an occasion on which to say: (Translation):
The government owes the hon. member a great deal for his help in settling the strike. (Text):
While I joined with the minister in the earlier part of his remarks I should now like to dissociate myself from him, and I hope the house will not disagree with me when I add this comment. It is unfortunate that the government decided not to intervene in this strike. If the government had intervened, as we on this side of the house suggested that it should over a period of months, the prophecy and the statement of the Minister of National Revenue would long ago have been put into effect, namely that the strike could have been settled in 30 minutes. Certainly the strike could have been settled long before it was settled had the government intervened; and certainly soon after February 6, when all this difficulty arose over the interpretation of a clause in the understanding, because at that time it was not an agreement.
So while we on this side of the house are happy that the strike has now been brought to an end, we say that it could have been brought to an end a long, long time ago if the government had intervened as we suggested it should.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Minister of National Revenue today is most welcome to the members of the C.C.F. party. We are very pleased that this important French language network
[Mr. Nowlan.l

will be restored. We hope that as a result of this strike there will be no reduction in the quality of the programs, nor any change in the personnel.
I would like at this time to pay tribute to all those who were involved directly in the strike or associated with it. We all realize that in such a situation there may be many regrettable incidents, but I think all will agree that those who participated in or were associated with this strike used good judgment, were most careful at all times, and there was a minimum of turmoil.
I think parliament itself is very pleased that this strike has been settled. We hope the C.B.C. for many years to come will enjoy good relations with all the people working for that important organization, and that the wonderful record to which the minister has referred will be maintained.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, March 25, it stand adjourned until Monday, April 6, 1959.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a matter which you could perhaps take under advisement and on which you can give us a ruling at a later date.
The question relates to today's order paper, page 3 of routine proceedings, which states that this is private members' day, the fourth allotted Monday. May I point out that the third allotted Monday occurred two weeks ago today, when the member for Trinity, under standing order 26, brought in a motion for the adjournment of the house in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance. This motion was brought in after the ordinary daily routine of business under standing order 15(2) had been concluded. This took place before notices of motion had been reached. Accordingly, since the hon. member's motion was accepted, there was no opportunity for private members' resolutions to be moved.
I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that though there are times when government plans for the day get set aside under the provisions of standing order 26, the government does not lose the chance to carry on with its motions at a later date. In effect the loss of this day guarantees that we shall have one less effective private members' day. This point will

be of concern to private members in all parties who wish to see the privileges of private members protected.
As far as I can find out there are no precedents in connection with this particular question, inasmuch as the rule governing private members' Mondays was only introduced in 1956. I can find no rulings in the Journals upon this particular point. In effect we have lost the third private members' Monday so far as notices of motion are concerned, and I suggest that you consider this question in order to determine whether or not there has been any infringement on the rights of private members in this regard.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: May I say a word on this point. There is a precedent established with regard to private members' Mondays being taken up by a discussion of a motion to adjourn the house such as arose two weeks ago today. On February 25, 1957, the fourth allotted private members' day of that session, Mr. Knowles moved a motion to adjourn the house in order to discuss the pipe-line question. The house was adjourned accordingly, and a debate took place. The next allotted Monday, March 2, was marked as the fifth private members' day, and therefore the fourth private members' day was considered as having been used even though the ordinary business of the house had been adjourned on the previous Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears that the officers of the house have assumed that the Monday which was used as the hon. member for Port Arthur has indicated was a private members' day, and the order paper was made up accordingly. However, I will take under advisement the point which has been raised as a matter of privilege and consider whether the hon. member's case has been made out. If there is any doubt about the matter I may give a further opportunity for the house to express its views. In the meantime, no interference with our procedure will result from my holding the matter under consideration.



TRANSPORT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest shown by members on both sides of the house in the proposed increases in commuters' fares by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company effective March 15, I thought the house would be interested to know that the board of transport commissioners today issued an
Proposed Legislation
order suspending the effective date of the proposed increases pending the arrangement of public hearings in the matter. The board has given notice that as soon after April 27 as can be arranged, hearings will be commenced at Montreal, and elsewhere thereafter if deemed necessary, to receive evidence in regard to the proposed increases. The board has also announced that cities, towns and municipalities and other interested parties who intend to oppose the changes in fares may make their objections known to the board on or before April 21. Further notice of the date and place of hearings will be announced by the board later.



PUBLIC LANDS GRANTS ACT


Howard Charles Green: for leave to introduce Bill No. S-2, an act to amend the Public Lands Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FREIGHT RATES


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to direct the board of transport commissioners to require by order the reduction of class and commodity freight rates (other than competitive rates) charged by carriers subject to the order of the board dated November 17, 1958, and to authorize payments to reimburse carriers for the resulting reduction of their revenues up to an aggregate amount of twenty million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 5-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That the report of the Canada council for the year ended March 31, 1958 laid before the house on July 10, 1958, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.
John George Diefenbaker: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of the standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.

Motions for Papers
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS	st. Lawrence seaway-claims by



INCOME TAX ACT, SECTIONS 5 (2)

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all representations and correspondence received by the government, and the government's replies thereto, concerning section 5, subsection 2, of the Income Tax Act, since 20th December, 1957.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the hon. member for Port Arthur. I am fully prepared to accept the motion on the understanding that it covers communications from companies, associations or from organizations of that nature rather than any communications which may have been received from individuals across Canada and, of course, subject to the usual reservation concerning privileged documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any cabinet minister or his or her deputies, and the president of the University of British Columbia, and any organization or government, with respect to seeking federal government financial aid to assist students or former students of the University of British Columbia to continue their studies at the university.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has mentioned no time limit in this motion. I might suggest to him that in fairness he do so, and perhaps his motion could stand until he has indicated a time limit.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that omission, and I could indicate a limit very quickly. I would suggest a limit of the last six months.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection on that basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to accept the limitation of the last six months?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion. No. 67-Mr. Winch:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, briefs and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or his deputies, and any official or agency of the government, and any person, persons, or organizations, since December 1, 1958, dealing with claims made by contractors for payments from the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
Motion agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a public corporation or bridge authority which would be empowered:
1.	To acquire from the national harbours board, the ownership of (i) the Jacques Cartier bridge; and (ii) the Nuns' island bridge (when completed), upon reasonable terms and conditions:
2.	To lease from the Canadian National Railways the facilities for motor vehicles over the Victoria bridge, upon reasonable terms and conditions;
3.	To build other bridges across the St. Lawrence river at Montreal; and
4.	To operate all such facilities for the convenience of the public, using the revenues therefrom to meet the expenses of administration and operation and the costs of interest and amortization.
(Translation):
He said: Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning of my remarks, I want to make a few comments before dealing with the subject matter of the resolution itself. I would like a good many representatives from the Montreal district, sitting on either side of the house, to take part in this debate and discuss at least the principle of the resolution. I cannot conceive, Mr. Speaker, that anybody, either on our side or opposite should be, in principle, opposed to the resolution. On the contrary, I believe all will wish to declare themselves in favour of this formula for the administration of the bridges connecting Montreal with the south shore.
I am therefore inclined to believe that all hon. members will come out in favour not only of that formula, but also in favour of more adequate and more modern means of transportation between the two shores, and even of the construction of a new bridge or a new tunnel. And the best way to obtain those new means of transportation including another bridge is I think to vote for the resolution now before the house.
There will no doubt be among hon. members some holding back, some hedging, reservations, suggestions, and even amendments to the motion. This would be a good

thing for the resolution has been put on the order paper precisely in order to be discussed.
However, if 1 had to express a wish, it would be this one: I would like to be allowed just about 15 minutes at the end of this discussion, for a a few comments on the remarks of hon. members who chose and were willing to make the effort of taking part in this debate.
(Text) :
The object of this resolution is threefold: first to set up a bridge authority or corporation; second, to empower that authority to take over the two bridges now in existence between the island of Montreal and the south shore, the third bridge when it will have been constructed, and any other bridges or tunnels which the government or its agencies should decide to construct in the future; and third, to operate these facilities for the convenience of the public, using the revenues therefrom to meet the expenses of operation and the cost of amortization.
Before dealing with the subject matter of this resolution I should like to give a brief history of the bridges which separate the island of Montreal from the south shore. They are four in number. As one travels upstream the first is the Jacques Cartier bridge. It was built by the Montreal harbour commissioners pursuant to a statute passed by this house authorizing it to construct the bridge and collect tolls. The bridge was opened to the public in 1930, and the cost of that bridge was $19 million.
Under a tripartite agreement entered into by the Montreal harbour commissioners, who were later succeeded by the national harbours board, a crown agency of the federal government, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, it was undertaken among these three groups that any annual deficit encountered by the bridge should be divided among them over a period extending from 1930 to 1970, but not to exceed the sum of $150,000 a year. Both the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal met those annual contributions of $150,000 a year for the period 1930 to 1943. In 1944 the city of Montreal refused to make its contribution on the ground that the tripartite agreement of 1928 was ultra vires. Simultaneously the province of Quebec discontinued payments under the agreement, but it did not actually repudiate the agreement. Later on the national harbours board deemed it advisable to take legal proceedings against the city of Montreal in 1946, and in 1952 it obtained judgment against the city for the amount of $745,000 in principal and about $250,000 in interest, roughly speaking an amount of $1 million, which in due course the city of Montreal paid.
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
On March 13, 1953, the province of Quebec owed under this agreement $745,000 in principal and $237,000 in interest, which has been accruing ever since that date. If we were to include the interest owing since that time the amount now due by the province of Quebec on its indebtedness under the tripartite agreement would run well over $1,250,000.
In 1955-56 the former government undertook and completed alterations to the Jacques Cartier bridge to provide an additional traffic lane. The bridge was originally designed to accommodate two street car lines at a level lower than that of the highway itself. In 1955-56, the track on the downstream side of the bridge was removed and covered over, and was opened to traffic while the former administration was still in office. The remaining traffic lane is being completed and the work undertaken by the present government, as announced by the Minister of Transport in the house some time ago.
I would like to make a statement about the financial operations of this bridge. As I stated earlier, the statute under which this bridge was constructed authorized the collection of tolls, and ever since its inception tolls have been collected on the Jacques Cartier bridge. The latest report available is that of 1957, and from that report it will be seen that the operating revenue for the calendar year 1957 was $2,228,000. The operating expenses were $318,000, and the net operating revenue was $1,910,000. When income from investment held by the national harbours board is added and the charges for interest, amortization and depreciation are deducted, a surplus of $1,015,000 remains. The year 1958 was somewhat better than 1957, although I have not yet been able to get the figures for that year. The year 1959, because of the increasing number of motor cars, I have no doubt will be the best year experienced by the board.
Here I would like to say that according to the annual report for 1957, the amount still owing on the bridge is $8,330,000, roughly speaking, and if you deduct from this the amount of the 1958 surplus from the collection of tolls on the bridge, which I understand was higher than in 1957, plus the amount owing by the province of Quebec, you will find that the indebtedness is now down to $5 million, roughly speaking. At the rate of increase in the traffic this will be paid off within the course of the next few years.
As one moves upstream the next bridge is the Victoria bridge. It was built by the Grand Trunk Railway pursuant to an old statute of the nineteenth century as a railway bridge. It is the property of the Canadian National Railways. Again, at a later date, brackets were added to both sides of the rail-

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority way structure, the upstream side of the bridge having been used for horse-drawn traffic in the old days, and the downstream side having served to accommodate two tracks of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railroad which provided electric interurban service between Montreal and various points in the eastern townships. From time to time changes were made on the upstream side of the bridge.
In 1955 the rails of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railroad were removed, and the Canadian National Railways spent $2,300,000 for the purpose of converting the downstream bracket of the bridge to vehicular traffic. This had the effect not only of enabling the bridge to accommodate more traffic, but also to speed up the movement of traffic. Formerly, when only one bracket was open for vehicular traffic, large trucks and buses could not use it because of the narrowness of the roadway; but with the opening of the downstream bracket it became possible to accommodate larger vehicles which naturally did not meet oncoming traffic. The only disability from which this bridge has suffered has been the limitation which it was necessary to impose upon it because of the carrying capacity of the first bracket. Since the additional bracket has been constructed the carrying capacity of that bridge, according to the engineers of Canadian National Railways, has been doubled.
Tolls, sir, have always been charged upon the Victoria bridge since the two brackets have been in existence, and I think the tariff of tolls on both the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges is identical, except that the method of collecting tolls on both sides has been streamlined since the present government took over in 1957. It has always been my belief that the cost of Victoria bridge has been repaid by tolls levied on motor traffic. While the Canadian National Railways have been asked from time to time in this house to make public the amount of tolls collected on Victoria bridge, they have refrained from so doing on the basis that it would not be possible for them to segregate this particular portion from the rest of their railway earnings.
On the other hand, it is clear that the Canadian National Railways have not collected sufficient revenue to repay the $2,300,000 they invested in improving the downstream side of the bridge. I have no doubt that with the increase in the traffic capacity of the bridge, and in the motor cars using the bridge, it will not be very long before the $2,300,000 expended by Canadian National Railways is repaid. Then before long we will have two bridges crossing the St. Lawrence at Montreal which from the point of view of vehicular traffic will have

been amortized by the payment of tolls, namely the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge.
There is still another bridge to which reference must be made and that is the Mercier bridge, which was built by La Corporation du pont du Lac St. Louis and which links the north and south shores opposite the Caughnawaga Indian reserve on lake St. Louis. This bridge is now the property of the province of Quebec. It continued to be a toll bridge until 1942 when, pursuant to a statute passed by the province of Quebec dealing particularly with the Mercier bridge, it was decided from that year on to abolish the collection of tolls thereon.
Important as is the movement of traffic from the island of Montreal to the south shore, and important as it is with reference to other bridges, the Mercier bridge I think has its importance mainly in the fact that it looks after and takes care of through traffic. It has taken on additional importance of late, of course, because of the construction of a new highway from the north part of Montreal to the Laurentian hills. While it is some distance removed from the city of Montreal and plays an important part, as I said, in through traffic, it does not play a preponderant part in the movement of traffic directly from the island of Montreal to the south shore.
The fourth bridge, of course, is the Champlain bridge which is now under construction. I refer to it in my motion as the Nuns' island bridge. I make no apology for that because when I first placed my resolution on the order paper in 1957 the bridge had not received the name Champlain and it was then known as the Nuns' island bridge. I therefore would amend my motion accordingly so that where the name "Nuns' island" appears it should read "Champlain" bridge.
I should like to say a word about the origin of this bridge. When the St. Lawrence seaway authority was first authorized to build facilities for navigation along the south shore, it made public its plans and discussed them with the various municipalities. From the outset these municipalities drew to the attention of the seaway authority how important it was for them to have modern and up to date transportation facilities linking the south shore with the island of Montreal, and how insufficient those transportation facilities were at that time. We held many meetings with the authorities involved, and at most of these meetings this question was always paramount. These representations were passed on to the government. I remember that on several occasions I discussed them with the then prime

minister and the then minister of transport, and suggested to them how much easier our task would be in dealing with the Montreal authorities and the municipalities on the south shore if we were authorized to amend our statute and construct a bridge.
Meanwhile the former minister of transport received a number of delegations on the subject. In the latter part of 1955 a delegation from the city of Montreal approached the government requesting them to build a third bridge to provide communication between the island of Montreal and the south shore. The government pointed out at that time, as I believe it has always been pointed out by federal governments in the past, that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to build bridges. This responsibility belongs mainly to the provincial authorities. However, the delegation from the city of Montreal at that time indicated that they did not see any possibility whatever of the provincial government taking any steps in this matter.
After consideration of the subject the then minister of transport recommended to the cabinet the construction of a third bridge, but as a toll bridge because quite obviously the building of such a bridge without tolls would have given rise to two serious difficulties. The first was the establishing of a precedent of the federal government building a bridge across a river which was not interprovincial; and the second, the establishment of a toll-free bridge in that area in Montreal would tend to greatly prejudice the revenue position of both the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge.
The recommendation, therefore, for the construction of the new bridge was accepted, but on the distinct understanding that the new structure would be a toll bridge to be built and administered by the national harbours board. The announcement to this effect, I believe, was made by the former minister of transport in 1955 or early in 1956. The site at which the bridge is to be built was recommended by the municipal government of the city of Montreal. The choice of the site was, I understand, their responsibility.
Now I come to the problem itself. It seems to me that the general problem of those who live on the island of Montreal and on the south shore and who must rely on communication across the St. Lawrence river is that they are faced with certain harsh facts and certain harsh realities. The first of these is that it would be difficult for either the municipal authorities, the provincial authorities or the federal government to build any new facilities while the other facilities remain as toll structures. Second, it probably cannot
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority be expected, because of the danger of creating a precedent elsewhere in the country, that either the national harbours board as the owner of the Champlain bridge and as the owner of the Jacques Cartier bridge, or the Canadian National as the owner of the Victoria bridge, would voluntarily abandon the right to collect tolls unless adequately compensated therefor.
This, therefore, is a bleak prospect, and unpromising so far as the provision of additional bridges or tunnels is concerned. Likewise it is a bleak prospect for the residents of the south shore and those on the island itself who must use and pay for the facilities, because they can see no end to the time when tolls will be levied. The Victoria bridge is a good illustration of this. We still have tolls levied even though we believe that the bridge has been fully paid for.
The encouraging side, on the other hand, of maintaining tolls is that experience has shown that while a system of tolls prevails, the authorities concerned are ready to invest further sums in order to provide further facilities. For instance, the national harbours board decided to spend $600,000 under the previous administration in order to add an additional traffic lane. The present government is willing to spend additional moneys in order to add the last lane and also to build the Champlain bridge. The Canadian National Railways is willing to spend $2,300,000 in order to add an additional bracket for vehicular traffic on its downstream lane. Hence it follows that there seems to be no serious objection to additional facilities providing there is an opportunity to recoup or recapture the capital sums expended by means of the collection of tolls.
The necessity for an additional bridge is certainly obvious in the Montreal area. In another debate in a previous session of parliament I drew to the attention of the minister-and I do so again today-the report of the St. Lawrence ship channel and Montreal harbour committee of 1950 dealing with the fourth reference submitted to it. That committee was charged under this reference to consider the implications of the power and seaway development of the St. Lawrence in Montreal harbour. In its comprehensive report it recommended the construction of a bridge downstream from the Jacques Cartier bridge. I recommend the reading, the consideration and the study of this report not only to the Minister of Transport but to all Montreal members who are interested in future facilities for the port of Montreal and also future transportation facilities in that area.
While I am on the subject I say to the minister that I hope he will bring this report

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority up to date. I think this is one of the most practical and beneficial reports ever brought down in so far as future facilities in the city of Montreal are concerned. However, it was based on the assumption that the power development would take place concurrently with the navigation development, and that part of the seaway would be on the north shore and another part on the south shore. I hope it will be possible for the minister and his officials to bring this report up to date with respect to what is happening now in that area. As a matter of fact the minister kindly consented in an earlier debate to give consideration to this matter. I am sure he has done so. In fact I have learned unofficially that the ship channel division are giving consideration to bringing this report up to date. If they could do that in the light of what has happened and what is happening now it would be of tremendous assistance to the metropolitan area of Montreal.
When I occupied a position similar to that which the Minister of Transport occupies today and sat on the other side of the house, each year there was on the order paper a resolution from certain Montreal members demanding the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. I was in the position-perhaps the unfortunate position, though I am not too sure that it was at that time-of having to resist that motion because of the fact that there was a tripartite agreement among the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal and the predecessors of the national harbours board, namely the Montreal harbours commissioners, for the payment of the deficit, and also because at that time the financial position of the Jacques Cartier bridge was not nearly as good as it is today. Furthermore, I was in the position of having to resist it because of the attitude taken by the Canadian National Railways. They took the position that if they were to abandon tolls on the Victoria bridge they should be compensated therefor.
Hence today I am not advocating the abolition of tolls, although I am sure that if this resolution were put into effect it would eventually accomplish that purpose. I am today advocating something which is more practical and which it seems to me is impossible to resist. I suggest that the present situation in Montreal needs to be altered because the public sees no hope of an end to the levying of tolls. If a bridge authority were established, as suggested in the resolution, there would be a hope because there would then be two alternative prospects to which to look forward: (1) the segregation of the net revenues from the operation of the three bridges I have mentioned and the use of these revenues to eliminate the total debt
relating to the facilities; and (2) the segregation of the net revenues and the use of these revenues to provide additional facilities as they are needed.
In other words the bridge authority, were it established, would either eventually remove tolls or, in the alternative, provide additional facilities. If something like this is not done, then a serious injustice is going to be perpetrated upon those using motor cars and crossing these bridges between Montreal and the south shore, who are paying tolls for the amortization of the cost of these bridges. When the debt will have been wiped out the government will have either to abolish the tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge or continue them. If it abolishes them, there will be a tremendous dash by motorists for this bridge. If it continues them, then this money will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, whereas in point of fact it should be used in amortization of the debt on the Champlain bridge.
The people residing in Montreal do not expect to get services for nothing. They expect to pay for the services they are receiving. However, they do not want to pay twice; and unless something like this is done that is exactly what is going to happen, because the tolls will continue and they will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund whereas they should, I submit with deference, be paid in reduction of the debt on the other facilities. Hence I say that unless something like this is done there will be a great hue and cry from the population of the city of Montreal.
In so far as the Canadian National Railways is concerned, I realize that the position is different. However, we know that the investment has been paid off many times in so far as the highway aspects of the bridge are concerned. There would still, of course, remain the investment of $2,300,000 which I mentioned earlier.
How would a bridge authority or a bridge corporation solve this problem? The setting up of a bridge authority provides the clear-cut hope that one or other of the two alternative prospects will be realized. If the facilities are allowed to remain indefinitely in their present position, the present situation can be expected to go on indefinitely. When Canadian National Railways' most recent investment in the Victoria bridge has been repaid it will expect to receive the net revenues from the facilities, just as it did when the original Grand Trunk's investment in the Victoria bridge was repaid; and it would be extremely difficult for either Canadian National Railways or the national

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
harbours board to justify maintaining these three structures toll free and paying the expenses of maintenance.
It is for this reason that I think the house should give consideration to the establishment of a bridge authority which would in effect put the three bridges under the control of an independent authority. This would provide for segregation of the revenues and for the use of cash revenues for the special benefit of the communities served. The bridge authority would have a choice between using its surplus revenues for the retirement of its debt or borrowing further moneys in order to provide additional facilities in the form of a new bridge or a tunnel.
I have noted the experience of the Triborough bridge and tunnel authority in New York. Their experience was practically the same as that of the national harbours board in earlier years, where there was deficit upon deficit. The bridge authority, known as the Triborough bridge and tunnel authority, was established and because of the method of financing as well as the method of operation this authority solved in New York city a tremendous problem, one which is not dissimilar to that existing in the city of Montreal.
In other words the bridge authority promises the segregation of surplus revenues, the possibility of the elimination of tolls or, alternatively, the maintenance of tolls and a gradual expansion of facilities as the needs of traffic mount and the possibility of adequate revenue presents itself. The method to be followed, as I suggest, is the creation of a public corporation which would be referred to as a bridge authority, whose purpose it would be to acquire the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Champlain bridge upon reasonable terms and conditions.
Here I would assume the government would be disposed to take a beneficent view of the position disclosed by the balance sheet and forget about interest on the deficit and arrive at a reasonable price for this structure. As far as the Champlain bridge is concerned I do not think there should be any difficulty, because I presume the government or the national harbours board would be entitled to payment of the amount invested in that facility. I assume, moreover, that the new authority would pay the purchase price by means of bonds which would be a first charge on the structure and net revenues therefrom.
I also suggest, because it would be difficult to provide for the ownership of the upstream and downstream brackets of the Canadian National Railways bridge which, as the house knows, is not only a railway
bridge but also a vehicular bridge, that what could be done would be to arrange a lease from the Canadian National Railways to the bridge authority for those two brackets, upstream and downstream, at an equitable rent. The rental in this case, of course, would be a reasonable one having regard to the fact that the facilities are intended for the general benefit of the public and not for the particular benefit of the Canadian National Railways.
This idea, sir, is not a new one. I cannot claim its paternity. If it belongs to anyone I think it belongs to the former minister of transport, Hon. Mr. Marler, who did speak to me about it on several occasions, discussed it with various groups and associations in Montreal, members of the city council and the like, and gave a lot of time to discussions of this matter with others in the metropolitan area of Montreal.
Another question is this. Is a new bridge required in the metropolitan area? Well, I note that there is not very much time left at my disposal. I have here the figures of the last survey which was made in 1957, concerning traffic to and from Montreal. It would take me some time to put this survey on Hansard, and I have not that much time. However, I can summarize it rather quickly. On the Jacques Cartier bridge traffic counts which were taken in 1957 indicated that at that time the average daily number of motor cars was around 40,000. Dealing with Victoria bridge. Since the roadway on the downstream side of the bridge was put into operation, comprising two lanes 17 feet wide, it accommodates 1,800 cars per day. The facilities which are being provided on the south shore leading to the Mercier bridge have had a tremendous effect in increasing the capacity of that bridge, and when the twin structure is built alongside the present Mercier bridge it will be possible to accommodate 4,500 cars per hour. I should tell the house here that when the discussions took place for the construction of the access roads from the highways leading to the south entrance to the Mercier bridge, it was then indicated, not in any official way but certainly in many unofficial ways, that it was the intention of the province at that time to build soon a twin structure alongside the present Mercier bridge.
To sum up this matter in so far as the traffic survey is concerned I say this. From this survey made in 1957 it appears that the average daily traffic between the island of Montreal and the south shore is approximately 75,000 vehicle trips per day. The survey then goes into detail as to what is likely to be the population of the province of Quebec in the future, which they fix at
1732	HOUSE OF
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
6.500.000	by 1973. That would apparently give a car registration in the province of
1.650.000	vehicles at that time, of which approximately 650,000 would be in the metropolitan area of Montreal.
The survey comes to the conclusion that by 1973 there will be 202,500 vehicles per day using the bridges from Montreal to the south shore. Under these circumstances, it would appear clearly that a new bridge is indicated; and while it is not up to me to say where it should be constructed, I refer simply to the report of the Montreal harbour committee which indicates that the bridge should be to the east downstream from the Jacques Cartier bridge.
I had hoped that I would have a minute or so to deal with another question, namely this. What was done by the former administration to help solve this tremendous highway problem which exists between the island of Montreal and the south shore? May I say that a great deal was done, which can best be summarized in this fashion. The federal government through its agencies, the national harbours board, the Canadian National Railways, the Department of Transport, spent tremendous sums of money in order to build modern and up to date approaches not only to the Jacques Cartier bridge, which was a joint enterprise between the national harbours board and the seaway authority and which has provided there a number of modern access highways, but also to the Mercier bridge and to the Victoria bridge.
I know there might well be some criticism in so far as what was done with reference to the Victoria bridge; but the house should not forget the fact that the Victoria bridge is a low level bridge, and being a railway bridge it had to be cut by the ship channel. In order to do that it was necessary to arrive at a plan and formula which was devised by the engineers of the Canadian National Railways in conjunction with those of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
May I just conclude by making these four points. It seem to me, sir, that if this resolution were adopted and the government saw fit to accede to it, it would do these four things. First of all, it would lead eventually to the abolition of tolls on all the bridges; second, it would provide for additional facilities between Montreal and the south shore; third, it would provide for the construction of a new bridge or tunnel; and finally, it would provide for consideration of conditions which will prevail in Montreal harbour when completion of the St. Lawrence seaway has been attained.
I submit with deference to the minister and to the house that I hope the house will see fit to accede to this resolution.
[Mr. Chevrier.l

(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gillel (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have the honour to address the house in my capacity as member for the constituency of Mercier.
Mr. Speaker, when I was about 12, my family took up residence in the constituency of St. Mary where I lived for over 15 years. And during my holidays, I had the pleasure of spending a few hours from time to time watching workers operate heavy machinery, particularly the pile-drivers used in driving great pieces of timber that were to be the foundations and supporting structure of Jacques Cartier bridge.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was far from suspecting that 30 years would elapse- despite the constant development that has taken place and is still going on on the east side of Montreal-before a bridge was built to connect the east of Montreal island to the south shore.
That bridge is a pressing need for the citizens of the constituencies of Mercier and Longueuil. People there are badly in need of that bridge, especially if they hope to benefit from the advantages which the St. Lawrence seaway-which will be ready shortly-might bring them. It is high time we let manufacturers, merchants and large contracting firms know that we are in favour of anything that would provide the constituency of Mercier in the eastern part of Montreal with a bridge connecting the south shore to the north shore.
As a result of the present situation in Montreal many householders are moving away from the outskirts to homes which are sometimes 20 to 25 miles away so that their families can enjoy wholesome air, unpolluted by the smoke of the many factories scattered all over Montreal and vicinity.
Some of those householders are quite prepared to expatriate themselves for a few hours more than they ordinarily would so as to take up jobs far away from their homes.
In view of all those facts, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few excerpts from a report prepared for the Montreal municipal authorities by an organization known as the greater Montreal metropolitan organization:
Industry, Factor of Balanced Metropolitan Expansion
The three inseparable factors of materia] progress, in the modern economy pattern, are industrial diversity in keeping with geographical concentration, ready availability of manpower, and a vast consumer market.
In a civilization based on production, manufacturing activity becomes the most powerful stimulus to regional development.

In fact, a manufacturing plant is at one and the same time:
(a)	a capital investment;
(b)	a producer of profits and wealth;
(c)	a provider of employment;
(d)	a source of municipal revenue;
(e)	an outlet for consumer goods.
Mr. Speaker, may I also quote a few remarks about Montreal harbour:
There is no doubt that commerce and industry and therefore the very economic future of the Montreal area, are closely linked with the part that the Montreal harbour will be allowed to play.
Besides, its industrial and commercial operations eventually became the predominant activity and have never stopped growing as the Montreal area became industrialized.
However, as industries built their plants, access facilities became inadequate and the resulting congestion contributed to the strangling of the harbour facilities whose expansion was vital.
Therefore, industries had to look to the south shore for room to expand and proper harbour facilities. Those expansion requirements of industry and trade in the Montreal area thus caused the decentralization of Montreal harbour.
By way of conclusion to these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, the report adds:
The development of harbour facilities and the part they play in the economy of Montreal clearly indicate that the metropolitan zone of influence must include the south shore by connecting it with the north shore by as many bridges or tunnels as possible.
(Text):


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. have considered this resolution carefully, and despite the comments and observations I have to make on it I want the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) to know that we endorse the principle which he is here attempting to establish.
I was very pleased indeed to note a leading spokesman of the Liberal party and a former minister of transport advocating active federal participation in efforts to solve a problem caused by the lack of bridges in Canada. I know he is not asking anything for the city of Montreal which he would not be willing to grant to all other areas of Canada. And while he may think it odd that someone from the lower mainland of British Columbia should rise and say something on this resolution, I know he appreciates that we have a situation at home which in many respects is much the same as the situation in the city of Montreal.
I welcome the support which the Liberals are now giving to the idea of federal participation in responsibility for the building of bridges in Canada. I know they realize that it is quite beyond the capabilities of municipal governments alone, in some instances, to assume responsibility for the entire cost of building bridges. It must also be realized that in many cases it is beyond even the capacity of the provincial regimes to supply the necessary money.
66968-9-110
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
The former minister of transport, the hon. member for Laurier, called this a highway problem and I was very pleased to hear him use those words to describe the bridge problem, because basically that is what a bridge problem is; a highway problem. We in this group have for many years advocated that the federal government should assume a major role in the development of a national highway program, and we have always included bridges as part of such a program. We believe that more bridges are essential in the interests of the economic and social development of the Canadian people and essential, too, in the interest of national unity.
The hon. member for Laurier has very ably pointed out the chaos and confusion which is beginning to make itself obvious in the administration of the bridges which now exist in Montreal, and he is sounding a warning that unless action is taken this chaos and confusion will become worse with each passing year. We have a very similar situation with regard to the bridges across the Fraser river. We have a new bridge known as the Marpole bridge. This is a toll bridge connecting Vancouver to Lulu island. Then we have a toll free bridge connecting Vancouver to Lulu island; that is the old Fraser avenue bridge. There is now being proposed a new toll bridge to connect New Westminster with the eastern end of the same island.
It leads to very much confusion when you have two bridges connecting the same bodies of land or passing over the same body of water and one is toll free and on the other a toll is levied. We are going to have the same situation a little farther up the river, in that the provincial government has already completed the digging of the Deas island tunnel, on which a toll is to be charged. Not far away is the Pattullo bridge which is toll free. The provincial government is now wrestling with the problem of building another bridge farther up the river in the Port Mann area. I do not know if it has yet been decided whether the new Port Mann bridge will be toll free but if it is to be a toll bridge that government will lose the grant under the national Highways Act.
At Burrard Inlet we have the same situation. We have a toll bridge known as the Lion's Gate bridge and an older bridge called the Second Narrows bridge which has been earning a considerable amount of money in recent years, and now a new bridge is being built there. We can understand why the hon. member for Laurier wants to end the chaos and confusion that exists in order that in years to come there may be adequate water crossing service offered to our motorists.
1734	HOUSE OF
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
We welcome most heartily the apparent change of heart on the part of the federal government. We noticed some months ago the willingness of the government to assume some responsibility toward the building of a bridge in the city of Prince Albert. We take that as an indication that there is a general realization in all parts of the house that it is high time the federal government began to share with the provinces and municipalities the very great responsibility of supplying the necessary bridges.
We note that the resolution before us calls for the establishing of a public corporation or bridge authority which would do certain things. I do not know if the hon. member had in mind eliminating the right of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec to have any voice in the operation, management or building of these bridges. He indicated that there had been some financial misunderstanding in the past among the three levels of government. If that is what he has in mind then I regret that we cannot agree with his approach. We feel that so far as possible the business of government in Canada shoud be decentralized. We can understand why Ottawa, which makes a contribution, should want a voice and ought to have one in these affairs; but we also feel that the administration of a series of bridges situated within a municipality certainly should be left as much as possible in the hands of the municipal and provincial regimes. Despite the fact that in the past in the case of Montreal there have been financial misunderstandings, we feel that the idea of partnership is extremely important, and no attempt should be made to establish any authority that will enter a municipality and without the necessary regard to either the municipality or the province begin to operate a series of bridges there.
We also note that the last part of the resolution calls for the continuation of the collection of tolls. Here we also have to be at variance with the attitude expressed by the hon. member for Laurier. Our group has always opposed the principle of levying tolls on either highways or bridges in Canada. I believe the only time we have ever endorsed this principle was when an international bridge has been proposed. We believe that toll collections represent an archaic method of paying for bridges and roads. We believe it is an economic waste that need not exist in this day and age. After all, our fathers


and grandfathers were able to build the roads and bridges they required without in most cases resorting to tolls. Tolls as a common practice have been abolished for many years in the Anglo-Saxon world, and we do not like to see a revival of this method of financing highways and bridges. We know that experimentation is taking place south of the border. Those of us who come from the far west are aware of the undertaking that exists in British Columbia at the present time. Despite that, however, we feel it is an economic waste and an archaic method.
We recognize that there are certain disadvantages in the collection of tolls. It is our contention that each time a toll bridge is built you get one bridge yet have to pay the cost of four. First of all principal has to be paid on the money that is borrowed. The interest usually almost equals the principal by the time the loan is repaid. There is also the overhead cost of collecting tolls which in the long run also just about equals the cost of the bridge. There is also the wear and tear of the starting and stopping of the automobiles. Over a period of years this is also enough to pay for another bridge.
I hope I have not misinterpreted what the hon. member for Laurier has said. We welcome his resolution and endorse its basic principle. However, we feel the authority should be operated by all three levels of government and not only by the federal government. We believe it is high time that financial contributions were made by all three levels of government in such a way that no tolls need be collected. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the resolution be amended by eliminating therefrom the words "establishing a", and substituting therefor the words "encouraging the establishment of."
And that the resolution be further amended by changing the comma after the word "public" in clause 4 to a period, and eliminating all the words after the said period.
The resolution as amended would then read:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of encouraging the establishment of a public corporation or bridge authority which would be empowered:
1.	To acquire from the national harbours board, the ownership of (i) the Jacques Cartier bridge: and (ii) the Nuns' island bridge (when completed), upon reasonable terms and conditions:
2.	To lease from the Canadian National Railways the facilities for motor vehicles over the Victoria bridge, upon reasonable terms and conditions;

3.	To build other bridges across the St. Lawrence river at Montreal; and
4.	To operate all such facilities for the convenience of the public.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand this resolution, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) would have a federal authority established and given certain definite powers. I certainly think that everybody in the house today listened with much interest to his remarks because the hon. member for Laurier has had experience both in active government and in the civil service with this very question. Therefore, naturally he spoke with a great deal of authority on the question. While I did not agree in complete detail with everything he said, certainly his resolution deserves much discussion, for it has much merit.
I also listened with much interest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I heard his remarks with regard to tolls. He said he did not like them. After listening to him I could not help but feel that the C.C.F. were reverting to the old Social Credit funny money policy of yesteryear. Maybe that can be rectified also in the debate.
In dealing with the resolution I feel that initially we should go to the basic or central aspect of the problem. As I look at the basic aspect of the problem I soon realize that the terms "island of Montreal" and "city of Montreal" are synonymous. Much reference has been made in history to the scenic aspects of the fact that Montreal is located on an island. Yet, the fact that Montreal is on an island obviously creates definite problems of communication.
The second problem centres on the fact that Mount Royal mountain is situated virtually in the centre of the city. The very location of the mountain, with all its parkland beauty, gives the city authorities less chance to improve and ameliorate traffic conditions in comparison with other town councils which are faced with similar problems of increased traffic congestion in expanding metropolitan areas. For these two and other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to outline the basic significance and importance of the problem with which we are faced.
It would help, if yet another problem could be referred to in relation to bridges and allied communications in and about the island of Montreal. Primarily this question involves the matter of civil defence. Right away, may I say I do not intend to offer any expert knowledge to this house on civil defence. I would simply like to say it would seem that, in the light of changing defence 66968-9-110|
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority needs and requirements-requirements and needs of which I have little expert knowledge-the house will agree that the problem of bridges and allied communications in and around the island of Montreal has obvious significance; that is, assuming there would be any survivors to evacuate in case of an attack.
In discussing this general proposition I realize that the matter has more significance for some hon. members than for others. At the same time, while superficially we look at the problem as one of a local nature, I think all of us here today should realize that the problem of communication to and from the nation's largest metropolis has more than mere local significance. In my own case it cannot be said that the constituency which I represent is even opposite the island of Montreal. Brome-Missisquoi is located in the heart of the eastern townships, and my constituency starts approximately 45 or 50 miles from the island. But even my own constituency is affected in a very obvious way by all of the implications of bridges, tunnels or any other means of communication to and from the island.
Like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), I have received many different types of representations regarding the general matter, and I should like to read briefly from some of those representations which generally illustrate how the problem affects people in this highly populated area of Quebec even up to a hundred or a hundred and fifty miles from the actual scene of the present discussion. I quote:
Whereas the residents of this municipality have to use the facilities of the Victoria bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge and Honore Mercier bridge in order to go to Montreal for business and other purposes;
Whereas alterations to the Victoria bridge are necessitated because of the St. Lawrence seaway project;
Whereas the closing, even temporarily of the Victoria bridge, will work hardship for those of this municipality who have to use these facilities constantly:
Therefore be it resolved that a request be sent to our member of parliament that he present the following propositions to the hon. Minister of Transport, and to the authorities of the St. Lawrence seaway, as well as to the authorities of the Canadian National Railways and to the national harbours board;
I quote this particular resolution because as you can see, in the initial paragraph this particular town council has outlined all of the various crown agencies and corporations which generally come under the ambit of this discussion. They go on to say:
1.	That careful study and special attention be given to the planning of the work of the diversion of the Victoria bridge so as to prevent, if at all possible, the already over-congested traffic circulation to and from the south shore;


Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, not only is it a pleasure for me, but it is my duty to second the resolution moved by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) with regard to the administration of the Montreal bridges.

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
Representing as we do a population as large as that of Montreal, we are particularly interested in the settlement of this bridge issue, which has been discussed in this house for over 20 years. I am convinced that the hon. member for Laurier has done everything in his power and has acted in an able manner when he was minister of transport, the department having jurisdiction over the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. He has explained clearly and precisely the reasons for creating this bridge administration. We found that he was competent in the matter and that he still remembered his days when he was so efficiently administering the business of this country. This makes it easier for us to add a few words with regard to those bridges.
As he stated so clearly, the tolls, whether on the Jacques Cartier bridge, the Victoria bridge, the Champlain bridge or on any other bridge which the federal government may consider as necessary within a period which I would want to be as short as possible, need to be controlled by some legislation. Everybody knows that it is practically impossible, particularly on week-ends, to get in or out of the island of Montreal; it takes hours and hours to do so. I will say that the collection of tolls slows down even more the traffic on our bridges. Moreover, we need additional bridges not only on the St. Lawrence, but also in the east, the west, and also in the north.
Victoria bridge, as the hon. member for Laurier said, is a hundred years old. It was improved in 1900, at the cost of nearly $2 million, but the section used by motor vehicles cost only-if the figures given are accurate-$100,000. Consequently, the revenues from tolls having reached a million dollars a year for several years, and exceeded that amount, in the last few years, I believe Victoria bridge has been paid up, especially that section being used for motor vehicle traffic. Furthermore, I am told that, while $1,800,000 was being spent on improving the bridge, the government was itself providing $500,000.
I am convinced, therefore, that this bridge yields millions of dollars each year, and that its building cost has been paid up many times. These revenues could very well be used, as this resolution puts it, to speed up the payment of Jacques Cartier bridge, as well as that of other bridges which the government proposes to build.
Jacques Cartier bridge is also a toll bridge and, as in the case of Victoria bridge, in order to divide the deficits, there had to be an arrangement between the city of Montreal,

the province of Quebec and the federal government. Unfortunately, the federal government has had little luck with its associates; it had to take legal proceedings against the city of Montreal, in order to get paid while the province of Quebec has subscribed nothing since 1943 or 1944. This means that the federal government, under a Liberal administration, would have had to take legal proceedings against the government of the province of Quebec as well. Now, it takes so little for the present Quebec provincial government to pose as a martyr, that its leaders would have raised an outcry had the then Liberal government taken legal proceedings against the Quebec provincial government. However, since the present government is supposed to be a friendly government, there would be no more case for posing as a martyr, and I believe it would be mere justice to get in touch with the representatives of the province of Quebec and ask them to pay that amount of more than $1 million. And if, then, unfortunately, the government of the province of Quebec should disclaim that debt, courts of justice should be asked to decide whether the government of the province of Quebec owes that amount or not. Quebec provincial leaders do not mind too much going to court. As a matter of fact, in these last few years there always have been one, two or three or even more of them involved in some trial.
May I recall that in 1942, in the province of Quebec, a Liberal government had decided to abolish tolls. In fact, not only did it abolish all of them, but it even bought privates bridges in order to rid the people of Quebec of bridge tolls. As the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge were both under the joint jurisdiction of the city of Montreal, the provincial government and the federal government, the Hon. Mr. God-bout, then premier, came to Ottawa and met with the federal authorities to discuss settlement of the toll problem, because it was not fair, with tolls abolished nearly everywhere in the province, that a third of the people of the province, namely those living on Montreal island and vicinity, should have to pay tolls, while people in the rest of the province did not have to.
I cannot remember how many times each year we met with the then minister of transport, now member for Laurier. In any event, every time Liberal members called on the minister of transport, the minister would state:	"We are prepared to abolish toll
bridges, but it requires the consent of the three parties involved: the federal government, the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec." Referring to page 4983 of

Hansard for 1947, I find that the Hon. Mr. Chevrier made the following statement:
We will sell to the province or to the municipality the Jacques Cartier bridge, but they will have to take into consideration a fair and reasonable value.
Nous vendrons le pont Jacques-Cartier a la province ou a la municipalite si elles consentent a lui attribuer une valeur raisonnable.
The minister went on to say:
The deputy minister of transport was advised by the Canadian National Railways that it would be willing to agree to a proposal for abolishing tolls, subject to the following:
That, Mr. Speaker, was in 1947. However, unfortunately for the settlement of the matter and for the province of Quebec, the Liberal party had been defeated in 1944 and replaced by the Union Nationale government. Since that time nothing has been done. The provincial government did not make any move and no one has ever heard about the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, so little was heard from it that it did not even pay its share of the operating deficits of the Jacques Cartier bridge.


An hon. Member:: That is dreadful!


Azellus Denis: Indeed it is. However, the decisions of the provincial government, which is always infringing some rule, as if the province of Quebec were an enemy of the federal government, should not be taken lightly.


Mr. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-MonJ-calm):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for St. Denis allow a question?


Azellus Denis: When I am through with my remarks, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm may ask all the questions he wants.
I would like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the cost of building the Jacques Cartier bridge was estimated originally at $19 million, as the hon. member for Laurier, has pointed out. This was done by means of a loan at 5 per cent interest. It was also thanks to the hon. member for Laurier has pointed out. This in 1949, to get a loan at 2J per cent instead of 5 per cent, which reduced the amount of interest by $445,000. From that time on, and thanks to the good administration of the present member for Laurier, the revenues of the Jacques Cartier bridge showed some surpluses.
On May 5, 1953, the hon. minister of transport published a press release, in which it was said plainly-I shall not read it at length-that the federal government was ready to settle the question of tolls provided
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority the authorities of the province of Quebec and of the city of Montreal were ready to negotiate. The day after that release was published, the city of Montreal stated it was prepared to enter into negotiations in order to settle this question of tolls, according to an article published in Le Devoir of May 6, 1953:
Following Mr. Lionel Chevrier's statement, Mr. J. O. Asselin, chairman of the Montreal executive committee, said that the city of Montreal would be glad to discuss the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges.
Since then, and on several occasions, the municipal authorities have met the Quebec premier, asking him to negotiate with the federal authorities in order to obtain the abolition of tolls. Nothing has been done. The Quebec premier did not budge, as usual, and once again, if we are faced with difficulties today, if the citizens of the island of Montreal have to pay toll charges, while those living in other parts of the province do not pay any, it is still the fault of that famous autonomist who blocks the way and who so acts that the citizen has to pay for that sham autonomy we have to suffer; I hope we shall be able to settle that problem in the near future.
The setting up of a bridge authority, as suggested by the hon. member for Laurier, would actually create a body of experts who would be in a position to make surveys and inquiries on the island of Montreal in order to determine the number of additional bridges needed and also settle the question of tolls to the satisfaction of all concerned.
And in connection with the matter of bridges on the St. Lawrence, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is necessary also to have more of them in the east, in the west and in the north. Everyone knows we have to wait for hours on each of those bridges in the rush hours, especially on Saturdays and Sundays.
Mr. Speaker, I remember that in 1936, the Liberal administration which took over from the Bennett government had passed legislation to help the unemployed and to provide jobs for the people of Canada. It was under that legislation that Pie IX bridge was built; half the construction costs being paid by the province of Quebec, and half by the federal government.
In reply to a question I raised in the house in 1948-and this is in reply to the hon. minister for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-oh, Mr. Speaker, I feel I have made a

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority serious mistake, because I do think that title will never be applied to the hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It will not be any worse than in your own case; you have been a member for 25 years, and yet you have not-


Azellus Denis: We love him too dearly to send him off to the cabinet.
In 1948, as I was saying, I asked a question in the house, and this is the reply I was given:
(Text):
Yes - under dominion - provincial agreement entered into under relief legislation 1936-37. Maximum dominion contribution authorized-$506,500.
Half a million dollars has been spent by the federal government. What a difference to the $43,000 given lately, and the same thing happened.
(Translation):
The same thing happened in the case of the bridge at Bout de l'lsle. Under the 193637 act the federal government paid 50 per cent of the costs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the bridge authority proposed by the hon. member for Laurier could determine the need for additional bridges around Montreal island and later contact this government and show the importance and the necessity of those bridges. This might lead to legislation similar to that of 1936-37, and so, while we would be relieving unemployment, we could give adequate service to this population of over one million people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that representatives of constituencies on Montreal island and the province of Quebec would support that resolution which, eventually, would put an end to tolls.
Mr. Speaker, only last week we heard of obstacles to free access to Montreal island. In fact, a tourist bureau report showed that revenues from tourists are growing less each year in Montreal. I am convinced that any visitor who drives into Montreal and who wants to drive out of the city during the weekend tells himself that he will never come back to the province of Quebec and especially not to Montreal island.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the resolution of the hon. member for Laurier and I trust that the other hon. members will do the same.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Denis told me that I could ask him a question at the end of his remarks. Could the hon. member tell me why, at the time his government was in power, he did not claim the moneys that he now says are due by the province of Quebec?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I specifically pointed out the reason while I had the floor. If we had claimed those amounts from the


premier of Quebec, he would have raised the cry of persecution and would have won his elections by claiming that the federal government was persecuting the provinces, and by harking back to his famous autonomy, as usual, something that is costing us millions of dollars every year. If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had listened to my remarks-I would suggest that he read today's Hansard tomorrow and find out what I said previously-he would see that I gave the reason why we did not take action against the provincial government.
Now that the friends of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm are in charge of the country, I would ask them to do their duty and to render unto Caesar the things which are Ceasar's.


Mr. C. E. Campeau (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I was very agreeably surprised to see that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has at last rediscovered Montreal. During all the time he was minister of transport and chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, directing the planning and the carrying out of projects, in the good old days of Liberal administration, the hon. member for Laurier seemed to act as if Cornwall, and not Montreal, was the metropolis of Canada. He had seemed to forget entirely that there was such a city as Montreal. Fortunately, since the election of March 1958, the hon. member for Laurier, and his friends opposite have at last rediscovered Montreal and become aware of that city's needs.
What I do not like about the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Laurier, Mr. Speaker, is that I find it based on the same misconception which guided the St. Lawrence seaway project in the good old days of the Liberal administration.
Once again there is failure to take into account that fundamental aspect of every public works problem, over-all development, and too much attention is given to particular technical and economic details.
It is indeed, deplorable Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal administration was unable to see in the St. Lawrence seaway anything but a digging and dredging project that might affect the operation of a few main sewers. The hon. member for Laurier evidently wants us to repeat the same mistake.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, a man cannot be an expert in everything, an expert in seaway estimates and at the same time an expert on the needs and requirements of the Montreal area. It is indeed quite natural that the hon. member for Laurier be much more familiar with the needs of the district

of Cornwall than with those of the Montreal area. It is probably in that sense that the hon. member for Laurier, while chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, used to repeat to anyone who cared to listen, in the good old days of Liberal administration, that the St. Lawrence seaway was not a highway undertaking. Besides, according to the Gazette of March 22, 1955, the hon. member for Laurier stated:
(Text):
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority was established to build navigation canals and not to solve traffic problems. Hon. Lionel Chevrier reminded critics of the project here yesterday.
He said criticisms of the authority's plans for Victoria, Jacques Cartier and Honore Mercier bridges were justified if they pertained to navigation. "If they only refer to the problem of traffic between the two shores I am not too concerned."
(Translation):
And I now quote from the editorial of the Gazette of the following day, March 23, which does not share in any way the opinion of the hon. member for Laurier, who was then chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority:
(Text):
As Mr. Chevrier said: "Our statute, in effect, imposes on us the task of canalizing-not roadways or traffic." In other words, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has been assigned the task of "building the ditch". It does not consider that it has the obligation to solve other problems.
It must be admitted that Mr. Chevrier speaks in his own defence with considerable reason. The difficulty is, however, that the building of the channel may itself cause tremendous changes in the whole area of Montreal-in industry, in shipping, in traffic. What is also important, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, by setting out to build the channel as such, may find that it has failed to co-ordinate the channel with the larger plans that might be needed to solve the new problems.
The truth is that the "task of canalization"- which Mr. Chevrier believes to be his particular assignment-is in itself too narrow an interpretation of what the St. Lawrence seaway really involves.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Laurier, Mr. Speaker, obviously does not like comprehensive views. The creative vision shown by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he proposed to the nation his national development program, is above his comprehension. The hon. member for Laurier prefers the good old-time manner of the Liberal administration, multiplying crown corporations and agencies to facilitate the granting and control of major contracts.
The problems of traffic connections between Montreal and the south shore existed at the time the seaway was decided. At the time, however, the Liberal administration was unaware of the existence of Montreal. There is 66968-9-111
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority no doubt that more bridges are needed between Montreal and the south shore. Statistics are there to prove it. I am not going to repeat the figures which the hon. member for Laurier has already quoted, nor those referred to by other hon. members. But I should like to draw the attention of the house to the figures given by the national harbours board in regard to vehicular traffic on Jacques Cartier bridge.
Generally speaking, between 1949 and 1954, the figures doubled, and between 1954 and 1957, they doubled again. In other words, they practically doubled in five years and tripled in eight years. I could quote more figures, but there is no doubt that the need for additional bridges and tunnels is an urgent and long standing one. There is no doubt that work on the seaway has increased the problems of vehicular traffic between the two shores. It would be interesting to review what was done and what was not done in this regard. I shall be content, Mr. Speaker, to quote the hon. member for Laurier, who, when he was chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, made the following statement with regard to Victoria bridge:
The bridge being low, it was not easy to coordinate the requirements of highway and seaway traffic. I am pleased to announce that we have found a solution. Engineers of the Seaway authority and of the Canadian National have reached agreement on the principle of a plan that will not slow down the normal flow of traffic.
I think the facts do not bear out those expectations. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the forceful intervention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) a solution will be found that will prevent undue delaying of traffic on Victoria bridge.
In this regard, I wish to draw attention to the efforts of the hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Sevigny), who is now in the Speaker's chair, towards improving the situation with regard to the approaches to Victoria bridge. And I personally hope, if there is no other solution, that pending completion of the work, people on the south shore will not have to pay tolls, so that they might forget the delays in which they will be involved on the Victoria bridge, thanks to the Liberal administration.
As regards Jacques Cartier bridge, I am pleased that it is a Conservative government that will add a new lane on the bridge this year. As to Champlain bridge, I was pleasantly surprised to see that, due to the vigorous intervention of the Minister of Transport, contracts for those works will be let this year while, in the good old days of Liberal administration, delay followed delay as only one engineer

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority had been hired to draw up the plans, probably so he would not get mixed up in his calculations and to facilitate the control of contracts to be granted.
It seems to me that the necessity of a bridge in the eastern part of Montreal island, has been demonstrated time and again, I need only refer to the latest developments on the south shore to show that this huge industrial and residential expansion requires improved communication between both shores. It is reported in the Gazette of March 4, 1959, that the Dosco Company, the Sogemines Limited, the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation and other companies are planning development in the area of Varennes, Ver-cheres and Contrecoeur.
There is no doubt that these industries will ask or will need improved communications with the economic area of Montreal and particularly with the business centre of the city. Nor is there any doubt that a large part of the Montreal population will be employed in those industries. About this development, may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the whole problem of traffic connection is related to a greater problem, that of the future development of Montreal harbour. I think it was to that effect that an engineers' report was filed in 1950, as stated by the hon. member from Laurier. However I wonder what happened to this report between 1950 and 1957. During that period, the Liberal government was in power and the reports submitted by engineers were allowed to gather as much dust as possible in the records of the good old days of the Liberal administration.
It is deplorable, Mr. Speaker, that the plans for the future development of the port of Montreal were not defined instead. Taking an instance, if only to stress one point, this is what the hon. member for Laurier, then minister of transport or chairman of the seaway authority-I don't remember which-stated and I quote from La Presse of February 13, 1951:
A few minutes earlier, Mr. Chevrier had stated that one of the proposed improvements was the creation between Victoria bridge and Longue-Pointe, of an artificial basin similar to those of the world's larger ports, especially those of London, Liverpool, Antwerp, Le Havre and Buenos Aires.
Protective works in Montreal harbour would not only have the effect, he said, of eliminating the river current, of improving ice conditions and of cutting down much of the danger of spring floods, but they would also, in the minister's opinion, "reclaim an extensive flooded area on the south shore of the river", and would call for "a development of harbour facilities, as required, on the south shore, according to needs" and would further open up to industrial development "one of the most promising industrial areas of this continent, which is situated between Victoria bridge and Varennes".

La Presse also reproduced in July 1956, the following statement of the then minister of	transport-excuse me, he was then
chairman of the seaway:
First of all, the railway concentration at Pointe-St-Charles made travel by the north shore difficult; it was necessary also to prevent shipping from creating a practically permanent bottleneck while passing through Montreal harbour.
There is this additional fact, added the speaker, that industrial and residential areas will find additional available space on the south shore.
Montreal is an almost exceptional example in the world of a great river port being choked up at the foot of a mountain, while its opposite shore is being completely neglected. Montreal is a harbour without a right bank, while an almost empty plain spreads out at its feet on the other side of the river.
The seaway will correct this situation, added the speaker. Already the shadow of industry is spreading over the south shore triangle, between Valleyfield, St. Jean and Sorel, but many people are induly concerned about the future of south shore communties.
And I now quote from La Patrie of February 13, 1951:
Mr. Chevrier made it clear that those improvements were based on the provisional report of an engineers' committee set up the year before "to consider the necessity of co-ordinating the responsibilities of the Department of Transport and of the national harbours board, and to provide for their fulfilment, with a view to establishing facilities to meet future needs, not only of the St. Lawrence seaway, the Lachine canal and of railway transportation, but of Montreal harbour."
He stated that one of the proposed improvements was the creation, between Victoria bridge and Longue-Pointe, of an artificial dock similar to those of the world's larger ports, especially those of London, Liverpool, Antwerp, Le Havre, and Buenos Aires.
Protection works in Montreal harbour would not eliminate the river current,-
Then follows the same quotation as was given a moment ago. In other words, as early as 1950, it was known that certain improvements would have to be made with regard to shipping in Montreal harbour. Thus, there was talk of this dam at Sainte Therese island. The point now is to decide whether there should be a dam or not, a matter that can weigh heavily on the development of the area, the development of the harbour itself and the surrounding area. Between 1950 and 1957, no decision whatever had been reached in this connection, and those who want to develop that area, whether the islands of Boucherville, Sainte Therese isfand and the neighbouring shores, and even the industrial locations of Vercheres, Varennes, Contrecoeur, as well as the industrial sites of the Laprairie basin do not yet know what kind of physical development is in the offing for the harbour.
However, the McGill University business school, and particularly its Montreal research council, having made an exhaustive

study of the matter called attention in 1958, to the possible repercussions of the St. Lawrence seaway on Montreal harbour and indicated that the immediate provision of the facilities needed for the adequate future development of Montreal harbour was urgently called for. Allow me to mention, in this connection, the splendid work done by the Montreal harbour council, a district committee under the able chairmanship of Mr. Murray Hayes, vice chairman of the executive committee of Montreal, who have been studying the whole question of jurisdiction and planning in Montreal harbour in cooperation with the national harbours board.
Before we think of the ways of doing it, I think we must first draw up an over-all plan which would provide for the future expansion of Montreal harbour, including the use of the harbour's neighbouring areas, and which would take into account future shipping facilities, railway traffic, motor traffic and parking, and all other necessary facilities. We must dispel the present dangerous uncertainty and encourage private industry to go ahead with full knowledge of what the public authorities want to achieve for the future of Montreal harbour. After that, we could study ways and means of achieving this over-all plan, including the necessary bridges and tunnels.
Once again, the hon. member for Lau-rier has probably yielded, as in the good old days of the Liberal administration, to the American influence when he apparently tried to copy the port authority of New York. However, there is quite a difference between New York and Montreal in this respect. Port revenues over there go to the city of New York and to the port authority, while in Montreal the situation is altogether different.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that Montreal, without its harbour, would be a city of minor importance. To preserve its status of metropolis of Canada, no effort should be spared in making its harbour facilities rank with the world's most modern facilities. It is of primary importance for Montreal and for the whole country that Montreal harbour keep its efficiency and its high reputation and that the city of Montreal maintain its rank among the world's great metropolitan centres.


Mr. Raymond Eudes (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a few words in support of this resolution.
It is necessary for me, in order to support it to repeat the sound arguments used by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), and to stress its merits as well as the good and practical results it would bring about.
66968-9-111J
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
I shall content myself with commenting briefly on the paragraph dealing with the third power which would be given to the bridge authority suggested by this resolution, i.e.:
To build other bridges across the St. Lawrence river, at Montreal.
It may be stated, without fear of error,- and this is, in fact, the general and almost unanimous impression-that the bridges connecting Montreal island with the south shore of the St. Lawrence no longer serve the main purposes for which they were designed, i.e. to give motor vehicles adequate means of communication between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence in the Montreal area.
At the present time, three bridges link those shores: Jacques Cartier and Victoria, owned by the Canadian National Railway Company, and Mercier bridge, which does not come under federal jurisdiction.
Prima facie evidence of their inadequacy is the fact that a fourth one, Champlain bridge, is being erected west of Jacques Cartier bridge. Another traffic lane on Jacques Cartier bridge was recently opened to motor vehicle traffic, and it is proposed, in the course of next year, to use all available remaining space on that bridge for the same purpose.
This additional bridge, together with its two additional lanes, will no doubt improve the traffic situation between the shores of the St. Lawrence but, even when completed-in so far as communication facilities between those two shores of the St. Lawrence in the vicinity of Montreal are concerned-they will never efficiently solve the motor vehicle traffic problem.
One has only to cross one of those bridges to have an idea of the problem. In any season, at any hour, there is no let-up. At times, when the traffic has not yet reached its normal intensity, they may give the impression that they fulfil their function. But let anyone venture to cross from one shore to the other at what are conveniently called rush hours. Now those rush hours extend from before 8 o'clock in the morning till 7 o'clock at night, with some scarcely perceptible let-up in between. And the word "venture" is not exaggerated.
In the first place, the approaches to the bridge-as a result of the rush of incoming vehicles, and the presence of other traffic which, though going elsewhere, has to use the same streets-are barely accessible, and can only be crossed by dint of waiting and patience.

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
The drive across the bridge has become such a slow process that automobile engines choke up and stall, and this in turn often causes many accidents.
The result is that, once the bridge has been crossed, car drivers face another problem: they again have to go through the dense traffic on the way out of the approach opposite the one they have just left.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is no need for me to describe in greater detail what an achievement it is to cross a bridge on Montreal island at the so-called rush hours, because all the members of the metropolitan area are quite familiar with the situation.
On the other hand, the serious difficulties caused by this lack of sufficient communication facilities between the south shore and the north shore of the St. Lawrence river in the Montreal area are easy to visualize: losses of man-hours, unaccountable delays, heavily increased transportation costs, delivery problems, all factors that have a definitely harmful effect on the economy of the area.
There is another, more basic, argument to show the inadequacy of bridges on the St. Lawrence at Montreal.
To a considerable degree, the Canadian metropolis and the surrounding area have shared in the great development Canada has enjoyed in the last 15 years.
For instance, in 1957, the population of the city of Montreal was over 1,127,000, and the population of the metropolitan area, 1,695,000, of which at least 95,000 were living on the south shore, which had an industrial output of $3,725,000,000, whereas industrial production in the metropolis itself stood at $2,208,000,000.
The whole metropolitan area is now in the throes of growing pains, and this era of progress is still very far from over.
Montreal is thus going through the same phenomenon experienced by other cities with large populations: the effect of gradual encirclement by surrounding municipalities.
Only a few decades ago, industry and business in the area were thriving along Montreal harbour. Plants could get the necessary water supply for their operation and economical water transport was at hand.
Nowadays, and for the last ten years especially, the population of Montreal has increased tremendously.
New techniques have modified industry. Larger sites have been required for the installation of modern equipment. In the vicinity of plants, large parking areas have become a necessity.
[Mr. Eudes.l

In other words, industry and business, like residential areas, have spread out at an increasing rate, beyond the old-time central nucleus.
Again today, everywhere around Montreal, on the south shore as well as on the north shore, new plants are being built, residential areas are sprouting up, new municipalities are being founded. And the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway will give new momentum to this already intensitive development.
Of course, this development involves many difficult and urgent problems, one of the most important being that of transportation between Montreal island and the south shore of the St. Lawrence river.
There is no need to emphasize the importance in modern economy of transportation, whose function is to take raw materials and finished products as easily and as quickly as possible to their markets, and to take workers to their jobs.
This rapid expansion and development of the metropolitan area have multiplied transportation needs: longer distances to cover, more frequent deliveries of products to farther places, mass movements of workers,- still chiefly concentrated in the city proper- to an increasing number of plants situated on the south shore. There are also more frequent movements of the general population towards both shores, on business, for recreation or for the pleasure of travel.
It is easily understandable, Mr. Speaker, that the present bridges have ceased to meet the urgent and essential needs of motor traffic between both shores of the St. Lawrence river, in the Montreal area.
There is no doubt that the new Champlain bridge, now under construction, will relieve the transportation difficulties I just referred to, but it will be no more than a partial remedy; and when that new bridge is added to the existing ones, it will not bring the urgent and efficient solution of this transportation problem between both shores of the St. Lawrence in the metropolitan area.
Last but not least, this new bridge will not bring any improvement in the critical situation now prevailing in the eastern Montreal area. In fact, difficulties with regard to communications between the two shores are most intensely felt downstream from Jacques Cartier bridge.
A geographical study of the map of Montreal reveals that Jacques Cartier bridge crosses the river on a line which, if extended, would divide the island of Montreal in two parts, east and west, of about equal size.
Now, all other bridges, including the Champlain bridge which is now being built, are

located to the west of Jacques Cartier bridge and at a considerable distance from one another.
That gigantic development of the metropolitan area on both shores has taken place with much more rapidity in the west.
In the east, this development is only in its initial phase. From a few thousand people, for instance, only some ten years ago, the population of the eastern suburbs of Montreal has risen to 90,000 souls in 1957 with an industrial potential of approximately $778 million.
On the south shore, to the east of Jacques Cartier bridge, up to Contrecoeur, hundreds of million of dollars were recently invested in the setting up of new industries and the labour force necessary to the operation of those industries is and will be for some considerable time in the future, supplied by an industrial and working population living on the island of Montreal.
As a result, the traffic between the south and the north shores of the St. Lawrence, in the eastern section of the metropolitan area, is getting heavier from day to day. Because of the distance involved, almost all this traffic crosses Jacques Cartier bridge.
Now, this bridge is often very far toward the west, from the starting points of the vehicles which must go across. The roads and streets leading to the bridge, both on account of the great deal of traffic caused by the bridge and on account of the heavy local traffic, are the scene of an indescribable congestion. It must be borne in mind that the approach to Jacques Cartier bridge on the island of Montreal is located just where the population is the most dense. The resulting congestion is still worse on Jacques Cartier bridge than on other bridges and causes a deplorable slowing down of traffic.
Let us consider for a moment these statistics taken from the annual reports of the national harbours board. From May 1930 to June 1931, about 1,650,000 motor cars crossed the Jacques Cartier bridge. In 1950, 4,822,462.	In 1956, 11,000,000. In 1957, 11,-
500,000, an increase of half a million in one year. One Sunday, on August 15, 1930, for instance, when the famous German dirigible, the R-100, the centre of attraction of the whole area, was on the south shore, an alltime high of 15,000 vehicles had been recorded on that day.
Today, Mr. Speaker, a daily average of 35,000 vehicles cross the bridge during the week and 60,000 on Sunday. Here is another example. On a Friday, on September 19 last, between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening, 1,256 cars crossed the Jacques Cartier bridge
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority towards the north and 2,834 towards the south; that is the full carrying capacity of the bridge.
No wonder that the bridge no longer meets the needs created by the traffic running between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence, in the eastern metropolitan area.
The numerous and increasing difficulties brought about by the inadequacy of the means of transportation between those two shores obviously give rise to a considerable waste of time, increased transportation, delivery and motor vehicles operation costs which put together are unmistakably detrimental to the present development of the eastern part of the area and unfairly penalize the residents in that area by the additional expenses involved.
A new lane on the Jacques Cartier bridge, the last one possible, will be opened. This step is most welcome indeed, but it is clearly inadequate and does not provide the solution called for by the problems of communication between the two shores of the St. Lawrence in the eastern part of the metropolitan area.
It is quite obvious that economic conditions today require the construction of a new bridge below the Jacques Cartier bridge. It is not a new project. That construction was recommended in the 1950 report of the Montreal harbour board.
On December 9, 1957, the hon. member for Laurier suggested the same project in this house, and my colleagues the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) and the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier) made the same suggestion. I do not think many representatives of our metropolitan area in this house are opposed to the project.
In closing, may I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of my reasons for supporting this resolution. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to consider building a new bridge below Jacques Cartier bridge.


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, as a member for a riding located in the suburbs of the great city of Montreal, I take pleasure in congratulating the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on his most intelligent suggestion. Beyond doubt, as citizens of the Vaudreuil-Soulanges peninsula we are aware of the bridge problem. We realize it is a most difficult problem. Our sympathy goes out to the people of Montreal and of the south shore who are obliged to travel great distances to go to work.
1746	HOUSE OF
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
Our opponents did not manage to build a bridge during the 22 years they were in office, but I am confident that this proposed bridge will be built under a Conservative administration.
But the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Laurier places him in a dangerous position. We know that in Montreal when a great politician is more concerned with the general interest than with his party, he is in danger of being struck off the list of his party should the Conservative party decide to accept his proposal. Moreover, his proposal is not quite original. In fact, the bridge now referred to has been asked for by the Conservatives and the Liberals as well, as was evidenced a while ago by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) when he stated that during the 20 years he has been here, when his party was in power, a great number of delegates came to Ottawa to make representations in order to get a favourable decision from the minister of transport with regard to the construction of a bridge. So his proposal is not original.
The hon. member for Laurier suggests the establishment of a new organization which would "control" the bridges and which would look after their operation under a single administration. As far as I am concerned, the idea is hardly commendable. The hon. members of the C.C.F. party seem rather in favour of a triumvirate, composed of the municipal, the provincial and the federal administrations to operate those bridges. I think it would be more advisable to let the present administration of the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges carry on as it does now, because I understand Jacques Cartier bridge will be paid for within three or four years. As for Victoria bridge it has been paid for long ago. If a new bridge is to be built, it should be placed under another administration, in the care of private enterprise, with the financial support of a government agency. There is too great a tendency nowadays to let the government settle everything. There is lack of confidence in private enterprise yet it always provides the best and most efficient service. In the province of Quebec, the bridges built under the previous administration give an exact picture of the parties by which they were built: they are long, aloof and very narrow; such are Mercier bridge as well as Taschereau and Galipeau bridges, between Ste. Anne and Vaudreuil; they are long, narrow and wearisome to cross. It will be recalled that those bridges served to make fortunes for petty civil servants who were supposed to be getting salaries of $100 a month but had a $40,000 a year income, under the old administration.
[Mr. Bourbonnals.l

Of course these were abuses which today prompt hon. members to call for the abolition of bridge tolls. But rather than abolish bridge tolls, I feel it would be advisable to find some mechanical devices, perhaps, to ensure the collection of those receipts which the bridges should yield, that is to say that bridges should be a source of revenues for governments or the people responsible for their administration.
I have a feeling of admiration for the hon. member for Laurier who is not proposing the abolition of bridge tolls, as do our friends of the C.C.F. who wish to abolish tolls out of lofty generosity toward the population. They always want to eliminate taxes, or everything that costs the taxpayers money, but they never tell us where we would get the money necessary to manage the affairs of this country. The hon. member for Laurier had the courage to refrain from asking for the abolition of bridge tolls. Well, we still know where to look for the experience and sincerity of a hardy old politician, and,-because our friends were comparing him to an ageing lion-we find that he has not lost his claws, and that, at times, he knows how to use them and how to set traps for us. However bridges, or buildings of any type, have to be paid for by the taxpayers. It would not be fair to ask all taxpayers in Canada to help pay for the cost of structures which benefit only a particular area of the country. It is known that the city of Montreal is burdened with too many construction problems at this time, and the few travellers who drive through Montreal can see that there is construction going on throughout the city and that the seaway has brought about substantial industrial expansion.
People who live in eastern Montreal and on the south shore, in Varennes, Boucher-ville and Contrecoeur, are entitled to the necessary facilities to get to Montreal, but we should not ask the city of Montreal alone to pay for the construction of a bridge which will be used not only by the people of Montreal, but by people outside the city, or to ask the province of Quebec to share in the cost of such a project.
Besides, in the last few years, the province of Quebec has built some 2,000 bridges,- and I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for St. Denis who claimed that the Duplessis administration had not spent anything for bridges. The blind who do not want to see are worse than the deaf who do not want to hear, and it may be that some day the hon. members will see the light, the light of understanding, and will come out of their dream of administration,

of control. They are blinded by the fact they held office so long and that they now sit in the opposition. We forgive them.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other kinds of bridges that could be built in the city of Montreal, bridges that would not be expensive. We have had a fine example of one recently, when the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) built a magnificent bridge between C.B.C. producers and management It may not be the kind of bridge that we should be talking about now, but I believe bridges of that type are always beneficial and are quite useful to all the population, not only of Montreal, but of the suburbs as well.


Mr. Deschafelets:: It could have been built a little faster than it was.


Marcel Bourbonnais: It is too bad you were unable to build one like it. There would be other bridges, like the one that might be built between our national railways, which at this time seem to be making slightly exaggerated demands for a boost in rates, which would, to a certain extent, prejudice the people of Montreal and of this country as a whole. I mean that, if people living in the suburbs have to travel by rail, they will have to pay the planned higher rate of 17 to 37 per cent. Well, those people will be deprived of a revenue which, today, enables them to make certain purchases. It is well known that suburbanites do part of their shopping in the city of Montreal. Their situation will be somehow adversely affected by the exaggerated increase in railway fares, and the city of Montreal will feel the effects of this. Apart from this, since Montreal commuters who use the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways will be seriously affected by this increase, if it is granted, the economy of their communities will suffer accordingly. The Minister of Transport told us the other day, that the board of transport commissioners would make a thorough investigation before tolerating this increase. If the increase in railway fares is accepted, it will slow down development in the ridings of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Laval and Two Mountains. It will also prevent many Montreal citizens from settling and living outside the city where they can enjoy fresh air, quiet and open spaces.
Our rural citizens always support good moves likely to help the city of Montreal whenever the opportunity presents itself. The proof of this is that, if a vote were taken with regard to the building of a bridge, the first to support the motion would be the members for ridings around Montreal.
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I should like to say that, if a great many bridges still remain to be built, the Union Nationale government, at the present time, proposes to replace, not later than this spring, the bridges connecting the city of Montreal with the constituency of Vaudreuil, namely the Taschereau and Galipeau bridges, with new bridges that will be representative of the Union Nationale party, that is, wide, stylish, well arched and strong.


An hon. Member:: Will they be as strong as the Three Rivers bridge?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why don't you talk about the Quebec bridge that collapsed four times!


Marcel Bourbonnais: Talk about the Quebec bridge? It is ill-fitting to refer to bridges that have caused tragedies.
In closing, I should like to congratulate once again all those who made fine academic speeches about bridges linking Montreal with the south shore. We especially enjoyed the brilliant outline given by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau), who managed to direct a criticism which was somewhat harsh, but based on actual figures, to the mover of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that should the resolution of the hon. member for Laurier be put to a vote I would be pleased to support it, subject to certain improvements and the deletion of this paragraph which provides for the establishment of a new agency, because I believe we now have all the necessary agencies for such a construction.
Indeed, the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works and, perhaps, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could be authorized to grant loans to certain private companies for the construction of public buildings or bridges which would be used by part of such a large population as that of Canada's metropolis.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the preceding speakers who gave this resolution their support.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) for having introduced this resolution in the house, and tell him how appropriate such a proposal is in view of the fact that he put it in a new and original light which emphasizes the complex problems we have to solve, if we want to provide the citizens of the Montreal area with more convenient means of communication.

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
Mr. Speaker, I should like to limit my remarks to paragraph 3 of the resolution, which provides for the building of other bridges across the St. Lawrence river, at Montreal, and especially inform the house of the need for an additional bridge in eastern Montreal to link with the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
Since the remarks made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bour-bonnais) do cast some doubt as to what the Liberal members have done while the Liberal government was in office as well as to the originality of this resolution, I should like to prove to him that, several years ago, we took an interest in this matter, and that this resolution which is now being submitted to us presents new and original considerations which are necessitated by the increasing number of complex problems resulting from the St. Lawrence seaway.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to page 706 of Hansard for January 31, 1955, where I stated:
I would like here, in passing, to suggest to the government to take Into consideration the building of a new bridge on the St. Lawrence river at the end of Pie IX boulevard; when I am suggesting the building of this additional bridge for Montreal, what I have in mind is the speeding up of traffic. As a matter of fact, all the traffic coming from the eastern part of the city must now go through the central part of the town in order to cross Jacques Cartier bridge; this Pie IX boulevard bridge would link the south shore of the river with eastern Montreal, and would connect directly the Laurentian highway with Pie IX boulevard at St. Vincent de Paul.
I should like now to refer to page 4298 of Hansard for August 29, 1958, where I stated:
I now want to bring the minister up to date on the various conversations-
I was then addressing myself to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), in connection with his department's estimates.
I now want to bring the minister up to date on the various conversations I have had on this subject with the former minister of transport, Mr. Marler. The former minister of transport, having instantly recognized the need for a third bridge in Montreal East, had decided in 1957 to submit the matter to the Council of Ministers, once work on the bridge of the lie des Soeurs (now Champlain bridge) had been completed. I am sure the minister will not refuse to take my word on this, but I must tell him that the matter goes much farther than that, for even the name of this new bridge was dragged into the discussions.
As controversy was raging at the time about the name chosen by the C.N.R. authorities for the new hotel, I had suggested to the former minister of transport that the authorities of the city of Montreal, as well as the residents of Montreal East, would be only too proud if we called this bridge after Montreal's founder, Maisonneuve. To this, the former minister of
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
transport had replied to me that it was not the practice of the former Liberal government to impose names for constructions under its jurisdiction.
I must say, in this connection, that the present government followed our policy in selecting the name of Champlain bridge.
The former minister of transport had, however, promised me that if the authorities of the city of Montreal, and the public bodies concerned, agreed upon calling it Maisonneuve bridge, then the government of that time would be happy to agree.
Then, I added:
The minister will appreciate, no doubt, the work that has already been done by Liberal members toward the construction of this third bridge over the St. Lawrence river, and he will also appreciate the fact that even the name has almost been chosen.
This, I believe, answers very well the remarks just made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that since the beginning of the seaway construction more particularly, new needs have cropped up which require the co-ordination of means, such as those suggested by the hon. member for Laurier, to solve the problem.
Now, in connection with a certain remark made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, may I say that I took an interest myself in the matter, and I would like to see a member opposite give us before the end of this debate, and based on Hansard, a single example of any steps taken by a Conservative member of parliament in connection with bridges on the island of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the south shore of the St. Lawrence river is now going through a period of industrial expansion, and this makes it even more imperious and more urgent to build a new bridge in the east of Montreal. However, such a bridge will meet our needs only inasmuch as there is some co-ordination in the study of the matter. I think the resolution put forward today by the hon. member for Laurier is the most original and the most adequate one ever introduced in this house on the subject.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to our honourable friends opposite that they have been managing the country for two years and that the problems which then existed regarding the need for building a bridge in the Montreal area have become greater and even more complex in the last two years.
Not only do I not recall ever reading any suggestions from a Conservative member in Hansard, but I have seen no reference to the matter in the speech from the throne, nor

have I heard of any contemplated legislation to deal with this problem which was so ably dealt with today by the hon. member for Laurier. As a matter of fact, if we are now discussing this question, and if it is being brought to the forefront-it will be in the news and will be discussed by several municipal councils-the credit goes to none other than the hon. member for Laurier, the mover of this resolution.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the house that I favour this motion. I hope our friends in the Conservative party will forget about party lines and will vote in favour of this proposal which can give us the key to the problem of communication facilities facing Montreal today. The fact that the hon. member for Laurier will be credited for it should not prevent them from voting in favour of this proposal.


Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution surely deserves much attention from the members of the house. In fact, not only does it deserve the attention of hon. members representing constituencies affected by the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, but I know the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny), for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and for St. James (Mr. Campeau) are particularly interested in this resolution.
I know also, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Longueuil would like very much to express the views of his constituents, but as he occupies here a position which forbids him to take part in the debate, he cannot do so. Besides he may have to stop us, members from the Montreal area, if we go too far or if we are out of order.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution must be of tremendous interest to all hon. members from the Montreal area, on either side of the house.
That is why I take part in this debate.
Before I come to the heart of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I offer my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) for having moved the resolution which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a public corporation or bridge authority which would be empowered:
1.	To acquire from the national harbours board, the ownership of (i) the Jacques Cartier bridge; and (ii) the Nuns' island bridge (when completed).
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority Of course,
-upon reasonable terms and conditions;
2.	To lease from the Canadian National Railways the facilities for motor vehicles over the Victoria bridge, upon reasonable terms and conditions;
3.	To build other bridges across the St. Lawrence river at Montreal; and
4.	To operate all such facilities for the convenience of the public, using the revenues therefrom to meet the expenses of administration and operation and the costs of interest and amortization.
I congratulate the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) for having introduced this resolution. But what I find rather strange is that nobody ever complained about the situation although the Jacques Cartier bridge was built almost thirty years ago and although the hon. member for Laurier, who has been a member of this house for more than twenty years and who was also minister of transport for quite a few years, never thought of introducing before now such a motion. I think his suggestion is very interesting and is welcomed by all the members of this house. But as far as I am concerned, there are much more important problems than that of organizing a government agency or a bridge administration.
Mr. Speaker, according to my calculations, there are now eight bridges to accommodate the people of the island of Montreal, leading to and from the city. At the southeastern end of Montreal island, we have the Charlemagne bridge; moving toward the centre, we come to the Jacques Cartier bridge; a little farther west, the Victoria bridge, and again a little farther west and to the north, we have the Mercier bridge; at the western limit, we have the Ste. Anne de Bellevue bridge; on the northwest side, there is the Cartierville bridge and a little more toward the centre there is the Viau bridge. And later on, a few years from now, we shall have a ninth bridge, the Champlain bridge leading to Nuns' island.
We have now those eight bridges, Mr. Speaker, and we will have another one a few years from now to serve a population of over 1J million spread over an area of approximately 350 square miles. Something which is even stranger yet, there is in the northern part of Laval constituency which I have the honour and pleasure of representing in this house, an island adjacent to the island of Montreal, known as Jesus island the population of which is much smaller than that of Montreal, since it numbers approximately
1750	HOUSE OF
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority
100,000	people only. The area of Jesus island is approximately half that of the city of Montreal, or approximately 150 square miles.
In addition, Jesus island has eight bridges, as many as the island of Montreal. We have the Cartierville bridge at the south-west tip, the Viau and St. Eustache bridges in the centre part, and the Pie IX bridge in the north. We also have the Terrebonne bridge which was built by the city of Terrebonne in co-operation with the present provincial government. This bridge is a tremendous help to the municipality, on account of the tolls it provides. In addition, we have two other magnificent bridges on Jesus island.
We also have a magnificent highway with a weekly traffic of about 50,000 cars. There is no other highway like this one, not only in this country, but in the whole world. With all due deference to my honourable colleagues opposite, the building of this magnificent highway is due to the present premier of Quebec.
Proportionally to its population, Jesus island has a bridge per 12,000 people while in Montreal they have a bridge per 200,000 people. I believe it is urgent to build a bridge on the island of Montreal in view of the fast development of the area. I think that the pace of development on the south and north shores of the St. Lawrence river is due to the St. Lawrence seaway which has brought and will bring many industries and business establishments to both sides of the river.
Mr. Speaker, within a few years, the population on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river will have increased threefold and the population of Montreal will certainly be over 2J million people. I think that the means of communication between Montreal and the south shore are of the greatest importance. The approaches to the bridges paralyse traffic. Access roads would paralyse traffic at peak hours in particular and it would take hours to cross either the Jacques Cartier or the Victoria bridges. If traffic is paralysed, this will enormously delay the delevopment of industry, of trade and of housing construction.
Some of the different members who spoke before me have said that in 1949, traffic on the Jacques Cartier bridge had been over
4,500,000	cars and that the number of cars which will be crossing it in 1959 will reach 12 million. I think it is necessary for the present government to take steps immediately in order to do away with the bottlenecks on both Jacques Cartier bridge and Victoria bridge. This is an urgent problem. It may build approaches for all the bridges that are


needed in the Montreal area, to serve the people of the island of Montreal entering or leaving the city.
I also think, Mr. Speaker, that the government should at once order an extensive survey to be made immediately in order to hasten the construction of Champlain bridge or Nuns' island bridge if you want to call it that way. That bridge should be completed at the latest in 1961, or if you want a maximum delay in 1962.
For all the reasons I just mentioned, I believe the present federal government should consider building a new bridge in the east end of Montreal, which would enable not only the people of the Montreal area but the people of Canada and of the United States to visit our part of the country which we all cherish. The bridge should be built in the eastern section and should link the city of Montreal to the south shore district, that is to the following areas, Fatima, Vercheres, Varennes and Boucherville.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that building a new bridge at a possible cost of $40 million or $50 million requires much study and long and serious consideration. That is why this afternoon, most of the members from the Montreal area who know the district and who are aware of the need of another bridge in the east, have addressed the house. I am not ready to say right now that such a bridge should be built and paid entirely by the federal government. The necessary funds could perhaps be loaned for the construction of this bridge, in the same way, for instance, that the government is loaning millions at the present time to the central mortgage and housing corporation in order to enable Canadians to build homes or to establish businesses. I do not see why the federal government could not loan such a sum of money to permit the construction of a new bridge, the cost of which would be paid off in 25 to 30 years, as was the case for the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge. Perhaps the federal government might ask the provincial government, the municipal councils of Montreal and the surrounding cities on the south shore to contribute and co-operate in order to help the people in the area of Montreal and of the south shore. That would make it easier for the Canadian people as a whole to go in and out of our city, the metropolis of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the construction of such a bridge in the near future would also remedy unemployment now obtaining throughout this country and more particularly so in the Montreal area. And certainly, a construction project the cost of which may vary between 40 and 50 million dollars would provide daily work to 3,000 or 4,000 people for the

next two, three or perhaps four years. Besides, we must take into account the labour force that would be engaged in the production of building materials required for such a project, that would reduce the number of unemployed and could provide work for 8,000 to 10,000 people for a period of three or four years in the city of Montreal.
(Text):
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Rodrigue Bourdages: Mr. Speaker, now that I have had a good dinner, I take pleasure in resuming my remarks concerning paragraph 3 of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Laurier.
At the outset, this afternoon I congratulated the hon. member for Laurier and then I dealt with the construction of a new bridge in the eastern part of Montreal. Tonight I want to say that I am not speaking in my own behalf only; I am speaking on behalf of all the members from the Montreal area. I want to support them vigourously and encourage them to carry on along the lines of this proposal.
I support the hon. members from the Montreal area who are concerned in the matter. I would like to support my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Gil-let), as well as my other colleagues the hon. members for St. Mary (Mr. Va-lade), St. James (Mr. Campeau) and Lon-gueuil (Mr. Sevigny) who has not the pleasure to make the voice of his electors heard, of the hon. member for Vau-dreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais), the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) as well as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) whom you will hear in a few moments.
I also want to speak on behalf not only of the Montreal area members but of the people of the city of Montreal and its neighbouring communities, which over the years, have been asking for a new bridge to be built in the east end of Montreal. There have been requests by a great many associations in that city. There have been requests by the Northern Businessmen's Association, which comprises 1,800 businessmen from all over the city of Montreal. We also had requests from the Eastern Businessmen's Association, from the chambers of commerce, and all businessmen's organizations which may exist in our neighbourhood. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the government will
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority take note of the comments we made this afternoon and that it will be able, in the not too distant future, to take the necessary steps to have a new bridge built in the east end of Montreal. I am so convinced that the government will grant us that bridge that I am even ready to suggest a name for it. We might call it the Maisonneuve bridge or the Madeleine-de-Vercheres bridge. I am sure that all the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. members will be welcomed by the government and that it will undertake an extensive study of that matter and that in the near future we shall get a bridge in the east end of Montreal.
According to statistics, certain manufacturers in the east end of Montreal were able to produce in 1957 goods to the value of more than $740 million. That again shows that a new bridge should be built now.
I said that there were first class roads and bridges in Laval constituency which it is my privilege to represent, and that they were due to the initiative of the present premier of Quebec. In my opinion, and nobody will deny it, the present premier of the province of Quebec is the greatest premier the province ever had.
It might be appropriate to consider the possibility of building a tunnel instead of a bridge. In fact, a tunnel would speed up traffic and would not be subject to our difficult climate. In winter there would be no ice to impede traffic and many accidents due to slippery roads would thus be avoided. The building of a tunnel could be entrusted to private enterprise. A tunnel, for instance, like the one in the vicinity of New York, or in Windsor, Ontario, going to Detroit. Those tunnels are built by private interests and are paying propositions. I am sure that in the Montreal area some contractors would be prepared to build such a tunnel at their own cost and risk, provided the government would guarantee the cost of such a project.


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, may I add a few remarks to those made by previous speakers on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).
As the representative of a Montreal constituency, I am very much interested in this motion because it is of interest to all the people of Montreal.
As you know, Montreal is an island with a southern shore about 30 miles long. To serve the majority of the people in Montreal, there are now two bridges linking the island with the south shore.
In the last 10 years, Montreal has been going through an unprecedented development in the fields of business, industry and housing. The population of Montreal is over a
1752	HOUSE OF
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority tenth of Canada's population, and it is a well known fact that a large proportion of the people are bottled up on this island. Considering the number of people living there the outlets these people can use to reach the south shore are inadequate. Traffic is intense, and as Montreal is also a business and industrial city where many people come to do business, the result is that traffic in the city, with its two bridges serving the greater part of the population, raises a real problem.
To illustrate this, I would point out that in 1959, there were 450,000 motor vehicles registered in the city of Montreal, that is for Montreal only, not including the suburbs; if you add to that motor vehicles coming from Pointe aux Trembles and from the north, and the fact that a certain number of outsiders go through Montreal daily, you find that from 600,000 to 700,000 motor vehicles travel daily in the city of Montreal.
Montreal having experienced an enormous industrial and commercial development, the south shore, in turn, has had a spectacular growth these last ten years and more particularly since the beginning of the St. Lawrence seaway project. Many industries, Mr. Speaker, have been established on the south shore and many housing projects have also mushroomed. These people come to Montreal and the bridges they use are no longer adequate.
The southern shore is bound to enjoy considerable development in the next few years, and serious observers, as well as the members of the Gordon commission, foresee an industrial expansion, and at the same time, a considerable increase in population in the next decade.
I have been told that Champlain bridge will improve traffic conditions on Montreal island. Let me merely answer that the bridge will be mainly of service to people in the western part of that island.
If for the past ten years Montreal has enjoyed substantial development, the suburban towns along the St. Lawrence have also gone through a period of considerable expansion in the industrial and housing fields. All people who live in Montreal East, Pointe aux Trembles, Repentigny, and other adjacent municipalities have to cross part of Montreal island when they want to go to the south shore and their travelling through that city adds to traffic congestion and is causing quite a lot of trouble.
If a bridge were built in the eastern part of Montreal island, it would be of great benefit to many Montreal people who want to get to the south shore and eliminate part of the serious traffic problem in downtown Montreal.


Moreover, people who live in eastern Montreal or near Montreal island, have to travel 10 to 15 miles to reach Jacques Cartier bridge, the only one they can use to get to the south shore.
In view of this serious problem, Mr. Speaker, I think that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier is justified, and that the government should devote serious study to the idea of creating a crown corporation which would acquire Jacques Cartier bridge and Champlain bridge on completion, then rent from the Canadian National Railways all practicable approaches to Victoria bridge and operate those bridges for the greater convenience of the public. With the revenue drawn from them, the corporation might build other bridges, to the greater advantage of the people of Montreal and as a stimulant to and a safeguard of its business and industry.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau) participating in the debate this afternoon, has expressed his attitude with regard to the resolution now under consideration. He spoke much more about Montreal harbour than about the need for the Montreal population to be linked to the south shore. He subordinated the building of bridges to the organization and efficiency of Montreal harbour. He referred to the views of Mr. Murray Hayes, vicepresident of the Montreal executive committee, about the Montreal harbour development.
He also told us, without any supporting evidence, that the hon. member for Laurier had just rediscovered Montreal. I could well reply to him that it is a good thing, once in a while, to discover something and grasp at once all its importance within an overall design.
For his part, the hon. member for St. James did not discover anything but seems rather immersed in the affairs of Montreal harbour, linking harbour development with his own town-planning in Montreal itself.
We know that the hon. member for St. James is getting substantial fees from the city of Montreal for work he has done, according to certain members of the executive committee, when he was employed by the city of Montreal prior to becoming member for St. James.
In his outline, the hon. member for St. James seemed more concerned with his personal interests than with those of the population of Montreal.
He also spoke of the good old days of the Liberal party, as if he envied the policy of the Liberal party toward the city of Montreal. In this connection, I may say to him that if

his government does as much as the Liberal party has done tor the city of Montreal and its population, we shall be satisfied.
The hon. member for St. James also referred to contracts granted by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, of which the hon. member for Laurier was chairman, contracts which were higher than originally contemplated. I must tell the hon. member for St. James that his argument is rather flimsy, because all those initial estimates were made by engineers-and he is an engineer himself-and the changes were also requested by engineers. They were changes over which neither the minister nor the chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority had any control. It happened that the hon. member for St. James made miscalculations about the city of Montreal, but nobody dared raise any doubt about his ability, nor about that of the hon. member for Laurier, in his capacity as chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
I wanted to say these things to the hon. member for St. James in order to show him that the population of Montreal is leaning more heavily on the devotion of hon. members who think more of the general interest of the population than their own personal interest.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Laurier for moving this resolution, and I hope that organizations, public bodies and municipalities will be able to use the ideas put forward during this discussion and will avail themselves of those ideas to urge action upon the government and obtain a more adequate number of bridges to serve the people of Montreal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the federal constituency of Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm, which is located a few miles from Montreal and whose economic life is closely linked to that of the metropolis, I feel it is my duty to humbly state my views before the house.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has developed a more understanding attitude. He is a recent convert to the cause of Montreal, in other words a Montreal neophyte. He excels not only at seaway digging, but is also a good surface operator, when it comes to "Montrealizing". When, for many years he represented Stormont, and at the same time held the office of minister of transport, he ignored the city of Montreal, Canada's largest city. Now that he represents Laurier in the opposition, he turns his back on Cornwall and looks to Montreal.
While he was chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, he was, I might say, re-
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority sponsible for the traffic slow-downs that occurred between Montreal and the south shore and vice versa. The hon. member for Laurier, now in the opposition, wields less influence than the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was listening to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). In all fairness, I will point out to him that the government of the province of Quebec has liberally contributed to the construction of bridges and the building of access highways to the metropolis, as far as its responsibility goes.
The federal government is surely in a better financial position than the provincial government and the Canadian metropolis, because it is getting the lion's share of taxes paid by the people of Montreal and of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Denis-


Mr. Boulanger:: Go tell that to Mr. Duplessis!


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) is doing a disservice to his electors in Montreal. When his government was in power, the hon. member for St. Denis remained riveted to his seat in the House of Commons, instead of rising in his place to ask the then minister of transport-that is the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier)-for another bridge for the eastern part of the metropolis. Mr. Speaker, the government of the province of Quebec is financially poorer than the federal government. In its own field and jurisdiction, the provincial government did certainly contribute to the economic development of Montreal. The then federal Liberal government was in power for twenty-five years. It ignored the city of Montreal. It refused to give it other bridges. It is Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said that the 20th century would be that of Canada, and I add that of the metropolis of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Die-fenbaker) in co-operation with the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) will certainly say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right and that he will make the 20th century the century of Montreal, the century of the province of Quebec and surely of the whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as metropolis of Canada and as the economic centre of the country, Montreal should have had bridges at least fifteen years ago. Surely, he who was then hon. minister of transport and is now hon. member for Laurier, has failed in this regard. He did not really study the economic

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority problems of the Montreal area. To expand, to grow, to develop, the Montreal area needs many bridges and, unfortunately, the former government did not realize its responsibilities and neglected Montreal. Today, we may say that, if Montreal and its region have suffered, it was certainly due to the indifference of the former government. There is no doubt that the city of Montreal is in need of bridges to the south shore. Facilitating access to the metropolis means economic, industrial and financial progress for the whole of Canada. Montreal is the economic heart of the province of Quebec and even of the country. By getting access roads, the city would expand its economy and give to the neighbouring area and to this country a corresponding economic activity.
I congratulate the present government for its decision to build Champlain bridge, a name which is a symbol of progress and gives prominence to one of our national heroes.
It is all very well to multiply roads and highways on the island, and to improve them, the important thing is to give Montreal other bridges to connect the metropolis with the south shore. The city of Montreal has been served for the last 25 years by exactly the same ways of outside communication. No significant improvement has been brought to Montreal for a quarter of a century.
Yet the population of Montreal island and of the neighbouring islands has increased. Industrial plants have doubled and even tripled on the island. Cars have multiplied at such a rate that Montreal people are imprisoned on their island. Yet communication facilities have remained unchanged.
Apart from the need for industrial development on the south shore, or rather in view of such development, present traffic requirements already exceed existing facilities, so that even with a new bridge, the facilities will still be overloaded. We recall the battles that were fought to avoid traffic interruption during the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. An additional lane was obtained for the Jacques Cartier bridge. Instead of three lanes inadequate for a traffic load of between 100,000 to 115,000 cars per weekend in 1954, there are now four lanes accommodating 130,000 to 150,000 cars in 1958. There has therefore been no gain, no improvement in the traffic problem on the east side.
Not only is there no improvement in the west, at Mercier bridge, but traffic is increasingly congested. The south section of the bridge was raised some 120 feet and this opportunity was seized for building four lanes and new approaches; but the bridge itself was left with two lanes. Yet traffic rose from
60.000	to 67,000 per week-end in 1954, to
78.000	and even 85,000 per week-end in 1958.
Mr. Speaker, in 1954, thousands and thousands of cars crossed the bridge each weekend, with bottlenecks causing two to three hours' delay. After another lane was added on the east side in 1958, between 78,000 and
80.000	cars travelled that way on the weekend, and tie-ups were almost as serious as in 1954. Now, since that year, the relevant authorities have forcefully maintained that they doubled the capacity of the bridge. The figures I just quoted clearly indicate that, even if new approaches were built for the existing bridge, nothing was gained, because twice as many cars are now using them.
On January 28, 1955, it was reported in the Montreal daily press, that the St. Lawrence seaway and the Canadian National Railways would spend $6 million dollars for approaches to Victoria bridge for the highway as well as for the railway traffic. At that time, a lift-bridge was being planned for both kinds of traffic. On March 13th,	1956,
Canadian National Railway officials announced their decision to build a junction in the residential district of St. Lambert. That junction would have used the second lift-bridge which the St. Lawrence seaway authority had planned to build at the head of the St. Lambert locks in order to ensure uninterrupted traffic, and which would meet Victoria bridge at the 17th span.
There was quite a turmoil among south shore municipalities and in the city of Montreal. In spite of every objection those pillars were erected.
In November 1958, newspapers announced the final works to the superstructure of that branch line, that is the building of an overpass for highway traffic, at the junction of the branch line and of the main line on Victoria bridge, as well as the closing for a period of 8 to 10 weeks in 1959 and for a longer period in 1960, of one of the two present traffic lanes on Victoria bridge. The two-hour traffic jams of 1954 may very well be doubled, according to the increase in the number of cars.
Mr. Speaker, may I join with the other members for the Montreal area in paying tribute to the hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Sevigny) who often met with his distinguished colleagues of the Montreal area in making certain representations, in expressing their opinions about the traffic jams that will result from the closing of one of the two traffic lanes on the Victoria bridge. I know that, in this regard, he has met, in the company of other Conservative members, with the responsible authorities.

The hon. member for Longueuil even engaged an engineer to draw a plan designed to improve the approaches to Victoria bridge in order the ensure a continuous flow of traffic.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to pay public tribute in this house to the hon. member for Longueuil and the representatives from Montreal who have made and are still making the necessary representations to the authorities of the Department of Transport and who are trying to solve this problem. Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, for a quarter of a century, there has been no member to make the voice of the metropolis of Canada heard in this house.
Hon. members of the Montreal area are working for their fellow citizens and are helping find a solution to the problems of the metropolis of Canada. The metropolis, or Montreal, is the economic focus of the country's future.
If, in the future it is at all possible for the government to solve that problem, the population of Montreal and vicinity, the people of the province of Quebec will commend the hon. member for Longueuil and his colleagues of the Montreal area. The hon. member for Longueuil will have played his own part, along with the government, to make the twentieth century the century of Canada, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier so rightly said.
Mr. Speaker, why was construction of the Champlain bridge delayed? I should like at this point to commend the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the government authorities for giving this bridge the name of Champlain, as a tribute to one of our great national figures. Mr. Speaker, it was only after repeated requests on the part of the municipal authorities, and repeated demands from newspapers, service clubs, chambers of commerce and the board of trade, that the people of greater Montreal learned from big headlines in the July 18 and July 20, 1955 editions of Montreal papers, that the Department of Transport at Ottawa had agreed in principle to a plan for improving communication facilities between Montreal and the south shore.
Four months later, on November 17, 1955, press reports announced the construction, by the national harbours board, of an elevated bridge, known today as the Champlain bridge, at a cost of approximately $25 million. The bridge was to be completed at the end of 1958. Here is a bridge that was to be started, as had been announced, in 1955, and was to be from eight to nine years abuilding. Above the southern channel, between Cornwall island and the United States, it took two years to build an elevated suspended bridge. The bridge had to be completed before ships could use the canal in
Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority the fall of 1958, and the means were taken to complete the work in due time. In Montreal there was no reason to hurry, no ships to let through, there was only the matter of satisfying the vital needs of the people.
Here in this house, I wish to commend and express personal thanks to the Minister of Transport who, in co-operation with the government, helped speed up construction of the Champlain bridge, a magnificent structure which will materialize in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, nobody will deny that Montreal needs all these present bridges and even additional bridges. Was it not the St. Lawrence seaway authority, directed by its former president, now member for Laurier, who ordered the deepening of the St. Lawrence and the way it is being carried out, so as to provide not only advantages but many temporary or permanent inconveniences for the Montreal area?
If the former government in Ottawa had sooner taken a decision about Champlain bridge, that bridge would probably be completed now and the planned traffic restrictions on Victoria bridge, because of the St. Lawrence seaway would become much less disturbing.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the government to study the possibility of building another bridge in eastern Montreal. At this point I want to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil. I want to congratulate him once again. I would not -want to strain his humility, but the hon. member for Longueuil, with his colleagues of the Montreal area, has already made and continues to make many representations, that is, all necessary representations to the responsible authorities in view of getting another bridge for the eastern part of the metropolis. There is a possibility that this project may become a reality in a not too distant future. Credit will go to the hon. member for Longueuil and to his distinguished colleagues of the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, the city of Montreal must have other bridges for its development and in order that the area may grow and prosper. It is important for the Montreal area to have other bridges for civil defence purposes. What would happen if, by accident, we should have a war, or if a bomb or an atomic missile should fall on Montreal? We would need roads to evacuate the metropolis.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that another bridge in the eastern part of the city is essential to the economic growth and to the civil defence of Montreal.


Samuel Boulanger: Then, call for a vote.

Proposed Montreal Bridge Authority


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the new bridge in eastern Montreal could be built for example, at the end of the island, at Pointe aux Trembles. Use could be made of Sainte Therese Island, in the St. Lawrence river. The cost of building this bridge would be lessened and would allow a housing development on Sainte Therese island. Residents of eastern Montreal and of the most beautiful riding in this country, the federal riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, as well as the neighbouring constituencies, would thus be able to use the bridge to travel to the south shore.
Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion? As we are celebrating this year the second centenary of the battle of the Plains of Abraham I would favour giving the bridge the name of the Marquis of Montcalm. I know that other hon. members would like to see it named after Maisonneuve, because they did not succeed with a certain hotel in Montreal. We have now in that city the park Maisonneuve, the district of Maisonneuve and we also have the Maisonneuve market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is departing somewhat from the resolution when he deals with the naming of bridges and hotels, etc.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


Azellus Denis: He is all mixed up!


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -in the resolution, the hon. member referred to new bridges, new bridge building projects for Montreal island. Perhaps I have somewhat strayed from the subject matter, but, in any case, I did so quite intentionally, so that if some day a bridge is built in eastern Montreal, it might be designated by that name.
Mr. Speaker, later on the government could also build another bridge in St. Sulpice in the constituency of L'Assomption, because there is looming there an extraordinary residential development in the town of Re-pentigny. There is also a similar development in St. Sulpice, and Montreal will probably extend up to Berthier, some day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to keep on studying the problem of the metropolis of Canada. I know that the Minister of Transport, in co-operation with the government, would like, more than ever, to find a solution to the problem of the metropolis of Canada and of the Montreal area.
The solution of the problem will certainly not take 25 years. The Minister of Transport, in co-operation with the hon. member for Longueuil and his distinguished colleagues are now considering the project so that the city of Montreal may remain the metropolis


of Canada and continue to co-operate and work for its economic, industrial and national welfare.
(Text):


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I think even a Toronto member would be justified in saying that the hon. members from Montreal today have had a field day. One of the things which has concerned us, Mr. Speaker, and which I think was the subject of a point raised today by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), is the limited time which we have for debate on private members' day. Regardless of your ruling, sir, in connection with the observations made today by that hon. member, at the most we only have three more private members' days. I am aware that there are many other subjects which should be debated. There are many other members with resolutions on the order paper, and I think it is only fair that we should give them some opportunity to be reached.
Therefore, sir, I move:
That the debate on the proposed resolution of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) standing in the order paper as No. 3 under notices of motion and the proposed amendment thereto of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) be now adjourned.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before you put the motion. The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) did rise to take part in this debate a moment ago, but you saw the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) following the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). With all due respect to Your Honour's decision, I thought perhaps that was irregular.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I said I thought, with all due respect to Your Honour's decision, it was irregular. I do not see anything the matter with that language. I hope 1 am not abusing my privileges, but what I was going to say was that I had expected I would be able to speak on the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), and I hope I will not be pi-evented from doing so by this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I did not see the hon. member on my left or I would have recognized him because, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has said, when there is a debate the custom which has been followed is to call hon. members from alternate sides. The hon. member is quite right when he says that in recognizing the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) I recognized a second member from the same side. That was unintentional on my part.

Northern Alberta Railways
However, the motion before us having been made, it is my duty to put it to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to make one observation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: The Speaker has taken his seat which indicates he is ready to hear me.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member for York West is willing to let his motion stand until the hon. member has spoken, I have no choice but to put the motion.


Some hon. Members:: A new form of
closure.


John Borden Hamilton: If we continue this debate, even with one other speaker, we will lose the opportunity to have any debate at all on the next resolution.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of examining the system of ownership and operation of the Northern Alberta Railways, and the question of such ownership, operation and related matters be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be best to give a short history of the facts which lie behind this particular resolution on the grounds stated many years ago by Abraham Lincoln that we first should decide where we are and whither we are going so that we best know what to do and how to do it.
The Northern Alberta Railways is a system lying, as its name would imply, in the northern part of the province of Alberta. The

Northern Alberta Railways purpose for which it was originally designed and constructed was to aid the settlement and development of that particular area of Canada. It was originally commenced by private enterprise. During the course of construction many difficulties beset the contractors and the people engaged in this project. The result was that the provincial government of Alberta was compelled to take over first the construction and then, after the construction was completed, the operation of this railway. It was operated by the government of Alberta for a great many years until 1929. In 1929 the people of the Peace river and the government of the province of Alberta felt that this was a railway system that might better be taken over and developed by some corporation which was more adequately equipped to handle the type of service which was required. Consequently, negotiations were commenced between the provincial government and the two railway systems.
Some controversy arose as to what would actually develop from the point of view of who would operate the railway. The people of the Peace river country felt that their interests would be better served by the public ownership of the Canadian National Railways system. On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific railway was interested in developing the service at that time and it made certain offers to the provincial government, which were not accepted. Eventually, as a result of the discussions and the arguments, one of those compromises was arrived at, which seems to happen in connection with most great problems confronting governments. As a result of that compromise what I would call a monstrosity was created, a factual and legal monstrosity, consisting of joint ownership between the privately owned system of the Canadian Pacific railway and the publicly owned system of the Canadian National Railways.
In view of the controversy which has arisen as to the development of the northern part of Canada by railway line construction, I think it is interesting to note here that at that particular time the Canadian Pacific railway was very keen to acquire the system in question. It made substantial offers to the provincial government, and the reasons which it gave, the reasons which were assigned for its view, were that the agricultural production of the Peace river country was just starting to come into its own and it felt that this was a proper condition for its particular railway system. In any event the situation developed to the point where in 1929 a statute was enacted by the government of Canada under the name of the Northern Alberta Railways Act. This

statute provided inter alia for the taking over of the lines then owned by the government of Alberta by those two railway systems, namely the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, on a joint basis, each having an equal share in the undertaking and each presumably paying one half of the purchase price.
I am not going into all the details of that original enactment, but it is interesting to note that the purchase price was established by agreement and is appended as schedule A to the act, which is chapter 48 of the statutes of Canada, 1929. Schedule A provided, amongst other things, that the purchase price to be paid to the province of Alberta be the sum of $15,580,000. In addition, the two systems would take over certain undertakings and obligations consisting of approximately $16 million. That appears to be the total of the purchase price.
The system in question has been operating since 1929 to the present day. I would like to give the house some of the details of the physical assets which constitute this system of railways. There are about 1,000 miles of rail line which are manned and operated by about 1,400 employees. Edmonton is the commencing point of the railway. It runs due north to a place called McLennan where it separates, the northern half then travelling north across the Peace river to one terminal at Hines Creek, which is about 80 miles from the British Columbia border. The other section travels from McLennan to Grande Prairie and then on to Dawson Creek. In addition to this particular line, which is the main line, there is another railway line which travels from Edmonton to Fort McMurray, where it makes connection on the Athabaska river with the navigation system which for many years has been operating to the Northwest Territories. There is also a third line which runs to the town of Barrhead. I think that constitutes in the main the complete system of this railway line.
Under the management system-and here, Mr. Speaker, I go largely on hearsay and as I understand the situation-the custom has been, first, for the Canadian National Railways to appoint a general manager for a period of five years, and thereafter the Canadian Pacific railway to appoint a general manager for five years, and so on. I understand this practice was commenced at the time the N.A.R. was organized and has been continued until the present date.
The people of the Peace river country feel that as a result the operations of this railway system have not been for the benefit of the people. We feel that here is a situation in

Northern Alberta Railways
which these two great competing railway systems each owns a half share and each has a veto power in connection with the control and operation of the smaller system. We have inevitably felt that such a system has not been to our advantage. When some situation arises which would require something to be done by the railway management, then we have been of the opinion that the solution of this problem would be one which would be for the benefit of the large railway companies and not for the benefit of the people.
This has been the premise upon which I have based this resolution. I have been interested for some time in making inquiries as to the financial operations of this railroad. I have compiled here some statistics furnished by the dominion bureau of statistics on the financial position of this Northern Alberta Railways system during the years 1940 to 1956, inclusive. I would ask leave to have this printed in Hansard rather than read it to the house tonight because it is rather lengthy.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have this printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: The table follows:

-a

o



SELECTED FINANCIAL STATISTICS, NORTHERN ALBERTA RAILWAYS COMPANY 1940-1956

[Stage Direction]
Year	Rail (i) Operating Revenues	Rail (i) Operating Expenses	Net (*) Rail Operating Revenues	Tax Accruals	Net Operating Income (Loss)	Net Income from Outside Operations	Total Operating Income	Total Non- Operating Income	Gross Corporate Income	Total Non- Operating Expenses	Net Corporate Income (Loss)
					dollars						
1940...	2,517,430	1,737,422	780,008	84,578	695,430	295	695,725	951,269	1,646,994	1,612,618	34,3761941...	3,000,730	2,087,993	912,737	94,967	817,770	403	818,173	837,756	1,655,929	1,654,421	1,5081942...	6,773,445	3,420,658	3,352,787	49,084	3,303,703	541	3,304,244	158,151	3,462,395	3,479,540	(17,145)1943...	11,177,033	6,258,964	4,918,069	56,777	4,861,292	958	4,862,250	250,947	5,113,197	5,110,245	(3,048)1944...	7,323,676	5,249,851	2,073,825	65,837	2,007,988	1,406	2,009,394	563,339	2,572,733	2,309,639	263,0941945...	5,337,712	4,116,862	1,220,850	68,752	1,152,098	1,895	1,153,993	941,661	2,095,654	2,097,556	(1,902)1946...	5,340,411	4,228,444	1,111,967	613,366(2)	498,601	(3)	-	1,051,568	1,550,169	1,576,670	26,501)1947...	5,937,742	4,876,958	1,060,784	838,828?)	221,956	(3)	-	1,343,185	1,565,141	1,578,152	(13,011)1948...	7,036,633	6,284,883	751,750	1,120,675 (*)	(368,925)	(3)	-	370,847	1,922	1,601	3211949...	7,141,760	6,507,938	633,822	1,109,457 C2)	(475,635)	(3)	-	460,189	(15,446)	-	(15,446)1950...	7,378,469	6,231,047	1,147,422	1,217,841 (2)	(70,419)	(3)	-	58,769	(11,650)	150	(11,800)1951...	7,972,389	6,698,223	1,274,166	1,183,317 (2)	90,849	(3)	-	41,185	132,034	137,934	(5,900)1952...	9,580,949	7,771,100	1,809,849	1,526, ISO (2)	283,663	(3)	-	35,494	319,157	331,337	(12,180)1953...	9,108,989	8,064,382	1,044,607	1,532,561(2)	(487,954)	(3)	-	479,144	(8,810)	-	(8,810)1954...	9,022,525	8,232,562	789,963	1,720,652(2)	(930,689)	(3)	-	920,426	(10,263)	1,172	(11,435)1955...	10,857,988	8,048,268	2,809,720	1,632,750(2)	1,176,970	(3)	-	38,086	1,215,056	1,216,877	(1,821)1956...	12,422,216	9,285,619	3,136,597	1,982,476(2)	1,154,121	(3)	-	28,460	1,182,581	1,191,179	(8,598)
(l) Includes railway, express and commercial communications operations. (~) Includes rents and taxes.
(') Included with, "total non-operating income".
[Stage Direction]
w
w
o
[DOT]n
o
o
[Stage Direction]
s
o
[Stage Direction]
Northern Alberta Railways

The reason I have asked that that be considered is this: these years from 1940 to 1956, inclusive, include some excellent operating years during the war as well as some other excellent years the railway has experienced since that time. This statistical data provides a fair indication of the costs of operating this railway line and shows that it has made money. I feel this is quite important at this particular stage because I have heard the opinion expressed in certain quarters that at this stage in our development railway lines should be constructed and utilized purely for the benefit of our resources which are found in the north country. I, for one, take violent exception to that particular statement. This statement is founded, in part on the fact that these railway lines are not capable of operating at a reasonable profit. The statistical data which I have filed- I am not going to go into detail on it-has this peculiarity about it. There is an operating profit shown during this period from 1940 to 1956. The statement also indicates that in every year in question corporate income is shown as a profit.
Side by side with that is a statement referred to as a non-operating expense item. I am not a financial man, and there may be some particular reason behind this, but I have noticed that peculiarly enough that statement shows the expense item almost equalling the net corporate income. The result has been that during this period of some 16 years the financial position of the railway system has been such that it operated at a net profit of $65,000. We feel that if the financial operations of this railway system were exposed to the scrutiny and examination of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as I have indicated in this resolution, it would serve a very useful purpose. This is one of the main reasons for putting this resolution on the order paper, and why I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing it tonight.
However, that is not the only reason. There is an even more compelling factor at this time at which I think we should take a close look in connection with the operations of this railway system. Recently the Pacific Great Eastern railroad was completed into Dawson Creek on the one side of the Peace river and into the city of Fort St. John on the other side. I have already mentioned the fact that Dawson Creek is also one of the termini of the Northern Alberta railway system. I have made some inquiries as to what changes or developments there have been with relation to the freight tariff since this line from Vancouver has been completed into the Peace river country. I was not able to get all the facts that I would have liked, but I did find
Northern Alberta Railways that, with respect to carloads of cattle shipped from the Alberta side of Peace river to Vancouver the rate had been lowered from approximately $2.26 per hundredweight to $1.45. If one translates the saving represented into terms of a carload of cattle it comes to a total of $160.
I do not know concisely the numbers of carloads cattle and hogs shipped out of the Peace river country, but I believe it would be in the neighbourhood of 3,000 or 3,500. Not all of these would necessarily be consigned to the Pacific coast, although from information I have I am quite certain the Pacific coast could take a lot more of our livestock and livestock products. Certainly, however, this change in the freight tariff would mean savings to the people of the Peace river country of from a quarter of a million to half a million dollars a year.
When I look back I find that the people of our country first advocated the construction of this railway line to the coast in 1929. As a matter of fact, the Northern Alberta Railway Company statute from which I quoted contains a permissive clause to the effect that the new firm was to be allowed to construct two major branch lines, one to the Pacific coast and the second one from a point near Grimshaw, northern Alberta, to the northern boundary of the province of Alberta in a line which would lead directly to the south shore of Great Slave lake.
Let us take the first of these alternatives, the railway line to the Pacific coast. I think I am not overestimating the results when I say that if that railway line had, in fact, been constructed in 1929 or 1930 we would have had between a quarter of a million and a half million people in that area today. I have given figures which indicate the savings which would have resulted on one carload of cattle, for example. The same situation would apply with regard to goods being shipped from Vancouver into the Peace river country. I am not suggesting here that the result of the construction of that line 30 years ago would have been that the trade of the Peace river country would have been diverted, if I could use that word, to Vancouver, but the resultant decrease in the cost of goods coming in and the increased price of our production being shipped out would have served as a yardstick which, I am quite confident, would have had a beneficial effect on the standards of living of the people in our area.
As a matter of fact we hear now-and there has been in the past-quite a good deal of controversy with regard to this question of building a railway line into the Northwest Territories. It has been suggested that there has been some conflict between the city of
[Stage Direction]
Northern Alberta Railways Edmonton and the city of Vancouver as to which way the line should be built. I do not think there is any conflict at all. I think both points of view can be well and easily reconciled. The natural alliances-the economic, social, administrative and judicial alliances-of the people of the Peace river country on the Alberta side lie substantially with the remainder of Alberta.
The sole result of the increase in the productivity of the people of our country, and what I hope will be the increase in' the wealth of the Peace river country would naturally inure to the benefit of Edmonton. It is true enough-and I think properly so- that there would be some additional trade with the Pacific coast. After all, I think the distance from Dawson Creek to Vancouver is only about 700 miles. That is the nearest seaport. That is one of the logical places to which our trade should naturally flow. But I am satisfied that it would not be done at the expense of our trade with Alberta. I say this-and I have said it before-because I think it is a point which must be borne in mind when we come, as we must sometime in the future, to resolve the controversy which at present exists.
May I now say something about the economy of the country which would be served by these railroads. The railroads have suggested that they are not interested in agricultural development any more. That may not have been said publicly but I think it is an inference to be taken from their statements from time to time. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that ours is not a type of agricultural economy which would in any way be a detriment to the railroads. It is a diversified economy in every way. It happened, of course, that some 20 or 25 years ago the Peace river country took, with a regularity which was almost monotonous, the wheat crown of the world as well as that for oats and some of the other cereal grains which were put up for competition. That was achieved, of course, in the person of Mr. Herman Trelle and others who lived in his vicinity. But the people of the Peace river country had to learn from hard and bitter experience that they must adapt their economy to the economic situation of the day. There has been a large transfer of the activities of the farmers from grain to more diversified farming. I am not going to go into the figures but I have seen that transfer with my own eyes. I have seen it develop in the last five years to ten years. I am confident that a line of railway which serves the Peace river country is inevitably bound to benefit as a result.
Before I go on with my next point, I should like to say this, and I think I am
[Stage Direction]

justified in saying it. The failure on the part of the railway companies and of past governments to give effect to the proper natural aspirations, hopes and wishes of the people of my country, through the medium of the construction of these two lines of railroad is, in my opinion, a damning indictment against them. In my area I have seen many small towns and villages in which young people have lost hope and confidence up until recently because the railroads and past governments were not prepared to do anything for our country in the form of transportation development. I think it is a sad commentary on the way in which we have managed our affairs in the past, that in our study of development of the country, we have appeared to turn our backs on the frontier.
Now I should like to put on the record some statements made in a periodical called the International Journal which I hold in my hand, the issue for the winter of 1958-59. There is an article there by Michael Marsden who is described as being the acting director of the Montreal office of the artists institute of North America. The article is to be found at page 33. It is a very interesting article. Mr. Marsden makes some very intriguing comparisons between northern development in Russia and northern development in Canada. For example, he explains that in the Soviet union there are two large cities, one of 400,000 people and one of almost 100,000 people, lying far to the north of our present limits of populated areas. He refers to the fact that there are three railway lines which go through the settled areas of southern Russia to the river transportation systems and which serve these particular cities. He gives some other statistics as to the development which has taken place. He rationalizes and explains why this situation exists there. I think it is a valid explanation.
He explains, for example, that northern Russia was settled for many years by political exiles. He goes on to say in addition that since the revolution in 1917 the development of their north has been under a system of state domination which, of course, we will have nothing to do with. Finally he explains the statistics in a geographical and climatic way. Actually the parallels of north latitude which are supposed to limit what is north and what is south, do not necessarily have the same climatic conditions in Russia as they do in Canada; and in large parts of the Russian north the tree line or the vegetation line are to be observed farther to the north than they are in Canada. I think that is a reasonable explanation for the fact that we have not progressed as far and as fast as they have but to some extent I feel that the explanation

does not necessarily hold good with regard to the Peace river area which extends into the Great Slave lake district and up through the Mackenzie area to the Arctic. There the tree line and the vegetation line stretch some considerable distance to the north. It has been established that plants and cereals can be grown far north of where it was ever contemplated would be the case many years ago.
So far as development and exploration is concerned, Alexander Mackenzie came down from Great Slave lake and down the Peace river in the eighteenth century. He came down from a post which had already been well established. I cannot help thinking, as I said before, that there is no proper or valid excuse for the failure to develop the north as we know it in northwestern Canada. For that reason we in the Peace river area are most concerned about the plans for the future railroad development into the Northwest Territories. We think-and this, Mr. Speaker, is one of the premises for this resolution-that there should be a searching and close scrutiny of the management and of the objectives and of the policy of this railway system.
There is probably one more reason why I think I am entitled to make these observations with regard to this railroad development. I have been here for some time. I have sat here and I have observed a great many of the problems with which this country is afflicted that have been brought here and left with the government for solution. Each of the problems has a variety of causes, but one cause may be common to many of the problems, and that is our situation in a tremendously large country with a small population concentrated in one small area with a thin settlement along the southern border. In the result the pattern of development and industrial expansion has been, I think, over-emphasized in this one area. We find that the products which come from far afield must be brought into the settled areas, developed, processed, and then sent back. I think the corollary to that is that as our resources are scattered you have to go further and further afield to find, develop and bring into the more central regions these natural resources, and we are going to have greater problems of transportation and are going to compound the difficulties which presently exist.
This is a many-sided problem and I do not suggest there is any one simple solution to it. It is a problem with many facets and will, I think, yield only to a variety of solutions. But I do feel that one of these solutions could well be the settlement of those areas of Canada which are susceptible to being settled, where there can be agricultural development and development in an industrial sense. I think in the future, when
Northern Alberta Railways through immigration and natural increases in population we can look forward to a further 10 million or 15 million in this country, we will somehow have failed in our duty if we have not taken it upon ourselves to ensure that the people who are required will be settled in these far-flung areas. I listened, sir, with interest the other day, in the debate following the introduction by the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) of her estimates, to the very eloquent exposition by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) on the desirability of allowing into this country great numbers of unfortunate people from other lands. As I listened to him and the other excellent contribution from both sides of the house, I thought of the inscription which appears on the statue of liberty:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
I think to some extent the United States, in its function as a refuge for these people, is possibly functus officio; it has largely completed its mission. The torch has probably been handed to us, and I submit that unless we take a new look at our system of railway development and construction in the light of our natural duty, we will have failed in that duty.
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily this motion would not have reached us for another three to four weeks; but since the government put closure on us this evening, I have to go on with this motion without any preparation I wonder if this resolution really will do what I am sure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) wants it to do? I know he is very sincere in his efforts to have a railway built from Grimshaw to the south shore of Great Slave lake, but I somehow feel after reading the resolution that possibly this government can use it as another red herring in the way they have used other incidents.
I am wondering if the government will not use this as another red herring to stall the building of this railroad. In the election of 1958 I can remember the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), and practically every minister who is sitting on the front benches today, running across this country from east to west and from north to south promising a railroad to the south shore of Great Slave lake. Then shortly after the election we opened our session here and in the speech from the throne the government

Northern Alberta Railways put into the mouth of the governor general words indicating that last year a bill would be introduced into this house in order to accelerate the start to the building of this railroad. But what did we see happen? They withdrew the bill before the end of the session last year and the reason was this. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources gave as a reason all over the west, as did the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes)-I am wondering at this time whether he will get his job back-that the people of the Peace River country and of Alberta were told that unless they got together the government will not build the railroad. Imagine ministers who went the length and breadth of this country promising this railroad being elected to a government with 208 members, and now they are going to wait for the people in Waterways and Grim-shaw to get together before they build them a railroad. That is about like asking Khrushchev to accept democratic philosophy or the western world to accept his philosophy. The people in Waterways want the railroad through Waterways. Naturally the people in Grimshaw want the railroad to be built from Grimshaw.


An hon. Member:: Which way do you want it?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Any way at all as long as it gets to the Northwest Territories. In any event, this government with 208 members sit here in this house and tell us that until the people of northern Alberta get together they cannot build the railroad. I said a moment ago that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources told the people of Alberta the same thing as the former parliamentary assistant to the minister of defence. This is just an excuse, and I am wondering if the government will use this resolution as another red herring to stall off the starting of this railroad. I have asked time and time again in this house for the past 18 months for the tabling of correspondence between this government, the railway companies and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. The other day the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) for about the twelfth time said he could not table these documents because discussions and negotiations were still going on. Before March 31, 1958 this government had the nerve to promise the people of the north a railway, but they have not the fortitude to make that decision now. A large number of Tory members were elected in northern Alberta and I am sure the people are wondering why they gave their support to this government, this


government of no action which is fumbling from one excuse to another.


Mr. Bigg:: Sit down and we will tell you why.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Who is that, the hon. member for Athabasca?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That's me.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: There is another man who went all over his riding promising the same thing, and he is going to tell me why they cannot build a railroad. Better go and ask your front benchers, my boy. You do not know half as much about that railway as I do.


An hon. Member:: You do not know where you want it to go.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Now someone says I do not know where I want it to go. You had better come from behind the curtain, my boy. To the south shore of Great Slave lake, to the greatest lead and zinc deposit in north America and possibly in the world. The minister of northern affairs himself said it is the greatest in the world, and went around the country saying it should be opened up. I had to agree with him. But now what does he say? He says: it does not matter about this great ore deposit; it does not matter how much delay it causes. No, we have to wait now until the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) get together and decide which route the railway shall take. They are applauding. That is all right. If we wait for those two to get together we will never see a railway built. We will never see a railway built north of Waterways or north of the Peace river.


An hon. Member:: Lost your place?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, some of those jackals who are yapping in the background 

one was the hon. member from Saskatoon (Mr. Jones)-


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order, I think that in this House of Commons we should observe the rules of procedure. This is a place of dignity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Henry Frank Jones: -and hon. members should not be referred to as "my boy" and so on. The procedure is to call them hon. members, and I think that rule should be observed by the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to rise on this point of order and point out to Your Honour that the hon. member for Mackenzie River has been interrupted ever since he began

to speak by hon. members on the other side of the house. Now they complain that he is calling them names.


An hon. Member:: Jackals.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps there is some justification for both points that have been made, and perhaps we should make a fresh start, with the hon. member for Mackenzie River trying to confine his remarks to the subject under discussion.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I hope that my dear and hon. friend across the way will listen intently, and perhaps when I am through he can make his speech himself.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Peace River is sincere in presenting this resolution. I think he believes that this resolution will hasten the day when the first spike is driven into the railway to the south shore of the Great Slave lake. For this reason I do not want to talk the motion out. I think we should have a vote on it tonight. However, I should like to amend the motion by submitting the following amendment:
That after the word "matters" In the fifth line be inserted the following:
"such as the proposed extension of the northern Alberta system to the south shore of the Great Slave lake."


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, now that I am allowed to stand up and say what I think about this railway I think I will address my first remark to the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie). The hon. member for Mackenzie River says he knows all about this railway and all about where it should go.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I know well enough that the government is stalling it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Oh, we will get to that. I am one who is vitally interested in this railway because whether it goes through Peace River or whether it goes through what has been called my side of northern Alberta-and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and myself share the whole of northern Alberta-I should like to know a good deal more about this railway, and I mean in the planning sense, without any thought in my mind of stalling. We can build a railway to the south shore of the Great Slave lake. We could build three railways, or ten railways. I am only interested in building the one which will best serve the interests of Canada. I am not playing petty politics.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Oh, oh.
66968-9-112
Northern Alberta Railways


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You can laugh. I, like my friend and colleague from Peace River, am here sincerely to advocate the building of this railway into that point where it is needed the most, and to advocate that it should be built as efficiently, as cheaply and as fast as it is possible to build it. And it will be done, if I have my way, without any filibuster and without any delay. But it will not be done on petty political lines. It will be built the way the transcontinental railways were built in the first place, to serve this great country of ours. It is time we stopped disputing among ourselves, and instead of throwing epithets across this chamber the hon. member for Mackenzie River would do better to tell us what he does know about this railway, and help us to build it.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Why talk it out?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This it not talking it out. I am suggesting that this should go to the committee where we could discuss the matter properly. We could ask for all the papers we need, and if that committee could not handle it we would appoint a royal commission to look into the matter further. Reference has been made to reports already. I have one in my hand. They are sometimes partisan reports. They are made on behalf of chambers of commerce, and there are several in my own community-there is one in Edmonton, one in Vancouver, one in every city of Canada, and they all have their own personal reasons, their petty reasons, perhaps-for wanting a railway to go in a certain direction. Perhaps the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company want it to go along a particular route. But if a railway is to be built to the south shore of the Great Slave lake let us build it efficiently, let us build it-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Now.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, if this is the most appropriate time. But can we have the assurance that once this matter is decided in the proper democratic fashion hon. members over there will not start bickering and squealing about our having done it wrongly?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I don't care how you do it, build it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie River has concluded his speech.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member for Mackenzie River represents a diminished party that was in office for many years during which it could have started construction of this railway. The north country has been in existence for many years and it will remain for many years to come. As far as I am concerned when this railway is built it will be built the best way, the cheapest way and in the
1766	HOUSE OF
Northern Alberta Railways most efficient manner to serve our whole country. I do not care whether or not I am re-elected in Athabasca on this point. This railway is important to the north country and I will work as hard as the hon. member for Mackenzie River or anyone else in Canada to see that the railway is built when the government decides it should be built, if it should reach that decision.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Why "if"? Let's go.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It has not yet been decided when it is to be built. If you are accusing me of filibustering, let me ask why you stood up at all? You made no constructive contribution to this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must recall that he should address the Chair only.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Mackenzie River made no positive contribution to this debate. I welcome now or at any time having hon. gentlemen opposite present me with good solid arguments as to where this railway should go.


Mr. Hodgson:: He does not know.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: To Great Slave lake, I said.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, it should go to the south shore of Great Slave lake in the light of our present knowledge. But which route should it follow? Many experts have already put their minds to this problem and we have reams of reports on the subject. Perhaps I am mistaken and I hasten to admit I may be wrong. In this respect I am unlike certain hon. gentlemen opposite. However, I have read these reports and carefully analysed them and have reached the conclusion that the economic factors that have been presented are fairly evenly balanced with respect to both possible routes.
Hon. gentlemen would need a map in order to be able to understand what I am about to say but most hon. gentlemen would have access to a map of northern Alberta. An examination of the map reveals that the distance between Edmonton and Pine Point on the south shore of Great Slave lake is approximately equal to the distance of the other route. One of the routes lies to the west through Peace River and the other, to the east, runs through Waterways. There is a difference of only 20 or 30 miles in mileage.
There is a problem concerning bridges and the terrain but I am informed that the difference between the cost of the two routes would be negligible. I am not just yammering because I have spoken to experts of the railway. They tell me that the amount of tonnage


presently coming down on the Peace River side which is largely an agricultural area does not represent a sufficiently significant factor to enable them to weigh it decisively one way or the other. If one considers the present available knowledge on the subject one might say we are stymied and so we will have to look to the future for a solution to this dilemma.
We in this group on many occasions have been accused of having no vision and of being unwilling to take action even if we did have vision. We are not going to take hasty action. I am a Conservative and I do not believe in hastily spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects which may later prove to be less economical than some alternative proposal. I believe in spending the money when we have it for the purpose that is most required. This attitude has characterized every word I have ever spoken and I hope to take this attitude as long as I am in this house because I am no socialist. We will have to look to the future to decide which route this railway should take to the south shore of Great Slave lake.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You said there was no difference.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We have to give the matter full and careful study and avoid unnecessary and expensive guesswork. Our action should be dictated by all the information and facts we can accumulate.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The railway companies know the situation.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If we are accused of delay, I can only reply that a certain amount of delay is necessary so that we may take wise action based on the fullest facts we can gather. I say we should get on with the job but that we should acquaint ourselves with as many facts as possible. We should consult the appropriate people.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: We are the appropriate people to pass the money.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If this matter is referred to a committee of this house hon. members in all parties will be able to fully explore the question. The committee could interview expert witnesses who could assist us in achieving the best answer that is possible under our system. I still believe that our democratic system of government is the best in the world. Although it could be improved upon it is the best system ever devised. Having this democratic system, let us use it. Let us use our democratic parliamentary system and our committee system and if this fails to assist us in obtaining a satisfactory

solution the matter could be referred to a royal commission. We do not want to do this hastily.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Are you speaking for the government now?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We are going to do it-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Let us vote.


Mr. Caron:: We have only two minutes to vote.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Let us send it to the committee.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Let me remind hon. gentlemen that there are others who may wish to speak on this question. We intend to tackle the problem as fast as we can. We are working on it on this side of the house and indeed all hon. gentlemen should be working on finding a solution. I suggest that hon. gentlemen consult a map of this area and acquaint themselves with the facts of the issue. How many people in Canada know anything about northern Alberta? When you go north of northern Alberta you find that the ignorance is abysmal-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What is this?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -particularly on the part of the hon. member representing that vast area. Ignorance abounds with respect to this great area in northern Alberta. A project of this magnitude is not one that should be rushed into. We should not throw away approximately $350 million on a project of this importance without being certain that the money will be spent in the best possible way to assure that the railway will serve the greatest need. This is something the government has pledged to look into. The plans of this government for the development of northern Canada cannot be accomplished in six months and indeed they will not be entirely realized within 50 years. The policy of the government is to look forward to the future, planning wisely for our children and our children's children.
The government wants to remain solvent and if it borrows money for a project it intends to pay it back. If it builds the railway under contracts it will pay the contractors. No matter how the government spends its only source is the taxpayer. The government is not an old man with a long white beard sitting in Ottawa with a huge sack full of money. It is, as it were, a committee comprised of people from all across Canada entrusted with the spending of the public funds. If the government spends foolishly without careful planning there will 66968-9-112J
Business of the House
come a day of reckoning. The suggestion advanced by my colleague is the only suggestion feasible at the present time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is a first-class funeral.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am fully in agreement with what was said by the minister. He described our way of doing this thing and it is the only way. Before action is taken we will require additional information to ensure a course of wisdom being followed. We intend to take action just as soon as we can.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Oh, there is half a minute yet.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening the house leader gave the business for today. I do not want him to repeat it again because it is quite lengthy and it is there for anyone to see. I wonder, however, if he could answer this question. Is it the intention to deal with these items that he mentioned on Tuesday and Wednesday? I would also like to know what we will do on Thursday and Friday if he could tell me.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is some slight change in the order in which these items will be considered. We are planning to take first the motion by the Prime Minister concerning the annual report of the Canada Council.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What number?


Howard Charles Green: It is under government notices of motion. We then propose to take item No. 36 which is the motion to refer the public accounts to the public accounts committee; then item No. 35 which would refer the estimates of the Department of Fisheries; and then if the Minister of Justice is here we will take item No. 34. He will be here some time in the afternoon but I am not sure when and it may be necessary to take the item dealing with humane slaughtering of animals later in the day. We then propose to take item No. 33, the resolution concerning the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; then item No. 26, the second reading of the bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act including the resolution which will have been passed before; then item No. 27, second reading of the act to amend Public Servants Inventions Act; then item No. 29, the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; then item No. 25, the act to confirm the agreement between the federal government and the government of New Bruswick respecting Indian reserves and then the resolution to set up a committee to study the Indian Act.
1768	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
Finally, we shall take the resolution on freight rates. I think we will be going on with this business on Wednesday, and later on in the week have the estimates of citizenship and immigration and agriculture.


Lionel Chevrier: Do I understand from the leader of the house that on Tuesday and Wednesday we shall deal with the list that he has just mentioned. What do we do on

Thursday? Shall we continue if we are not through?


Howard Charles Green: We expect to take estimates on Thursday and Friday, and on Wednesday we may also take the resolution concerning the parliamentary secretaries.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	How are the members of a civil service commission examining panel customarily selected?
2.	Is the minister or either of his deputy ministers customarily a member of such a panel when an applicant for a position in his department is examined?
3.	On what occasions, if any, has this been the case when applicants were examined for any position in the government since January 1, 1956; who were the ministers or deputy ministers so concerned, who were the applicants being examined, and what positions were they applying for?
Answer by:	Hon. Henri Courtemanche
(Secretary of State):
1.	All appointments to examining boards established by the civil service commission
Name	Competition No.
Dr. Marc Boyer,	56-383
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys
Mr. N. A. Robertson,	59-2650
under-secretary of state for external affairs.
Mr. R. G. Robertson,	56-599
Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
58-528
Major General Hugh Young 56-667 Department of Public Works.
57-	372
58-	375
As required by law, the names of successful candidates in civil service commission competitions are published regularly in the Canada Gazette. This has been done for all the competitions referred to above, except competition 58-528, the results of which will be published early in March, and competition 58-540 and 59-2650 which will be published some time later. The commission does not
Questions
to select recruits for the civil service are made by the commission. Such boards usually comprise not less than three members and the chairman is an officer of the civil service commission. One of the members is normally a representative of the department in which the vacancy is to be filled. Another member, knowledgeable in the field of endeavour relating to the responsibilities of the vacant position, is normally drawn from outside the commission and the department.
2.	Ministers are never members of examining boards. On the other hand, deputy ministers are from time to time appointed members of examining boards, particularly when the positions to be filled are at a senior level, such as positions of assistant deputy minister, branch director, chief of a division, etc.
3.	Since January 1, 1956, the following deputy ministers have been members of examining boards in the competitions referred to hereunder for positions in their own departments:
Position to be filled Director general of scientific service, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
A number of positions of foreign service officer grade 1 to be filled by university graduates.
Director, national museum of Canada.
Chief, mining and lands division, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Chief economist, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources National parks planning officer, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Financial adviser,
Department of Public Works.
Chief engineer, harbours and rivers, Department of Public Works.
Assistant dominion fire commissioner, Department of Public Works.
make public the names of unsuccessful candidates as it is felt that this would not be fair to the individuals concerned.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date was the competition for the position of director of the human history branch

Questions
of the national museum first advertised by the civil service commission?
2.	What were the qualifications stipulated for this position?
3.	What was the name of each applicant, and the date of his application?
4.	Which applicants were selected for consideration of the filling of this position by the civil service commission, and what were the qualifications of each?
5.	Which applicants were examined by a civil service commission panel, and on what dates?
6.	What was the name of each member of the civil service commission panel which examined each of these applicants, and what position did each member hold at the time?
7.	Who was the successful applicant, and was he chosen by a unanimous decision of the examining panel?
8.	If not, what was the nature of the divergence of opinion amongst the members of the panel?
Answer by:	Hon.	Henri Courtemanche
(Secretary of State):
1.	A competition to fill the position of director of the national museum of Canada was advertised in June, 1958. The closing date for receipt of applications was July 9, 1956.
The competition poster described the duties of the. director as follows:
The director will be responsible for the management and administration of the national museum of Canada where are collected, classified and exhibited specimens required to afford a complete knowledge of the geology, mineralogy, paleontology, archaeology, ethnology and fauna and flora of Canada. As more space becomes available in the museum building, the director will be responsible for the reorganization and reorientation of the museum; he will be responsible for co-ordination of research and for the dissemination of information acquired by the museum; he will also be required to advise on the work of the department regarding other museums operated by it and, in general, to give advice on related matters.
The same poster described the qualifications required as follows:-
Graduation with a doctor's degree from a university of recognized standing with specialization in one or more of the related fields. Extensive experience in one or more of the disciplines involved and an international standing as shown by published results. Experience in planning, exhibits, a knowledge of modern museum and public information methods.
Seven applications were received in this competition, all before the closing date of July 9. Three of the seven candidates were summoned to oral interview by an examining board on July 20, 1956. The examining
board comprised Mr. J. E. McCannel of the civil service commission as chairman; Mr. R. G. Robertson, deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources; and Dr. W-Kaye Lamb, dominion archivist and national librarian, as members. Following these interviews Dr. L. S. Russell and Dr. Jacques Rousseau were qualified, in that order, by unanimous decision of the board. At that time Dr. Russell was chief of the zoology section of the national museum. He held the degrees of B.Sc., M.A. and Ph.D. in palaeontology and geology. At the time he submitted his application, Dr. Rousseau was scientific director of the Montreal botanical gardens. He held the degrees of B.A., L.Sc. and D.Sc. from the university of Montreal.
Before the examining board submitted its report to the civil service commission, the government decided to divide the museum into two parts on the basis of one of the recommendations of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The single position of director of the national museum was therefore replaced by two positions-a director of the natural history branch and a director of the human history branch of the museum. Of the two candidates who had qualified in the competition, the examining board felt that Dr. Russell was more suitably qualified for the position of director of the natural history branch while Dr. Rousseau was better qualified for the post of director of the human history branch.
The civil service commission does not make public the names of candidates who are unsuccessful in civil service competitions as it is felt that this would not be fair to the individuals concerned.
Questions 2 to 8. (See 1 above)



INFANTILE PARALYSIS CASES

Mr. McMillan: 1.	How many cases of infantile paralysis were reported in Canada, during the years 1956, 1957 and 1958?
2.	What was the number of deaths in cases of paralysis in these years?
3.	What was the incidence of death and paralysis in relation to one, two or three doses of the Salk vaccine immunization?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister
of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Reported cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in Canada: 1956, 369; 1957, 177; 1958, 229 (provisional).
2.	Poliomyelitis deaths in Canada: 1956, 51; 1957, 26; 1958, 19 (provisional).
3.	1956, information is not available. 1957, only one death was reported in vaccinated persons. Of the 96 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported in the age group 0-9, 24

had received vaccine as follows: 1 dose, 3; 2 doses, 14; 3 doses, 5; 4 doses, 1; not known, 1. In the 81 cases over the age of 9 years the data on vaccination is incomplete. 1958, information is being compiled but is not yet available.



DOLLARD COUNTY, QUE.  POSTAL STATIONS

Mr. Rouleau: Questions
1.	Since June 10,	1958, has the government
received representations from Mr. Maurice Cou-sineau, mayor of the city of St. Laurent, requesting the building of new postal stations in the county of Dollard, Quebec?
2.	If so, in what locations?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.

Tuesday, March 10, 1959



PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):