1959-02-20

[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 20, 1959


[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like to make a somewhat lengthy statement on the subject of one facet of the national defence of Canada because, after all, the effectiveness or otherwise of the measures taken for national defence until international peace under law is obtained constitutes the passport either to survival or destruction. The announcement I wish to make has to do with the decision regarding our air defence which was foreshadowed in the statement made by me to the press on September 23 last.
The government has carefully examined and re-examined the probable need for the Arrow aircraft and Iroquois engine known as the CF-105, the development of which has been continued pending a final decision. It has made a thorough examination in the light of all the information available concerning the probable nature of the threats to North America in future years, the alternative means of defence against such threats, and the estimated costs thereof. The conclusion arrived at is that the development of the Arrow aircraft and Iroquois engine should be terminated now.
Formal notice of termination is being given now to the contractors. All outstanding commitments will of course be settled equitably.
In reaching this decision the government has taken fully into account the present and prospective international situation, including the strategic consequences of weapon development and the effects of the decision I have just announced upon Canada's ability to meet any emergency that may arise.
Work on the original concept of the CF-105 commenced in the air force in 1952, and the first government decision to proceed with the development and with the production of two prototypes was taken late in 1953. The plane was designed to meet the requirements of the R.C.A.F. for a successor to the CF-100 to be used in the defence of Canada. At that time it was thought some five or six hundred 66968-9-78
aircraft would be needed by the R.C.A.F., and their cost was forecast at about $1,500,000 to $2 million each.
From the beginning, however, it was recognized by the previous government, and subsequently by this government, that the development of an advanced supersonic aircraft such as the 105 and its complicated engine and weapon system was highly hazardous, and therefore all decisions to proceed with it were tentative and subject to change in the light of experience. This was known to the contractors undertaking the development, to the air force, and to parliament.
The development of the Arrow aircraft and the Iroquois engine has been a success although, for various reasons, it has been much behind the original schedule. The plane and its engine have shown promise of achieving the high standard of technical performance intended, and are a credit to those who conceived and designed them and translated the plans into reality.
Unfortunately these outstanding achievements have been overtaken by events. In recent months it has come to be realized that the bomber threat against which the CF-105 was intended to provide defence has diminished, and alternative means of meeting the threat have been developed much earlier than was expected.
The first modern long range bombers with which Canada might be confronted came into operation over five years ago, but the numbers produced now appear to be much lower than was previously forecast. Thus the threat against which the CF-105 could be effective has not proved to be as serious as was forecast. During 1959 and 1960 a relatively small number of modern bombers constitutes the main airborne threat. It is considered that the defence system of North America is adequate to meet this threat.
Potential aggressors now seem more likely to put their effort into missile development than into increasing their bomber force. By the middle of 1962 the threat from the intercontinental ballistic missile will undoubtedly be greatly enhanced in numbers, size and accuracy, and the I.C.B.M. threat may be supplemented by submarine-launched missiles. By the middle sixties the missile seems likely to be the major threat and the long range bomber relegated to supplementing the major attack by these missiles. It would
1222	HOUSE OF
Government Policy on Air Defence be only in this period, namely after mid-1962, that the CF-105 could be fully operational in the Eoyal Canadian Air Force.
The United States government, after full and sympathetic consideration of proposals that the U.S. air force use the Arrow, reached the conclusion that it was not economical to do so. Already the U.S. air force has decided not to continue with the further development and production of U.S. aircraft having the same general performance as the Arrow. The development of interceptor aircraft that is now proceeding in the United States and abroad is on different types.
Since my announcement of last September much work has been done on the use of a different control system and weapon in the Arrow. These changes have been found to be practical. Although the range of the aircraft has been increased it is still limited. It is estimated that with these changes the total average cost per unit for 100 operational aircraft could be reduced from the figure of about $12,500,000 each to about $7,800,000 each, including weapons, spare parts and the completion of development, but not including any of the sum of $303 million spent on development prior to September last.
The government has taken no decision to acquire other aircraft to replace the CF-100, which is still an effective weapon in the defence of North America against the present bomber threat. The Minister of National Defence and the chiefs of staff are now engaged in further studies of the various alternatives for the improvement of our defences.
Canadian requirements for civilian aircraft are very small by comparison with this huge defence operation, and frankness demands that I advise that at present there is no other work that the government can assign immediately to the companies that have been working on the Arrow and its engine. This decision is a vivid example of the fact that a rapidly changing defence picture requires difficult decisions, and the government regrets its inevitable impact upon production, employment and engineering work in the aircraft and related industries.
As all in this house will appreciate, this decision has been a very difficult one for the government to take, not only because of the immediate disturbance it is bound to cause to those who have been working on the Arrow and related items but because it means terminating a project on which Canada had expended a very large amount of money and in which Canadians have demonstrated the high level of their technical work. However much I might hope that the project be continued in the sense of pride of achievement to avoid immediate dislocations which
[Stage Direction]

are regrettable, defence requirements constitute the sole justification for defence procurement.
Having regard to the information and advice we have received, however, there is no other feasible or justifiable course open to us. We must not abdicate our responsibility to assure that the huge sums which it is our duty to ask parliament to provide for defence are being expended in the most effective way to achieve that purpose.
Now I wish to turn to another aspect of defence. As previously announced the government has decided to introduce the Bomarc guided missile and the Sage electronic control and computing equipment into the Canadian air defence system, and to extend and strengthen the Pinetree radar control system by adding several additional large radar stations and a number of small gap filler radars. Canadians will be glad to know that agreement in principle with the United States defence department has now been reached on the sharing of the costs of this program.
Under this arrangement Canada will assume financial responsibility for approximately one-third of the cost of these new projects. The Canadian share will cover the cost of construction of bases and unit equipment, while the United States share of approximately two-thirds of the cost will cover the acquisition of technical equipment. Such division of functions is necessary for the reason that the United States is well advanced in the planning and implementation of this program and the development of the technical equipment required for it. By dividing the sharing of costs uniformity of construction will be ensured and the dangers of differences in technical equipment will be avoided.
With regard to the construction of bases in Canada, work will be carried out as a practical matter by Canadian construction companies employing Canadian labour and material. It is intended that the bases when complete will be manned by Canadian military personnel.
As for the technical equipment which is to be financed by the United States, both governments recognize the need for Canada to share in the production of this equipment. Within the principles of production sharing the United States government and the Canadian government expect that a reasonable and fair share of this work will in fact be carried out by Canadian industry. To that end a number of groups of officials representing both countries have been established to initiate the production sharing activities and to deal with the problems involved. I might add that early next week the Minister of

Defence Production will make full information available to the house in this connection.
Now, sir, while time is required to work out all the necessary details between our governments, considerable progress has already been made and several contracts have been placed.
The production-sharing concept also covers the broad range of development and production of military equipment for North American defence generally. Procedures are currently being evolved between officials of the two governments whereby greater opportunities than have existed in the past will be afforded Canadian industry to participate in the production of technical equipment related to programs of mutual interest.
Under the irresistible dictates of geography the defence of North America has become a joint enterprise of both Canada and the United States. In the partnership each country has its own skills and resources to contribute, and the pooling of these resources for the most effective defence of our common interest is the essence of production sharing. Believing that parliament and the people of Canada are determined that this nation shall play its full part in terms both of quantity and quality in deterring and resisting aggression, the government intends that the Canadian forces will be well equipped and well trained for the Canadian share of these tasks in a balanced, collective defence.
In keeping with that determination careful thought is being given to the principles that in our opinion are applicable to the acquisition and control of nuclear weapons. The government's decisions of last autumn to acquire Bomarc missiles for air defence and Lacrosse missiles for the Canadian army were based on the best expert advice available on the need to strengthen Canada's air defence against the threat to this continent, and on its determination to continue an effective contribution to the NATO shield.
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads. The government is, therefore, examining with the United States government questions connected with the acquisition of nuclear warheads for Bomarc and other defensive weapons for use by the Canadian forces in Canada, and the storage of warheads in Canada. Problems connected with the arming of the Canadian brigade in Europe with short range nuclear weapons for NATO's defence tasks are also being studied.
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective. It will of course be some 60968-9-784
Government Policy on Air Defence time before these weapons will be available for use by Canadian forces. The government, as soon as it is in a position to do so, will inform the house, within the limits of security, of the general terms of understanding which are reached between the two governments on this subject.
I wish also at this time to give the house an indication of certain basic considerations in the government's thinking on the question of the acquisition and control of nuclear weapons. The first important consideration is the government's belief in the importance of limiting the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of national governments. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the external affairs committee on July 29 last that it took but little imagination to envisage the dangers of the situation if the know-how with respect to the production of nuclear weapons were disseminated in numerous countries of the world. The prospect of further dissemination of such techniques continues to be a matter of fundamental concern to the government. As a contribution to this objective, it is the policy of the Canadian government not to undertake the production of nuclear weapons in Canada, although we believe that Canadian scientists and technicians are quite capable of producing them.
Second, we intend to leave no avenue unexplored in the search for an acceptable agreement on disarmament with the Soviet union, even though we must reluctantly admit the need in present circumstances for nuclear weapons of a defensive character. The objective of disarmament must ever be kept in view, even though in the experience of the past it may be capable of only partial realization. For example, we believe that agreed zones of inspection in the Arctic to guide against surprise attack would be steps necessary to be taken in the context of a larger disarmament plan. Canadians will continue to support effective measures for disarmament, but in the meantime we cannot minimize the importance of providing the strongest deterrent to aggression and of protecting the deterrent power against surprise attacks.
Third, there is the consideration of Canada's commitments to support the collective security of the NATO alliance. Whether Canada's effort is made directly in continental defence-the defence of the Canada-United States region of NATO-or whether it is made on the continent of Europe, Canada's contribution will be made in concert with the efforts of our NATO partners. It is our intention to provide Canadian forces with modern and efficient weapons to enable them to fulfil their respective roles.
[Stage Direction]
Government Policy on Air Defence
Believing that the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of individual nations should be limited, we consider that it is expedient that ownership and custody of the nuclear warheads should remain with the United States. The requirements of Canadian and United States legislation on atomic energy will continue to apply, and there will be no change in Canada's responsibility to regulate all flights of aircraft over Canadian territory.
Our two governments have assumed joint responsibility for the air defence of Canada and the continental United States, including Alaska, and have implemented their responsibilities through the establishment of the North American air defence command. The Canadian government exercises with the United States government joint responsibility for the joint operations of the command, including the use of defensive nuclear weapons if necessary. In the event that these defensive weapons are made available for use by NORAD, they could be used only in accordance with procedures governing NORAD's operations as approved in advance by both governments. Such weapons, therefore, would be used from Canadian territory or in Canadian air space only under conditions previously agreed to by the Canadian government. With respect to decisions as to procedures concerning custody and control of nuclear warheads for use by Canadian forces operating under the supreme allied commander in Europe and the supreme allied commander in the North Atlantic ocean, those decisions will be subject to negotiation with the appropriate NATO partners concerned and with those commanders.
I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will recognize the gravity of the decisions we are called upon to make in these defence matters, by reason of the almost unbelievable nature of the world in which we live. I should like to emphasize the government's desire to ensure the security of Canada by all efficient and reasonable means at our disposal and in concert with our strong and trustworthy allies.
May I say, sir, that I thank the house for giving me this opportunity of making this lengthy statement. In so far as matters such as defence are concerned, I believe that the decisions and discussions will in the future, as in the past, remain above partisan political considerations. It is in that spirit that I place this matter before the house. This is a decision that could not be arrived at without much soul-searching and one which we believe, in the light of the expectations of the future, will be considered right.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I feel that the Prime Minister was right, Mr. Speaker, when he said that all hon. members would recognize the gravity of the decisions that we, in parliament, are called upon to make in these defence matters by reason of the almost unbelievable nature of the world in which we live. There is no doubt about that.
It would not be appropriate, I think, for me to comment at any length on the substance of the very important statement which the Prime Minister has made, a statement of far-reaching importance in regard to defence and a statement of importance also in regard to our relations with our allies, particularly on this occasion our relations in defence matters with the United States of America. It is a statement of importance also in regard to the industrial and economic development of our own country.
I do not intend at this time, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to make any observations or any comments on the decision the government has made in regard to the CF-105 or on the fact that this decision is being made in February, 1959 rather than earlier. There is no doubt, and the Prime Minister's statement has pointed it up, that we in this country have to co-ordinate our defence policy with our neighbour on this continent and also with our allies in the Atlantic community, and that in this collective defence, which is the only kind of defence which makes any sense in the world about which the Prime Minister has spoken, Canada has to play a full and effective part.
Our obligations in that regard-and I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with me- are not lessened in any way by the decision the government has made with regard to this particular aspect of defence policy. The Prime Minister has said that the government is engaged in further studies of various alternatives for the improvement of our defences. This statement points up at least in my mind, Mr. Speaker, the desirability- indeed, as I see it, the necessity-of a complete and comprehensive study through a committee or a subcommittee appointed for the purpose not merely of government policies that have been announced but of the whole concept of Canadian defence policy in the world in which we live. Where are we going from now in this vital matter?
The Prime Minister has mentioned one alternative to the kind of defence equipment we have been using in the past-and which in the case of the CF-105 is now to be cancelled-in the Bomarc missile. Surely if we are going to make this change from an interceptor developed and built in Canada to a missile developed and built in the United

States, then we must be confident in our own minds-all of us who have an obligation in parliament in this matter-that this change is going to increase our defence capacity. The principle which the Prime Minister has enunciated in his statement and which should guide not only Canadian but United States policy in this matter is the principle of the pooling of our resources continentally and on an Atlantic basis for collective defence. Surely that does not mean that Canada is to be asked to take part in collective continental defence in so far as planning and operation are concerned but not in so far as the development of resources and industrial capacity are concerned.
The Prime Minister has mentioned the matter of the availability both in Canada and for our forces who are defending Canada in Europe

and who are defending the peace in doing so-of nuclear warheads for the weapons which may be required. I think he was quite right, Mr. Speaker, in emphasizing, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has emphasized inside and outside the house, the tragic results that might occur if the manufacture of these nuclear weapons were extended to other countries beyond those which now manufacture them. I do not think anybody in this house wants to see that happen.
I recall, if I may mention it, speaking about this matter last summer and expressing the hope that at the United Nations assembly perhaps some progress might be made by members of that organization taking a self-denying ordinance that they will not be responsible in their own countries for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It is bad enough to have these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of two or three super powers, but it would be infinitely worse if they were in the hands of 15, 20 or 25 other powers. I therefore agree with the Prime Minister that anything that can be done to limit the extension of manufacture of these weapons should be done. I welcome his statement that these nuclear weapons are not to be manufactured in Canada.
Nevertheless, with regard to the nuclear warheads of Bomarc missiles and defensive weapons of that kind, it seems to me it would be quite insupportable, as long as they are used, to have Canadian air squadrons without them and United States squadrons on the same airfield with them. I say that without qualifying in any way my hope that the day may come when all nuclear weapons may be removed from the armouries of nations. It does not seem to me that the two things at the present time are incompatible.
I think our defence policy-and I mention it on the broadest ground of principle-
Government Policy on Air Defence should be based on the kind of deterrence which the Prime Minister said is now essential. At this time we may require weapons for defence purposes while also seeking disarmament, a search in which we must not falter no matter how frustrating and disappointing it may seem to be.
That appears to be all that should be said on this side at this time, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this vitally important statement. The Prime Minister has said that the policy of the government is to ensure the security of Canada-and I mentioned this at the beginning of my statement-by all efficient and reasonable means at our disposal and in concert with our strong and trustworthy allies. That is essential in the world in which we live. But there is a better way of ensuring the security of Canada than even by collective defence. That way is by removing the causes of discord and conflict, thereby establishing peace and good will among peoples. That is the only permanent basis for security in this world.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Prime Minister this morning is most important and far-reaching. It will mean for Canada the end of large expenditures on the CF-105. The fact that we have been able to develop the CF-105 to the present point should convince all Canadians and the world that we have a fund of scientific knowledge and a body of technicians capable of keeping Canada, if not in the vanguard, almost in the vanguard of extremely important scientific developments.
However, important as are accomplishments in this field, I think the announcement that the CF-105 is not to be further proceeded with demonstrates and underlines the need for co-operation with regard to defence matters. I am certainly no expert in this field, but it would seem to me that one of the reasons we are caught in this dilemma today, and that the government has felt it necessary to end this development, is that for some reason or another there has not been the kind of co-operation between Canada and the United States which is necessary to the development of an adequate defence system; and no provision, as has seemed to have been the case, that Canada develop the CF-105 and the United States develop some other type of aircraft. So we have reached the point today of ceasing our own development.
The Prime Minister has said, if I understood him correctly, that at least at this time there are no orders to be assigned immediately to the company producing the CF-105. It seems to me that was making a far-reaching statement without giving much hope to the people

Government Policy on Air Defence who are engaged in that industry at the present time. It would seem to me that the hardship that will result from unemployment in this industry, if nothing is done, is something the government should study most carefully, and should have been studying most carefully. It appears to me that there should be other plans for alternative employment within the industry, if possible, for the production of other things such as, perhaps, aircraft for peaceful uses. It seems to me that there certainly should be action that would prevent lay-offs of thousands of Canadians, thus adding to the unemployment rolls and making it more difficult for Canada to regain a state of full employment.
We listened with interest to the Prime Minister's statement that there would be a sharing of the defence costs of North America. We emphasize to the United States, as I am sure do all members of parliament, that we feel a very substantial part of the orders necessary for this type of defence should be placed in Canada in order that our economy should not suffer from the necessity of having to spend large sums of money on collective defence while at the same time not receiving our proportionate share of the orders.
The Prime Minister has said, and the Leader of the Opposition has agreed, that there is great danger attached to the dissemination of nuclear weapons among a great many hands. That of course is true. It is easy for us who have these weapons to point out this danger, but the nations which do not have the weapons seem to think it is necessary for their national pride to obtain such weapons, and this being the case I think it is all the more necessary for all nations to devote their full energies to the reaching of an international agreement on disarmament.
While the government has not fully declared its policy in this regard, I would hope that the Canadian government in dealing with the NATO countries as far as Germany is concerned would advocate within those councils a neutralized Germany within a neutralized large area of central Europe as an alternative to nuclear weapons within that area and the great dangers that this would involve.
I believe we are in a position today to have some hope with regard to the forthcoming negotiations with the Soviet union. We believe that social democrats and freedom loving people in Europe in growing numbers are coming to think there can be an agreement with regard to Germany under which we make some concessions in return for other concessions, all of which will lead to greater security for peace in the world.

We are talking today about the CF-105. We are talking today about protection against a potential aggressor. That is important. It is important to peace and it is important to our future. But are we going to arm ourselves in adequate fashion against a potential act of aggression that may never happen-we all hope it will never happen-while at the same time playing no part in the tremendous surge of energy now being devoted to the conquest of outer space? It would seem to me that because of the great scientific advance toward the conquest of outer space much of the conflict which has been going on between the west and the east as far as jurisdiction and the control of people and the economics of the earth are concerned might in the near future be transferred largely to the conquest of outer space, and I suggest that within a partnership for this very important peaceful operation Canada should also be playing its full part.
If we had such an operation it would seem to me that in this way we should be doing something to protect our security in the days ahead. Defence, necessary as it is, is a negative thing, and I suggest it is time that Canada played an active part in the thought that is being given by leading people in the United Nations to the conquest of disease throughout the world, the promotion of medical and health facilities, and greater emphasis on the conquest of hunger and the removal of hunger from all parts of the world.
The announcement by the Prime Minister is important and far-reaching. We hope that in the days ahead Canada, in this and other ways, will play a constructive role in securing the peace of the world.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of the statement the Prime Minister has just made on defence policy, I wonder if he could inform the house whether an opportunity will be afforded at an early date to discuss external affairs, a subject which is a related aspect of defence.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house will agree to have a day set aside for the discussion of external affairs, and if it can be arranged among the various leaders next Thursday will be a possible date. In so far as a general discussion of defence is concerned, we hope that within the very near future the defence estimates will be available so the fullest discussion can take place.

Incidentally, may I be allowed to say this; that the manner of the speeches of both hon. gentlemen today indicates that this is a subject which is above all partisan considerations. I do think a word should be said respecting the contributions made by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he tell us if he is considering any amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act during this session?


An hon. Member:: This is mentioned in the speech from the throne.
(Text) :


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am planning to do so.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions based on the same idea. May I be permitted to ask the three questions at once, because they could all be answered together?


Mr. Speaker:: This is an unusual problem. The hon. member says the three questions can be answered together, but I think it would be better to separate them and ask the first one first.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It will not save time. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. At the experimental farm the building formerly known as the dairy research building, with its French equivalent, has been repaired and now carries the name "Dairy Technology Building" in English only. Would the minister see that this mistake is corrected in the near future and French given its proper place?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I will have to look into this question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The second question, Mr. Speaker. The new building for the Department of Agriculture is called the science service building, in English only. Would the minister seek to correct this omission in the very near future?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Same answer, Mr. Speaker.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The third question. A new building is going up presently for the Department of Public Works, and another for the Post Office Department, administration branch. Would the minister see that both English and French are used in the naming of these buildings?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member was not doing too badly while he stuck to his own bailiwick in Hull, but now he is over on the other side of the river and I am not so sure. I point out that questions of this type are not properly to be asked on the orders of the day, but are usually put on the order paper.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has been asked and answered, and I will not entertain points of order as to its relevance.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I think I am permitted to bring up a point of order on the question, because the minister referred to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot deal with a point of order that is not before the house. I refuse to consider the validity of a question that has already been asked and answered.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister seemed to indicate that an hon. member has the right to look after business only in his own county. We have been elected as members of the House of Commons, and I do not think the minister has the right to make the statement he just made.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but that does not appear to me to be a question of privilege. It is perhaps a matter of argument, but no privilege of the hon. member has been infringed.


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to my good friend the Minister of Public Works, arising out of his reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Hull. The hon. member for Hull comes from Quebec and I am an Ontario man, so perhaps the minister will entertain my question. The minister is a good man, and I believe he is one of the finest politicians in that group. I would urge him to see to it that the names of those buildings appear also in the French language, as should be the case without any question of

Inquiries of the Ministry anything political. The hon. gentleman used to talk about unity and the fact that this is a bilingual country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: If I may say a word in reply, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member has a great many government buildings in his riding. If that were not the case we might give some consideration to naming one of them the Gour building.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of a tariff filed with the board of transport commissioners by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway providing for commuter fare increases of from 17 to 37 per cent in the metropolitan area of Montreal? Will he bring to the board representations outlining the seriousness of this increase to those using commuter services? Perhaps he may wish to make a statement on this matter.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the proposed increase, and I have already spoken to the chairman of the board of transport commissioners about it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If a municipality in the metropolitan area of Montreal protests the increase, will the board suspend the tariff until the hearing is held?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the board of transport commissioners regarding what their action or lack of action will be, but I would say that judging from the action that has been taken in similar cases in the past I would think if a municipality did protest, there would be a good likelihood that the increase would be suspended pending a hearing.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with respect to the urgent problems relating to the Boundary Bay airport in British Columbia. Would the minister inform the house whether a meeting

has been arranged with officials from Vancouver and officials of the minister's department?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a meeting has been arranged during the first week in March between officials of my department and representatives from Vancouver including Aider-man Halford Wilson, the Vancouver airport manager, the president of the British Columbia aviation council and Mr. Frank Bernard, director of the council.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a press dispatch in this morning's papers saying that Senator Neu-berger had introduced in the United States congress legislation to authorize the paving of the Canadian portion of the Alaska highway on a cost-sharing basis with Canada. I wonder if the Prime Minister would comment on Senator Neuberger's statement that the project had been discussed by President Eisenhower and our Prime Minister at the Ottawa meetings last summer. Can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government will participate in such a project if it becomes law in the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the item in question, but I should be glad to look into the matter and see whether or not I am in a position to answer the question in the form in which it was asked.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia has sent over the clipping in question, which reads in part as follows:
Senator Richard L. Neuberger today reintroduced in the United States congress legislation to authorize the paving of the Canadian portion of the Alaska highway on a cost-sharing basis with Canada.
The Canadian share would run to about $66 million, spread over a six-year period.
Neuberger disclosed that the project had been discussed by President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Diefenbaker at their Ottawa meeting last summer, and urged further more complete meeting between the two countries at a lower level.
Let me say that it was merely one of those informal matters which came up for discussion, not as between the President and myself but as between Mr. Dulles, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Northern Affairs and National Resources; agreed to by our two governments in 1950. nothing more than a general discussion.	I had seen the text of General Foulkes' report
With respect to the matter, there is no before it was given, and I concurred in it. thought whatsoever on the part of Canada
at the moment to make the contribution re-	LABOUR CONDITIONS
quested, or any contribution to the plan in request for figures of employment under question as suggested by the senator.	municipal incentive program



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he advise the house as to when the white paper on defence will be available for distribution to hon. members?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it will be available for distribution before my estimates are brought down.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very important statement made today by the Prime Minister I wonder if the Minister of National Defence would give some consideration to advising us in a little more definite language as to when it may be expected.


George Randolph Pearkes: A decision has now been reached with respect to policy, and it will therefore be possible to proceed with the preparation of the paper. Until this decision was reached it would have been of little value to issue the white paper. Preparation of the white paper will now be pressed on with, and it will be in hon. members' hands before my estimates are presented. Hon. members will recall that in the past the white paper has been issued a day or two before the minister has presented his estimates.



CANADA-U.S.  STATEMENT ON JOINT PROCURE- MENT OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question about a speech which had been made by General Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff, in Ottawa the day before, and I said at that time I had not had an opportunity of reading the comments. General Foulkes was discussing before a group of businessmen, both Americans and Canadians, developments which had taken place in connection with economic co-operation, and was tracing the developments from the time the statement of principles for economic co-operation had been 66968-9-79
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Could the minister give us the latest figures for the number of municipal incentive projects approved and the number of men working across Canada as a result of this program?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Niagara Falls I wish to state that the latest figures we have compiled are as of February 13. There have been 1,511 applications accepted from municipalities across Canada, and according to the figures submitted to us from the municipalities this would give employment to some 25,000 workers.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked if we had received any representations regarding a direct air service between Prince Rupert and Vancouver. I told him I would have to check with the air transport board. I have now had an opportunity to do so, and I find that we have received no representations of that kind.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. I know that one of his many accomplishments is the fact that he is a highly distinguished member of the bar, and he will be fully capable of answering my question.
In view of the charges that the C.B.C. has used wire tapping, and in view of the very commendable stand taken by Mayor Phillips of Toronto and other Toronto municipal officials in regard to the practice of wiretapping, as reported on the front page of today's Globe and Mail, could the Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister assure the house that the Criminal Code or other federal statutes guarantee protection for Canadian citizens against this dangerous practice?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timmins prefaced his question with a couple of statements which are not the kind that can be dealt with in reply on orders of the day, and for that reason they are contrary to the rules. The hon. gentleman then asked the Prime Minister for advice on a legal question-without offering to pay the usual fee, I understand. Unless the Prime Minister wants to answer the question I would consider it out of order.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is advice not for my own personal benefit but for the benefit of a great many interested Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's feelings, but on the other hand it is strictly out of order to ask the Prime Minister or any minister to give an interpretation of the Criminal Code.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the reported visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Washington in March, presumably among other things to report on his journey to the Soviet union, Mr. Macmillan has been invited to come to Ottawa?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what I have seen in the newspapers is to the effect that Mr. Macmillan will be in Washington. If he comes to Washington, naturally in the ordinary light of events of the past he will come to Ottawa, where he always receives a warm welcome; and I am sure an invitation is extended by all hon. members.
May I add, in connection with the pilgrimage that he is making to Moscow, that I know all hon. members and indeed mankind in general hope that he will be successful in bringing about a better relationship for peace.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and tell him

that I am happy to see him fully recovered and back in the house again. My question is this-incidentally, I have not given him notice, and he may take it as notice if he is not able to reply at this time-in view of the fact that for the last seven weeks a very small proportion of the programs of the French network of the C.B.C. has been live, can the minister tell the house whether this situation violates the broadcasting regulations? If so, what is the board of broadcast governors doing about this particular matter?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the medical diagnosis which the hon. member has given the house, and I trust that his reputation as a doctor will be confirmed as being as high as his reputation as a lawyer.
It seems to me that I had some little difficulty in this house some time ago in attempting to give a legal opinion on certain facts in connection with this strike, and I am not in a position to say anything about the network programming and the regulations of the board of broadcast governors.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister be good enough to inquire and ascertain what the position is?


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall be glad to make an inquiry.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 19, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearkes-Mr. Sevi-gny in the chair:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act by providing for the court martial appeal board to be reconstituted as a superior court of record, to authorize the payment of travelling allowances to its members and to provide also for the appointment of, and the payment of fees to and the travelling expenses of military advisers to the court: and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, the changes proposed in this resolution seem rather insignificant in comparison with the very lengthy and important announcement just made to the house by the Prime Minister. It is not my intention to make any lengthy comment at the present time on the proposed changes, but just to mention the various subjects briefly and reserve the right to mention them again when the bill is actually before the house.
The first matter mentioned by the minister last night was that of facility for additional integration of the Canadian armed forces.

This process began when our party was in office. It is certainly one in which we concur. Any proposal which will result in more economic and efficient operations will certainly receive our approval. I think experience in the medical and chaplain services has been quite satisfactory, and if this type of efficient operation can be carried into other branches of the services we would all welcome it.
The second subject the minister mentioned was that of the rules of evidence in trial by court-martial. These undoubtedly are of a somewhat technical nature, and we shall have to wait until we see the bill to know precisely what the minister has in mind. Certainly any additional safeguards on the imposition of the penalty of death by courts-martial will be welcomed. Our tradition of law is such that we not only have to be thankful for the privileges which have been handed down to us from generation to generation but we have to make a real effort to extend the safeguards to the individual.
As far as the court-martial appeal board is concerned, as I recollect the situation this was an experiment commenced when Hon. Brooke Claxton was minister of national defence. It was quite an informal arrangement, and I believe the board met only in Ottawa. Experience showed it to be a bit cumbersome. One serious complaint was that it took too long for decisions to be brought down. It was very difficult to secure the attendance of sufficient appointees to constitute a quorum. I believe it was decided to watch the experiment in operation for a period of time before suggested amendments would be brought forward. I would presume that what the minister has in mind under the proposal to set up a court-martial appeal board is based on the experience gained over the years.


George Randolph Pearkes: Appeal court.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: An appeal court in substitution for the board. I would assume that it would be somewhat streamlined and be able to do the job more effectively. In the same connection the proposal to make applicable the same rules of evidence as in civil courts is something we can study when the bill is before us. It would seem to be something to which we would have no objection. In addition, I am sure that the right of appeal from the proposed appeal court to the Supreme Court of Canada will also be a welcome safeguard.
In mentioning the proposed change from the present French version of the name of the Royal Canadian Air Force the minister did not tell us what he has in mind. I
66968-9-791
National Defence Act
know that the present name is highly regarded by many people, and we will have to wait until we hear the proposed new name before we can decide whether or not it is an improvement. This is a matter upon which some of the members from Quebec will perhaps wish to comment when we have full information before us.
The minister's conclusion that the changes are designed to improve the discipline and administration of the Canadian forces would appear to us to be proper, and we look forward to seeing the bill.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly on the resolution to which, I am sure, the house will give general assent. As far as integration of the forces is concerned, I think everyone agrees that is a common sense approach under modern conditions. I am sure the minister realizes how horrified some members of the forces would have been 50 years ago if such a thing had been suggested, but in our society it is an inevitable development of our defence forces.
The amendment with respect to the rules of evidence appears to be an important improvement. We will have to wait until we see the details of the bill.
With regard to the safeguards having to do with courts-martial, that is right in line with modern thinking and the new approach to the way persons in the armed forces should be treated with respect to courts-martial and the application of justice. I am very interested in the provision of an appeal court to hear appeals against decisions of courts-martial. I almost got court-martialled on one occasion. I was on a range back of the lines in France as a musketry instructor. I was attached to a British regiment at the time and was instructing about 50 men in musketry. During the exercise the men were supposed to pump dummy ammunition through the rifles and aim at the instructor's eyes. On one occasion I said, "Don't aim at my eye, shoot past my head". The man pulled the trigger and a bullet went pass my head. There was an investigation, and all 50 of those blighters swore that I had never inspected their arms. I was taken 15 miles in a G.S. wagon and told that I was going to be court-martialled. Presumably Colonel Kimball, whom the Minister of Public Works knew very well and respected as I did, got me freed from a very serious charge. I am quite sure that under those circumstances there would have been no appeal at all.
Ever since that time I have been interested in making it possible for soldiers to appeal against the decisions of courts-martial. Seriously speaking, I think this is a very good development, because I have knowledge of

National Defence Act
other incidents that occurred while I was serving in the forces where I thought an appeal against the court-martial in question would have been justified and in the interests of justice.


George Randolph Pearkes: Just before the resolution
carries, if it is of any interest to hon. members I can advise them of the change of name provided they will pardon my atrocious French pronunciation. The present French name for the air force is Corps d'Aviation Royal Canadien. That name indicates that it is a corps, a corps being a subordinate part of an army formation. This name has caused confusion, particularly in European countries such as France and Germany where our air division is serving. The suggested name, Forces Aeriennes Royales du Canada, removes that objection.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a
question. I presume that this amendment will be contained in the bill that will be brought before the house in due course.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. As I indicated last
night, this is one of the amendments to the National Defence Act which we are introducing in the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the new name a matter
of translation only?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a matter of translation
only.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I bring this to
the minister's attention. Of course I am not a translator and am not versed in niceties of translation, but it would strike me that the translation puts an entirely different aspect upon the name in French than was the case before. The name Corps d'Aviation Royal Canadien, which to me places the emphasis on Canada, becomes Forces Aeriennes Royales du Canada, which places the emphasis on "Royal". Has the minister any comment to make on that?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think we had better discuss that when the bill is before the house.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 4, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from seven hundred and fifty million dollars to one billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act, and to remove the limitation on the amount thereof that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the said act, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Howard:: I should like to make a comment or two on this subject, sir, with reference to a group of people in a specific wage bracket, that is those who earn less than $3,000 a year. This matter has been dealt with to some extent by the minister in his opening remarks and slightly by other hon. members.
Before proceeding with my argument I think it would be well to lay the groundwork for it by a reference to the effect of the government's housing policy in connection with the low wage group by making a reference to the twelfth annual report for 1957 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. On page 10 this report indicates that a large proportion of the houses built under the act were in the range of $14,000 to $18,000, and that the average annual income of the borrowers was about $5,800. We can see, therefore, that the great proportion of the houses that' have been built cost from $14,000 to $18,000 and that the average income of the borrower was $5,800.
A large proportion of our population falls l the income group of less than $3,000. The itest statistical information I have been ble to get on this subject comes frorn the ixation statistics for 1957, which indicate lat 62 per cent or almost two-thirds of our ital working force in Canada earn less than 3,000. We are entitled therefore, I feel, to lake some specific inquiries of the minister


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the resolution passes I must compliment the minister on his bilingualism.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pearkes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-27, to amend the National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Has he not noticed that the figures he gave refer to houses financed prior to the middle of 1957, which would be under the insurance provision and not under the small home loans policy at all?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to make comments in that direction later, as well as on the other phases of the minister's remarks.

We have seen over a period of years that there has been a great decline in the number of houses which have been made available to people in the low income brackets. It does not matter where you get the figures from because they date back to 1946 and the figures would be the same, but the ones I have in mind are for the fourth quarter, Canadian housing statistics, 1957. These statistics indicate that in 1946 people in the income bracket of less than $3,000 per year accounted for 79.8 per cent of the applications for homes under the National Housing Act. In 1950 this declined to 31.3 per cent, and by 1956 it was down to .4 per cent. This shows the gradual decline in the number of people in the income bracket of less than $3,000 who were able to participate in home building under the National Housing Act.
We have seen, too, the gradual increase in the interest rate. I believe the original interest rate under the act was about 4J per cent; the exact figure escapes me for the moment, but it was about 4J per cent. However, there has been a gradual increase in the interest rate on money available under the National Housing Act to the 6 per cent which was announced some time in January, 1957. With the increase in interest rates applicable, with the increase in the cost of homes and with the inflation applying to it, and with the relatively large number of our wage earners in Canada still being in the low income brackets, it is evident that these people have found themselves in a squeeze between the amount of their income and the rising cost of homes.
I return to figures I placed on Hansard last year, and which were given to me by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These figures relate to what a 6 per cent interest rate means to borrowers. I was told that as a result of the manner in which interest is calculated on N.H.A. borrowings, it amounts to an additional $919.42 for every $1,000 borrowed. If we apply this to an average loan of $10,960 which was the average for 1957, we find that a person is immediately in debt to the tune of some $21,000 for a home which probably sold for $11,000 or $12,000.
Now, there are two approaches that can be taken toward providing houses. One of them can be on the basis of supplying the need for houses, and the other can be on the basis of meeting the effective demand. In the past I think we have tended toward considering this effective demand for houses more than we have tended to look at the requirements or needs. Effective demand has been interpreted to mean the number of new homes which people are prepared to buy and are financially able to buy. Certainly in 1933, 1934 and 1935, as well as in later years,
National Housing Act
there was a need for new homes, for additional housing facilities, but certainly no effective demand because of the economic conditions in the nation. There is relatively little effective demand for housing from people in the low income brackets; they simply cannot afford housing. There is certainly a need for housing for these people in the low income brackets, this 62 per cent of our population that falls in the class earning less than $3,000.
I suggest that this government should take a new look at this question from the point of view of having the housing legislation satisfy the need, and get away from looking at the effective demand for these particular houses.
I am sure the minister does not need anyone to continue to remind him of this particular question. Inasmuch as he just came back from the most glorious part of Canada, I am quite sure he will be in an even more humorous and an even more generous mood to do things of this sort. In one way or the other we must bring these people who are in need of housing into this effective demand group, though they may not now be in a position to afford these high cost homes or see their way clear to do so at 6 per cent a year-or 6 per cent semi-annually, I believe you should call it-and cannot see their way clear to go into this kind of debt to buy homes. The government can do a number of things, inasmuch as it is the major participant now in the field of home building and construction in order to ensure that the needs of people in the low income groups are met.
The suggestion has been made that interest rates be lowered. That is a suggestion to which I subscribe. I think the 6 per cent interest rate is far too much to expect a person to pay, especially when we are lending him his own money back in order to buy a home.
The argument we have heard from the minister is this. If we were to lower the interest rates we would in effect then dry up private mortgage money; that the private financial institutions including insurance companies, banks and other lending institutions would find that it was not profitable enough to lend money for housing at less than 6 per cent, and would consequently channel their money in some other direction.
We can offer these lower interest rates and, if need be, we can allow a lower interest rate to people who are in the lower income brackets, who are not now able to borrow one way or the other, either from the banks or private lending institutions or directly through C.M.H.C. because of the interest rates and because they are in a low wage

National Housing Act category. Incidentally I may say that suggestion has been made by a number of organizations interested in housing. We could increase our participation in the subsidization of housing. We certainly could expand the limited dividend housing arrangement and remove the restrictions that are there. But beyond all this, and overriding these various suggestions that are made from time to time, I think one of the glaring faults, especially in the last couple of years, with regard to the National Housing Act is that its original basis, the original reason it was put into effect and the conditions which existed at that time, have now changed. It is therefore necessary to change the philosophy and the outlook of the government and the outlook of the people administering the act, and the actual form of the act itself.
I suggest that a complete overhaul must be made of our national housing legislation in the light of changing circumstances. Whether it be done by a royal commission, a joint committee of this house and the other place, internally within the department or within C.M.H.C., it does not matter too much to me so long as it is done, so long as the act is overhauled and so long as we are going to operate our act on the basis of the needs and the desires of our people, especially those in the low income groups, and how we can best accommodate them. That cannot be done now as the legislation stands and as it is administered.
I would suggest that the act is not only out of date from my point of view but that this idea is taken up by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself in its own annual report for 1957 where, at page 9 it says this. I do not know whether C.M.H.C. were justified in interpreting what parliament did; nevertheless this is the attitude that is expressed at page 9 of this report:
Parliament in passing the National Housing Act in 1954, had never intended that the corporation should become a major supplier of mortgage money.
It was on that basis that the act was enacted. It was on that basis that C.M.H.C. has been operating. It was on that basis apparently that parliament in 1954 put this legislation on the statute books, namely that it never intended C.M.H.C. to become a major supplier of mortgage money. But we find that this is precisely what has happened within the last two years, and the statistics were given by the minister. They are to be found in Hansard somewhere; I do not think I need to look them up. They appear also in the annual report of C.M.H.C. to which I have referred on two or three occasions.


In the last two years we have seen that these private lending institutions-the insurance companies, the mortgage companies, the banks and so on-have failed in their responsibility to society to provide money for housing. Consequently the federal government has been obliged to step into the picture; and again we are being obliged to increase our allocation of funds to C.M.H.C. by this very resolution that is before us at the moment.
In 1955 C.M.H.C. provided only 2.7 per cent of the funds under the act; only one fiftieth of the amount of money spent on housing under the act came from the corporation. In
1956	this amount was almost doubled to 4.8 per cent, so that approximately one twenty-fifth of the money spent under the N.H.A. came from the corporation. But then in
1957	we discovered that it was necessary for the federal government and the corporation to take an even greater part in the field of home building, and almost half the entire money spent in Canada came from C.M.H.C. or from the government. This situation is hardly in balance with the announced attitude as to why the act was passed, one of the statements being that it was never intended that the corporation should become a major supplier of money.
We are now a major supplier of money, supplying in one year, I believe, half the entire amount of money provided under the act itself; and again in 1958, if I recall what the minister said, we were in somewhat the same position, again supplying almost half the total amount of money provided under the N.H.A. If this situation does not give some reasons for completely overhauling the act, I do not know what does; and for overhauling the attitude of this government in so far as supplying housing to people in need and who require it, not necessarily on the basis of effective demand, as is the practice at the moment. Until we can do something in that line we shall still be faltering along. These people in the low income groups will still find housing too far out of reach for them to buy it. They will still find interest rates far too high and they will find that, for one reason or another, they are not able to increase their annual incomes in order to attain the housing that is required.
I hope the minister will take this matter into consideration. Knowing that sunny disposition he has, especially after having looked at the crocuses and daffodils that are growing in our native province, I hope he will come back here with that sunshine and with that basic socialist approach he has to

things, and will introduce the type of amendments that are necessary in this act in order that the needs and desires of the people may be met.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to talk very long on this resolution. However, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) for the magnificent outline he gave us of the housing situation. I am glad also to point out that the minister has kept the matter on a high plane, and I believe that members who took part in the debate so far have also tried to keep their remarks on the same level. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this attitude indeed shows that hon. members realize the importance of the problem, both from an economic and social standpoint, and I believe it can be said that all parties here have always favoured the adoption of measures designed to improve the housing situation in this country.
I should like also to underline the splendid work done by the officials and employees of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. From 1953 to 1957, I had the opportunity of working in close co-operation with them and I was in a position to notice their devotion and diligence in the exercise of their duties. I hope the minister will not begrudge my saying that they deserve much of the credit for the success of their work.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to talk very long, because I already had the opportunity in December 1957 and May 1958 of making some remarks and suggestions about that matter, and I feel that the remarks and suggestions I made at the time still apply.
Of course we appreciate the results obtained last year, when the housing starts reached 164,000, i.e. 19 per cent more than the record high of 1955, when the housing starts had reached 138,300. However-and I say this in all sincerity-in spite of the minister's good will, I feel that, even though more funds were made available and minor changes are embodied in this resolution, so far the National Housing Act has not answered the main purpose contemplated when it was enacted, that of providing decent homes for all Canadians.
In fact, in a report prepared by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the
National Housing Act
third quarter of 1958, entitled Canadian Housing Statistics, the following remarks can be read on page 6:
There has been very little change in the level of income of borrowers under the National Housing Act, in the third quarter of 1958. The average income of insured loan applicants was $5,862, roughly $700 more than the average income of applicants under the loan program for the construction of low-price housing. Family income exceeded those amounts by $500 to $600.
The average cost of houses bought by insured loan borrowers was $14,937. Under the loan program for construction of low cost housing, the average cost of a house was $13,519. In both cases, the average down payments were $3,392 and $2,363 respectively.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, the C.M.H.C. says that houses bought by holders of insured loans cost an average of $14,937, while under the loan program for the construction of low cost housing, the average cost of a house was $13,519. As I said earlier, the average down payments were $3,392 and $2,363, respectively.
So, Mr. Chairman, the average income of borrowers under the loan program for the construction of low cost houses was $5,162 and the average cost of houses of this type was $13,519.
That is why I asked the hon. minister, when he introduced his motion to the house a few days ago, how a man earning $3,000 and even $3,500 a year could take advantage of the present legislation. True, the price may vary according to the site and size of the house, but in a city like Levis, for instance, which is in my constituency, I think I can state that it is very difficult,-as experience has proved, -to build a house for less than $10,000. I could give additional evidence of this.
Mr. Chairman, may I refer again to the C.M.H.C. report for the third quarter of 1958, under the heading: "Housing statistics in Canada," and more particularly to page 30 of that report where I find table No. 51, entitled "Price of houses financed under National Housing Acts" and to the third column under the heading "Third quarter 1958, loans for low cost housing".
I find that only J of 1 per cent of these houses cost between $8,000 and $9,000; that 1.9 percent cost between $9,000 and $10,000; and that 5.3 per cent cost between $10,000 and $10,999. And reading down that column, I find that the cost of the majority of those houses was between $11,000 and $15,000.
This goes to show, Mr. Chairman, that I was right in saying that, even for urban low cost housing-and I gave as an example the


Mr. Tremblay:: You are messing up your speech, my hon. friend.


Mr. Habel:: Perhaps in so far as you are concerned.


Maurice Bourget: At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I would try to keep the discussion on the same level as the minister's statement, and I will not be swayed from my course by the interruptions of my hon. friend from Roberval (Mr. Tremblay).


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You are on the wrong track.


Maurice Bourget: As the minister knows,
under sections 23 and 36 of the present legislation, we also in the province of Quebec have an opportunity to take advantage of what is offered under those two same sections to any of the other provinces and of which the province of Ontario especially has taken advantage to so large an extent.
Only one project has been accepted by the government of our province, and that is the one commonly called the Dozois plan. I therefore urge my hon. friends to make new representations to the premier of our province

and get him to understand that it is in the interest of our fellow citizens to take advantage of these two sections of the act. At the same time they might perhaps ask him to extend to Quebeckers who would like to borrow under federal government guarantee, the privilege of the interest discount provided for in the present provincial legislation.
(Text) :


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I can conclude my words of wisdom before one o'clock, but I was hoping to. First of all I want to congratulate the Minister of Public Works for having pursued this program with vigour since he took his office, within the limits of the law and regulations. Without any doubt his attention and the attention of his officials to this has provided an increased number of homes, an exceptional amount of employment in the housing industry, and a good market for lumber and other building materials. That is all to the good.
I do not want to repeat the many things said by previous speakers in this debate, but I do have a couple of suggestions to make. I wish to express support for the suggestion that the present housing law does not make it possible for large numbers in the lower income groups to obtain the housing they require. From my experience and conversation I have learned that this applies to a great number of families. I feel that two factors mitigate against the ability of those in this group to obtain housing. One is the increased cost of houses and the other is the increased cost of land. These two considerations deny a great number of needy Canadians the opportunity of securing housing.
The suggestion has been made that the act should be revised, and I support that proposal. I wish to draw to the attention of the minister a fact which I presume he already knows very well indeed. The best housing legislation we have had in Canada to date is that provided under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act. The results of that legislation are demonstrated all across Canada. I am not reflecting on the administration of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation by the officials of that body, because they have to administer a somewhat different act; but under the administration of the Veterans' Land Act these men are permitted to act as their own contractors. I know many
National Housing Act
veterans in my own constituency who have been able to provide themselves with very satisfactory homes under this legislation but who would not have been able to secure similar homes under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation.
I urge the government to give consideration to amending the National Housing Act to include provisions to meet the needs of those requiring housing but who are unable to secure it at the present time. I would suggest amendments along the lines of the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member realizes that the borrower under the National Housing Act may build his own home.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but there is a greater scope under the Veterans' Land Act.


The Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock I must leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when we rose at one o'clock to stoke the fires of our bodily furnaces I had been dealing with the necessity of the liberalization of the act in order to provide homes for low income groups who could not take advantage of the act at the present time, and I had suggested that when that was being given consideration by the government, the government would be well advised to consider the experience of the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act administration. I speak with some knowledge of the success of that administration because I have followed very closely the construction of quite a large number of houses in my own constituency in the larger and smaller communities. It has been a most successful housing project. First of all the Veterans' Land Act administration, in co-operation with the Legion, provides classes in construction for those who desire to build their own houses and assists them to learn how to dig basements and to obtain knowledge of housing tools, and so forth. Throughout the whole period of construction I find there is the greatest co-operation on a

National Housing Act
personal basis. I have found the field supervisor going around to see the men and frequently giving the advice about materials, where they can get materials to advantage, and so on. Throughout the building there was constant supervision on, shall I say, a very good basis, a type of supervision that was appreciated by the veteran concerned who was building his house under the small loans section of the Veterans' Land Act.
Then, I think it is quite correct to say that we must give the administration of the Veterans' Land Act credit for establishing, shall I say, what is known as "collections without tears". They have an excellent record in that respect. One has only to talk to the veterans around the constituency who build houses under the supervision of the field supervisor to find out what they think of this kind of legislation. I am not saying that all aspects of the legislation can be drafted into amendments to the housing act; but I do suggest it is a foundation of experience, and it has produced results. It deserves very serious consideration by any government which is aiming to do something to provide houses for the people who are still denied them.
I want to say a word or two about the unorganized community. I am not talking about the small organized villages or small towns; I am talking about the unorganized communities, unorganized districts, and we have quite a number of those in British Columbia. We have villages with populations of, say, 1,000 people that are not yet incorporated. I find that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is very loath to advance loans under those circumstances. I do suggest that consideration should be given to factors other than the fact only that the village or community is incorporated. I know a number of unincorporated communities that have excellent local fire brigades, excellent water systems, in some instances quite superior to those in incorporated communities. This can be proved by consulting the fire insurance companies as to the fire insurance rates, especially in those communities, and I do suggest that consideration should be given to those other factors when applications are received from persons who want to build in unorganized communities or in unorganized districts. This is all I am going to say about this aspect of the matter. I am going to restrict my words of wisdom as far as possible.
I do want to say a word or two about research with respect particularly to the use of materials. You know, Mr. Chairman, this is an age of conformity. Everybody wears the same sort of hat except me and everybody wears the same sort of clothes. We
[Mr. Herridge.l
build the same type of houses except that the bedroom is on the right-hand side of the front door instead of on the left, and things of that sort, and we all utilize the same type of furniture.
I think our housing corporations should do something to provide some diversity in our culture and in our housing developments by giving some consideration to design, particularly so as to provide the greatest diversity possible within the limits of the price range and also to provide some diversity with respect to use of materials. I want to mention this as something which has come to my attention in recent years. We are an odd people; we are a most wasteful people.
I will tell the committee what is happening in my district. I speak with some knowledge because I am a director of a minuscule lumber company. Wealthy people from California are coming up here buying logs in order to build log houses that cost $100,000 or more. They are having them treated and are actually buying them in our district. We are sending out carloads and carloads of cedar shakes made from British Columbia red cedar. 1 made inquiries and incidentally I found that it is the best value in roofing known today. According to the United States department of documents, research division, the cedar shake is still the best value for your money today; that is, its cost in relation to the life span. To illustrate that, Mr. Chairman, I might say that my office was built in 1898 and has the same cedar shake roofing today that was placed on the office when it was first built and it is in first class condition. In the district in which I live we find carloads and carloads of red cedar shakes being shipped to California because wealthy people there want to use them on the roofs of their houses and as siding. Yet the very men who are manufacturing these shakes are buying asphalt shingles and things of that sort. The same is true of other natural commodities.
I think we should give some consideration to bringing about diversification in our housing. In my opinion, economies can be achieved if the corporation will give consideration to the use of local materials. The beauty and diversity of our housing will be increased and in some cases the costs will be lower. I know what I am speaking about because I can show the minister a log cabin in my district that has 3,600 feet of floor space. It is modern in every respect. It has a basement, is electrically equipped, is panelled with various woods in different rooms and each floor is covered with a different flooring including birch, fir, pine, spruce and so on. That house cost less than $10,000. We have dozens and dozens of people in our district

who with a little encouragement-I am not saying this can be done on a large scale- in the use of logs and in the value of cedar shakes for roofing and siding could be provided with homes at a lower cost than is the case today if they built them themselves under supervision. Such homes would add something to the landscape and to the diversity of housing in Canada.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring another matter to the attention of the minister. I think more research should be carried out in connection with fireproof paints for wooden houses or other wood structures. I have made many inquiries and I find that very little is being done today even by the national research council, other research organizations connected with the government or by private industry although I understand that the United States defence forces have produced a reasonably priced fireproof paint or stain that can be sprayed on shingles, shakes and lumber which will then resist an unusual amount of heat. I suggest to the minister that some consideration be given to research in that direction because it would lessen the fire losses in a good many cases, particularly where there are hazards created by chimney fires in winter and things of that sort.
That is all I have to say at this time on the resolution. I trust that the minister will give some consideration to my suggestions which he knows are always on a very sound basis indeed.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this matter but since I have been engaged in house building for a good many years and have built a good many N.H.A. houses I thought I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a few things to which I should like him to give consideration. I am sorry that I was not here to hear his address at the beginning of the debate but I should like to join with others in congratulating him for the splendid job his department has done in providing money for the building industry. Nobody realizes better than the minister just what this money does. It not only provides jobs in the building industry but it provides a great many jobs in industries allied to the building industry such as those making plumbing supplies, furnaces and a great many other things. So I am sure that what the minister has done has probably been more effective than what has been done by any other department in preventing the country from falling into a greater recession than at present.
However, several things have come to my attention. One is that while the building
National Housing Act
industry has probably had one of its best periods in the last two years, nonetheless industries such as those engaged in the manufacture of hardware and plywood are now at about the lowest level of production they have experienced for many years. That is particularly so of the hardware industry. If any industry in Canada should be busy today it is the hardware industry. In Ontario we have five or six good hardware manufacturers such as Yale and Towne, Toronto Lock, Peterborough Lock and Belleville Lock but, with the exception of Yale and Towne, they have practically all gone out of business. Yale and Towne is now importing into Canada almost all the locks it sells. In the last week I went with a delegation from the united electrical workers to see the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with this matter. The government was asked to do something to try to stimulate the hardware industry in Canada and to prevent so much importation at a very low tariff rate.
Then there is the plywood industry. While softwood plywood has not been too badly affected yet, nonetheless about 64 per cent of hardwood plywood, a lot of which is used in housing today, is coming into Canada from foreign countries. A great many plywood plants in Ontario and other parts of Canada have gone out of existence. To me this is a very serious problem and I would ask the minister to give the matter serious consideration because, after all, I think the Conservative party is pledged to support home industry and the manufacturing of more of our own raw materials.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister having to do with the cost of building lots. In the last five years we in the industry have seen building lots go up in price from about $500 to $5,000, and in some cases even more. All communities are not affected but in areas like Toronto, Hamilton, yes, St. Catharines too, the cost of land has gone up to a point where it is creating quite a hardship for people who wish to buy lots in order to build homes.
I have always been a great supporter of the land assembly scheme. I think it would do a great deal toward eliminating much of the middleman's profits and making land available to builders and home owners at a reasonable cost. The land assembly scheme is a three-way scheme whereby the municipalities, the provincial government and the federal government work together to buy land, put in the services and make it available for building.
Another problem is the cost of low rental housing. I do not think that we have really

National Housing Act
scratched the surface and I hope ways and means will be found to build low rental housing. I know it is a problem to get prices down so as to be able to charge what might be considered low rentals but nevertheless it is a problem we have got to face. That, of course, brings us to the question of the high cost.
Now, there are a great many people who will say that we have ourselves to blame; that we priced ourselves out of the market; that wages are too high. These may be reasons, but they do not help us in solving the problem. I hope that during the year this government will give some consideration to reducing the cost of building low rental housing.
Then there is also the question of research for the housing industry. My hon. friends on the other side mentioned this a few minutes ago. We all know that industry spends a tremendous amount of money on research trying to find the cheapest and best way of manufacturing. It seems to me that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could conduct research along the same lines in connection with house building, discovering new materials and new methods. We in the building trades have always fought prefabricated houses. We like to have them built on the ground. Nevertheless, I think the minister might very well give some consideration to this aspect of the matter.
There is another point I should like to mention to the minister, and that is the production of low cost housing plans. It is true that last year Central Mortgage and Housing did bring out plans for a low cost house. However, I do not think they publicized them sufficiently. I think they should do more along those lines. They should develop a series of low cost houses for erection in the different parts of Canada, because one type of house may be suitable for Vancouver but quite unsuitable for Ontario and Quebec. I would impress upon the minister the need for getting his department to give some consideration to the production of low cost plans for different parts of this country, plans that would enable comfortable homes to be built at a reduction from today's prices.
I think that is all I have to say at this time. I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we fully approve the resolution introduced by the Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Green) which tends to:

-increase from $750 million to 1 billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, under subsection (1) of section 22 of the Act.
I recall that last year the Minister of Public Works reminded the house that the purpose of the National Housing Act was to help people in lower income brackets to own a house or to find a decent home at a price they could afford.
Besides, on January 20, 1959, as recorded on page 3 of the English appendix to Hansard, for that date, I congratulated the government as follows:
Last year, the government made a substantial attempt to promote housing construction in this country, but unfortunately, this effort has not been and will not be as successful outside the cities.
I added:
Housing capital is largely supplied by life insurance companies, and these are hardly interested in rural investments.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, I had received from the chambers of commerce of the constituency I represent, a resolution asking, among other things:
-that the federal government guarantee housing loans granted by the caisses populaires on the same basis as those granted by life insurance companies, in order to promote construction and provide each family with the opportunity of becoming home-owners, which indirectly would indeed help alleviate seasonal unemployment.
I also note, according to a booklet prepared by the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, that it can make loans up to $15,300. I agree that a $15,300 loan would be rather high for a rural community, but I would ask the hon. minister whether it would not be proper to consider a plan designed to guarantee our small rural owners a loan of, say, $5,000. According to the table of monthly payments, including amortization of principal, at an interest rate of 6 per cent, a $6,000 loan would cost the home owner $35.69 a month, including principal and interest. Under the circumstances, I feel that a loan of this amount would be very helpful to people in rural areas.
The National Housing Act has done a lot of good in cities, and we congratulate those who put it through, but I am now wondering whether it would not be possible to extend the same benefit to people who live outside the cities.
I therefore urge the Minister of Public Works to consider the possibility of granting loans based on the municipal assessment, in rural centres of 5,000 people or

more. In my opinion, this would help young people to provide themselves with homes to which they are entitled.
(Text):


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is just one point I want to mention. I think everyone approves the increase in the amount mentioned in this resolution. Last week I learned something, and I do not know if it is new or old. A contractor told me that there is so much red tape it is difficult for somebody to get quick action from the housing department. He told me that he tells an individual who wants a house to apply to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The individual does so, and about 15 days later receives an answer to the effect that he should go to an insurance company to obtain the money. He then applies to the insurance company and is told by the insurance company that, for one reason or another, that company is unable to grant the demand.
Then the individual goes back to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and it takes two or three months before he gets another answer. I do not know to what extent this situation is general, or whether it represents one case out of a hundred. However, I am telling the minister what the situation is so that he can investigate the matter before the bill comes before the house to ascertain if anything can be done toward ensuring that people will not have to wait five months before receiving a final answer to their application.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the discussion that has taken place today on this resolution has been extremely helpful, just as was the case when the resolution first came up for debate some days ago. I am very grateful to all those members who have taken part for the constructive way in which they have approached this problem. I think that anyone responsible for administering housing legislation in Canada would be very unwise to believe that he or she had all the answers because this is a very complicated question and one which, I think, typifies democracy at its best. This is a good example of how a democratic system of government can function.
Throughout the time that I have been responsible for housing I have been conscious of the need to extend the benefits of the act just as widely as possible and in particular tc the smaller centres in the country, to the rural areas, and above all to Canadians in the lower income groups. Hon. members will realize, of course, that the government's small home loans policy is directed toward the lower income groups. In pursuing these objectives we have taken a number of steps
National Housing Act
which I think have helped. They have not solved the whole problem but they have helped a great deal.
The hon. member for Hull mentioned the delay in having applications dealt with by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think perhaps he had been advised by some contractor who was an exception. In fact, it might have been a contractor who has had some trouble with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and was out to get in a little bit of retaliation. The average time for processing a loan is only four days. This is a Canada-wide average.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Did the minister say that was for processing the loan or granting the loan?


Howard Charles Green: For processing the loan. That is the average. In some centres it is more and in some centres it is less. However, that average could not be attained without there being a minimum of red tape. My experience with the corporation has been that it is extremely businesslike and efficient and that its public relations are excellent. I do not believe there is in the country any corporation dealing with large numbers of people which has better public relations than has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This is a great tribute to the officers and to the staff right from the top to the bottom. I may say that this is something we try to watch at all times. We believe that the Canadian people must be given every consideration. If the hon. member for Hull would care to give me the name of the contractor, I will have an investigation made and will find out just what was the matter in that case. I will promise not to tell on him if it turns out, as I suspect, that the contractor is about 150 per cent at fault.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will ask him first.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Beauce mentioned additional help in the rural areas. This matter, of course, is extremely important. We are prepared to make loans in rural areas and in small centres just as readily as in large centres. I may say that the policy is to be in a residual position. We deliberately try to keep out of the position of being the main lenders of mortgage money in Canada. The rule is that an applicant in a rural area must go to one prior lender asking for a loan. Then if he is refused he can come to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In an urban area he must go to two lenders. Then if the application is rejected, he can come to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We would be prepared to have credit unions classified as approved lenders under

National Housing Act
the act but I believe there are some restrictions of a provincial nature which make it impractical for a credit union to apply to be considered as an approved lender. We should be glad to have them included, but apparently it is not the wish of those concerned that this should be done.
Last year, as the hon. member will recall, the corporation brought out two sets of plans, one for a house costing about $8,000 and the other for a house costing about $5,000. Apparently I am wrong. It was the same plan but the house would cost $8,000 in an urban area and $5,000 in a rural area. Two additional sets of plans for similar houses or similar types of houses are now almost complete. There has been some distribution of the first plan. Not as many people have asked for it as we had hoped. It may be that in the rural areas and indeed in the smaller towns there is not the demand for new housing that we had expected. I think this factor enters into the picture, namely that there is not the same keen demand for new homes in those areas as there is in the rapidly growing metropolitan centres. However, we are prepared and delighted to make loans in rural areas and in the smaller towns.
Then the hon. member for Lincoln made several extremely helpful suggestions. Of course he has had a long experience in the building industry and speaks as an expert in that field. I am afraid that improving the hardware industry is a little bit beyond my scope, other than by getting more houses built and giving them a better market. In this regard they have done fairly well in the last year. I suppose there has never before been such a good market for household hardware in Canada.
Then he mentioned a land assembly plan. As hon. members know, this is a type of activity under the National Housing Act in which the municipality, the province and the federal government join in buying up land and servicing it. Then they sell it. Of course their expenses are recouped in that way. The procedure has been extremely helpful. The result has been that this serviced land is much cheaper than it otherwise would be. The results of this particular part of the housing policy have been extremely beneficial. There is no reason why that plan should not be adopted in many other centres apart from those that are already benefiting from it. We would certainly give favourable consideration to applications for any land assembly project.
The hon. member also mentioned low rental housing. This is one activity which has been somewhat neglected in the debate today.
IMr. Green.]
It was more or less overlooked when members were dealing with the need to help Canadians in the lower income group.


Mr. Benidickson:: Oh, I put on my listening device and listened very carefully to the translation of the remarks made by the hon. member for Levis, and I thought that was the main point he made this morning-this question of the houses available for people in the lower income groups.


Howard Charles Green: I am talking about low rental houses as distinct from houses which are owned. There are several different ways in which low rental houses are being provided under the housing act. One is under the limited dividend plan which has been used very extensively in the course of the past year. About 7,000 units were built in 1958 under that plan. As hon. members know, funds are provided on very long terms-very easy terms-and the only people who can benefit are those in the lower third income group. If a man's income is above the lower third he cannot rent one of these limited dividend apartments. Then, in addition, there are federal-provincial housing schemes which provide for low rentals and here, too, there is an income ceiling and in some cases these units are subsidized by the government. I must confess that I always look carefully at subsidized rental schemes, because they mean some Canadians are having to subsidize other Canadians in the matter of living accommodation. There are cases where this is necessary, but I think this type of construction should be the exception rather than the rule, because when you get into the field of widespread subsidization of rented accommodation it seems to me there is a very thin line between the family that gets the accommodation and the benefit of the subsidy, and the family which has to pay for it. I think members of the committee will agree that the provision of this type of accommodation has to be considered very carefully.
The hon. member for Levis also mentioned research. I think credit is due to the national research council and also to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the research which has been carried on in the field of building. I can remember very well when the national research council began this activity. It was very badly needed and the results have been excellent. We shall, of course, continue to do all the research possible, and inquire into all the matters mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West, but hon. members would be wrong to think that nothing has been done up to this time. Research in this field is probably as far ahead as it is in any other field in Canada.

Mention has been made of the Veterans' Land Act. This, of course, is an act of great benefit to veterans and it was deliberately drawn so as to give them an advantage as part of the compensation due to them for the sacrifices they made for the country. But it would be another thing to extend all these benefits to the rest of the nation. I think it is difficult to compare housing under the Veterans' Land Act to housing under the National Housing Act.
Then there was some discussion about the high cost of building houses. Here, again, I agree that one of the difficulties is the high cost of building, but it is difficult for us to do much about that. Everything is costing more; all prices have increased, and wages have increased, and as the hon. member for Levis said, in his city-and I guess in most other cities-it would be difficult to build a house for less than $10,000. That is the general situation across Canada and I doubt whether it can be met under the National Housing Act or, for that matter, under any other act. We do not want to start putting ceilings on wages or setting controls on prices. We are living in a free enterprise economy and these are things which are not done in an economy of this type.
It has been suggested that interest rates should be lowered. It would be very desirable if the money could be put out without any interest at all having to be paid, but here again we have to face conditions as they are. If the interest rate is to be lower than the amount the government pays to get this capital, it means that some Canadians are paying for other Canadians, make no mistake about that. It means subsidization, and in the light of the going rate for the dominion government bonds I do not think the interest rate at 6 per cent under the National Housing Act is out of line. While, generally speaking, interest rates have been rising we have very carefully kept the rate under the housing act at 6 per cent. I am very pleased that this has been possible and I think we should get a little credit for keeping the rate at this figure. Under the conditions which now exist it would be very difficult to lower the rate.
Another factor which is sometimes overlooked when we talk about the cost of housing is that in practically every organized community in Canada there are very severe building restrictions; you just cannot walk into a centre and build a cheap house. In many cases the municipal authorities will not allow you to do so-you must have this improvement, and that improvement, and so on, and rightly so. I am not quarreling with that because the municipal authorities want to keep up their standards. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not anxious
National Housing Act
to break down standards. In fact, right from the beginning of the history of the corporation an attempt has been made, under both governments, to maintain the standards set by the municipalities. However, this fact of municipal regulation, town planning by-laws and so on must be taken into account when one is looking at this whole housing picture.
Some mention was made by the hon. member for Skeena of the fact that the government is now putting up a very much larger percentage of money for housing than had formerly been the case and if I followed his argument he appeared to be trying to prove that because of this fact the government should go further and pretty much do the whole thing and adopt entirely new standards. The government went into the home financing field to such a large extent in the last two years for one reason, to provide employment. This was done deliberately as the very best means of creating jobs. It was never intended to be a long range policy that the government would have to provide approximately 50 per cent of the mortgage money. It would be very difficult for the government to do this and I do not think many hon. members of this committee would wish to have the government stay in this field in such a large way.
As I said, we have been receiving excellent co-operation from the lending institutions. Last year they invested huge sums of money in housing and they propose to do the same this year. I believe that the general picture is very hopeful.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a very rough reply to the various suggestions made by hon. members. The bill of course will be introduced following the passing of this resolution and then there will be an opportunity to go into the amendments in detail. Once again I should like to thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate for their very helpful and constructive suggestions.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister takes his seat I should like to ask him one question. Would he care to comment on the difficulties being experienced by the plywood and veneer manufacturers in connection with their projects especially regarding the importation of competitive goods from other countries and particularly Japan.


Howard Charles Green: Here again, Mr. Chairman, the question is not really in my field. In administering the National Housing Act we are not in a position to do anything about that.


James Moffat Forgie: It does enter the cost structure, though.


Howard Charles Green: I feel it is a question which really comes under the purview of the Department of Trade and Commerce.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question. When I intervened a few moments ago he was referring to subsidized housing and low rental housing. I recall some years ago-and in fact I believe the minister was present too-a parliamentary group visited the Regent Park south development in Toronto in its early stages. I think it was one of the first developments of its kind in Canada. In listening to the minister this afternoon I received the impression that he was casting a chill on that type of development and I wonder if I misinterpreted him. Is this type of development not something that would have the minister's warm approval?


Howard Charles Green: The Regent Park south development is a very good one and there are more recent programs of this type proceeding in Toronto, Kingston, Halifax, Windsor, Vancouver and in other centres. There is also the Jeanne Mance project in Montreal. We are very glad to share in these redevelopment projects.
Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by saying that some months ago I found we were being asked to approve of projects under which people could stay in an apartment although they had an income of practically $6,000 a year. When it comes to subsidizing people with that much income you ask yourself a few questions. This is what I had in mind. I am not casting any reflection whatever on the merits of the Regent Park south project or other projects of that kind which are in effect slum clearance projects.


William Moore Benidickson: I was thinking in terms of slum clearance but these projects have ther values aside from the question of subsidization upon which the minister seemed to frown. They necessarily involve a transfer affecting those in the country who are most poorly off in the matter of housing which is an essential social development. I did not think the minister intended to convey the impression to which I referred.


Howard Charles Green: No.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Green thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the National Housing Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES TO THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

Howard Charles Green: that the house go into

committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of ail expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is in very simple terms reading as it does:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
That maximum at present is $250 million so if this measure receives approval there will be an addition of $100 million. Today I should like to review briefly the legislation and agreements pursuant to the trans-Canada highway from 1949 up to the present time.
The Trans-Canada Highway Act, which became law on December 10, 1949, was enacted to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. It provided that the federal government may make contributions to a provincial government of 50 per cent of the construction costs of the highway over a seven-year period-this was the original act-which in effect, contemplated the completion date by December 9, 1956. It further provided that the federal government's share would not exceed $150 million. I repeat, $150 million. If the amendment we now bring forward is passed the figure would be $350 million. Subsequent to this enactment nine of the 10 provinces entered into agreements for participating in this project. Quebec has not signed an agreement to participate under this particular statute. That famous old province did not make any agreement under the original act and it has not participated either under the amendments of 1956.
During the first few years a fairly substantial trans-Canada highway construction program was put under way in most provinces. However, concurrent with this project, every province was faced with demands for reconstruction and new construction on all parts of their highway systems, which prevented them from pushing construction on the trans-Canada at a rate necessary to ensure completion by December, 1956. Further the project turned out to be much larger and more expensive than was originally estimated.
As it was apparent by 1955 that no province would complete its section by the specified date a federal-provincial highway

conference on provincial matters was held in Ottawa in November of that year. This conference was convened to discuss ways and means of accelerating the pace of work on the trans-Canada highway. As a result of this 1955 conference new legislation was introduced in parliament and on June 7, 1956, royal assent was given to a bill which amended the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
That bill provided the needed incentive for an accelerated construction program in that it provided that Canada contribute 90 per cent of the construction costs, rather than 50 per cent, on 10 per cent of the mileage within each province. This amendment also set the completion date forward to December 31, 1960, and increased the maximum limit which Canada would contribute from $150 million to $250 million.
I believe there was an interesting reason for this paying of 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage within each province. The longest gap at that time was and still is in Ontario, along the north shore of lake Superior, and it worked out at about 10 per cent of the total mileage in that province. Therefore, shall we say, as a carrot to get that province to close that gap this new plan was worked out. The dominion would pay 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the total mileage. Since the federal government had done that for Ontario-by the way, there was a big gap in British Columbia and still another in Newfoundland as well-every other province had to get the same deal, so I suspect without exception they all picked out the most expensive 10 per cent highway construction in their provinces and they are getting 90 per cent of the cost of that particular 10 per cent.


Maurice Bourget: No one can blame them.


Howard Charles Green: No, I do not blame them a
bit. New agreements were prepared based on the new act and the nine provinces who were signatories to the original agreements jointly signed them with the federal government. I might mention that these agreements specified that either the highway conform to the general specifications for the trans-Canada highway or else constitute a good standard of paved highway. Thus, where good sections of road existed, ones capable of carrying the present traffic, sound engineering practice dictated that they be left until their normal life was exhausted. However, where new construction or reconstruction was involved there would be no departure from trans-Canada highway specified standards.
From the time of this new act construction progress on the highway definitely accelerated. By March, 1956, or approximately
Trans-Canada Highway Act six years after the original act, $225.8 million worth of work had been approved for construction. From March 31, 1956 to date, or approximately three years, an additional $236.5 million worth of work has been approved. In other words, during the past three years as much work was put under way as was done during the first six years of the original agreements. This is a very practical measure of acceleration on the project since the new act of June, 1956.
A large part of this accelerated work has gone into the gap sections which existed at that time. The major gap sections consisted of the Rogers pass route in British Columbia, the northern Ontario section from Marathon to Agawa, and the Newfoundland section from Port Blandford to Traytown. All of these sections are now under contract and they are all very expensive construction, by the way.
The gap along the north shore of lake Superior is very heavy rock work; it is very difficult for contractors to get in there and it is costing a great deal of money. The same, of course, is true of the Rogers pass in British Columbia, which is the pass that the Canadian Pacific railway used originally. They had so many snow slides and lost so much equipment and so many lives that they built the Connaught tunnel-I think it is under mount Macdonald-a five-mile tunnel, and abandoned their route through Rogers pass. The trans-Canada highway is going through that pass. The highway can go up and down and dodge the slide areas in a way that the railway could not do, and in addition they now have methods of setting off the snow slides by mortar fire. This is the method of getting the snow slides, or the avalanches started, shutting off the road in the meantime, getting the snow all down and then clearing the roads. That is the way it is supposed to work, anyhow.
Physical progress to date is generally satisfactory and during the next two construction seasons, which will bring us to the termination date of December 31, 1960, we expect to see a further acceleration in the construction rate. At the present time, out of a total of 4,470 miles in the nine participating provinces and through the national parks -this, of course, excludes the province of Quebec-3,090 miles of grading have been approved for construction with 2,781 miles completed and 2,196 miles of paving have been approved with 2,101 miles completed. In addition to the mileage paved to trans-Canada highway standards, there are approximately 950 miles of paved surface along the route which were constructed prior to the date of the act of December, 1949. This latter mileage is not necessarily to trans-Canada highway

Trans-Canada Highway Act standards and the reconstruction of any part of it will depend on provincial planning and their ability to finance reconstruction during the next few years.
The Saskatchewan section of the highway was completed in 1957, and an official opening was held during that year. I think credit must be given to the government of Saskatchewan for being the first province to accomplish this feat. Mind you, road building there was a good deal easier than in some other parts of the country. The highway in Alberta is all completed with the exception of about six miles through the city of Calgary. Outside the city the highway is completed. In Manitoba the same is true; it is all completed with the exception of a by-pass around Winnipeg. In Prince Edward Island it is all completed except one bridge.
The trans-Canada highway traverses five national parks, Terra Nova 26 miles, Banff 51 miles, Yoho 29 miles, Glacier 29 miles- that includes Rogers pass-and Revelstoke 8 miles, for a total of 143 miles through the parks. Through Banff and Yoho all stretches have been completed and a bituminous surface placed. Grading contracts have been awarded on the complete mileages through Revelstoke, Glacier and Terra Nova. Paving operations will commence on some sections in the national parks during the coming summer.
In summary, physical progress may be considered as follows: 69 per cent of the total mileage has been approved for grading, with 47 per cent paved to trans-Canada highway standards. Including the 950 miles of existing pavement, there is a paved surface on approximately 68 per cent of the total mileage. This latter figure must be considered in conjunction with an extensive mileage of graded highway which is now or will be ready for paving this coming summer and which, when completed, will provide a total of approximately 85 per cent of paved highway. This does not include any work that the provinces may put under way during the next two construction seasons.
At the time of the 1956 act when the maximum amount of federal contributions was increased from 150 million to $250 million, surveys and quantity estimates along the whole highway had not been completed, making it difficult to come up with a realistic estimate of total cost in order to determine Canada's share. Another factor was that in some provinces the easier work had been done first and the more difficult and more expensive remained. Examples of this include some of the sections in the Fraser canyon in British Columbia, the Rogers pass route, also in British Columbia, the Winnipeg by-pass and the Ottawa Queensway. To date,

however, it seems fairly obvious that the $250 million will be insufficient to cover Canada's share.
A financial progress review will make this apparent. As I previously mentioned, by March, 1956 the total approved work in all provinces was $225.8 million with Canada's share estimated at $112.9 million. Payments by Canada, however-that means, of course, the federal government-amounted to only $81.6 million or an average of $13.6 million per year. In 1956-57 payments by Canada increased to $24.8 million and in 1957-58 to $49.3 million, bringing the total to $155.7 million. Provincial claims during the current fiscal year 1958-59 may exceed $50 million and with a similar amount in 1959-60 the funds now authorized under the act may be exhausted. Another point is that of the $462.3 million for approved work Canada's share is estimated at $277.5 million. This indicates that we are overcommitted at the present time by $27.5 million, although claims submitted and paid are still below the $250 million authorized by the present act.
From estimates furnished by the provinces it is now considered that the total federal contributions required by the termination date of the act will be in the order of $350 million. Accordingly, the bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act proposes an increase from $250 million to $350 million in the amount which the federal government may contribute toward the cost of highway construction.
I sincerely believe that the various provincial governments will continue the excellent co-operation they have demonstrated in the past and schedule their construction programs to produce a maximum effort by the end of 1960. I have six tables here, Mr. Chairman. They are: (1) Length of highway by provinces; (2) grading construction, December 10, 1949, to January 31, 1959; (3) paving construction, December 10, 1949, to January 31, 1959; (4) structures, meaning bridges and so on, December 10, 1949, to January 31, 1959; (5) summary of contractual commitments, December 10, 1949, to February 14, 1959; (6) summary of Canada's commitments for additional 40 per cent contributions and payments made, December, 10, 1949, to January 24, 1959. I thought it might be of interest to hon. members if these tables were printed in Hansard. It will make it easier for them to follow the statement. If there is unanimous consent I should like to have that done.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: Is
it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: The tables follow:

Trans-Canada Highway Act
Table 3
Table 1
Length of Highway by Provinces
Miles
Newfoundland	 554
Prince Edward Island	 71
Nova Scotia	 311
New Brunswick	 390
Ontario	 1,436
Manitoba	 309
Saskatchewan	 406
Alberta	 282
British Columbia	 568
National Parks
Terra Nova	 26
Banff-Yoho	 80
Glacier-Revelstoke	 37
Total	 4,470
Table 2
Grading	Construction	
10 December, 1949	to 31 January,	1959
Miles of grading		
Province	contracts	Mileage
	approved	completed
Newfoundland 	366	277Prince Edward Island	71	71Nova Scotia 	118	108New Brunswick 	158	148Ontario 	830	711Manitoba 	244	244Saskatchewan 	406	406Alberta 	278	278British Columbia ..	476	433National Parks Terra Nova 	26	20Banff-Yoho 	80	80Glacier-Revelstoke ..	37	5Total 	3,090	2,781
Paving Construction
10 December, 1949 to 31 January, 1959
Province	Miles of paving contracts approved	Mileage completedNewfoundland 	51	34Prince Edward Island	70	70Nova Scotia 	26	26New Brunswick 	96	94Ontario 	609	535Manitoba 	289	289Saskatchewan 	406	406Alberta 	278	276British Columbia ....	291	291National Parks Terra Nova 	Banfl-Yoho 	80	80Glacier-Revelstoke ..	-	-Total 	2,196	2,101
Note: In addition to the 2,101 miles of completed pavement, there are 950 miles of pavement completed prior to December, 1949, on the designated route. Reconstruction of this mileage will depend on provincial planning and ability to finance.
Table 4 Structures
10 December, 1949	to 31 January,	1959
	Structures	Structures
Province	approved	completedNewfoundland 	36	33Prince Edward Island	4	3Nova Scotia 	25	20New Brunswick 	22	13Ontario 	110	63Manitoba 	33	30Saskatchewan 	15	15Alberta 	36	36British Columbia 	74	54National Parks Terra Nova 	4	Banff-Yoho 	24	23Glacier-Revelstoke ...	8	Total 	391	290
Table 5
Summary of Contractual Commitments 10 December, 1949 to 14 February, 1959
Province Newfoundland .
P.E.I	
Nova Scotia ... New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ..
Alberta	
British Columbia
Total
commitment Canada's share incl. approved	additional 40%
Canada's share paid to date

Total

1248	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act Table 6
Summary of Canada's commitments for additional 40 per cent contributions and payments made 10 December, 1949, to 24 January, 1959.
Additional 40% Payments Province	commitments	made
Newfoundland P. E. Island

Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick ..
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia .
Total	 $46,389,671.89	$17,122,485.82
This is a summary of the position at the present time with regard to the trans-Canada highway. I believe that the completion of the highway will be one of the most important feats in the history of our nation. Coming from the west coast, it has always shocked me that when one wanted to drive east to visit relatives or to see central and eastern Canada and the maritimes it was certainly advisable, if not necessary, to enter the United States at the nearest point, drive as far as possible through the United States and then come back into Canada. This has been going on for many years. In fact, a few months after I became Minister of Public Works one of the officials was sent to Banff to work on the trans-Canada highway and he was advised by the people in the department to cross into the United States at the nearest point, to drive through that country until he got south of Banff and then proceed north into Alberta. At that time the trans-Canada highway was completed across the three western provinces except for by-passes and was just as good as any of the main United States highways but the public works department was so far out of date that it advised its officials to drive through the United States.
I may add that we are not doing that any more. You can now get in a car at Vancouver and drive on pavement all the way to Marathon in Ontario. You may have to go into the United States for a few miles in southern British Columbia. Much of the travel in that province, of course, would be on a provincial highway but it would be a paved highway. The trans-Canada highway is a first-class paved highway today all the way from the western end of Yoho national park through Banff national park and then certainly right through as far as Kenora. I am sure it will be completely modernized from there to the Lakehead within the next few months or just as quickly as possible. One reason for that is that it is vitally essential that that highway should be completed in order to prevent Duluth stealing all the business that should go to the lakehead.


The trip around the north shore of lake Superior will be one of the most spectacular trips on the continent and because of the huge suspension bridge over the Mackinac straits which lead into lake Michigan I believe that hundreds of thousands of United States tourists will drive to Sault Ste. Marie and will then have the alternative of driving right around lake Superior or right around lake Huron. There will be a tremendous advantage to Canada in the tourist business, let alone what it will mean to have a first class paved highway from coast to coast. This is a very encouraging picture, and we believe the trans-Canada highway will be of immense benefit to the nation. This additional grant is required in order that the federal government may comply with its obligations under the new agreements with the nine provinces.


Mr. McWilliam:: I am sure the committee thanks the minister for his statement and his review of the Trans-Canada Highway Act since it first came into force. He has told us what has been done in that regard up until now and what the intentions are for the future. This resolution, standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works, is designed to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide an increased grant. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
The minister said this would mean an increase of $100 million. The official report as of March 31, 1958 shows that payments to provincial governments up to that date amounted to $155,716,617.76. The grant in the main estimates of 1958-59 amounted to $45 million and the estimates for the present fiscal year, 1959-60, show $48 million. This will mean a total of $248,716,617.76.
It can be assumed that the chief, and probably the only purpose of this amendment mentioned in the resolution is to seek an increase of $100 million to bring the total grant up to $350 million. The 1957-58 report indicates that, with the exception of Newfoundland, the other eight participating provinces will complete their construction by December 31, 1960. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not that happens. Several provinces, I am sure, are finding it very difficult to finance their share of the expenditure. Judging from past exprience since this act was first introduced into the house, this resolution and the bill based thereon will receive unanimous support from all parties.

The Conservatives, when in opposition, while supporting the bill in principle were critical of certain aspects of the project, particularly when the 1956 amendments were before the house. They expressed the view that the federal government's portion of the grant was too low. The Minister of Transport, when a private member in opposition-I see the genial gentleman smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to say-stated, as recorded in Hansard for 1956, pages 2954 and 2955:
Why should it be that during five years of unprecedented boom we find that less than one-third of this highway has been completed?
Further down on the same page, he stated:
I think that we in this parliament, particularly the government, must face up to the hard, cold fact that if this highway is to be built within the foreseeable future, the federal government must assume the financial responsibility for its construction and stop playing around with makeshift methods of trying to get it built.
Apparently the Minister of Transport has done nothing toward impressing the government with the views he expressed while he was in opposition. This government has done nothing to improve this alleged shortcoming about which the minister spoke when in opposition.
Let us see what the present Minister of Justice had to say in the 1956 debate when he was a private member. I quote from the record the minister's motion as found on page 2980 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
That, in the opinion of this house, (a) the requirements of national defence, as well as the need to serve existing and to promote further development of Canada's territory and resources dictate that there should be more than one east-west trans-Canada highway, as well as several main north-south highways to provide connection with routes in the United States-
The last part of the motion reads:
And therefore the government should take into immediate consideration with the governments of the various provinces the advisability of enlarging the scope of the existing trans-Canada agreements so as to develop a system of national highways, both east-west and north-south, financed and maintained jointly by the dominion and the provinces on an acceptable and realistic basis.
The Minister of Justice, again when he was the private member for Kamloops, referred to the Hon. Mr. Winters, then minister of public works, as recorded at page 3109 of Hansard for April 19, 1956:
-why does he not take the other course we urge him to take and say that the federal government should have the full responsibility for this highway-
These are the remarks made by members opposite when they were in the opposition, including many of the present cabinet ministers now sitting on the treasury benches, concerning greater financial assistance to the
Trans-Canada Highway Act provinces for the completion of the trans-Canada highway, a second trans-Canada highway, as well as connecting highways from north and south as well as east and west. We may well ask, what happened to their former attitude once they became responsible for shaping the policies? Why are they not doing all these things they criticized the former government for not doing?
The Liberal policy on transportation, drafted in the 1958 annual convention, included the completion of the trans-Canada highway. The policy statement, found on page 39 of the report, reads:
Assistance to the provinces and territories for developing roads to the north and consideration of a policy of a federal-provincial-municipal highway program aimed at providing a modern network of trunk highways.
The Liberal policy drafted at this convention endorsed special consideration for the Atlantic provinces, and that is found on pages 40 to 42 of the report. I quote:
The Liberal party to help remove the economic disabilities of the Atlantic provinces, advocates special assistance in the provision of trunk highways in all four Atlantic provinces for heavy traffic to and from central Canada and the United States to promote trade and the tourist industry.
When the present Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal party was asked about the scale of assistance contemplated in the Liberal party program to provide special assistance for the building of trunk highways in the Atlantic provinces he stated that what he had in mind was the assumption by the federal government of 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the four Atlantic provinces, and the earliest possible discussion with the governments of those provinces about the routes of other key trunk highways. He also stated:
In other provinces the federal government has been assisting with railway construction, but what is needed in the Atlantic provinces is modern highways.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic provinces are in dire need of more and better highways. They are vital to the future economy of these provinces. Without them expansion cannot be brought about.
The Liberal party policy of 1958 on transportation facilities for the Atlantic provinces is the answer to one of the Atlantic provinces' great problem. Much was heard about the need for a second trans-Canada highway from the Conservatives when they were in opposition. Many large sections of our country not being served by the present trans-Canada highway are in need of an adequate cross country route. An area which should be served by a second trans-Canada highway or an adequate cross country route is the area

Trans-Canada Highway Act of northeast and east New Brunswick from Campbellton to Moncton along highway No. 11. A resolution requesting that a second trans-Canada highway be built along this route was passed at a recent annual meeting of the municipal council of the county of Northumberland sitting in session at Newcastle, New Brunswick, I believe in the first week of February.
As hon. members know, the province of Quebec to date has not been participating in the trans-Canada highway project. When it does so, it is reasonable to assume that the Quebec provincial government will wish to have the all-Canada route go through the famous Matapedia valley which enters New Brunswick at Campbellton. This route would provide for a trans-Canada offshoot down the south shore of the Gaspe peninsula.
When provincial routes of the trans-Canada highway were designated, they were designated, as all hon. members know, by provincial authorities. New Brunswick decided to commence the route at the New Brunswick-Quebec border at Edmunston. At that time Quebec would not designate what route they would follow if and when they entered into the project. The New Brunswick route of the trans-Canada highway is from Edmunston on the northwest, down the western side of the province to Fredericton, proceeding in a southeasterly direction to Moncton and then on to the Nova Scotia border. The northeast and eastern sections of New Brunswick are not served by the present trans-Canada highway. This area is densely populated, with cities, towns and villages in the counties of Restigouche, Gloucester, Northumberland, Kent and Westmorland. Commercial, tourist and other traffic is heavy in lumbering, fishing, farming and mining areas.
Consideration should be given by this government to granting special financial assistance with regard to the construction of a connecting link from Campbellton down the east coast of New Brunswick to connect with the trans-Canada highway at Moncton.
Unemployment is unusually high in this section of New Brunswick and the prospects for 1959 and 1960 do not look good. The basic industries in the area-lumbering, fishing, farming and mining-are in a depressed state and indications do not point to a recovery in the near future. The construction of a connecting link with the trans-Canada highway from Campbellton to Moncton would relieve unemployment in a large measure and would be a boost to our economy while awaiting the upward trend of our basic industries.
This government should honour the pledge to assist transportation facilities of the

Atlantic provinces as drafted at an assembly of all Conservative candidates of the four Atlantic provinces which was attended by the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries, as well as the cabinet representative of the province of Newfoundland. At that time they issued their seven point Atlantic resolution particularly on transportation which they expounded when they were on the hustings during the election campaign. These cabinet ministers and other elected Conservative members from the Atlantic provinces have the responsibility to see that the solemn promises contained in their seven point Atlantic resolution are carried out. The promise of transportation facilities was one of the promises in the resolution. The people of the Atlantic provinces will judge the sincerity of those promises by the action or lack of action of this government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I assume that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi and I have been reading the same books. Any time I am stuck for any research work on any particular project, I always find that the back issues of Hansard give us all sorts of information and guidance on the things that we propose to discuss. However, it is not my intention to remind the minister of the things he said when he was sitting over here on this side of the house. He is no doubt thoroughly familiar with them.
I might say that I have had the pleasure of listening to the minister of highways we have in the province of British Columbia discussing highways and also to the minister of highways that we have for Canada. May I say to the minister that he is no match for Mr. Gagliardi and cannot possibly compare with his verbal ability to build highways and bridges. I must say that I would rather listen to the kindly and friendly tones of the Minister of Public Works though.


An hon. Member:: You do not get very far with either.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, we do not get very far with either one of them, generally speaking. This resolution, while the contents announced in it are acceptable, is another indication of the government's taking a policy of the previous government and not altering it in any way but merely adding to it in terms of money for any particular type of project. For some ten years we in Canada have been watching closely and hopefully the progress made in the building of the cross country or trans-Canada highway, as it is known. For many years we thought there was to be nothing but hope and expectation that the highway might be built some day. However,

there are indications that we are moving in the direction of completion and that as is indicated in the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for March 31, 1958, by the end of next year the highway will be completed with the exception of that section of it that is through Newfoundland.
I am going to suggest that it is not sufficient merely to make more money available as is being proposed in this resolution and to make the payments to the provinces on the same formula that has existed since 1949, with the slight amendment that was made to the formula in 1956, namely that we will contribute 50 per cent of the cost of building the highway plus an additional 40 per cent for 10 per cent of the route in each province. I believe that formula should be reviewed and altered. It assumes a number of things, not the least of which is that road building conditions, road building costs, economic factors, mileage and all the other related matters in connection with highway building are equal as between one province and another. We know that is not so. We know that these conditions are not equal throughout Canada, but that in many cases vary on all aspects of the factors that go into building and into the cost of building highways.
It also, to a degree, penalizes the provinces which are able for one reason or another to work more quickly than others and complete their sections of the highway. It places a heavy financial burden generally on all the provinces participating in this type of program. I suggest that we should alter, change and review the present formula using, if you wish, as a base the present 50-50 arrangement plus an additional 40 per cent of 10 per cent of the cost of the highway and then computing an additional grant based on the mileage distance in each province.
To give hon. members an idea of the situation I would refer them to page 4 of the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act dated March 31 of last year where mileages in the different provinces are given. We find, for instance, that Ontario has a total mileage of 1,436 while Prince Edward Island has only 71. We find that Ontario has two and a half times the mileage of the province with the next largest number of miles to construct. In my opinion we should take into account, in determining additional payments, the difference in the mileage which exists between provinces, and attempt to ensure that in addition to the basic arrangement of 50-50 plus 40 per cent of 10 per cent Ontario should receive more money in terms of grants because of the much greater mileage which has to be built in that province compared with Prince Edward
Trans-Canada Highway Act Island. I use those examples because the one province has the longest mileage and the other the shortest.
In addition, other factors should also be taken into account and payments made to provinces should depend on their road building costs. Let us compare, for example, the two most westerly provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. I take these as examples because they are close together. In British Columbia we have, as the minister knows, a number of what we classify as million-dollar miles, that is to say it costs $1 million to build one mile of highway to trans-Canada standards. This is the general figure that is used; I may be out by a few dollars one way or another. But I am sure that in Alberta road building costs are not nearly as high per mile as they are in certain sections of British Columbia. Certainly, the same can be said of Saskatchewan. The minister himself remarked that costs in Saskatchewan may be relatively small as compared with the cost of some sections through British Columbia. The minister also mentioned the Newfoundland section where road building costs are higher proportionately than in other parts of the nation. This factor should be taken into consideration, because it is evident from a study of the financing involved that the cost in certain sections of Canada can be much greater than in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or other provinces where the cost per mile of highway construction is relatively small.
Another factor which must be taken into consideration and used in developing a formula for payment is the economic ability of a province to pay its share of the cost. One of the assumptions behind this 50-50, 40 per cent of 10 per cent formula-and it is an incorrect and false assumption-is that the ability of one province to pay is as great as that of any other province in the nation. We know this is not the case and that all provinces are not equally able to bear their share of the cost.
Let us take two provinces which have comparable mileages to build and in which economic conditions are different. I choose New Brunswick and Alberta. New Brunswick has 390 miles compared with Alberta's 282; it has more miles to build and certainly it is a province which is less rich than Alberta and less able to pay its 50 per cent of the cost of the program. Some consideration should be given to ensure that additional payments are made to, say, the province of New Brunswick and the province of Newfoundland because of the economic differences.
For instance, we have Newfoundland and British Columbia at opposite ends of the nation, each with about the same number

Trans-Canada Highway Act of miles to build, some 550 miles in each case, or maybe a little more in British Columbia than in Newfoundland. Certainly I think it can be said without contradiction that the per capita income in British Columbia is far greater than that of Newfoundland and that the British Columbia budget is far greater than that of Newfoundland, and that British Columbia's ability to pay the cost of road building under this type of program is generally better than that of the province of Newfoundland. This is a factor which should be taken into account in developing a more equitable formula for sharing road building costs throughout the nation on projects of this kind.
So much for the financing. I have not developed any specific type of formula. That is something which I am sure could be worked out by the departmental officials without too much difficulty if the minister would in his kindly way, especially since he has now returned from a visit back home where he has [DOT] looked at the crocuses and daffodils, just say to them: the hon. member for Skeena has what seems to be a good suggestion; just look into it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the member a question? Does he really think that this would be wise in view of the fact that the agreements are about to expire and that some provinces have already completed the work.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am glad the minister raised that point. He must be psychic or reading my mind because I was about to deal with another aspect of road building to which a formula of this kind could be applied more readily than by any attempt to make it retroactive, especially since, as the minister has said, some provinces have already completed the work-Alberta has only six miles in the city of Calgary to go, Prince Edward Island has one mile to build which will be completed shortly, and so on. If this type of contract were to be applied from here on I do not think it would be objected to by those provinces which have completed or will be completing their sections of roads. It could more readily be applied to programs in the future.
We should not confine our thoughts as in the years past to the understanding that road building falls entirely within the hands of the provinces. We moved away from that thought in 1949 when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was enacted by parliament. Parliament then decided that at least in these circumstances the building of this particular road was a project for which the federal government should have a certain responsibility. We have moved in that direction and I feel it is time we went a little further in

realizing there is a greater responsibility devolving on the federal government for participation in the cost of road building programs in the provinces.
There is also the question of additional so-called trans-Canada highways, if they can be designated in that fashion. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi mentioned a second trans-Canada highway running through a portion of New Brunswick. We in the west have had in mind for a number of years the construction of a road which we have referred to as a second trans-Canada highway. We know in effect it will not completely traverse Canada but it has come to be known by this name as is the case in the maritimes.
The federal government should become involved in assisting financially in the construction of additional cross country or interprovincial highways. It is not too early to begin to lay the legislative and administrative groundwork for participation with the provinces in this type of project on a broader basis involving increased financial contribution on the part of the federal government. There are other types of roads including north-south roads, roads leading to the United States, Alaska and the Northwest Territories in the cost of which the federal government should be prepared to participate. It should accept greater responsibility in sharing the cost of interprovincial and international roads.
We have in existence at this time a roads to resources program which is being developed under another department of government entirely with respect to financing yet I understand the engineering and technical part of it is being handled by the trans-Canada highway branch of the Department of Public Works. As we expand our program of participation in the construction of roads we should consolidate the programs in one group so there will be a general knowledge of what the left hand and the right hand are doing.
There is also a need for the federal government to move into the field of assistance to municipalities for the construction of interurban roads and projects of that nature. I suggest that we may be guided to a certain extent by the attitude in the United States. I understand that if it was not the Minister of Public Works it was one of his colleagues who made a rather extensive study of the extent to which the federal government of the United States participates in road building programs which goes back to about 1912 when that government began to participate in cross country roads, interstate highways, state, county, school and farm roads and practically every other type of road. The government there participates in the cost of nearly every

kind of road or highway. We could move in that direction without too much difficulty and we should attempt to ensure that our roads are built on a co-ordinated, integrated and planned basis with the federal government accepting the responsibility of financial participation.
I should like to make reference to a subject on which the minister was reluctant to give detailed information as to what the plans were but I believe he intimated what they were and I was able to reach certain conclusions. I refer to what we classify as a second trans-Canada highway in the west which is pretty well confined to the four western provinces. In referring to this project as a second trans-Canada highway I do not wish to detract from the suggestion of hon. gentlemen from the maritimes. I merely used the phrase because it is the term which has grown up in the west with reference to this road.
In answer to a question asked by the hoa member for Assiniboia as reported at page 898 of Hansard of February 10, the minister was kind enough to give us certain information. I should like to make reference to the figures he used as they apply to the four western provinces to indicate that we are on the verge of being in a position to participate in the construction of a second cross country, interprovincial highway in the four western provinces. We find that British Columbia has 210 miles to be completed in the province which represents 37 per cent of the route. Alberta has 6 miles to complete which represents about 2 per cent of the route. Saskatchewan has completed its section of the highway and Manitoba has 16 miles to complete which represents 5 per cent of the route. Excluding British Columbia we find that the highway is practically completed through the three prairie provinces. This indicates that there is less than 15 per cent of that road to be completed.
The attitude of British Columbia has been made known to the previous government and I do not doubt that it has been made known to this government. British Columbia is willing to accept some form of federal contribution toward highway building costs for this second trans-Canada highway. I shall relate in a moment the route we envisage. A great proportion of it runs through the riding I represent. We had the pleasure of a visit to Skeena from the Minister of Public Works-


Howard Charles Green: It did not do me much good.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am sorry that the minister was so busy that he could not stay and take a ride over the roads there to see the shape they are in so he would realize the need that exists for participation by the federal government in the cost of the construction of 66968-9-80
Trans-Canada Highway Act roads. Did I understand the minister to say that his visit did not do much good?


Howard Charles Green: It was not very effective. I was on a political trip.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would say that the minister's trip was most effective because that was one of the reasons why we got such a large majority and we would like him to come back again.
The route planned as far as northern British Columbia is concerned is this. It should reflect the agreement that exists at this time with respect to the first trans-Canada highway, namely that it crosses a body of water and goes to Vancouver island. The same principle should apply in the north central coastal part of British Columbia in that the road should extend to the Queen Charlotte islands. That should be included in the arrangements I know the minister is on the verge of entering into with the province with respect to financing. The route should run along the present provincial road that is on the Queen Charlotte islands from Queen Charlotte city through Port Clements to Massett. Then it should extend along highway 16 through Prince Rupert, Terrace, Hazelton, Smithers, Burns Lake-to name but a few of the larger communities in that area-and on to Prince George. When we get to Prince George we have to either go a number of miles out of our way north through Fort St. John or we have to go many hundreds of miles south to get to Alberta. There is a gap of some 100 miles between Prince George and a place called McBride where there is no highway at the present time. The C.N.R. goes through but there is no road. This should be included in the route so people who live in northern British Columbia or Alberta may travel in a direct line without having to go out of their way hundreds of miles to reach their destination.
In northern Alberta the people from Edmonton are also quite interested in this road and so are the people in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The route is there; it is laid out. There are roads there now. This government should expand the policy it has toward the present trans-Canada highway. Additional payments should be made on some sort of formula, reflecting an expansion of highway policy and payments should be made to cover this suggested route. Whether it is called a second trans-Canada or an inter-provincial highway is immaterial. This philosophy should be undertaken and in as much as within the next couple of years the trans-Canada highway will be pretty much completed it is time now to start negotiating with the provinces or give an assurance to the provinces of the west

Trans-Canada Highway Act that the federal government is prepared to enter into financial arrangements with respect to the building of other highways along the lines that I have suggested.
If the minister takes the opportunity to speak again I hope he will give us a fairly complete understanding of his acceptance of the things I have suggested so that we in British Columbia may realize that it is not the Hon. Mr. Gaglardi who builds all our roads but that the Minister of Public Works also has some say in the highways in British Columbia and also pays something toward their cost.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, for my part the Minister of Public Works could not ask for money for a more worthy purpose than the trans-Canada highway, provided of course that I can make some suggestions regarding its disposition. Speaking generally, I would say that nothing is really more important to the Canada of today than transportation and perhaps nothing is more important to the Canada of the future than the plans we make today for future policy regarding transportation. Teachers, doctors, clergymen, and all the others who are serving mankind need roads in order to service their charges. I do not mean to say that road building is more important than education or health for instance but I do say that the success of almost any program for human betterment is gauged by the adequacy of available transportation. And no means of transportation is so valuable or so important as roads. No means of transportation is so personal. Roads not only tie the nation together but they tie families together.
The modern highway has speeded civilization in a way that no other means in history has. The trans-Canada highway is an expression of Canada's belief in national transportation. Originally the plan was for the federal government to share in 50 per cent of the cost, and later it was agreed that 90 per cent of 10 per cent would he paid by the federal government for what is termed gap building.
I want to speak particularly of the needs of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland, and in order to do that, to place Newfoundland in its proper perspective I would ask for the indulgence of the committee while I recite a little bit of the history of road building in Newfoundland and where Newfoundland fits in today in this present scheme. I would begin by comparing the roads in Newfoundland with those in the Atlantic provinces. Nova Scotia has approximately 15,000 miles of motorable roads; New Brunswick, 13,000; and Prince Edward Island,

3,200. Newfoundland, which is much larger than Prince Edward Island, has 3,500 miles.
The reason why Newfoundland lags so far behind the maritimes is largely owing to its history, partly to economics and partly to the fact that Newfoundland was settled by people who were interested only in the fisheries. They settled in hundreds of settlements around the 6,000 miles of Newfoundland's coast line. The sea was not only their farmland, the place from which they got their harvest, but the sea was their highway. They built their houses as close to it as possible and seldom did they turn their eyes away from the sea to look inland. For generations it remained the same and very little road building was done. Actually, I believe the first road was built in Newfoundland in 1832, and it was built from St. John's to Portugal Cove, followed shortly afterwards by a road to Harbour Grace and later from Holyrood to Placentia. Gradually the Avalon peninsula began to get a system of roads. That was about all, with the exception of perhaps roads such as existed between Bonavista and Catalina, which connected a large and important fishing area with a seaport. But apart from those roads of an entirely local character there was no road building in Newfoundland until the 1920's, and then people began to get road conscious. The sea was no longer fast enough or dependable enough. The motor car was arriving and an effort was made to link up settlements, sometimes by short-cuts between coves, but generally speaking a road program developed during that decade. This was brought to a halt by the economic collapse around the end of the 1920's, or certainly by the early 1930's. The commission government did build some good highways but they did not catch up with the progress which had been made in the maritime provinces.
Our biggest road building program has taken place since confederation and from 1949 to 1957 Newfoundland constructed 1,100 miles of new roads and rebuilt 500 miles of old roads. But increasingly heavy traffic tore apart the gravel roads faster than they could be built and just last year the new minister of highways, the Hon. Gregory I. Power, instituted the team system of mechanized maintenance and that has proved to be very successful. Actually, 3,100 miles of road were reconditioned and 300 miles were rebuilt. All this has meant the spending of millions of dollars on equipment, personnel and so forth. Seventy miles of road were paved last year with a much larger paving program set down for this year.
If you look at the map of Newfoundland you will notice that the island has many long peninsulas and deep bays. The coast line is

long and very indented. Isolation has always been the curse of the Newfoundland people. The new road program is designed to break that. Roads have been built on the Bonavista and Burin peninsulas and the Baie Verte peninsula and well down the Great Northern peninsula and other areas. Perhaps the most spectacular evidence of how much progress has been made was when the premier of Newfoundland and the minister of highways made a motor trip across Newfoundland last November without the benefit of ferry. But much remains to be done. The cost of what has been done is staggering in a province such as Newfoundland which has a great deal of roads to build and a small population to find the money. Perhaps what I have said and the importance of roads other than the trans-Canada highway and the necessity of bringing the remote parts of Newfoundland together show that from the provincial point of view and certainly, from a parochial point of view, the trans-Canada highway may not be the most important road, judged by the growing needs of settlements to be linked by roads to hospitals, seaports and centres of population.
I come now to the trans-Canada highway and I would like to quote briefly from a speech made by the minister of highways to Rotary in St. John's last month:
According to survey, the total length o ^ the highway from Port aux Basques to St. John's will be 568 miles. Twenty-five miles of this is through the national park, and is all a federal responsibility. This leaves a distance of 542 miles to be constructed by the province of Newfoundland. Of this 542 miles, 256 miles have been built and made ready for paving, 35 miles have already been paved, 286 miles remain to be built and 508 miles remain to be paved. The estimated cost of completing the highway is as follows: the construction of 286 miles, $31,500,000; the paving of 508 miles, $22,600,000; the building of 34 bridges, $4,223,000, making a grand total of $58,225,000. Under the present agreement with the federal government we will have to find $28,112,000 of this amount. Actually, Newfoundland has to build more miles of trans-Canada per capita than any other province and, when the present agreement expires in 1960 we feel, as do other provinces, that a more realistic division of costs should be agreed upon; otherwise, the trans-Canada highway, from St. John's to Vancouver, will not be completed for perhaps another ten years.
I have mentioned the heavy load that the province is carrying now in a heavy and necessary program of building roads to isolated places and distant communities. I was with Premier Smallwood when he officially opened the road to Ladle Cove, linking the north side of Bonavista bay with the trans-Canada highway. The warm appreciation and enthusiasm of the people affected was rewarding and indicative of what still must be done. Yet we are faced with these facts as far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned: 66968-9-80J
Trans-Canada Highway Act
1.	The number of miles of paved road in Newfoundland is very low compared with the mileage in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
2.	The miles of motorable non-paved roads in Newfoundland are also very low compared with the other Atlantic provinces.
3.	The cost of building the roads in Newfoundland up to maritime standards generally is staggering.
4.	Newfoundland has more miles of trans-Canada highway to build per capita than any other province.
5.	The per capita income in Newfoundland is lower than in any other province.
6.	Some of the other provinces have finished or almost finished their parts of the trans-Canada highway.
7.	These provinces have had 70 or 80 years of the benefits of confederation, which have included federal assistance in many spheres. We in Newfoundland have only enjoyed these benefits for the past ten years.
If Newfoundland does not have an adequate road system its economy will never be developed. Bearing these facts in mind, I can only express the hope that the federal government will shoulder a greater part of the cost of building the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland, and in that regard perhaps I might suggest 90 per cent of the amount of road yet to be built.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take more than a few moments but there is one aspect of the trans-Canada highway with regard to which I would appreciate hearing from the Minister of Public Works. I refer to the city of Vancouver and its relationship to the trans-Canada highway under federal government policy. Knowing the city so well, the minister is familiar with the circumstances so far as access to the city is concerned. The city is almost completely surrounded by water, either by the strait of Juan de Fuca, the Fraser river, Burrard inlet or the Pitt river. You have to cross a body of water to get to the city of Vancouver.
For all practical purposes the city is the terminus of the trans-Canada highway on the mainland of the province of British Columbia. That being the case, the minister must recognize very clearly that it is absolutely inadequate to have only one trans-Canada highway entrance into the city of Vancouver. It is absolutely essential to have more than one bridge and more than one road classified as "trans-Canada highway" as far as the city of Vancouver is concerned.
I would appreciate it very much if the minister would explain the viewpoint of the department with regard to paying a part of

Trans-Canada Highway Act the construction cost of the major highway bridges that are required in order to be able to get in and out of that great city.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interrupt the hon. member for a moment, the route of the trans-Canada highway is designated by the provincial government, and in the case of British Columbia that province designated a route which more or less cuts across the northeastern corner of Vancouver in order to get to the new Second Narrows bridge. We do not designate the route at all. The provincial government does that.


Harold Edward Winch: I know that is what was
decided at one time but my hon. friend knows the situation in Vancouver at the present time with regard to getting in and out of the city. The traffic cannot be handled just over the Pattullo bridge. There has got to be another bridge and I understand that is now in the process of planning. It is ridiculous at the present time to speak in terms of four-lane bridges. They must be at least six-lane bridges. So far as the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster are concerned it would be completely stupid to think about four-lane bridges over the Second Narrows or the Fraser river.
I should like to know what part the federal government can play under the trans-Canada highway program by way of making a financial contribution toward the construction of six-lane bridges, not four-lane bridges. I have noticed in the newspapers on more than one occasion that contributions would only be made on the basis of four-lane bridges, and I think that is completely wrong. The minister knows that it is impossible to handle the traffic going from Vancouver to the interior of the province or elsewhere in Canada on the Pattullo bridge. If people wish to go south, to the interior of the province or north they have to cross the Fraser river and I maintain that because traffic must all cross the Fraser river it should all come under the trans-Canada highway program and the most earnest consideration should be given under the program to making use of other roads that will lead to the trans-Canada highway, whether people are going south, north or to the interior of the province. All the millions that have been spent already on the Marpole bridge, on the Deas island tunnel, the new Second Narrows bridge and that will have to be spent on the new bridge that will cross around Port Moody, I believe-[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Port Mann.


Harold Edward Winch: Port Mann-have to be spent because of the geographical location of Vancouver. All these major bridges have one

purpose, egress and ingress so far as Vancouver is concerned and should be considered as being basically on the main route and part and parcel of the trans-Canada highway. There should be a federal contribution toward the building of all these bridges and the roads leading thereto.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member suggest that the federal government should be responsible for all ingress and egress to and from every city in Canada that happens to be on or near the trans-Canada highway?


Harold Edward Winch: I am certain that my hon.
friend, with his knowledge of Vancouver, knows that its geographical location is peculiar and that as the terminus of the trans-Canada highway it is in a different position from a city on the prairies, for example, which can be by-passed by a road and which is not surrounded by water, be it an inlet, river or ocean, as is the city of Vancouver. I think it is this peculiar and particular situation which most certainly merits every consideration from the minister of the type of assistance I have been suggesting.


Mr. Lambert:: I should like to add my support, in a few brief words, to those who have been advocating a second trans-Canada highway in western Canada. I spoke about this in 1957 as did the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and several others. I would commend this to the attention of the minister for immediate consideration, and I do not believe he should wait until the whole of the trans-Canada highway is built before entering into negotiations with the provinces with respect to this particular section of the highway.
There has been recently held in Edmonton the annual meeting of the Yellowhead route association, and I would commend its proceedings to the attention of the minister. I know that the people who live in the northern part of Alberta, where the big bulk of the population of that province is now located, find it extraordinarily difficult to understand why they must go through the southern part of the province or even the United States, at present, to reach Vancouver. I know the Minister of Public Works would like to see people from northern Alberta out in Vancouver, and we would like to go there. Frankly, we must travel about 1,100 miles at the present time, but if we had a more direct route through Jasper national park and connecting with the highway system of British Columbia the distance would be much shorter.
Most of the highway system in Alberta is almost up to trans-Canada standards at the

present time. I would most earnestly commend a second highway to the minister's attention, especially from the defence point of view. From a commercial viewpoint, it would mean a great deal to the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta if we could have a direct highway connection, and as I have already pointed out the advantages from the tourist point of view I need not repeat them.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin my remarks by saying that the question of the trans-Canada highway is of vital importance to the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. I wish, therefore, to commend the government for the introduction of this resolution which calls for an increase in the expenditures for the purpose of improving existing portions of the trans-Canada highway and completing others. We, at the lake-head, are much concerned over the activities in connection with the development of the seaway port of Duluth in Minnesota. The Minister of Public Works had this to say on January 29, 1959 as recorded at page 512 of Hansard:
I wish to refer also to these famous old cities of Fort William and Port Arthur at the Canadian lakehead. They are greatly worried at this time. They see the St. Lawrence seaway being developed and they read in the Duluth News-Tribune of January 11 that a group of Canadians, if you please from Winnipeg are proposing to build a big port development at Duluth, Minnesota, for this purpose, and I quote from this article: "Freeman"-
Mr. Freeman is the Winnipeg promoter of this scheme.
-"is reported to have in mind making Duluth the port for the rapidly developing western Canadian provinces as well as the midwestern and western parts of the United States."
This is not the whole story. I wish to quote from an article in the same paper to which the minister referred:
The authority (that is, the authority of the port of Duluth) also expects Duluth to benefit through trade in Canada and Alaska. The distance from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Rotterdam, for example, is 3,200 miles shorter through Duluth than through the Panama canal. The Alcan highway would become the route for overland traffic between this port and Alaska.
In addition to this huge development, it has been reported that a four-lane highway is being considered from Duluth to Winnipeg. This highway, Mr. Chairman, would undoubtedly attract business away from the lakehead ports on which the government, as stated by the Minister of Public Works, will spend $5.5 million. It has been estimated that as soon as the seaway is completed the number of motor transports expected to carry freight to the prairie provinces will reach a daily total of between 50 and 100. The present highway west of the lakehead to Winnipeg is
Private Bills-Divorce
in such poor condition that I am sure it could never sustain such traffic. The only solution appears to be a four-lane highway between the lakehead and Winnipeg.
As far back as 1956 the hon. member for Victoria had this to say with regard to the necessity of building a four-lane trans-Canada highway, and I quote from Hansard for March 22, 1956, page 2523:
But this is a national road and it should be built, not 10 per cent of the gap but all the gap, by this federal government at least to the extent of 90 per cent.
Then farther down he says:
This road should be built to a minimum width of 30 feet, and where the traffic is heavy it should be at least a four-lane highway.
This is the point we are stressing so far as the lakehead is concerned, the necessity of a four-lane highway to carry the heavy traffic which we expect as a result of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Now, the present Minister of Justice blasted the then government in the following words-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave for the second reading of the following bills:
Bill SD-19, for the relief of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie.
Bill SD-20, for the relief of Patricia Burnell Fraser Rosensweig.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, these two bills have been before the house on two separate occasions in the past week and I do not propose to take more than a minute or two to dispose of the points that have been made by the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, including particularly the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg). In discussing the evidence they brought forward some points which, if accepted by this hon. house, would in effect probably force hon. members to vote against both of these bills.
I could go into a discussion of the evidence in order to meet the arguments they have advanced. However, I do not propose to do so today. I think that we have perhaps had

Private Bills-Divorce
sufficient debate on divorce lor the moment and that it would be pleasant to get on to other matters. I am going to appeal to the sense of fair play of the house, ask hon. members that they pass these bills and give us an opportunity to consider them in committee where we can go into the questions of fact and the points raised by the hon. members.
In this connection I should like to refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition at page 351, paragraph 482:
482. The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
With this point in mind, Mr. Speaker, I again make an appeal to the sense of fair play of the house and ask hon. members to pass these two bills which have been disputed here, and to let us in the committee deal with the facts or the allegations and the arguments on the facts that have been brought out by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-23, an act for the relief of Jeanne d'Arc Gravelle Senecal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-24, an act for the relief of Barbara Mary Scott Norman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-25, an act for the relief of Alice Schleicher Dorotich.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-26, an act for the relief of Mary Jane Holmes Phillips.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-27, an act for the relief of Barbara Lorrain Champbell Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-28, an act for the relief of Helen Margaret Davidson Beckett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-29, an act for the relief of Ruth Dankner Liberman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-30, an act for the relief of Norma Mary Rose Purchard Clarkin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-31, an act for the relief of Eva Greenblatt Besner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-32, An Act for the relief of Ruth Millstein Backman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-33, An Act for the relief of Percy Kark Claxton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-34, An Act for the relief of Marion Beulah Francis Meehan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-35, An Act for the relief of Nina Olga Titow Dorion.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-36, An Act for the relief of Sylvia Florence Van Straten Weber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-37, An Act for the relief of Joseph Fernand Roger Boucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-38, An Act for the relief of Jacqueline Shirley Mary Parnell Gardner.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-39, An Act for the relief of Esther Daisy Moynan O'Regan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-40, An Act for the relief of Susan Pick Bereznik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-41, An Act for the relief of Josephine Zauberman Schiller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-42, An Act for the relief of Hanna Liselotte Gertrud Tiegs Kallus.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-43, An Act for the relief of Dorothy Louisa Stradwick Coffin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-44, An Act for the relief of Marc Aurele Bourget.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-45, An Act for the relief of Marie Yolanda Marotta Henshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-46, An Act for the relief of Bernice Sylvia Sinclair Somerville.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-47, An Act for the relief of Judith Ortenberg Baxt King.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-48, An Act for the relief of Yaroslavna Zonia Lazarowich Johnson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-49, An Act for the relief of Gertrude Scharge Izenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-50, An Act for the relief of Joseph Moreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-51, An Act for the relief of Sydney Hislop, otherwise known as Sidney Hislop.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-52, An Act for the relief of Lenoir Grace Spencer Jennings.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-53, An Act for the relief of Olive Florence Andrews Bowness.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-54, An Act for the relief of Pearl Severs Schrieder.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-55, An Act for the relief of Vivien Joyce Taylor Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-56, An Act for the relief of Jacqueline Jeanne Lamy Harper.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-57, An Act for the relief of Kathleen Iris Daunt Robinson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-58, An Act for the relief of Jacques Flahault.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-59, An Act for the relief of Gladys Allen Marvin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-60, An Act for the relief of Miriam Keppel Segal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-61, An Act for the relief of Ronald Ernest Fyfe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-62, An Act for the relief of Elsie Elizabeth Wand Bourret.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-63, An Act for the relief of Margaret Sonia Lawrence Canny.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-64, An Act for the relief of Andree Pauline Dorothy Pryce Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-65, An Act for the relief of Henry Frank Whiston-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-66, An Act for the relief of Rita Thibeaudeau Cardinal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-67, An Act for the relief of Janine Sutto Dagenais.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-68, An Act for the relief of Evangeline Vaughan Fortin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-69, An Act for the relief of Gloria Helen Gross Caplan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-70, An Act for the relief of Thelma Georgine Ferguson Strathy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-71, An Act for the relief of Percy Herbert Manuel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-72, An Act for the relief of Irene Balk Goodson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-73, An Act for the relief of Jean Grant Shacklock.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-74, An Act for the relief of James Kennedy Andrews..-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-75, An Act for the relief of Lillian Haber Rudner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-76, An Act for the relief of Esther Lilian Issenman Rosen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-77, An Act for the relief of Ana Nili Indursky Seeman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-78, An Act for the relief of Joan Howell McShane McNulty.-Mr. McCleave.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, respecting flags of Canada. He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, before I come to the heart of the matter, which has to do with the house taking position in favour of the second reading of bill concerning the adoption of a distinctive national flag, I should like to
National Flag
assure all members of the house that it is in a wholly unprejudiced frame of mind, free from any partisanship, that I wish to deal with this subject.
For my part, whether our party was in power or in the opposition, I have always been and still am in favour of a Canadian flag.
Besides, on this score I feel I am expressing the opinion of my party. I have always felt too, that a national flag should be a rallying sign rather than a factor of division and discord. In that respect also, I fully agree with the long standing attitude of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. In fact, when he was prime minister of Canada, he said:
We shall have a national flag when we are in a position to make it a symbol of unity and not a subject of controversy, for it must be an object of pride to everyone. First of all, extreme views must be reconciled. The province of Quebec- through a legislative measure unanimously adopted by the legislative assembly-now has a flag bearing no British symbol, while in Ontario the provincial government buildings are flying not the Red Ensign but the Union Jack only.
I am quoting the very words used at the time by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent.
National unity is increasing and gaining strength. Neither Mr. Duplessis nor Mr. Frost is on our side. Those differences of opinions are normal under a democratic system: we cannot all see eye to eye on everything. But as long as everyone gives evidence of good will it shows that everyone considers problems of this sort with an open mind. Thus, in a democratic country, is progress made towards unity of feelings, which alone may make a flag acceptable to a whole people.
I should like also to pay a tribute of gratitude to a Liberal member and former minister of the government, the Hon. Mr. Chevrier, who, at a meeting in Moose Creek, Ont. undertook to demolish the arguments of a Conservative member for the province of Quebec who had said that Mr. Chevrier had felt patriotic inclinations only since he had moved into the province of Quebec:
Many Canadians, including myself, are of the opinion that the time has come for Canada to be less hesitant in asserting its autonomy within the British Commonwealth, by adopting a distinctive national flag.
I could also add the testimony of a Conservative minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) who stated in the course of a meeting at Yamachiche in 1957, as recorded in Le Nouvelliste of May 20, 1957:
Mr. Balcer stated that among the questions particularly close to the hearts of French Canadians are the matter of a distinctive flag for Canada and the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.
Whenever these matters have been raised in the house, he said, federal members from the province of Quebec have been seen to remain seated until a vote was taken, and then to rise to vote negatively.

National Flag
I must also acknowledge another debt oi gratitude to the Solicitor General for understanding as we do the necessity of a distinctive flag.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal I am introducing today does not mean in any way that my opinion has changed on this problem because I am now in the opposition. It is not my own opinion, but the Canadian people's opinion that has changed, and allows us at last to take up the problem of adopting a national flag which would be a symbol of unity and not of division.
Time, the great healer, has put an end to spurious sentiment and we can now discuss a truly Canadian flag without giving rise to backward and outmoded reactions.
Evidence has come in from all racial groups that make up this nation. From every part of the country and from every cultural, university or trade association we find that there is spontaneous enthusiasm for a symbol of unity appropriate for an independent nation. Canadians no longer want barriers between races, languages and religions; 90 per cent of Canadian citizens are broadminded enough to understand that the time has come to unite under a distinctive Canadian flag and to continue our progress in peace and unity.
This feeling was convincingly expressed when a poll was conducted in the high schools of ten large Canadian cities: Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Calgary, Toronto, London, Montreal and Saint John, New Brunswick. The results of this poll were published in Canadian High Life News of January 25, 1958.
Twelve hundred students were polled, and were asked the following question: "Do you believe that Canada should have a distinctive national flag?" The replies in favour of this were 83.7 per cent; against, 13 per cent; while 3.3 per cent were undecided.
A second question was asked: "If you are of the opinion that Canada should have its distinctive national flag, should it carry the fleur-de-lis or the Union Jack, or both, or be altogether different?" The answers were: fleur-de-lis, 1.9 per cent; union jack, 12.8 per cent; part of both, 28.2 per cent; altogether different, 35.7 per cent; undecided, 21.4 per cent.
The inquiry was pushed one step further and the following question was asked: "Do you think Canada should have its own national anthem?" The answers to that question were

as follows: 73.7 per cent answered yes; 23.9 per cent, no, and 2.4 per cent were undecided.
As for the fourth question of the report which asked: "If you believe Canada should have its own national anthem, what do you think it should be?" 29.9 per cent answered "O Canada"; 1.6 per cent, "The Maple Leaf Forever"; 1.4 per cent "God Save the Queen"; 67.1 per cent were undecided.
In fact, we have opinions from all ethnic groups, as I said a moment ago, and I could give you the results of several inquiries, but I shall confine myself to the major organizations which sent in reports.
Thus, at the general convention of the chambers of commerce last October, delegates defeated a motion recommending the adoption of the red ensign as a distinctive flag and approved without discussion a motion introduced by a delegation of the Sarnia chamber of commerce, which reads as follows:
Whereas Canada, now the fourth largest trading nation in the world, is still without a national flag:
Whereas surveys conducted among the people of Canada show that a great majority of citizens, especially among younger people, want a national flag;
Whereas a national flag would be a factor of strength and unity in the nation:
Be it resolved that the chamber of commerce urge the government of Canada to officially adopt and approve a distinctive national flag.
That resolution reflects the desire of allFrench-speaking Canadians that Canada have its own distinctive national flag. However, those people cannot be accused of trying to force their choice on the rest of the country, since that resolution was introduced by a delegation of English-speaking Canadians. The chamber of commerce decision therefore shows that all Canadians are unanimous on that point. Almost 800 cities across Canada were represented at this national conference. Half the delegates, 700 of them, were from Ontario.
Another body with no less merit and quality, the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada saw fit to conduct an extensive inquiry across Canada. The flag committee, under the direction of Messrs. Marius Crete, of Shawinigan Falls, and Bill Bellefontaine, of Scarborough, Ont., prepared a list of questions which was sent to its 2,000 members. That committee sought the advice of 16,000 members, 13,200 or 80 per cent of which unreservedly supported a distinctive Canadian flag. Most of the objections originated from Newfoundland and eastern Ontario.

Why, even the Toronto Daily Star voiced strong protests against certain ambitions of the Ontario premier, Mr. Frost, who wanted to suggest a Canadian flag bearing the Red Ensign. The said article reads as follows:
The Red Ensign should be eliminated as a national emblem on two grounds. French Canadians, who make up one third of the Canadian population, will never accept It. They demand a flag devoid of any sign of allegiance to another country. Moreover, the Red Ensign looks so much like the flag of the British Navy that in other countries one is often mistaken for the other.
And the Toronto paper went on to say in a vein which hardly leaves any room for doubt:
Canada must have her own flag. But it must be a flag recognized and respected by all Canadians, irrespective of their race or origin. In addition, it must be a wholly Canadian flag. The Red Ensign, even when adorned with a maple leaf would not meet these requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to read into the record some excerpts of letters written to me by many people, over the last month especially, to the effect that we should have our own distinctive national flag. Such excerpts are fairly indicative of the frame of mind prevailing among younger people, and more especially among the veterans of the last two wars and the Korean war.
A letter signed by Mr. Katch of Oshawa, Ontario, says:
(Text):
As a native and ex-R.C.A.F. veteran, and as one Who loves his country and enjoys democratic freedom, I am convinced that our demand for a purely Canadian flag is justified. I also believe that our flag must not contain any racial emblems on it at all. The only emblem on it should be our own maple leaf. Under this emblem, and it alone, we can unite as one nation and one Canadian people.
Sir, I must say that I am not anti-British but on the contrary I have and will always respect the British, their institutions, their flag, the Union Jack, the Queen and commonwealth.
But I also have deep affection for my country and I pledge my duty and loyalty to Canada first. Canada being an independent commonwealth nation therefore should have her own flag and anthem.
(Translation):
I have here an article signed by Mr. Cameron of Bridgeville, Nova Scotia, which reads in part as follows:
(Text):
Regarding the Union Jack, it's a grand old flag, but there is nothing Canadian about it. It was all right in the days when we were a colony. But we are a nation today. We want an all-Canadian flag. The maple leaf should be the most prominent part of it. I think everyone agrees with that statement. And no union jack in our flag. The only fair way to settle the question is by a 66968-9-81
National Flag
plebiscite. The members of parliament won't settle the question. They're afraid of it. In Nova Scotia we sing "O Canada" at the beginning of a meeting and "The Queen" at the conclusion.
(Translation):
I have here the evidence given by a person who did not sign his name, but I should like just the same to quote part of it in this house-
(Text):


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I point out that unsigned letters cannot be read into Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is quite true that unsigned letters cannot be put into the record. It would be preferable if the hon. member were to describe what he has seen in these letters in his own words. He should not read verbatim from an anonymous letter.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the opinion of that person reflects the feeling expressed by others who have written to me, and whose letters I have just quoted in part. Out of some 30 letters, only one expressed an opinion unfavourable to the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
With such evidence, one can say that the French Canadians are not the only ones to ask for the adoption of a distinctive flag. The unanimity which exists on the question of a distinctive flag is a perfect indication of political maturity and a guarantee of unity between the different ethnic groups which form our nation.
The absence of a real Canadian flag has also its international implications.
Several examples could be given in this connection. Allow me to remind you that, in the last few years, Canadian soldiers have been assimilated to British soldiers, when we took part in patrolling duties in Egypt on behalf of the United Nations.
Canada took one of the greatest steps of its history when it introduced in the United Nations a resolution whose adoption allowed the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East. Canada was invited to provide important elements of the international police force for the maintenance of order in the Suez canal area.
This conciliating and courageous attitude, which was initiated by our secretary of state for external affairs at the time, the Hon. Lester Pearson, and for which he received the Nobel prize for peace, increased Canada's prestige all over the world.

National Flag
No doubt our prestige has increased because we were asserting our country's absolute independence, but may I add that the two nations which were being called to order were precisely both countries of origin of the two main racial groups of the population of Canada. However, that magnificent gesture lost much of its value when the time came to send our Queen's Own Rifles regiment under a flag which, in short, is but a replica of the union jack, the official emblem of England.
We all know that, at the time, the Egyptian prime minister, General Nasser, claimed that our men were not sufficiently distinguishable from the British soldiers, the invaders, and that they were taking the risk of being mistaken for them by his countrymen. That situation could have led to very serious and deplorable incidents. When we ask our soldiers to risk their lives abroad, the least we could do for them would be to give them a truly Canadian flag, a flag which would be a real emblem of Canada, quite distinctive of other nations' emblems, and under which our sons would be happy to seek glory, without having to suffer the cruel affront of being mistaken for soldiers of another country.
Need I add that the military field is not the only important one on the international scene? Was it not last summer, at the Brussels' fair, that our representatives and all Canadians who visited the fair felt the humiliation of being assimilated to people of another country? Besides, the lack of a distinctive Canadian flag is deeply felt at the United Nations and in all countries where we have diplomatic representatives.
Mr. Speaker, newspapers, public organizations, chambers of commerce, the Ligue du Drapeau, distinguished members of universities, in short, the pick of our population unanimously demand a distinctive national flag which would be the common denominator of our patriotic aspirations and the expression of an independent nation.
The flag model which would surely meet with the nation's approval and which remained after all elimination processes, out of 2,696 designs submitted to the competition of the 1945-46 parliamentary committee, is the white and red diagonal with a green maple leaf in the centre. The red and the white recall both main racial groups of Canada, while the green maple leaf is the symbol of this country's unity.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay for a moment the time when the house will wish to take a decision on this resolution. However, I feel obliged to recall a particular fact of present day history. In the world today

even the smallest nation, as soon as she achieves independence, quickly adopts her own flag. Canada where we have been bragging about our autonomy for over a quarter of a century, does not yet have the national emblem her people have been demanding for so many years. This lack of national pride is truly unaccountable. How can this country which is giving leadership in so many fields be satisfied with the position of a nation devoid of any pride and ideal?
I think I have proved that nothing now prevents Canada from providing herself with a distinctive flag uniting in its folds all the races which make up this nation and which are called upon to achieve the greatness of this country. Frankly I would be deeply humiliated if a single member, a single Canadian should object to the adoption of a truly Canadian flag.
On Cap Diamant, in Quebec city, a monument was erected to the memory of two heroes: Montcalm and Wolfe. There is on this monument a Latin inscription which can be translated as follows:
Gallantry united them in the same death,
History awarded them the same fame,
Posterity built them the same monument.
As Canadians commemorating the 3rd centennial of their utmost sacrifice, let us unite together in the same spirit of pride and love for this country in order to raise a flag in their memory as they stood united in death for the love of Canada!
Before resuming my seat, I shall in a last effort urge the members of any party not to prolong the discussion, or at least to interrupt it a few minutes before the adjournment of this sitting, so that the house may vote on the second reading of this bill concerning a distinctive national flag which will fly tomorrow, I hope, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and of which all Canadians will be proud.
(Text):


Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in his desire to have a distinctive Canadian flag but he has left very little time for any of the other members of the house to discuss it. If he wants us to pass this immediately without further discussion that is a different matter. He has intimated that if we talk at all we are against a distinctive Canadian flag. I want to set his mind at ease right now by telling him that I am not against a distinctive Canadian flag. However, I find that in his bill which is before us at the present time

there is a great deal of haste since the explanatory note states:
As it is desirable and urgent that Canada possess a distinctive national flag this bill provides a method of obtaining a flag with the least possible delay.
It then goes on to say:
In this manner Canadians could have a distinctive national flag at the end of this session.
Mr. Speaker, when he discusses the attitude of some of the members of the house and some of the attitudes of former governments I would like to take him back to the meetings of the joint committee of 1946, which were certainly held under a Liberal regime. I would like to read to him the order of reference of the House of Commons for a joint committee on a national flag. On Tuesday, March 26, 1946, this motion was passed:
Resolved that in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag.
This resolution was concurred in and the committee met off and on from March 29 until July 11, 1946. To show the hon. member that this cannot be a very rapid decision by order in council and how difficult it is to arrive at such a thing as a distinctive Canadian national flag, I would like to read to him some of the evidence of that committee. This statement was made by Mr. Mac-Nicol, one of the members of the committee:
We have had 2,409 flags.
I interject here. This is not a soap contest, Mr. Speaker. It is a flag contest. Mr. Mac-Nicol went on to say:
Of those 2,409 flags I, by elimination of what I saw of them, have arrived at certain principles. One thousand six hundred and eleven of those flags had the maple leaf on them. So I made up my mind that by far the majority of those who sent in flags wanted the maple leaf on the flag. Therefore I marked as No. 1 choice for myself that the flag must have a maple leaf on it. As compared with the maple leaf, the other matters suggested to go on the flag were, first, stars. Two hundred and thirty-one flags had stars on them. Our American cousins have stars on their flags. The Australians and New Zealanders have stars on their flags and India has a star on its flag. Of that 2,409 flags, according to my count-and I may be one or two out because it is quite a problem to count 2,409 flags-231 had stars against 1,611 with maple leaves. So the star went out at once. You cannot have both leaves and stars. One hundred and eighty-four had the fleur-de-lis on. I must confess that in the commencement I had a very strong preference for the fleur-de-lis.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is not at all dealing with the subject. I suggest he did not get the drift of my argument.
(Text):
May I ask the hon. member a question?
66968-9-Sli
National Flag


George Clark Fairfield: Yes.


Samuel Boulanger: Did the hon. member
understand what I said in my speech? I did not talk about that at all; I talked about the principle.


George Clark Fairfield: The principle is very broad, 1 must say. The speaker in this committee went on in like vein for a great length of time. He finally narrowed it down to some 76 flags.
To get back to the history of our present Canadian flag, we see that an order in council was passed on September 5, 1945, part of which reads:
That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag, it is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings within as well as without Canada, and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
This is not the order of any of the members of our cabinet, or of any Conservative government. This took place in 1945. I understood, through the medium of the bilingual translation system, that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska drew the conclusion that the flag recommended at that time was to consist of a design of red and white with a green maple leaf in the centre of it. I do not know what committee proceedings he was reading but I find that at the last meeting of the committee it made this recommendation:
That this committee recommend that the national flag of Canada should be the Canadian red ensign with a maple leaf in autumn golden colours in a bordered background of white replacing the coat of arms in the fly, the whole design to be so proportioned that the size and position of the maple leaf in relation to the union jack in the canton will identify it as a symbol distinctive of Canada as a nation.
He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. He said that our attitude is very difficult but this is not our attitude. We were not in the government at the time that flag, which was called distinctive, was recommended to the government of the day by the committee. But nothing whatsoever has been done to this date about a distinctive national flag. The hon. member wants to have a flag suddenly created in a matter of a few weeks during this session.
I should like to give him a little of the history of where some flags come from. Perhaps he does not know but flags have histories. I have here a book entitled "Flags of the World" by H. Gresham Carr. He deals with the origin of the so-called union jack which is wrongly named because the union jack is the British union flag flown at the foremast of British schooners. First of all I should like to refer to the length of time

National Flag
involved in bringing about the union jack. The flag of St. George, for instance, was the battle flag of the British nation. It was first used in 1277. The flag of St. Andrew was first used by the Scots in 800. I understand there was a little bit of trouble between the Scots and the Sassenachs. One group would fly St. Andrew's cross and the other would fly St. George's cross. James I had his heralds design the first union flag in 1606. St. Patrick's cross was then added to it. No one has any idea where the cross originated in heraldry. The first British union flag was adopted in 1801. That is a period of hundreds of years and yet the hon. member wants us to develop a distinctive flag showing our ancestry in a matter of four months, you might say.
Take the history of the stars and stripes. I was curious about where the stars and stripes, the flag of our great neighbour, came from. In this same book, "Flags of the World", I find the following on page 114:
With that began the war and the making of many flags. Massachusetts had its tree; New York its black beaver on a white field; South Carolina its handsome silver crescent on blue, designed by Moultrie, which was soon afterwards replaced by the very unpleasant yellow with a rattlesnake on it; Rhode Island, best of all, had the white bearing the blue anchor of hope; there is no need to .give them all, but they were so various, and so [DOT]disfigured with mottos, that none would or could -without jealousy, be adopted as a national flag. A national flag was wanted; what was it to be? The answer came on January 1, 1776, when a flag was hoisted at Prospect Hill in Somerville, or, as some writers would have it at Cambridge, where General Washington had his headquarters- less than two miles away.
This flag is known as the great union flag or the Cambridge flag.
This was a design of red and white horizontal stripes, seven red and six white stripes, I believe, and in the canon or corner of the flag was the British union flag. One wonders where that was discovered. Later on the writer goes on to say:
To complicate the issue even more, a most definite fact emerges. The Cambridge flag was exactly like that of the East India Company. In fact, the likeness is more than remarkable, it is extraordinary.
It was an exact copy of the East India flag. One may say then, where did the idea for the stars come from? Possibly the hon. member will forgive me, as well as members of the cabinet, if I read a further excerpt from this interesting book. At the bottom of page 116 there is the following:
In spite of all that has been written, and it is considerable, about George Washington's Arms being responsible for the stars and stripes, or the part Mrs. Betsy Ross of Philadelphia is supposed to have played in the construction of the first flag, we cannot perhaps do better than quote the well-known American authority, M. M. Quaife. who wrote in 1942 as follows:	"Homer, alive,
attracted but scant attention; when safely dead, and assured of immortality, numerous Grecian

cities eagerly claimed him as their son. A like obscurity shrouds the birth of the stars and stripes. No one bothered at the time to record the name of its creator, or claim the honour for himself."
Even within the past year there has been a further development with respe%t to the stars and stripes, the flag of our great neighbour. No one knows the origin. We only know that the original flag of the revolution was an exact copy of the East India Company flag, and no one knows where the stars came from.
There have been many new flags since world war II. In Compton's Encyclopedia of World Flags, to be found in the library, we find, for instance that the flags of Monaco and Indonesia are exactly alike. The flags of Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Paraguay are so much alike that there is hardly any distinction between them. The flags of Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia are all very much alike and are copies of the original flag of Bolivar who freed the slaves in South America.
So I should like to remind the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) that the choice of a flag is not something that can be done by picking one out of a hat. That may well have been done in the first committee in 1946. Perhaps it would save a great deal of time, but the choice of a flag is a developmental thing that requires a great deal of thought and a great deal of time.
I know that many Canadians are very interested in a distinctive national flag. I too am interested. With respect to the point about confusion of forces in world war II, may I say that I do not recall going into battle at any time when we flew the union jack over our scouts and snipers or in the vanguard of our battalion. That would not be done. The only time a flag was used was when we were in rest, so that is of no importance. It appears to me that the confusion is merely a confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
I would reiterate here that any design should be purely Canadian. I do not feel it should be half French and half English with some hodgepodge in the middle. I think we have to get experts, and we have to concentrate on this for some time. I do not like the idea of a contest such as the one that preceded the establishment of the committee in 1946, and by means of which everyone sent in their design. Then, you play a game of tick-tack-toe to see who wins. I feel that is wrong. I believe that the heralds and the people who are interested in the history of our nation should be given an opportunity

to submit some new, distinctive design and then, perhaps, the House of Commons should decide.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I only desire to say a few words on this matter. There can be no question but what there is a great deal of interest in Canada in the question of a distinctive Canadian flag. I think I can say also that there are a great many ideas as to what that flag should be. I know that there is hardly a week goes by that I do not receive letters on this matter and a number of designs. In the main, each one is different. All these people are sincere, and everyone seems to have a good, basic reason for suggesting his own design.
I believe that the committee which met in 1946, I believe it was, endeavoured to give serious thought to the entire question. Although I was not here at that time, I have read parts of the report and, basically, I thought that the committee had come up with a fairly good design and with very sound reasons for that design. However, I understand that for certain political reasons the entire matter was dropped. I am told that the report itself was actually never submitted to the House of Commons at all. Perhaps we would not be facing this issue at this moment if it had been submitted to the House of Commons.
I believe we have to realize that there are strong sentimental feelings connected with history and tradition mixed up in nearly everyone's mind when they think of a specific Canadian flag. I know that from the viewpoint of those who would like the fleur-de-lis there are good reasons for wanting that. From the viewpoint of those who want certain colours, there are good reasons for wanting them. From the viewpoint of those who want the union jack, there are excellent reasons for wanting it because of tradition and history. Because of the fact there is this great feeling, I believe that, although action along the lines suggested would be welcomed by the majority of the people of Canada, there has not been a condensation of thought on a reasonable and logical basis as to the design of the flag. I believe that evidence of this fact is seen in the answer given to a question by one of the ministers the other day to the effect that there are between 1,300 and 1,400 designs already on file.
Although we agree in principle with what is being suggested at the present time; although our own organization on a national
Business of the House
basis and provincially has passed resolutions in favour of a specific Canadian flag, we do think the hon. member has made a contribution in again focusing attention on this matter, I am certain that as a result of his action interest will continue to grow. I can only add my words to those of the previous speaker, that I think we should let it go a little while longer and that will pay off in dividends because it will enable the eventual discussion to be based upon a consolidation of thought, of sentiment and tradition. This will enable us to evolve a flag that is not based on a contest or a competition but on the opinion of the majority of the thinking people ini Canada. This will enable us to work out a proper flag to fly over the men and women of this country in peace and in war, a flag that has meaning for the people who make up this country. We support this motion in principle and we think the member has done a good job in bringing it forward. We think that eventually the problem will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock* I do now leave the chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the house leader tell us the business for Monday and Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: Monday will be private members' day and on Tuesday we shall commence with item No. 5 on today's order paper, the Trans-Canada Highway Act resolution; then item No. 4, the Fisheries Improvements Loans Act resolution; then second reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act; then item No. 12, which went through today, the resolution concerning the National Defence Act and we will take up the bill on Tuesday; then item No. 2, the second reading of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act; then item No. 6, which was the National Housing Act resolution and which will be in the shape of a bill; then, the resolution concerning parliamentary secretaries and the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act. This will be the business on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thursday, by agreement, there is to be a debate on the motion to refer the estimates of external affairs to a standing committee. I am not sure yet about Friday, but on the following Monday there will be a supply motion.


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

[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. Houck: What were the names of the special solicitors retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and what fee was paid to each of them in the year 1958 in the counties of (a) Lincoln; (b) Welland; (c) Haldimand; (d) Halton; (e) Wentworth?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
The names of solicitors who were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or who were paid fees in respect of work allocated by the corporation in the year 1958 are outlined below. Because there is normally considerable time lapse between retainer and payment, fees paid will include work for which the solicitor was retained prior to 1958 in some cases. Similarly fees paid do not cover work for which the solicitor was retained in 1958 but for which he has not yet submitted his account. Amounts paid in each instance include both fees and disbursements.
(a)	Lincoln county
Macoomb, Colter, Cash & Sullivan $ 139.90
Coy & Pothier	
Sullivan, Mahoney, Gordon & Chapman	
F.	R. Dore	
Johnston & Secord	
Cavers, Chown & Cairns	
Flynn, Franklin & Sullivan	
Begora & Tisdale	
Freeman & Frayne	
D. M. Rogers	
J. E. Murphy	
Seymour, Lompard, Goulding &
Nicholls	
Lancaster, Mix & Welch	
Forster, Morrow & Morgan	
Reid, McNaughton & Morrow 

H. W. Edmonstone	
J. L. Reid	
L. A. Lillico	
(b)	Welland county
Cavers, Chown & Cairns	
Begora & Tisdale	
J. D. McNamara	
Seymour, Lompard, Goulding &
Young	 1,399.49
Bench, Keough, Rogers & Grass ...	768.00
S. S. Maclnnes	 451.00
G. A. Green	 305.25
La Marsh & La Marsh	 137.50
W. S. Martin	 410.50
532.77
916.10
499.29
469.25
157.00
517.83
349.86
459.15
136.75
192.75 460.27 303.50
103.00
168.22
(b) Welland county-Cone.
J. Broderick	 $ 217.50
E. W. Tyrrill	 138.00
Mathews & Mathews	 1,046.24
J. T. Clement	 976.07
W. J. Mars	 668.27
N. K. Young	
G.	A. Nash	
A. L. Brooks	
R. H. Riley	
J. Woodhouse	
(c)	Haldimand county Nil.
(d)	Halton county
D.	M. Duncan	 812.50
Ramsay A. Evans	 177.30
Ross & Robinson	 170.90
Nyland & Voortman	 150.00
Brown & Brown	 177.30
E.	Okuloski	
J. L. Agro	
Christilaw, Gage, Wigle & Millar 76.55
Gage & Gage	
Sidney Paiken	
H.	E. Lashmar	
Moriarity, Harrington & Palmer ...
Robert Jones	
George Kerr	
Douglas Latimer	
T. H. Can Sickler	
Hewson, Ord & Helson	
Humphrey, Depew & Ham	
Isard & Holden	
(e) Wentworth county
E. T. Bradfield	 202.15
D. W. Morrison	 151.25
McBride, Hickey, Green & Mc-
Callum	 391.00
Brown & Brown	 369.25
Ross & Henchey	 169.25
K. Y. Hinton	 139.75
Ramsey A. Evans	 255.60
Ross & Robinson	 635.40
S. Paiken	 289.00
J. L. Agro	 297.50
Christilaw, Gage, Wigle & Millar ..
D.	Duncan	
Gage & Gage	
E.	Okuloski	
H. E. Lashmar	
Moriarity, Harrington & Palmer ..
Robert Jones	
White, Paikin Robson & Foreman 928.50


SURPLUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Boulanger: What stock of surplus agricultural products are presently held in storage by the federal government?

Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculiure):
As at January 31, 1959, the agricultural stabilization board held the following stocks:
Butter	
69,682,444	poundsDry skimmed milk	
65,126,806	poundsCheese	
1,205,883	poundsShell eggs	
75,541 casesFowl	
832,254 poundsCanned tomatoes	
101,924 casesPork products	
16,150,361	poundsPresent stocks held by the board	are not
necessarily surplus since substantial quantities of many products will be resold in the
Questions
domestic market during periods of low seasonal production.


BANK OP CANADA QUARTERS, HALIFAX
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Bank of Canada move into new quarters at Halifax recently?
2.	If so. who owns the property and what are the terms of occupancy?
3.	By what fuel is this building heated?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minisier of Finance):
1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.

Monday, February 23, 1959


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like to make a somewhat lengthy statement on the subject of one facet of the national defence of Canada because, after all, the effectiveness or otherwise of the measures taken for national defence until international peace under law is obtained constitutes the passport either to survival or destruction. The announcement I wish to make has to do with the decision regarding our air defence which was foreshadowed in the statement made by me to the press on September 23 last.
The government has carefully examined and re-examined the probable need for the Arrow aircraft and Iroquois engine known as the CF-105, the development of which has been continued pending a final decision. It has made a thorough examination in the light of all the information available concerning the probable nature of the threats to North America in future years, the alternative means of defence against such threats, and the estimated costs thereof. The conclusion arrived at is that the development of the Arrow aircraft and Iroquois engine should be terminated now.
Formal notice of termination is being given now to the contractors. All outstanding commitments will of course be settled equitably.
In reaching this decision the government has taken fully into account the present and prospective international situation, including the strategic consequences of weapon development and the effects of the decision I have just announced upon Canada's ability to meet any emergency that may arise.
Work on the original concept of the CF-105 commenced in the air force in 1952, and the first government decision to proceed with the development and with the production of two prototypes was taken late in 1953. The plane was designed to meet the requirements of the R.C.A.F. for a successor to the CF-100 to be used in the defence of Canada. At that time it was thought some five or six hundred 66968-9-78
aircraft would be needed by the R.C.A.F., and their cost was forecast at about $1,500,000 to $2 million each.
From the beginning, however, it was recognized by the previous government, and subsequently by this government, that the development of an advanced supersonic aircraft such as the 105 and its complicated engine and weapon system was highly hazardous, and therefore all decisions to proceed with it were tentative and subject to change in the light of experience. This was known to the contractors undertaking the development, to the air force, and to parliament.
The development of the Arrow aircraft and the Iroquois engine has been a success although, for various reasons, it has been much behind the original schedule. The plane and its engine have shown promise of achieving the high standard of technical performance intended, and are a credit to those who conceived and designed them and translated the plans into reality.
Unfortunately these outstanding achievements have been overtaken by events. In recent months it has come to be realized that the bomber threat against which the CF-105 was intended to provide defence has diminished, and alternative means of meeting the threat have been developed much earlier than was expected.
The first modern long range bombers with which Canada might be confronted came into operation over five years ago, but the numbers produced now appear to be much lower than was previously forecast. Thus the threat against which the CF-105 could be effective has not proved to be as serious as was forecast. During 1959 and 1960 a relatively small number of modern bombers constitutes the main airborne threat. It is considered that the defence system of North America is adequate to meet this threat.
Potential aggressors now seem more likely to put their effort into missile development than into increasing their bomber force. By the middle of 1962 the threat from the intercontinental ballistic missile will undoubtedly be greatly enhanced in numbers, size and accuracy, and the I.C.B.M. threat may be supplemented by submarine-launched missiles. By the middle sixties the missile seems likely to be the major threat and the long range bomber relegated to supplementing the major attack by these missiles. It would
1222	HOUSE OF
Government Policy on Air Defence be only in this period, namely after mid-1962, that the CF-105 could be fully operational in the Eoyal Canadian Air Force.
The United States government, after full and sympathetic consideration of proposals that the U.S. air force use the Arrow, reached the conclusion that it was not economical to do so. Already the U.S. air force has decided not to continue with the further development and production of U.S. aircraft having the same general performance as the Arrow. The development of interceptor aircraft that is now proceeding in the United States and abroad is on different types.
Since my announcement of last September much work has been done on the use of a different control system and weapon in the Arrow. These changes have been found to be practical. Although the range of the aircraft has been increased it is still limited. It is estimated that with these changes the total average cost per unit for 100 operational aircraft could be reduced from the figure of about $12,500,000 each to about $7,800,000 each, including weapons, spare parts and the completion of development, but not including any of the sum of $303 million spent on development prior to September last.
The government has taken no decision to acquire other aircraft to replace the CF-100, which is still an effective weapon in the defence of North America against the present bomber threat. The Minister of National Defence and the chiefs of staff are now engaged in further studies of the various alternatives for the improvement of our defences.
Canadian requirements for civilian aircraft are very small by comparison with this huge defence operation, and frankness demands that I advise that at present there is no other work that the government can assign immediately to the companies that have been working on the Arrow and its engine. This decision is a vivid example of the fact that a rapidly changing defence picture requires difficult decisions, and the government regrets its inevitable impact upon production, employment and engineering work in the aircraft and related industries.
As all in this house will appreciate, this decision has been a very difficult one for the government to take, not only because of the immediate disturbance it is bound to cause to those who have been working on the Arrow and related items but because it means terminating a project on which Canada had expended a very large amount of money and in which Canadians have demonstrated the high level of their technical work. However much I might hope that the project be continued in the sense of pride of achievement to avoid immediate dislocations which
[Stage Direction]

are regrettable, defence requirements constitute the sole justification for defence procurement.
Having regard to the information and advice we have received, however, there is no other feasible or justifiable course open to us. We must not abdicate our responsibility to assure that the huge sums which it is our duty to ask parliament to provide for defence are being expended in the most effective way to achieve that purpose.
Now I wish to turn to another aspect of defence. As previously announced the government has decided to introduce the Bomarc guided missile and the Sage electronic control and computing equipment into the Canadian air defence system, and to extend and strengthen the Pinetree radar control system by adding several additional large radar stations and a number of small gap filler radars. Canadians will be glad to know that agreement in principle with the United States defence department has now been reached on the sharing of the costs of this program.
Under this arrangement Canada will assume financial responsibility for approximately one-third of the cost of these new projects. The Canadian share will cover the cost of construction of bases and unit equipment, while the United States share of approximately two-thirds of the cost will cover the acquisition of technical equipment. Such division of functions is necessary for the reason that the United States is well advanced in the planning and implementation of this program and the development of the technical equipment required for it. By dividing the sharing of costs uniformity of construction will be ensured and the dangers of differences in technical equipment will be avoided.
With regard to the construction of bases in Canada, work will be carried out as a practical matter by Canadian construction companies employing Canadian labour and material. It is intended that the bases when complete will be manned by Canadian military personnel.
As for the technical equipment which is to be financed by the United States, both governments recognize the need for Canada to share in the production of this equipment. Within the principles of production sharing the United States government and the Canadian government expect that a reasonable and fair share of this work will in fact be carried out by Canadian industry. To that end a number of groups of officials representing both countries have been established to initiate the production sharing activities and to deal with the problems involved. I might add that early next week the Minister of

Defence Production will make full information available to the house in this connection.
Now, sir, while time is required to work out all the necessary details between our governments, considerable progress has already been made and several contracts have been placed.
The production-sharing concept also covers the broad range of development and production of military equipment for North American defence generally. Procedures are currently being evolved between officials of the two governments whereby greater opportunities than have existed in the past will be afforded Canadian industry to participate in the production of technical equipment related to programs of mutual interest.
Under the irresistible dictates of geography the defence of North America has become a joint enterprise of both Canada and the United States. In the partnership each country has its own skills and resources to contribute, and the pooling of these resources for the most effective defence of our common interest is the essence of production sharing. Believing that parliament and the people of Canada are determined that this nation shall play its full part in terms both of quantity and quality in deterring and resisting aggression, the government intends that the Canadian forces will be well equipped and well trained for the Canadian share of these tasks in a balanced, collective defence.
In keeping with that determination careful thought is being given to the principles that in our opinion are applicable to the acquisition and control of nuclear weapons. The government's decisions of last autumn to acquire Bomarc missiles for air defence and Lacrosse missiles for the Canadian army were based on the best expert advice available on the need to strengthen Canada's air defence against the threat to this continent, and on its determination to continue an effective contribution to the NATO shield.
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads. The government is, therefore, examining with the United States government questions connected with the acquisition of nuclear warheads for Bomarc and other defensive weapons for use by the Canadian forces in Canada, and the storage of warheads in Canada. Problems connected with the arming of the Canadian brigade in Europe with short range nuclear weapons for NATO's defence tasks are also being studied.
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective. It will of course be some 60968-9-784
Government Policy on Air Defence time before these weapons will be available for use by Canadian forces. The government, as soon as it is in a position to do so, will inform the house, within the limits of security, of the general terms of understanding which are reached between the two governments on this subject.
I wish also at this time to give the house an indication of certain basic considerations in the government's thinking on the question of the acquisition and control of nuclear weapons. The first important consideration is the government's belief in the importance of limiting the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of national governments. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the external affairs committee on July 29 last that it took but little imagination to envisage the dangers of the situation if the know-how with respect to the production of nuclear weapons were disseminated in numerous countries of the world. The prospect of further dissemination of such techniques continues to be a matter of fundamental concern to the government. As a contribution to this objective, it is the policy of the Canadian government not to undertake the production of nuclear weapons in Canada, although we believe that Canadian scientists and technicians are quite capable of producing them.
Second, we intend to leave no avenue unexplored in the search for an acceptable agreement on disarmament with the Soviet union, even though we must reluctantly admit the need in present circumstances for nuclear weapons of a defensive character. The objective of disarmament must ever be kept in view, even though in the experience of the past it may be capable of only partial realization. For example, we believe that agreed zones of inspection in the Arctic to guide against surprise attack would be steps necessary to be taken in the context of a larger disarmament plan. Canadians will continue to support effective measures for disarmament, but in the meantime we cannot minimize the importance of providing the strongest deterrent to aggression and of protecting the deterrent power against surprise attacks.
Third, there is the consideration of Canada's commitments to support the collective security of the NATO alliance. Whether Canada's effort is made directly in continental defence-the defence of the Canada-United States region of NATO-or whether it is made on the continent of Europe, Canada's contribution will be made in concert with the efforts of our NATO partners. It is our intention to provide Canadian forces with modern and efficient weapons to enable them to fulfil their respective roles.
[Stage Direction]
Government Policy on Air Defence
Believing that the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of individual nations should be limited, we consider that it is expedient that ownership and custody of the nuclear warheads should remain with the United States. The requirements of Canadian and United States legislation on atomic energy will continue to apply, and there will be no change in Canada's responsibility to regulate all flights of aircraft over Canadian territory.
Our two governments have assumed joint responsibility for the air defence of Canada and the continental United States, including Alaska, and have implemented their responsibilities through the establishment of the North American air defence command. The Canadian government exercises with the United States government joint responsibility for the joint operations of the command, including the use of defensive nuclear weapons if necessary. In the event that these defensive weapons are made available for use by NORAD, they could be used only in accordance with procedures governing NORAD's operations as approved in advance by both governments. Such weapons, therefore, would be used from Canadian territory or in Canadian air space only under conditions previously agreed to by the Canadian government. With respect to decisions as to procedures concerning custody and control of nuclear warheads for use by Canadian forces operating under the supreme allied commander in Europe and the supreme allied commander in the North Atlantic ocean, those decisions will be subject to negotiation with the appropriate NATO partners concerned and with those commanders.
I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will recognize the gravity of the decisions we are called upon to make in these defence matters, by reason of the almost unbelievable nature of the world in which we live. I should like to emphasize the government's desire to ensure the security of Canada by all efficient and reasonable means at our disposal and in concert with our strong and trustworthy allies.
May I say, sir, that I thank the house for giving me this opportunity of making this lengthy statement. In so far as matters such as defence are concerned, I believe that the decisions and discussions will in the future, as in the past, remain above partisan political considerations. It is in that spirit that I place this matter before the house. This is a decision that could not be arrived at without much soul-searching and one which we believe, in the light of the expectations of the future, will be considered right.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I feel that the Prime Minister was right, Mr. Speaker, when he said that all hon. members would recognize the gravity of the decisions that we, in parliament, are called upon to make in these defence matters by reason of the almost unbelievable nature of the world in which we live. There is no doubt about that.
It would not be appropriate, I think, for me to comment at any length on the substance of the very important statement which the Prime Minister has made, a statement of far-reaching importance in regard to defence and a statement of importance also in regard to our relations with our allies, particularly on this occasion our relations in defence matters with the United States of America. It is a statement of importance also in regard to the industrial and economic development of our own country.
I do not intend at this time, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to make any observations or any comments on the decision the government has made in regard to the CF-105 or on the fact that this decision is being made in February, 1959 rather than earlier. There is no doubt, and the Prime Minister's statement has pointed it up, that we in this country have to co-ordinate our defence policy with our neighbour on this continent and also with our allies in the Atlantic community, and that in this collective defence, which is the only kind of defence which makes any sense in the world about which the Prime Minister has spoken, Canada has to play a full and effective part.
Our obligations in that regard-and I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with me- are not lessened in any way by the decision the government has made with regard to this particular aspect of defence policy. The Prime Minister has said that the government is engaged in further studies of various alternatives for the improvement of our defences. This statement points up at least in my mind, Mr. Speaker, the desirability- indeed, as I see it, the necessity-of a complete and comprehensive study through a committee or a subcommittee appointed for the purpose not merely of government policies that have been announced but of the whole concept of Canadian defence policy in the world in which we live. Where are we going from now in this vital matter?
The Prime Minister has mentioned one alternative to the kind of defence equipment we have been using in the past-and which in the case of the CF-105 is now to be cancelled-in the Bomarc missile. Surely if we are going to make this change from an interceptor developed and built in Canada to a missile developed and built in the United

States, then we must be confident in our own minds-all of us who have an obligation in parliament in this matter-that this change is going to increase our defence capacity. The principle which the Prime Minister has enunciated in his statement and which should guide not only Canadian but United States policy in this matter is the principle of the pooling of our resources continentally and on an Atlantic basis for collective defence. Surely that does not mean that Canada is to be asked to take part in collective continental defence in so far as planning and operation are concerned but not in so far as the development of resources and industrial capacity are concerned.
The Prime Minister has mentioned the matter of the availability both in Canada and for our forces who are defending Canada in Europe

and who are defending the peace in doing so-of nuclear warheads for the weapons which may be required. I think he was quite right, Mr. Speaker, in emphasizing, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has emphasized inside and outside the house, the tragic results that might occur if the manufacture of these nuclear weapons were extended to other countries beyond those which now manufacture them. I do not think anybody in this house wants to see that happen.
I recall, if I may mention it, speaking about this matter last summer and expressing the hope that at the United Nations assembly perhaps some progress might be made by members of that organization taking a self-denying ordinance that they will not be responsible in their own countries for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It is bad enough to have these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of two or three super powers, but it would be infinitely worse if they were in the hands of 15, 20 or 25 other powers. I therefore agree with the Prime Minister that anything that can be done to limit the extension of manufacture of these weapons should be done. I welcome his statement that these nuclear weapons are not to be manufactured in Canada.
Nevertheless, with regard to the nuclear warheads of Bomarc missiles and defensive weapons of that kind, it seems to me it would be quite insupportable, as long as they are used, to have Canadian air squadrons without them and United States squadrons on the same airfield with them. I say that without qualifying in any way my hope that the day may come when all nuclear weapons may be removed from the armouries of nations. It does not seem to me that the two things at the present time are incompatible.
I think our defence policy-and I mention it on the broadest ground of principle-
Government Policy on Air Defence should be based on the kind of deterrence which the Prime Minister said is now essential. At this time we may require weapons for defence purposes while also seeking disarmament, a search in which we must not falter no matter how frustrating and disappointing it may seem to be.
That appears to be all that should be said on this side at this time, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this vitally important statement. The Prime Minister has said that the policy of the government is to ensure the security of Canada-and I mentioned this at the beginning of my statement-by all efficient and reasonable means at our disposal and in concert with our strong and trustworthy allies. That is essential in the world in which we live. But there is a better way of ensuring the security of Canada than even by collective defence. That way is by removing the causes of discord and conflict, thereby establishing peace and good will among peoples. That is the only permanent basis for security in this world.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Prime Minister this morning is most important and far-reaching. It will mean for Canada the end of large expenditures on the CF-105. The fact that we have been able to develop the CF-105 to the present point should convince all Canadians and the world that we have a fund of scientific knowledge and a body of technicians capable of keeping Canada, if not in the vanguard, almost in the vanguard of extremely important scientific developments.
However, important as are accomplishments in this field, I think the announcement that the CF-105 is not to be further proceeded with demonstrates and underlines the need for co-operation with regard to defence matters. I am certainly no expert in this field, but it would seem to me that one of the reasons we are caught in this dilemma today, and that the government has felt it necessary to end this development, is that for some reason or another there has not been the kind of co-operation between Canada and the United States which is necessary to the development of an adequate defence system; and no provision, as has seemed to have been the case, that Canada develop the CF-105 and the United States develop some other type of aircraft. So we have reached the point today of ceasing our own development.
The Prime Minister has said, if I understood him correctly, that at least at this time there are no orders to be assigned immediately to the company producing the CF-105. It seems to me that was making a far-reaching statement without giving much hope to the people

Government Policy on Air Defence who are engaged in that industry at the present time. It would seem to me that the hardship that will result from unemployment in this industry, if nothing is done, is something the government should study most carefully, and should have been studying most carefully. It appears to me that there should be other plans for alternative employment within the industry, if possible, for the production of other things such as, perhaps, aircraft for peaceful uses. It seems to me that there certainly should be action that would prevent lay-offs of thousands of Canadians, thus adding to the unemployment rolls and making it more difficult for Canada to regain a state of full employment.
We listened with interest to the Prime Minister's statement that there would be a sharing of the defence costs of North America. We emphasize to the United States, as I am sure do all members of parliament, that we feel a very substantial part of the orders necessary for this type of defence should be placed in Canada in order that our economy should not suffer from the necessity of having to spend large sums of money on collective defence while at the same time not receiving our proportionate share of the orders.
The Prime Minister has said, and the Leader of the Opposition has agreed, that there is great danger attached to the dissemination of nuclear weapons among a great many hands. That of course is true. It is easy for us who have these weapons to point out this danger, but the nations which do not have the weapons seem to think it is necessary for their national pride to obtain such weapons, and this being the case I think it is all the more necessary for all nations to devote their full energies to the reaching of an international agreement on disarmament.
While the government has not fully declared its policy in this regard, I would hope that the Canadian government in dealing with the NATO countries as far as Germany is concerned would advocate within those councils a neutralized Germany within a neutralized large area of central Europe as an alternative to nuclear weapons within that area and the great dangers that this would involve.
I believe we are in a position today to have some hope with regard to the forthcoming negotiations with the Soviet union. We believe that social democrats and freedom loving people in Europe in growing numbers are coming to think there can be an agreement with regard to Germany under which we make some concessions in return for other concessions, all of which will lead to greater security for peace in the world.

We are talking today about the CF-105. We are talking today about protection against a potential aggressor. That is important. It is important to peace and it is important to our future. But are we going to arm ourselves in adequate fashion against a potential act of aggression that may never happen-we all hope it will never happen-while at the same time playing no part in the tremendous surge of energy now being devoted to the conquest of outer space? It would seem to me that because of the great scientific advance toward the conquest of outer space much of the conflict which has been going on between the west and the east as far as jurisdiction and the control of people and the economics of the earth are concerned might in the near future be transferred largely to the conquest of outer space, and I suggest that within a partnership for this very important peaceful operation Canada should also be playing its full part.
If we had such an operation it would seem to me that in this way we should be doing something to protect our security in the days ahead. Defence, necessary as it is, is a negative thing, and I suggest it is time that Canada played an active part in the thought that is being given by leading people in the United Nations to the conquest of disease throughout the world, the promotion of medical and health facilities, and greater emphasis on the conquest of hunger and the removal of hunger from all parts of the world.
The announcement by the Prime Minister is important and far-reaching. We hope that in the days ahead Canada, in this and other ways, will play a constructive role in securing the peace of the world.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of the statement the Prime Minister has just made on defence policy, I wonder if he could inform the house whether an opportunity will be afforded at an early date to discuss external affairs, a subject which is a related aspect of defence.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house will agree to have a day set aside for the discussion of external affairs, and if it can be arranged among the various leaders next Thursday will be a possible date. In so far as a general discussion of defence is concerned, we hope that within the very near future the defence estimates will be available so the fullest discussion can take place.

Incidentally, may I be allowed to say this; that the manner of the speeches of both hon. gentlemen today indicates that this is a subject which is above all partisan considerations. I do think a word should be said respecting the contributions made by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he tell us if he is considering any amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act during this session?


An hon. Member:: This is mentioned in the speech from the throne.
(Text) :


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am planning to do so.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions based on the same idea. May I be permitted to ask the three questions at once, because they could all be answered together?


Mr. Speaker:: This is an unusual problem. The hon. member says the three questions can be answered together, but I think it would be better to separate them and ask the first one first.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It will not save time. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. At the experimental farm the building formerly known as the dairy research building, with its French equivalent, has been repaired and now carries the name "Dairy Technology Building" in English only. Would the minister see that this mistake is corrected in the near future and French given its proper place?


Howard Charles Green: I will have to look into this question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The second question, Mr. Speaker. The new building for the Department of Agriculture is called the science service building, in English only. Would the minister seek to correct this omission in the very near future?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Same answer, Mr. Speaker.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The third question. A new building is going up presently for the Department of Public Works, and another for the Post Office Department, administration branch. Would the minister see that both English and French are used in the naming of these buildings?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member was not doing too badly while he stuck to his own bailiwick in Hull, but now he is over on the other side of the river and I am not so sure. I point out that questions of this type are not properly to be asked on the orders of the day, but are usually put on the order paper.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has been asked and answered, and I will not entertain points of order as to its relevance.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I think I am permitted to bring up a point of order on the question, because the minister referred to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot deal with a point of order that is not before the house. I refuse to consider the validity of a question that has already been asked and answered.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister seemed to indicate that an hon. member has the right to look after business only in his own county. We have been elected as members of the House of Commons, and I do not think the minister has the right to make the statement he just made.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but that does not appear to me to be a question of privilege. It is perhaps a matter of argument, but no privilege of the hon. member has been infringed.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to my good friend the Minister of Public Works, arising out of his reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Hull. The hon. member for Hull comes from Quebec and I am an Ontario man, so perhaps the minister will entertain my question. The minister is a good man, and I believe he is one of the finest politicians in that group. I would urge him to see to it that the names of those buildings appear also in the French language, as should be the case without any question of

Inquiries of the Ministry anything political. The hon. gentleman used to talk about unity and the fact that this is a bilingual country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: If I may say a word in reply, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member has a great many government buildings in his riding. If that were not the case we might give some consideration to naming one of them the Gour building.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of a tariff filed with the board of transport commissioners by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway providing for commuter fare increases of from 17 to 37 per cent in the metropolitan area of Montreal? Will he bring to the board representations outlining the seriousness of this increase to those using commuter services? Perhaps he may wish to make a statement on this matter.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the proposed increase, and I have already spoken to the chairman of the board of transport commissioners about it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If a municipality in the metropolitan area of Montreal protests the increase, will the board suspend the tariff until the hearing is held?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the board of transport commissioners regarding what their action or lack of action will be, but I would say that judging from the action that has been taken in similar cases in the past I would think if a municipality did protest, there would be a good likelihood that the increase would be suspended pending a hearing.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Russell Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with respect to the urgent problems relating to the Boundary Bay airport in British Columbia. Would the minister inform the house whether a meeting

has been arranged with officials from Vancouver and officials of the minister's department?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a meeting has been arranged during the first week in March between officials of my department and representatives from Vancouver including Aider-man Halford Wilson, the Vancouver airport manager, the president of the British Columbia aviation council and Mr. Frank Bernard, director of the council.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a press dispatch in this morning's papers saying that Senator Neu-berger had introduced in the United States congress legislation to authorize the paving of the Canadian portion of the Alaska highway on a cost-sharing basis with Canada. I wonder if the Prime Minister would comment on Senator Neuberger's statement that the project had been discussed by President Eisenhower and our Prime Minister at the Ottawa meetings last summer. Can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government will participate in such a project if it becomes law in the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the item in question, but I should be glad to look into the matter and see whether or not I am in a position to answer the question in the form in which it was asked.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia has sent over the clipping in question, which reads in part as follows:
Senator Richard L. Neuberger today reintroduced in the United States congress legislation to authorize the paving of the Canadian portion of the Alaska highway on a cost-sharing basis with Canada.
The Canadian share would run to about $66 million, spread over a six-year period.
Neuberger disclosed that the project had been discussed by President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Diefenbaker at their Ottawa meeting last summer, and urged further more complete meeting between the two countries at a lower level.
Let me say that it was merely one of those informal matters which came up for discussion, not as between the President and myself but as between Mr. Dulles, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Northern Affairs and National Resources; agreed to by our two governments in 1950. nothing more than a general discussion.	I had seen the text of General Foulkes' report
With respect to the matter, there is no before it was given, and I concurred in it. thought whatsoever on the part of Canada
at the moment to make the contribution re-	LABOUR CONDITIONS
quested, or any contribution to the plan in request for figures of employment under question as suggested by the senator.	municipal incentive program



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he advise the house as to when the white paper on defence will be available for distribution to hon. members?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, it will be available for distribution before my estimates are brought down.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very important statement made today by the Prime Minister I wonder if the Minister of National Defence would give some consideration to advising us in a little more definite language as to when it may be expected.


George Randolph Pearkes: A decision has now been reached with respect to policy, and it will therefore be possible to proceed with the preparation of the paper. Until this decision was reached it would have been of little value to issue the white paper. Preparation of the white paper will now be pressed on with, and it will be in hon. members' hands before my estimates are presented. Hon. members will recall that in the past the white paper has been issued a day or two before the minister has presented his estimates.



CANADA-U.S.  STATEMENT ON JOINT PROCURE- MENT OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question about a speech which had been made by General Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff, in Ottawa the day before, and I said at that time I had not had an opportunity of reading the comments. General Foulkes was discussing before a group of businessmen, both Americans and Canadians, developments which had taken place in connection with economic co-operation, and was tracing the developments from the time the statement of principles for economic co-operation had been 66968-9-79
On the orders of the day:


William Limburg Houck: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Could the minister give us the latest figures for the number of municipal incentive projects approved and the number of men working across Canada as a result of this program?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Niagara Falls I wish to state that the latest figures we have compiled are as of February 13. There have been 1,511 applications accepted from municipalities across Canada, and according to the figures submitted to us from the municipalities this would give employment to some
25,000	workers.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked if we had received any representations regarding a direct air service between Prince Rupert and Vancouver. I told him I would have to check with the air transport board. I have now had an opportunity to do so, and I find that we have received no representations of that kind.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. I know that one of his many accomplishments is the fact that he is a highly distinguished member of the bar, and he will be fully capable of answering my question.
In view of the charges that the C.B.C. has used wire tapping, and in view of the very commendable stand taken by Mayor Phillips of Toronto and other Toronto municipal officials in regard to the practice of wiretapping, as reported on the front page of today's Globe and Mail, could the Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister assure the house that the Criminal Code or other federal statutes guarantee protection for Canadian citizens against this dangerous practice?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timmins prefaced his question with a couple of statements which are not the kind that can be dealt with in reply on orders of the day, and for that reason they are contrary to the rules. The hon. gentleman then asked the Prime Minister for advice on a legal question-without offering to pay the usual fee, I understand. Unless the Prime Minister wants to answer the question I would consider it out of order.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is advice not for my own personal benefit but for the benefit of a great many interested Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's feelings, but on the other hand it is strictly out of order to ask the Prime Minister or any minister to give an interpretation of the Criminal Code.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the reported visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Washington in March, presumably among other things to report on his journey to the Soviet union, Mr. Macmillan has been invited to come to Ottawa?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what I have seen in the newspapers is to the effect that Mr. Macmillan will be in Washington. If he comes to Washington, naturally in the ordinary light of events of the past he will come to Ottawa, where he always receives a warm welcome; and I am sure an invitation is extended by all hon. members.
May I add, in connection with the pilgrimage that he is making to Moscow, that I know all hon. members and indeed mankind in general hope that he will be successful in bringing about a better relationship for peace.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and tell him

that I am happy to see him fully recovered and back in the house again. My question is this-incidentally, I have not given him notice, and he may take it as notice if he is not able to reply at this time-in view of the fact that for the last seven weeks a very small proportion of the programs of the French network of the C.B.C. has been live, can the minister tell the house whether this situation violates the broadcasting regulations? If so, what is the board of broadcast governors doing about this particular matter?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the medical diagnosis which the hon. member has given the house, and I trust that his reputation as a doctor will be confirmed as being as high as his reputation as a lawyer.
It seems to me that I had some little difficulty in this house some time ago in attempting to give a legal opinion on certain facts in connection with this strike, and I am not in a position to say anything about the network programming and the regulations of the board of broadcast governors.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister be good enough to inquire and ascertain what the position is?


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall be glad to make an inquiry.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 19, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearkes-Mr. Sevi-gny in the chair:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act by providing for the court martial appeal board to be reconstituted as a superior court of record, to authorize the payment of travelling allowances to its members and to provide also for the appointment of, and the payment of fees to and the travelling expenses of military advisers to the court: and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the changes proposed in this resolution seem rather insignificant in comparison with the very lengthy and important announcement just made to the house by the Prime Minister. It is not my intention to make any lengthy comment at the present time on the proposed changes, but just to mention the various subjects briefly and reserve the right to mention them again when the bill is actually before the house.
The first matter mentioned by the minister last night was that of facility for additional integration of the Canadian armed forces.

This process began when our party was in office. It is certainly one in which we concur. Any proposal which will result in more economic and efficient operations will certainly receive our approval. I think experience in the medical and chaplain services has been quite satisfactory, and if this type of efficient operation can be carried into other branches of the services we would all welcome it.
The second subject the minister mentioned was that of the rules of evidence in trial by court-martial. These undoubtedly are of a somewhat technical nature, and we shall have to wait until we see the bill to know precisely what the minister has in mind. Certainly any additional safeguards on the imposition of the penalty of death by courts-martial will be welcomed. Our tradition of law is such that we not only have to be thankful for the privileges which have been handed down to us from generation to generation but we have to make a real effort to extend the safeguards to the individual.
As far as the court-martial appeal board is concerned, as I recollect the situation this was an experiment commenced when Hon. Brooke Claxton was minister of national defence. It was quite an informal arrangement, and I believe the board met only in Ottawa. Experience showed it to be a bit cumbersome. One serious complaint was that it took too long for decisions to be brought down. It was very difficult to secure the attendance of sufficient appointees to constitute a quorum. I believe it was decided to watch the experiment in operation for a period of time before suggested amendments would be brought forward. I would presume that what the minister has in mind under the proposal to set up a court-martial appeal board is based on the experience gained over the years.


George Randolph Pearkes: Appeal court.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: An appeal court in substitution for the board. I would assume that it would be somewhat streamlined and be able to do the job more effectively. In the same connection the proposal to make applicable the same rules of evidence as in civil courts is something we can study when the bill is before us. It would seem to be something to which we would have no objection. In addition, I am sure that the right of appeal from the proposed appeal court to the Supreme Court of Canada will also be a welcome safeguard.
In mentioning the proposed change from the present French version of the name of the Royal Canadian Air Force the minister did not tell us what he has in mind. I
66968-9-791
National Defence Act
know that the present name is highly regarded by many people, and we will have to wait until we hear the proposed new name before we can decide whether or not it is an improvement. This is a matter upon which some of the members from Quebec will perhaps wish to comment when we have full information before us.
The minister's conclusion that the changes are designed to improve the discipline and administration of the Canadian forces would appear to us to be proper, and we look forward to seeing the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak very briefly on the resolution to which, I am sure, the house will give general assent. As far as integration of the forces is concerned, I think everyone agrees that is a common sense approach under modern conditions. I am sure the minister realizes how horrified some members of the forces would have been 50 years ago if such a thing had been suggested, but in our society it is an inevitable development of our defence forces.
The amendment with respect to the rules of evidence appears to be an important improvement. We will have to wait until we see the details of the bill.
With regard to the safeguards having to do with courts-martial, that is right in line with modern thinking and the new approach to the way persons in the armed forces should be treated with respect to courts-martial and the application of justice. I am very interested in the provision of an appeal court to hear appeals against decisions of courts-martial. I almost got court-martialled on one occasion. I was on a range back of the lines in France as a musketry instructor. I was attached to a British regiment at the time and was instructing about 50 men in musketry. During the exercise the men were supposed to pump dummy ammunition through the rifles and aim at the instructor's eyes. On one occasion I said, "Don't aim at my eye, shoot past my head". The man pulled the trigger and a bullet went pass my head. There was an investigation, and all 50 of those blighters swore that I had never inspected their arms. I was taken 15 miles in a G.S. wagon and told that I was going to be court-martialled. Presumably Colonel Kimball, whom the Minister of Public Works knew very well and respected as I did, got me freed from a very serious charge. I am quite sure that under those circumstances there would have been no appeal at all.
Ever since that time I have been interested in making it possible for soldiers to appeal against the decisions of courts-martial. Seriously speaking, I think this is a very good development, because I have knowledge of

National Defence Act
other incidents that occurred while I was serving in the forces where I thought an appeal against the court-martial in question would have been justified and in the interests of justice.


George Randolph Pearkes: Just before the resolution
carries, if it is of any interest to hon. members I can advise them of the change of name provided they will pardon my atrocious French pronunciation. The present French name for the air force is Corps d'Aviation Royal Canadien. That name indicates that it is a corps, a corps being a subordinate part of an army formation. This name has caused confusion, particularly in European countries such as France and Germany where our air division is serving. The suggested name, Forces Aeriennes Royales du Canada, removes that objection.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a
question. I presume that this amendment will be contained in the bill that will be brought before the house in due course.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. As I indicated last
night, this is one of the amendments to the National Defence Act which we are introducing in the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the new name a matter
of translation only?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a matter of translation
only.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I bring this to
the minister's attention. Of course I am not a translator and am not versed in niceties of translation, but it would strike me that the translation puts an entirely different aspect upon the name in French than was the case before. The name Corps d'Aviation Royal Canadien, which to me places the emphasis on Canada, becomes Forces Aeriennes Royales du Canada, which places the emphasis on "Royal". Has the minister any comment to make on that?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think we had better discuss that when the bill is before the house.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 4, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from seven hundred and fifty million dollars to one billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act, and to remove the limitation on the amount thereof that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the said act, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to make a comment or two on this subject, sir, with reference to a group of people in a specific wage bracket, that is those who earn less than $3,000 a year. This matter has been dealt with to some extent by the minister in his opening remarks and slightly by other hon. members.
Before proceeding with my argument I think it would be well to lay the groundwork for it by a reference to the effect of the government's housing policy in connection with the low wage group by making a reference to the twelfth annual report for 1957 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. On page 10 this report indicates that a large proportion of the houses built under the act were in the range of $14,000 to $18,000, and that the average annual income of the borrowers was about $5,800. We can see, therefore, that the great proportion of the houses that' have been built cost from $14,000 to $18,000 and that the average income of the borrower was $5,800.
A large proportion of our population falls l the income group of less than $3,000. The itest statistical information I have been ble to get on this subject comes frorn the ixation statistics for 1957, which indicate lat 62 per cent or almost two-thirds of our ital working force in Canada earn less than 3,000. We are entitled therefore, I feel, to lake some specific inquiries of the minister


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the resolution passes I must compliment the minister on his bilingualism.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pearkes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-27, to amend the National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Has he not noticed that the figures he gave refer to houses financed prior to the middle of 1957, which would be under the insurance provision and not under the small home loans policy at all?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to make comments in that direction later, as well as on the other phases of the minister's remarks.

We have seen over a period of years that there has been a great decline in the number of houses which have been made available to people in the low income brackets. It does not matter where you get the figures from because they date back to 1946 and the figures would be the same, but the ones I have in mind are for the fourth quarter, Canadian housing statistics, 1957. These statistics indicate that in 1946 people in the income bracket of less than $3,000 per year accounted for 79.8 per cent of the applications for homes under the National Housing Act. In 1950 this declined to 31.3 per cent, and by 1956 it was down to .4 per cent. This shows the gradual decline in the number of people in the income bracket of less than $3,000 who were able to participate in home building under the National Housing Act.
We have seen, too, the gradual increase in the interest rate. I believe the original interest rate under the act was about 4J per cent; the exact figure escapes me for the moment, but it was about 4J per cent. However, there has been a gradual increase in the interest rate on money available under the National Housing Act to the 6 per cent which was announced some time in January, 1957. With the increase in interest rates applicable, with the increase in the cost of homes and with the inflation applying to it, and with the relatively large number of our wage earners in Canada still being in the low income brackets, it is evident that these people have found themselves in a squeeze between the amount of their income and the rising cost of homes.
I return to figures I placed on Hansard last year, and which were given to me by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These figures relate to what a 6 per cent interest rate means to borrowers. I was told that as a result of the manner in which interest is calculated on N.H.A. borrowings, it amounts to an additional $919.42 for every $1,000 borrowed. If we apply this to an average loan of $10,960 which was the average for 1957, we find that a person is immediately in debt to the tune of some $21,000 for a home which probably sold for $11,000 or $12,000.
Now, there are two approaches that can be taken toward providing houses. One of them can be on the basis of supplying the need for houses, and the other can be on the basis of meeting the effective demand. In the past I think we have tended toward considering this effective demand for houses more than we have tended to look at the requirements or needs. Effective demand has been interpreted to mean the number of new homes which people are prepared to buy and are financially able to buy. Certainly in 1933, 1934 and 1935, as well as in later years,
National Housing Act
there was a need for new homes, for additional housing facilities, but certainly no effective demand because of the economic conditions in the nation. There is relatively little effective demand for housing from people in the low income brackets; they simply cannot afford housing. There is certainly a need for housing for these people in the low income brackets, this 62 per cent of our population that falls in the class earning less than $3,000.
I suggest that this government should take a new look at this question from the point of view of having the housing legislation satisfy the need, and get away from looking at the effective demand for these particular houses.
I am sure the minister does not need anyone to continue to remind him of this particular question. Inasmuch as he just came back from the most glorious part of Canada, I am quite sure he will be in an even more humorous and an even more generous mood to do things of this sort. In one way or the other we must bring these people who are in need of housing into this effective demand group, though they may not now be in a position to afford these high cost homes or see their way clear to do so at 6 per cent a year-or 6 per cent semi-annually, I believe you should call it-and cannot see their way clear to go into this kind of debt to buy homes. The government can do a number of things, inasmuch as it is the major participant now in the field of home building and construction in order to ensure that the needs of people in the low income groups are met.
The suggestion has been made that interest rates be lowered. That is a suggestion to which I subscribe. I think the 6 per cent interest rate is far too much to expect a person to pay, especially when we are lending him his own money back in order to buy a home.
The argument we have heard from the minister is this. If we were to lower the interest rates we would in effect then dry up private mortgage money; that the private financial institutions including insurance companies, banks and other lending institutions would find that it was not profitable enough to lend money for housing at less than 6 per cent, and would consequently channel their money in some other direction.
We can offer these lower interest rates and, if need be, we can allow a lower interest rate to people who are in the lower income brackets, who are not now able to borrow one way or the other, either from the banks or private lending institutions or directly through C.M.H.C. because of the interest rates and because they are in a low wage

National Housing Act category. Incidentally I may say that suggestion has been made by a number of organizations interested in housing. We could increase our participation in the subsidization of housing. We certainly could expand the limited dividend housing arrangement and remove the restrictions that are there. But beyond all this, and overriding these various suggestions that are made from time to time, I think one of the glaring faults, especially in the last couple of years, with regard to the National Housing Act is that its original basis, the original reason it was put into effect and the conditions which existed at that time, have now changed. It is therefore necessary to change the philosophy and the outlook of the government and the outlook of the people administering the act, and the actual form of the act itself.
I suggest that a complete overhaul must be made of our national housing legislation in the light of changing circumstances. Whether it be done by a royal commission, a joint committee of this house and the other place, internally within the department or within C.M.H.C., it does not matter too much to me so long as it is done, so long as the act is overhauled and so long as we are going to operate our act on the basis of the needs and the desires of our people, especially those in the low income groups, and how we can best accommodate them. That cannot be done now as the legislation stands and as it is administered.
I would suggest that the act is not only out of date from my point of view but that this idea is taken up by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself in its own annual report for 1957 where, at page 9 it says this. I do not know whether C.M.H.C. were justified in interpreting what parliament did; nevertheless this is the attitude that is expressed at page 9 of this report:
Parliament in passing the National Housing Act in 1954, had never intended that the corporation should become a major supplier of mortgage money.
It was on that basis that the act was enacted. It was on that basis that C.M.H.C. has been operating. It was on that basis apparently that parliament in 1954 put this legislation on the statute books, namely that it never intended C.M.H.C. to become a major supplier of mortgage money. But we find that this is precisely what has happened within the last two years, and the statistics were given by the minister. They are to be found in Hansard somewhere; I do not think I need to look them up. They appear also in the annual report of C.M.H.C. to which I have referred on two or three occasions.


In the last two years we have seen that these private lending institutions-the insurance companies, the mortgage companies, the banks and so on-have failed in their responsibility to society to provide money for housing. Consequently the federal government has been obliged to step into the picture; and again we are being obliged to increase our allocation of funds to C.M.H.C. by this very resolution that is before us at the moment.
In 1955 C.M.H.C. provided only 2.7 per cent of the funds under the act; only one fiftieth of the amount of money spent on housing under the act came from the corporation. In
1956	this amount was almost doubled to 4.8 per cent, so that approximately one twenty-fifth of the money spent under the N.H.A. came from the corporation. But then in
1957	we discovered that it was necessary for the federal government and the corporation to take an even greater part in the field of home building, and almost half the entire money spent in Canada came from C.M.H.C. or from the government. This situation is hardly in balance with the announced attitude as to why the act was passed, one of the statements being that it was never intended that the corporation should become a major supplier of money.
We are now a major supplier of money, supplying in one year, I believe, half the entire amount of money provided under the act itself; and again in 1958, if I recall what the minister said, we were in somewhat the same position, again supplying almost half the total amount of money provided under the N.H.A. If this situation does not give some reasons for completely overhauling the act, I do not know what does; and for overhauling the attitude of this government in so far as supplying housing to people in need and who require it, not necessarily on the basis of effective demand, as is the practice at the moment. Until we can do something in that line we shall still be faltering along. These people in the low income groups will still find housing too far out of reach for them to buy it. They will still find interest rates far too high and they will find that, for one reason or another, they are not able to increase their annual incomes in order to attain the housing that is required.
I hope the minister will take this matter into consideration. Knowing that sunny disposition he has, especially after having looked at the crocuses and daffodils that are growing in our native province, I hope he will come back here with that sunshine and with that basic socialist approach he has to

things, and will introduce the type of amendments that are necessary in this act in order that the needs and desires of the people may be met.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to talk very long on this resolution. However, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) for the magnificent outline he gave us of the housing situation. I am glad also to point out that the minister has kept the matter on a high plane, and I believe that members who took part in the debate so far have also tried to keep their remarks on the same level. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this attitude indeed shows that hon. members realize the importance of the problem, both from an economic and social standpoint, and I believe it can be said that all parties here have always favoured the adoption of measures designed to improve the housing situation in this country.
I should like also to underline the splendid work done by the officials and employees of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. From 1953 to 1957, I had the opportunity of working in close co-operation with them and I was in a position to notice their devotion and diligence in the exercise of their duties. I hope the minister will not begrudge my saying that they deserve much of the credit for the success of their work.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to talk very long, because I already had the opportunity in December 1957 and May 1958 of making some remarks and suggestions about that matter, and I feel that the remarks and suggestions I made at the time still apply.
Of course we appreciate the results obtained last year, when the housing starts reached 164,000, i.e. 19 per cent more than the record high of 1955, when the housing starts had reached 138,300. However-and I say this in all sincerity-in spite of the minister's good will, I feel that, even though more funds were made available and minor changes are embodied in this resolution, so far the National Housing Act has not answered the main purpose contemplated when it was enacted, that of providing decent homes for all Canadians.
In fact, in a report prepared by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the
National Housing Act
third quarter of 1958, entitled Canadian Housing Statistics, the following remarks can be read on page 6:
There has been very little change in the level of income of borrowers under the National Housing Act, in the third quarter of 1958. The average income of insured loan applicants was $5,862, roughly $700 more than the average income of applicants under the loan program for the construction of low-price housing. Family income exceeded those amounts by $500 to $600.
The average cost of houses bought by insured loan borrowers was $14,937. Under the loan program for construction of low cost housing, the average cost of a house was $13,519. In both cases, the average down payments were $3,392 and $2,363 respectively.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, the C.M.H.C. says that houses bought by holders of insured loans cost an average of $14,937, while under the loan program for the construction of low cost housing, the average cost of a house was $13,519. As I said earlier, the average down payments were $3,392 and $2,363, respectively.
So, Mr. Chairman, the average income of borrowers under the loan program for the construction of low cost houses was $5,162 and the average cost of houses of this type was $13,519.
That is why I asked the hon. minister, when he introduced his motion to the house a few days ago, how a man earning $3,000 and even $3,500 a year could take advantage of the present legislation. True, the price may vary according to the site and size of the house, but in a city like Levis, for instance, which is in my constituency, I think I can state that it is very difficult,-as experience has proved, -to build a house for less than $10,000. I could give additional evidence of this.
Mr. Chairman, may I refer again to the C.M.H.C. report for the third quarter of 1958, under the heading: "Housing statistics in Canada," and more particularly to page 30 of that report where I find table No. 51, entitled "Price of houses financed under National Housing Acts" and to the third column under the heading "Third quarter 1958, loans for low cost housing".
I find that only J of 1 per cent of these houses cost between $8,000 and $9,000; that 1.9 percent cost between $9,000 and $10,000; and that 5.3 per cent cost between $10,000 and $10,999. And reading down that column, I find that the cost of the majority of those houses was between $11,000 and $15,000.
This goes to show, Mr. Chairman, that I was right in saying that, even for urban low cost housing-and I gave as an example the


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You are messing up your speech, my hon. friend.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Perhaps in so far as you are concerned.


Maurice Bourget: At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I would try to keep the discussion on the same level as the minister's statement, and I will not be swayed from my course by the interruptions of my hon. friend from Roberval (Mr. Tremblay).


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You are on the wrong track.


Maurice Bourget: As the minister knows,
under sections 23 and 36 of the present legislation, we also in the province of Quebec have an opportunity to take advantage of what is offered under those two same sections to any of the other provinces and of which the province of Ontario especially has taken advantage to so large an extent.
Only one project has been accepted by the government of our province, and that is the one commonly called the Dozois plan. I therefore urge my hon. friends to make new representations to the premier of our province

and get him to understand that it is in the interest of our fellow citizens to take advantage of these two sections of the act. At the same time they might perhaps ask him to extend to Quebeckers who would like to borrow under federal government guarantee, the privilege of the interest discount provided for in the present provincial legislation.
(Text) :


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I can conclude my words of wisdom before one o'clock, but I was hoping to. First of all I want to congratulate the Minister of Public Works for having pursued this program with vigour since he took his office, within the limits of the law and regulations. Without any doubt his attention and the attention of his officials to this has provided an increased number of homes, an exceptional amount of employment in the housing industry, and a good market for lumber and other building materials. That is all to the good.
I do not want to repeat the many things said by previous speakers in this debate, but I do have a couple of suggestions to make. I wish to express support for the suggestion that the present housing law does not make it possible for large numbers in the lower income groups to obtain the housing they require. From my experience and conversation I have learned that this applies to a great number of families. I feel that two factors mitigate against the ability of those in this group to obtain housing. One is the increased cost of houses and the other is the increased cost of land. These two considerations deny a great number of needy Canadians the opportunity of securing housing.
The suggestion has been made that the act should be revised, and I support that proposal. I wish to draw to the attention of the minister a fact which I presume he already knows very well indeed. The best housing legislation we have had in Canada to date is that provided under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act. The results of that legislation are demonstrated all across Canada. I am not reflecting on the administration of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation by the officials of that body, because they have to administer a somewhat different act; but under the administration of the Veterans' Land Act these men are permitted to act as their own contractors. I know many
National Housing Act
veterans in my own constituency who have been able to provide themselves with very satisfactory homes under this legislation but who would not have been able to secure similar homes under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation.
I urge the government to give consideration to amending the National Housing Act to include provisions to meet the needs of those requiring housing but who are unable to secure it at the present time. I would suggest amendments along the lines of the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member realizes that the borrower under the National Housing Act may build his own home.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but there is a greater scope under the Veterans' Land Act.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock I must leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when we rose at one o'clock to stoke the fires of our bodily furnaces I had been dealing with the necessity of the liberalization of the act in order to provide homes for low income groups who could not take advantage of the act at the present time, and I had suggested that when that was being given consideration by the government, the government would be well advised to consider the experience of the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act administration. I speak with some knowledge of the success of that administration because I have followed very closely the construction of quite a large number of houses in my own constituency in the larger and smaller communities. It has been a most successful housing project. First of all the Veterans' Land Act administration, in co-operation with the Legion, provides classes in construction for those who desire to build their own houses and assists them to learn how to dig basements and to obtain knowledge of housing tools, and so forth. Throughout the whole period of construction I find there is the greatest co-operation on a

National Housing Act
personal basis. I have found the field supervisor going around to see the men and frequently giving the advice about materials, where they can get materials to advantage, and so on. Throughout the building there was constant supervision on, shall I say, a very good basis, a type of supervision that was appreciated by the veteran concerned who was building his house under the small loans section of the Veterans' Land Act.
Then, I think it is quite correct to say that we must give the administration of the Veterans' Land Act credit for establishing, shall I say, what is known as "collections without tears". They have an excellent record in that respect. One has only to talk to the veterans around the constituency who build houses under the supervision of the field supervisor to find out what they think of this kind of legislation. I am not saying that all aspects of the legislation can be drafted into amendments to the housing act; but I do suggest it is a foundation of experience, and it has produced results. It deserves very serious consideration by any government which is aiming to do something to provide houses for the people who are still denied them.
I want to say a word or two about the unorganized community. I am not talking about the small organized villages or small towns; I am talking about the unorganized communities, unorganized districts, and we have quite a number of those in British Columbia. We have villages with populations of, say,
1,000	people that are not yet incorporated. I find that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is very loath to advance loans under those circumstances. I do suggest that consideration should be given to factors other than the fact only that the village or community is incorporated. I know a number of unincorporated communities that have excellent local fire brigades, excellent water systems, in some instances quite superior to those in incorporated communities. This can be proved by consulting the fire insurance companies as to the fire insurance rates, especially in those communities, and I do suggest that consideration should be given to those other factors when applications are received from persons who want to build in unorganized communities or in unorganized districts. This is all I am going to say about this aspect of the matter. I am going to restrict my words of wisdom as far as possible.
I do want to say a word or two about research with respect particularly to the use of materials. You know, Mr. Chairman, this is an age of conformity. Everybody wears the same sort of hat except me and everybody wears the same sort of clothes. We
[Mr. Herridge.l
build the same type of houses except that the bedroom is on the right-hand side of the front door instead of on the left, and things of that sort, and we all utilize the same type of furniture.
I think our housing corporations should do something to provide some diversity in our culture and in our housing developments by giving some consideration to design, particularly so as to provide the greatest diversity possible within the limits of the price range and also to provide some diversity with respect to use of materials. I want to mention this as something which has come to my attention in recent years. We are an odd people; we are a most wasteful people.
I will tell the committee what is happening in my district. I speak with some knowledge because I am a director of a minuscule lumber company. Wealthy people from California are coming up here buying logs in order to build log houses that cost $100,000 or more. They are having them treated and are actually buying them in our district. We are sending out carloads and carloads of cedar shakes made from British Columbia red cedar. 1 made inquiries and incidentally I found that it is the best value in roofing known today. According to the United States department of documents, research division, the cedar shake is still the best value for your money today; that is, its cost in relation to the life span. To illustrate that, Mr. Chairman, I might say that my office was built in 1898 and has the same cedar shake roofing today that was placed on the office when it was first built and it is in first class condition. In the district in which I live we find carloads and carloads of red cedar shakes being shipped to California because wealthy people there want to use them on the roofs of their houses and as siding. Yet the very men who are manufacturing these shakes are buying asphalt shingles and things of that sort. The same is true of other natural commodities.
I think we should give some consideration to bringing about diversification in our housing. In my opinion, economies can be achieved if the corporation will give consideration to the use of local materials. The beauty and diversity of our housing will be increased and in some cases the costs will be lower. I know what I am speaking about because I can show the minister a log cabin in my district that has 3,600 feet of floor space. It is modern in every respect. It has a basement, is electrically equipped, is panelled with various woods in different rooms and each floor is covered with a different flooring including birch, fir, pine, spruce and so on. That house cost less than $10,000. We have dozens and dozens of people in our district

who with a little encouragement-I am not saying this can be done on a large scale- in the use of logs and in the value of cedar shakes for roofing and siding could be provided with homes at a lower cost than is the case today if they built them themselves under supervision. Such homes would add something to the landscape and to the diversity of housing in Canada.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring another matter to the attention of the minister. I think more research should be carried out in connection with fireproof paints for wooden houses or other wood structures. I have made many inquiries and I find that very little is being done today even by the national research council, other research organizations connected with the government or by private industry although I understand that the United States defence forces have produced a reasonably priced fireproof paint or stain that can be sprayed on shingles, shakes and lumber which will then resist an unusual amount of heat. I suggest to the minister that some consideration be given to research in that direction because it would lessen the fire losses in a good many cases, particularly where there are hazards created by chimney fires in winter and things of that sort.
That is all I have to say at this time on the resolution. I trust that the minister will give some consideration to my suggestions which he knows are always on a very sound basis indeed.


John Smith: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this matter but since I have been engaged in house building for a good many years and have built a good many N.H.A. houses I thought I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a few things to which I should like him to give consideration. I am sorry that I was not here to hear his address at the beginning of the debate but I should like to join with others in congratulating him for the splendid job his department has done in providing money for the building industry. Nobody realizes better than the minister just what this money does. It not only provides jobs in the building industry but it provides a great many jobs in industries allied to the building industry such as those making plumbing supplies, furnaces and a great many other things. So I am sure that what the minister has done has probably been more effective than what has been done by any other department in preventing the country from falling into a greater recession than at present.
However, several things have come to my attention. One is that while the building
National Housing Act
industry has probably had one of its best periods in the last two years, nonetheless industries such as those engaged in the manufacture of hardware and plywood are now at about the lowest level of production they have experienced for many years. That is particularly so of the hardware industry. If any industry in Canada should be busy today it is the hardware industry. In Ontario we have five or six good hardware manufacturers such as Yale and Towne, Toronto Lock, Peterborough Lock and Belleville Lock but, with the exception of Yale and Towne, they have practically all gone out of business. Yale and Towne is now importing into Canada almost all the locks it sells. In the last week I went with a delegation from the united electrical workers to see the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with this matter. The government was asked to do something to try to stimulate the hardware industry in Canada and to prevent so much importation at a very low tariff rate.
Then there is the plywood industry. While softwood plywood has not been too badly affected yet, nonetheless about 64 per cent of hardwood plywood, a lot of which is used in housing today, is coming into Canada from foreign countries. A great many plywood plants in Ontario and other parts of Canada have gone out of existence. To me this is a very serious problem and I would ask the minister to give the matter serious consideration because, after all, I think the Conservative party is pledged to support home industry and the manufacturing of more of our own raw materials.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister having to do with the cost of building lots. In the last five years we in the industry have seen building lots go up in price from about $500 to $5,000, and in some cases even more. All communities are not affected but in areas like Toronto, Hamilton, yes, St. Catharines too, the cost of land has gone up to a point where it is creating quite a hardship for people who wish to buy lots in order to build homes.
I have always been a great supporter of the land assembly scheme. I think it would do a great deal toward eliminating much of the middleman's profits and making land available to builders and home owners at a reasonable cost. The land assembly scheme is a three-way scheme whereby the municipalities, the provincial government and the federal government work together to buy land, put in the services and make it available for building.
Another problem is the cost of low rental housing. I do not think that we have really

National Housing Act
scratched the surface and I hope ways and means will be found to build low rental housing. I know it is a problem to get prices down so as to be able to charge what might be considered low rentals but nevertheless it is a problem we have got to face. That, of course, brings us to the question of the high cost.
Now, there are a great many people who will say that we have ourselves to blame; that we priced ourselves out of the market; that wages are too high. These may be reasons, but they do not help us in solving the problem. I hope that during the year this government will give some consideration to reducing the cost of building low rental housing.
Then there is also the question of research for the housing industry. My hon. friends on the other side mentioned this a few minutes ago. We all know that industry spends a tremendous amount of money on research trying to find the cheapest and best way of manufacturing. It seems to me that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could conduct research along the same lines in connection with house building, discovering new materials and new methods. We in the building trades have always fought prefabricated houses. We like to have them built on the ground. Nevertheless, I think the minister might very well give some consideration to this aspect of the matter.
There is another point I should like to mention to the minister, and that is the production of low cost housing plans. It is true that last year Central Mortgage and Housing did bring out plans for a low cost house. However, I do not think they publicized them sufficiently. I think they should do more along those lines. They should develop a series of low cost houses for erection in the different parts of Canada, because one type of house may be suitable for Vancouver but quite unsuitable for Ontario and Quebec. I would impress upon the minister the need for getting his department to give some consideration to the production of low cost plans for different parts of this country, plans that would enable comfortable homes to be built at a reduction from today's prices.
I think that is all I have to say at this time. I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we fully approve the resolution introduced by the Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Green) which tends to:

-increase from $750 million to 1 billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, under subsection (1) of section 22 of the Act.
I recall that last year the Minister of Public Works reminded the house that the purpose of the National Housing Act was to help people in lower income brackets to own a house or to find a decent home at a price they could afford.
Besides, on January 20, 1959, as recorded on page 3 of the English appendix to Hansard, for that date, I congratulated the government as follows:
Last year, the government made a substantial attempt to promote housing construction in this country, but unfortunately, this effort has not been and will not be as successful outside the cities.
I added:
Housing capital is largely supplied by life insurance companies, and these are hardly interested in rural investments.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, I had received from the chambers of commerce of the constituency I represent, a resolution asking, among other things:
-that the federal government guarantee housing loans granted by the caisses populaires on the same basis as those granted by life insurance companies, in order to promote construction and provide each family with the opportunity of becoming home-owners, which indirectly would indeed help alleviate seasonal unemployment.
I also note, according to a booklet prepared by the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, that it can make loans up to $15,300. I agree that a $15,300 loan would be rather high for a rural community, but I would ask the hon. minister whether it would not be proper to consider a plan designed to guarantee our small rural owners a loan of, say, $5,000. According to the table of monthly payments, including amortization of principal, at an interest rate of 6 per cent, a $6,000 loan would cost the home owner $35.69 a month, including principal and interest. Under the circumstances, I feel that a loan of this amount would be very helpful to people in rural areas.
The National Housing Act has done a lot of good in cities, and we congratulate those who put it through, but I am now wondering whether it would not be possible to extend the same benefit to people who live outside the cities.
I therefore urge the Minister of Public Works to consider the possibility of granting loans based on the municipal assessment, in rural centres of 5,000 people or

more. In my opinion, this would help young people to provide themselves with homes to which they are entitled.
(Text):


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is just one point I want to mention. I think everyone approves the increase in the amount mentioned in this resolution. Last week I learned something, and I do not know if it is new or old. A contractor told me that there is so much red tape it is difficult for somebody to get quick action from the housing department. He told me that he tells an individual who wants a house to apply to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The individual does so, and about 15 days later receives an answer to the effect that he should go to an insurance company to obtain the money. He then applies to the insurance company and is told by the insurance company that, for one reason or another, that company is unable to grant the demand.
Then the individual goes back to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and it takes two or three months before he gets another answer. I do not know to what extent this situation is general, or whether it represents one case out of a hundred. However, I am telling the minister what the situation is so that he can investigate the matter before the bill comes before the house to ascertain if anything can be done toward ensuring that people will not have to wait five months before receiving a final answer to their application.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the discussion that has taken place today on this resolution has been extremely helpful, just as was the case when the resolution first came up for debate some days ago. I am very grateful to all those members who have taken part for the constructive way in which they have approached this problem. I think that anyone responsible for administering housing legislation in Canada would be very unwise to believe that he or she had all the answers because this is a very complicated question and one which, I think, typifies democracy at its best. This is a good example of how a democratic system of government can function.
Throughout the time that I have been responsible for housing I have been conscious of the need to extend the benefits of the act just as widely as possible and in particular tc the smaller centres in the country, to the rural areas, and above all to Canadians in the lower income groups. Hon. members will realize, of course, that the government's small home loans policy is directed toward the lower income groups. In pursuing these objectives we have taken a number of steps
National Housing Act
which I think have helped. They have not solved the whole problem but they have helped a great deal.
The hon. member for Hull mentioned the delay in having applications dealt with by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think perhaps he had been advised by some contractor who was an exception. In fact, it might have been a contractor who has had some trouble with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and was out to get in a little bit of retaliation. The average time for processing a loan is only four days. This is a Canada-wide average.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Did the minister say that was for processing the loan or granting the loan?


Howard Charles Green: For processing the loan. That is the average. In some centres it is more and in some centres it is less. However, that average could not be attained without there being a minimum of red tape. My experience with the corporation has been that it is extremely businesslike and efficient and that its public relations are excellent. I do not believe there is in the country any corporation dealing with large numbers of people which has better public relations than has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This is a great tribute to the officers and to the staff right from the top to the bottom. I may say that this is something we try to watch at all times. We believe that the Canadian people must be given every consideration. If the hon. member for Hull would care to give me the name of the contractor, I will have an investigation made and will find out just what was the matter in that case. I will promise not to tell on him if it turns out, as I suspect, that the contractor is about 150 per cent at fault.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will ask him first.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Beauce mentioned additional help in the rural areas. This matter, of course, is extremely important. We are prepared to make loans in rural areas and in small centres just as readily as in large centres. I may say that the policy is to be in a residual position. We deliberately try to keep out of the position of being the main lenders of mortgage money in Canada. The rule is that an applicant in a rural area must go to one prior lender asking for a loan. Then if he is refused he can come to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In an urban area he must go to two lenders. Then if the application is rejected, he can come to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We would be prepared to have credit unions classified as approved lenders under

National Housing Act
the act but I believe there are some restrictions of a provincial nature which make it impractical for a credit union to apply to be considered as an approved lender. We should be glad to have them included, but apparently it is not the wish of those concerned that this should be done.
Last year, as the hon. member will recall, the corporation brought out two sets of plans, one for a house costing about $8,000 and the other for a house costing about $5,000. Apparently I am wrong. It was the same plan but the house would cost $8,000 in an urban area and $5,000 in a rural area. Two additional sets of plans for similar houses or similar types of houses are now almost complete. There has been some distribution of the first plan. Not as many people have asked for it as we had hoped. It may be that in the rural areas and indeed in the smaller towns there is not the demand for new housing that we had expected. I think this factor enters into the picture, namely that there is not the same keen demand for new homes in those areas as there is in the rapidly growing metropolitan centres. However, we are prepared and delighted to make loans in rural areas and in the smaller towns.
Then the hon. member for Lincoln made several extremely helpful suggestions. Of course he has had a long experience in the building industry and speaks as an expert in that field. I am afraid that improving the hardware industry is a little bit beyond my scope, other than by getting more houses built and giving them a better market. In this regard they have done fairly well in the last year. I suppose there has never before been such a good market for household hardware in Canada.
Then he mentioned a land assembly plan. As hon. members know, this is a type of activity under the National Housing Act in which the municipality, the province and the federal government join in buying up land and servicing it. Then they sell it. Of course their expenses are recouped in that way. The procedure has been extremely helpful. The result has been that this serviced land is much cheaper than it otherwise would be. The results of this particular part of the housing policy have been extremely beneficial. There is no reason why that plan should not be adopted in many other centres apart from those that are already benefiting from it. We would certainly give favourable consideration to applications for any land assembly project.
The hon. member also mentioned low rental housing. This is one activity which has been somewhat neglected in the debate today.
IMr. Green.]
It was more or less overlooked when members were dealing with the need to help Canadians in the lower income group.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, I put on my listening device and listened very carefully to the translation of the remarks made by the hon. member for Levis, and I thought that was the main point he made this morning-this question of the houses available for people in the lower income groups.


Howard Charles Green: I am talking about low rental houses as distinct from houses which are owned. There are several different ways in which low rental houses are being provided under the housing act. One is under the limited dividend plan which has been used very extensively in the course of the past year. About 7,000 units were built in 1958 under that plan. As hon. members know, funds are provided on very long terms-very easy terms-and the only people who can benefit are those in the lower third income group. If a man's income is above the lower third he cannot rent one of these limited dividend apartments. Then, in addition, there are federal-provincial housing schemes which provide for low rentals and here, too, there is an income ceiling and in some cases these units are subsidized by the government. I must confess that I always look carefully at subsidized rental schemes, because they mean some Canadians are having to subsidize other Canadians in the matter of living accommodation. There are cases where this is necessary, but I think this type of construction should be the exception rather than the rule, because when you get into the field of widespread subsidization of rented accommodation it seems to me there is a very thin line between the family that gets the accommodation and the benefit of the subsidy, and the family which has to pay for it. I think members of the committee will agree that the provision of this type of accommodation has to be considered very carefully.
The hon. member for Levis also mentioned research. I think credit is due to the national research council and also to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the research which has been carried on in the field of building. I can remember very well when the national research council began this activity. It was very badly needed and the results have been excellent. We shall, of course, continue to do all the research possible, and inquire into all the matters mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West, but hon. members would be wrong to think that nothing has been done up to this time. Research in this field is probably as far ahead as it is in any other field in Canada.

Mention has been made of the Veterans' Land Act. This, of course, is an act of great benefit to veterans and it was deliberately drawn so as to give them an advantage as part of the compensation due to them for the sacrifices they made for the country. But it would be another thing to extend all these benefits to the rest of the nation. I think it is difficult to compare housing under the Veterans' Land Act to housing under the National Housing Act.
Then there was some discussion about the high cost of building houses. Here, again, I agree that one of the difficulties is the high cost of building, but it is difficult for us to do much about that. Everything is costing more; all prices have increased, and wages have increased, and as the hon. member for Levis said, in his city-and I guess in most other cities-it would be difficult to build a house for less than $10,000. That is the general situation across Canada and I doubt whether it can be met under the National Housing Act or, for that matter, under any other act. We do not want to start putting ceilings on wages or setting controls on prices. We are living in a free enterprise economy and these are things which are not done in an economy of this type.
It has been suggested that interest rates should be lowered. It would be very desirable if the money could be put out without any interest at all having to be paid, but here again we have to face conditions as they are. If the interest rate is to be lower than the amount the government pays to get this capital, it means that some Canadians are paying for other Canadians, make no mistake about that. It means subsidization, and in the light of the going rate for the dominion government bonds I do not think the interest rate at 6 per cent under the National Housing Act is out of line. While, generally speaking, interest rates have been rising we have very carefully kept the rate under the housing act at 6 per cent. I am very pleased that this has been possible and I think we should get a little credit for keeping the rate at this figure. Under the conditions which now exist it would be very difficult to lower the rate.
Another factor which is sometimes overlooked when we talk about the cost of housing is that in practically every organized community in Canada there are very severe building restrictions; you just cannot walk into a centre and build a cheap house. In many cases the municipal authorities will not allow you to do so-you must have this improvement, and that improvement, and so on, and rightly so. I am not quarreling with that because the municipal authorities want to keep up their standards. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not anxious
National Housing Act
to break down standards. In fact, right from the beginning of the history of the corporation an attempt has been made, under both governments, to maintain the standards set by the municipalities. However, this fact of municipal regulation, town planning by-laws and so on must be taken into account when one is looking at this whole housing picture.
Some mention was made by the hon. member for Skeena of the fact that the government is now putting up a very much larger percentage of money for housing than had formerly been the case and if I followed his argument he appeared to be trying to prove that because of this fact the government should go further and pretty much do the whole thing and adopt entirely new standards. The government went into the home financing field to such a large extent in the last two years for one reason, to provide employment. This was done deliberately as the very best means of creating jobs. It was never intended to be a long range policy that the government would have to provide approximately 50 per cent of the mortgage money. It would be very difficult for the government to do this and I do not think many hon. members of this committee would wish to have the government stay in this field in such a large way.
As I said, we have been receiving excellent co-operation from the lending institutions. Last year they invested huge sums of money in housing and they propose to do the same this year. I believe that the general picture is very hopeful.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a very rough reply to the various suggestions made by hon. members. The bill of course will be introduced following the passing of this resolution and then there will be an opportunity to go into the amendments in detail. Once again I should like to thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate for their very helpful and constructive suggestions.


James Moffat Forgie: Mr. Chairman, before the minister takes his seat I should like to ask him one question. Would he care to comment on the difficulties being experienced by the plywood and veneer manufacturers in connection with their projects especially regarding the importation of competitive goods from other countries and particularly Japan.


Howard Charles Green: Here again, Mr. Chairman, the question is not really in my field. In administering the National Housing Act we are not in a position to do anything about that.


James Moffat Forgie: It does enter the cost structure, though.


Howard Charles Green: I feel it is a question which really comes under the purview of the Department of Trade and Commerce.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question. When I intervened a few moments ago he was referring to subsidized housing and low rental housing. I recall some years ago-and in fact I believe the minister was present too-a parliamentary group visited the Regent Park south development in Toronto in its early stages. I think it was one of the first developments of its kind in Canada. In listening to the minister this afternoon I received the impression that he was casting a chill on that type of development and I wonder if I misinterpreted him. Is this type of development not something that would have the minister's warm approval?


Howard Charles Green: The Regent Park south development is a very good one and there are more recent programs of this type proceeding in Toronto, Kingston, Halifax, Windsor, Vancouver and in other centres. There is also the Jeanne Mance project in Montreal. We are very glad to share in these redevelopment projects.
Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by saying that some months ago I found we were being asked to approve of projects under which people could stay in an apartment although they had an income of practically $6,000 a year. When it comes to subsidizing people with that much income you ask yourself a few questions. This is what I had in mind. I am not casting any reflection whatever on the merits of the Regent Park south project or other projects of that kind which are in effect slum clearance projects.


William Moore Benidickson: I was thinking in terms of slum clearance but these projects have ther values aside from the question of subsidization upon which the minister seemed to frown. They necessarily involve a transfer affecting those in the country who are most poorly off in the matter of housing which is an essential social development. I did not think the minister intended to convey the impression to which I referred.


Howard Charles Green: No.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Green thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the National Housing Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES TO THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

Howard Charles Green: that the house go into

committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of ail expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is in very simple terms reading as it does:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
That maximum at present is $250 million so if this measure receives approval there will be an addition of $100 million. Today I should like to review briefly the legislation and agreements pursuant to the trans-Canada highway from 1949 up to the present time.
The Trans-Canada Highway Act, which became law on December 10, 1949, was enacted to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. It provided that the federal government may make contributions to a provincial government of 50 per cent of the construction costs of the highway over a seven-year period-this was the original act-which in effect, contemplated the completion date by December 9, 1956. It further provided that the federal government's share would not exceed $150 million. I repeat, $150 million. If the amendment we now bring forward is passed the figure would be $350 million. Subsequent to this enactment nine of the 10 provinces entered into agreements for participating in this project. Quebec has not signed an agreement to participate under this particular statute. That famous old province did not make any agreement under the original act and it has not participated either under the amendments of 1956.
During the first few years a fairly substantial trans-Canada highway construction program was put under way in most provinces. However, concurrent with this project, every province was faced with demands for reconstruction and new construction on all parts of their highway systems, which prevented them from pushing construction on the trans-Canada at a rate necessary to ensure completion by December, 1956. Further the project turned out to be much larger and more expensive than was originally estimated.
As it was apparent by 1955 that no province would complete its section by the specified date a federal-provincial highway

conference on provincial matters was held in Ottawa in November of that year. This conference was convened to discuss ways and means of accelerating the pace of work on the trans-Canada highway. As a result of this 1955 conference new legislation was introduced in parliament and on June 7, 1956, royal assent was given to a bill which amended the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
That bill provided the needed incentive for an accelerated construction program in that it provided that Canada contribute 90 per cent of the construction costs, rather than 50 per cent, on 10 per cent of the mileage within each province. This amendment also set the completion date forward to December 31, 1960, and increased the maximum limit which Canada would contribute from $150 million to $250 million.
I believe there was an interesting reason for this paying of 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage within each province. The longest gap at that time was and still is in Ontario, along the north shore of lake Superior, and it worked out at about 10 per cent of the total mileage in that province. Therefore, shall we say, as a carrot to get that province to close that gap this new plan was worked out. The dominion would pay 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the total mileage. Since the federal government had done that for Ontario-by the way, there was a big gap in British Columbia and still another in Newfoundland as well-every other province had to get the same deal, so I suspect without exception they all picked out the most expensive 10 per cent highway construction in their provinces and they are getting 90 per cent of the cost of that particular 10 per cent.


Maurice Bourget: No one can blame them.


Howard Charles Green: No, I do not blame them a
bit. New agreements were prepared based on the new act and the nine provinces who were signatories to the original agreements jointly signed them with the federal government. I might mention that these agreements specified that either the highway conform to the general specifications for the trans-Canada highway or else constitute a good standard of paved highway. Thus, where good sections of road existed, ones capable of carrying the present traffic, sound engineering practice dictated that they be left until their normal life was exhausted. However, where new construction or reconstruction was involved there would be no departure from trans-Canada highway specified standards.
From the time of this new act construction progress on the highway definitely accelerated. By March, 1956, or approximately
Trans-Canada Highway Act six years after the original act, $225.8 million worth of work had been approved for construction. From March 31, 1956 to date, or approximately three years, an additional $236.5 million worth of work has been approved. In other words, during the past three years as much work was put under way as was done during the first six years of the original agreements. This is a very practical measure of acceleration on the project since the new act of June, 1956.
A large part of this accelerated work has gone into the gap sections which existed at that time. The major gap sections consisted of the Rogers pass route in British Columbia, the northern Ontario section from Marathon to Agawa, and the Newfoundland section from Port Blandford to Traytown. All of these sections are now under contract and they are all very expensive construction, by the way.
The gap along the north shore of lake Superior is very heavy rock work; it is very difficult for contractors to get in there and it is costing a great deal of money. The same, of course, is true of the Rogers pass in British Columbia, which is the pass that the Canadian Pacific railway used originally. They had so many snow slides and lost so much equipment and so many lives that they built the Connaught tunnel-I think it is under mount Macdonald-a five-mile tunnel, and abandoned their route through Rogers pass. The trans-Canada highway is going through that pass. The highway can go up and down and dodge the slide areas in a way that the railway could not do, and in addition they now have methods of setting off the snow slides by mortar fire. This is the method of getting the snow slides, or the avalanches started, shutting off the road in the meantime, getting the snow all down and then clearing the roads. That is the way it is supposed to work, anyhow.
Physical progress to date is generally satisfactory and during the next two construction seasons, which will bring us to the termination date of December 31, 1960, we expect to see a further acceleration in the construction rate. At the present time, out of a total of 4,470 miles in the nine participating provinces and through the national parks -this, of course, excludes the province of Quebec-3,090 miles of grading have been approved for construction with 2,781 miles completed and 2,196 miles of paving have been approved with 2,101 miles completed. In addition to the mileage paved to trans-Canada highway standards, there are approximately 950 miles of paved surface along the route which were constructed prior to the date of the act of December, 1949. This latter mileage is not necessarily to trans-Canada highway

Trans-Canada Highway Act standards and the reconstruction of any part of it will depend on provincial planning and their ability to finance reconstruction during the next few years.
The Saskatchewan section of the highway was completed in 1957, and an official opening was held during that year. I think credit must be given to the government of Saskatchewan for being the first province to accomplish this feat. Mind you, road building there was a good deal easier than in some other parts of the country. The highway in Alberta is all completed with the exception of about six miles through the city of Calgary. Outside the city the highway is completed. In Manitoba the same is true; it is all completed with the exception of a by-pass around Winnipeg. In Prince Edward Island it is all completed except one bridge.
The trans-Canada highway traverses five national parks, Terra Nova 26 miles, Banff 51 miles, Yoho 29 miles, Glacier 29 miles- that includes Rogers pass-and Revelstoke 8 miles, for a total of 143 miles through the parks. Through Banff and Yoho all stretches have been completed and a bituminous surface placed. Grading contracts have been awarded on the complete mileages through Revelstoke, Glacier and Terra Nova. Paving operations will commence on some sections in the national parks during the coming summer.
In summary, physical progress may be considered as follows: 69 per cent of the total mileage has been approved for grading, with 47 per cent paved to trans-Canada highway standards. Including the 950 miles of existing pavement, there is a paved surface on approximately 68 per cent of the total mileage. This latter figure must be considered in conjunction with an extensive mileage of graded highway which is now or will be ready for paving this coming summer and which, when completed, will provide a total of approximately 85 per cent of paved highway. This does not include any work that the provinces may put under way during the next two construction seasons.
At the time of the 1956 act when the maximum amount of federal contributions was increased from 150 million to $250 million, surveys and quantity estimates along the whole highway had not been completed, making it difficult to come up with a realistic estimate of total cost in order to determine Canada's share. Another factor was that in some provinces the easier work had been done first and the more difficult and more expensive remained. Examples of this include some of the sections in the Fraser canyon in British Columbia, the Rogers pass route, also in British Columbia, the Winnipeg by-pass and the Ottawa Queensway. To date,

however, it seems fairly obvious that the $250 million will be insufficient to cover Canada's share.
A financial progress review will make this apparent. As I previously mentioned, by March, 1956 the total approved work in all provinces was $225.8 million with Canada's share estimated at $112.9 million. Payments by Canada, however-that means, of course, the federal government-amounted to only $81.6 million or an average of $13.6 million per year. In 1956-57 payments by Canada increased to $24.8 million and in 1957-58 to $49.3 million, bringing the total to $155.7 million. Provincial claims during the current fiscal year 1958-59 may exceed $50 million and with a similar amount in 1959-60 the funds now authorized under the act may be exhausted. Another point is that of the $462.3 million for approved work Canada's share is estimated at $277.5 million. This indicates that we are overcommitted at the present time by $27.5 million, although claims submitted and paid are still below the $250 million authorized by the present act.
From estimates furnished by the provinces it is now considered that the total federal contributions required by the termination date of the act will be in the order of $350 million. Accordingly, the bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act proposes an increase from $250 million to $350 million in the amount which the federal government may contribute toward the cost of highway construction.
I sincerely believe that the various provincial governments will continue the excellent co-operation they have demonstrated in the past and schedule their construction programs to produce a maximum effort by the end of 1960. I have six tables here, Mr. Chairman. They are: (1) Length of highway by provinces; (2) grading construction, December 10, 1949, to January 31, 1959; (3) paving construction, December 10, 1949, to January 31, 1959; (4) structures, meaning bridges and so on, December 10, 1949, to January 31, 1959; (5) summary of contractual commitments, December 10, 1949, to February 14, 1959; (6) summary of Canada's commitments for additional 40 per cent contributions and payments made, December, 10, 1949, to January 24, 1959. I thought it might be of interest to hon. members if these tables were printed in Hansard. It will make it easier for them to follow the statement. If there is unanimous consent I should like to have that done.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Is
it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: The tables follow:

Trans-Canada Highway Act
Table 3
Table 1
Length of Highway by Provinces
Miles
Newfoundland	 554
Prince Edward Island	 71
Nova Scotia	 311
New Brunswick	 390
Ontario	 1,436
Manitoba	 309
Saskatchewan	 406
Alberta	 282
British Columbia	 568
National Parks
Terra Nova	 26
Banff-Yoho	 80
Glacier-Revelstoke	 37
Total	 4,470
Table 2
Grading	Construction	
10 December, 1949	to 31 January,	1959
Miles of grading		
Province	contracts	Mileage
	approved	completed
Newfoundland 	366	277Prince Edward Island	71	71Nova Scotia 	118	108New Brunswick 	158	148Ontario 	830	711Manitoba 	244	244Saskatchewan 	406	406Alberta 	278	278British Columbia ..	476	433National Parks Terra Nova 	26	20Banff-Yoho 	80	80Glacier-Revelstoke ..	37	5Total 	3,090	2,781
Paving Construction
10 December, 1949 to 31 January, 1959
Province	Miles of paving contracts approved	Mileage completedNewfoundland 	51	34Prince Edward Island	70	70Nova Scotia 	26	26New Brunswick 	96	94Ontario 	609	535Manitoba 	289	289Saskatchewan 	406	406Alberta 	278	276British Columbia ....	291	291National Parks Terra Nova 	Banfl-Yoho 	80	80Glacier-Revelstoke ..	-	-Total 	2,196	2,101
Note: In addition to the 2,101 miles of completed pavement, there are 950 miles of pavement completed prior to December, 1949, on the designated route. Reconstruction of this mileage will depend on provincial planning and ability to finance.
Table 4 Structures
10 December, 1949	to 31 January,	1959
	Structures	Structures
Province	approved	completedNewfoundland 	36	33Prince Edward Island	4	3Nova Scotia 	25	20New Brunswick 	22	13Ontario 	110	63Manitoba 	33	30Saskatchewan 	15	15Alberta 	36	36British Columbia 	74	54National Parks Terra Nova 	4	Banff-Yoho 	24	23Glacier-Revelstoke ...	8	Total 	391	290
Table 5
Summary of Contractual Commitments 10 December, 1949 to 14 February, 1959
Province Newfoundland .
P.E.I	
Nova Scotia ... New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ..
Alberta	
British Columbia
Total
commitment Canada's share incl. approved	additional 40%
Canada's share paid to date

Total

1248	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act Table 6
Summary of Canada's commitments for additional 40 per cent contributions and payments made 10 December, 1949, to 24 January, 1959.
Additional 40% Payments Province	commitments	made
Newfoundland P. E. Island

Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick ..
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia .
Total	 $46,389,671.89	$17,122,485.82
This is a summary of the position at the present time with regard to the trans-Canada highway. I believe that the completion of the highway will be one of the most important feats in the history of our nation. Coming from the west coast, it has always shocked me that when one wanted to drive east to visit relatives or to see central and eastern Canada and the maritimes it was certainly advisable, if not necessary, to enter the United States at the nearest point, drive as far as possible through the United States and then come back into Canada. This has been going on for many years. In fact, a few months after I became Minister of Public Works one of the officials was sent to Banff to work on the trans-Canada highway and he was advised by the people in the department to cross into the United States at the nearest point, to drive through that country until he got south of Banff and then proceed north into Alberta. At that time the trans-Canada highway was completed across the three western provinces except for by-passes and was just as good as any of the main United States highways but the public works department was so far out of date that it advised its officials to drive through the United States.
I may add that we are not doing that any more. You can now get in a car at Vancouver and drive on pavement all the way to Marathon in Ontario. You may have to go into the United States for a few miles in southern British Columbia. Much of the travel in that province, of course, would be on a provincial highway but it would be a paved highway. The trans-Canada highway is a first-class paved highway today all the way from the western end of Yoho national park through Banff national park and then certainly right through as far as Kenora. I am sure it will be completely modernized from there to the Lakehead within the next few months or just as quickly as possible. One reason for that is that it is vitally essential that that highway should be completed in order to prevent Duluth stealing all the business that should go to the lakehead.


The trip around the north shore of lake Superior will be one of the most spectacular trips on the continent and because of the huge suspension bridge over the Mackinac straits which lead into lake Michigan I believe that hundreds of thousands of United States tourists will drive to Sault Ste. Marie and will then have the alternative of driving right around lake Superior or right around lake Huron. There will be a tremendous advantage to Canada in the tourist business, let alone what it will mean to have a first class paved highway from coast to coast. This is a very encouraging picture, and we believe the trans-Canada highway will be of immense benefit to the nation. This additional grant is required in order that the federal government may comply with its obligations under the new agreements with the nine provinces.


George Roy McWilliam: I am sure the committee thanks the minister for his statement and his review of the Trans-Canada Highway Act since it first came into force. He has told us what has been done in that regard up until now and what the intentions are for the future. This resolution, standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works, is designed to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide an increased grant. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
The minister said this would mean an increase of $100 million. The official report as of March 31, 1958 shows that payments to provincial governments up to that date amounted to $155,716,617.76. The grant in the main estimates of 1958-59 amounted to $45 million and the estimates for the present fiscal year, 1959-60, show $48 million. This will mean a total of $248,716,617.76.
It can be assumed that the chief, and probably the only purpose of this amendment mentioned in the resolution is to seek an increase of $100 million to bring the total grant up to $350 million. The 1957-58 report indicates that, with the exception of Newfoundland, the other eight participating provinces will complete their construction by December 31, 1960. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not that happens. Several provinces, I am sure, are finding it very difficult to finance their share of the expenditure. Judging from past exprience since this act was first introduced into the house, this resolution and the bill based thereon will receive unanimous support from all parties.

The Conservatives, when in opposition, while supporting the bill in principle were critical of certain aspects of the project, particularly when the 1956 amendments were before the house. They expressed the view that the federal government's portion of the grant was too low. The Minister of Transport, when a private member in opposition-I see the genial gentleman smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to say-stated, as recorded in Hansard for 1956, pages 2954 and 2955:
Why should it be that during five years of unprecedented boom we find that less than one-third of this highway has been completed?
Further down on the same page, he stated:
I think that we in this parliament, particularly the government, must face up to the hard, cold fact that if this highway is to be built within the foreseeable future, the federal government must assume the financial responsibility for its construction and stop playing around with makeshift methods of trying to get it built.
Apparently the Minister of Transport has done nothing toward impressing the government with the views he expressed while he was in opposition. This government has done nothing to improve this alleged shortcoming about which the minister spoke when in opposition.
Let us see what the present Minister of Justice had to say in the 1956 debate when he was a private member. I quote from the record the minister's motion as found on page 2980 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
That, in the opinion of this house, (a) the requirements of national defence, as well as the need to serve existing and to promote further development of Canada's territory and resources dictate that there should be more than one east-west trans-Canada highway, as well as several main north-south highways to provide connection with routes in the United States-
The last part of the motion reads:
And therefore the government should take into immediate consideration with the governments of the various provinces the advisability of enlarging the scope of the existing trans-Canada agreements so as to develop a system of national highways, both east-west and north-south, financed and maintained jointly by the dominion and the provinces on an acceptable and realistic basis.
The Minister of Justice, again when he was the private member for Kamloops, referred to the Hon. Mr. Winters, then minister of public works, as recorded at page 3109 of Hansard for April 19, 1956:
-why does he not take the other course we urge him to take and say that the federal government should have the full responsibility for this highway-
These are the remarks made by members opposite when they were in the opposition, including many of the present cabinet ministers now sitting on the treasury benches, concerning greater financial assistance to the
Trans-Canada Highway Act provinces for the completion of the trans-Canada highway, a second trans-Canada highway, as well as connecting highways from north and south as well as east and west. We may well ask, what happened to their former attitude once they became responsible for shaping the policies? Why are they not doing all these things they criticized the former government for not doing?
The Liberal policy on transportation, drafted in the 1958 annual convention, included the completion of the trans-Canada highway. The policy statement, found on page 39 of the report, reads:
Assistance to the provinces and territories for developing roads to the north and consideration of a policy of a federal-provincial-municipal highway program aimed at providing a modern network of trunk highways.
The Liberal policy drafted at this convention endorsed special consideration for the Atlantic provinces, and that is found on pages 40 to 42 of the report. I quote:
The Liberal party to help remove the economic disabilities of the Atlantic provinces, advocates special assistance in the provision of trunk highways in all four Atlantic provinces for heavy traffic to and from central Canada and the United States to promote trade and the tourist industry.
When the present Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal party was asked about the scale of assistance contemplated in the Liberal party program to provide special assistance for the building of trunk highways in the Atlantic provinces he stated that what he had in mind was the assumption by the federal government of 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the four Atlantic provinces, and the earliest possible discussion with the governments of those provinces about the routes of other key trunk highways. He also stated:
In other provinces the federal government has been assisting with railway construction, but what is needed in the Atlantic provinces is modern highways.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic provinces are in dire need of more and better highways. They are vital to the future economy of these provinces. Without them expansion cannot be brought about.
The Liberal party policy of 1958 on transportation facilities for the Atlantic provinces is the answer to one of the Atlantic provinces' great problem. Much was heard about the need for a second trans-Canada highway from the Conservatives when they were in opposition. Many large sections of our country not being served by the present trans-Canada highway are in need of an adequate cross country route. An area which should be served by a second trans-Canada highway or an adequate cross country route is the area

Trans-Canada Highway Act of northeast and east New Brunswick from Campbellton to Moncton along highway No. 11. A resolution requesting that a second trans-Canada highway be built along this route was passed at a recent annual meeting of the municipal council of the county of Northumberland sitting in session at Newcastle, New Brunswick, I believe in the first week of February.
As hon. members know, the province of Quebec to date has not been participating in the trans-Canada highway project. When it does so, it is reasonable to assume that the Quebec provincial government will wish to have the all-Canada route go through the famous Matapedia valley which enters New Brunswick at Campbellton. This route would provide for a trans-Canada offshoot down the south shore of the Gaspe peninsula.
When provincial routes of the trans-Canada highway were designated, they were designated, as all hon. members know, by provincial authorities. New Brunswick decided to commence the route at the New Brunswick-Quebec border at Edmunston. At that time Quebec would not designate what route they would follow if and when they entered into the project. The New Brunswick route of the trans-Canada highway is from Edmunston on the northwest, down the western side of the province to Fredericton, proceeding in a southeasterly direction to Moncton and then on to the Nova Scotia border. The northeast and eastern sections of New Brunswick are not served by the present trans-Canada highway. This area is densely populated, with cities, towns and villages in the counties of Restigouche, Gloucester, Northumberland, Kent and Westmorland. Commercial, tourist and other traffic is heavy in lumbering, fishing, farming and mining areas.
Consideration should be given by this government to granting special financial assistance with regard to the construction of a connecting link from Campbellton down the east coast of New Brunswick to connect with the trans-Canada highway at Moncton.
Unemployment is unusually high in this section of New Brunswick and the prospects for 1959 and 1960 do not look good. The basic industries in the area-lumbering, fishing, farming and mining-are in a depressed state and indications do not point to a recovery in the near future. The construction of a connecting link with the trans-Canada highway from Campbellton to Moncton would relieve unemployment in a large measure and would be a boost to our economy while awaiting the upward trend of our basic industries.
This government should honour the pledge to assist transportation facilities of the

Atlantic provinces as drafted at an assembly of all Conservative candidates of the four Atlantic provinces which was attended by the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries, as well as the cabinet representative of the province of Newfoundland. At that time they issued their seven point Atlantic resolution particularly on transportation which they expounded when they were on the hustings during the election campaign. These cabinet ministers and other elected Conservative members from the Atlantic provinces have the responsibility to see that the solemn promises contained in their seven point Atlantic resolution are carried out. The promise of transportation facilities was one of the promises in the resolution. The people of the Atlantic provinces will judge the sincerity of those promises by the action or lack of action of this government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I assume that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi and I have been reading the same books. Any time I am stuck for any research work on any particular project, I always find that the back issues of Hansard give us all sorts of information and guidance on the things that we propose to discuss. However, it is not my intention to remind the minister of the things he said when he was sitting over here on this side of the house. He is no doubt thoroughly familiar with them.
I might say that I have had the pleasure of listening to the minister of highways we have in the province of British Columbia discussing highways and also to the minister of highways that we have for Canada. May I say to the minister that he is no match for Mr. Gagliardi and cannot possibly compare with his verbal ability to build highways and bridges. I must say that I would rather listen to the kindly and friendly tones of the Minister of Public Works though.


An hon. Member:: You do not get very far with either.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, we do not get very far with either one of them, generally speaking. This resolution, while the contents announced in it are acceptable, is another indication of the government's taking a policy of the previous government and not altering it in any way but merely adding to it in terms of money for any particular type of project. For some ten years we in Canada have been watching closely and hopefully the progress made in the building of the cross country or trans-Canada highway, as it is known. For many years we thought there was to be nothing but hope and expectation that the highway might be built some day. However,

there are indications that we are moving in the direction of completion and that as is indicated in the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for March 31, 1958, by the end of next year the highway will be completed with the exception of that section of it that is through Newfoundland.
I am going to suggest that it is not sufficient merely to make more money available as is being proposed in this resolution and to make the payments to the provinces on the same formula that has existed since 1949, with the slight amendment that was made to the formula in 1956, namely that we will contribute 50 per cent of the cost of building the highway plus an additional 40 per cent for 10 per cent of the route in each province. I believe that formula should be reviewed and altered. It assumes a number of things, not the least of which is that road building conditions, road building costs, economic factors, mileage and all the other related matters in connection with highway building are equal as between one province and another. We know that is not so. We know that these conditions are not equal throughout Canada, but that in many cases vary on all aspects of the factors that go into building and into the cost of building highways.
It also, to a degree, penalizes the provinces which are able for one reason or another to work more quickly than others and complete their sections of the highway. It places a heavy financial burden generally on all the provinces participating in this type of program. I suggest that we should alter, change and review the present formula using, if you wish, as a base the present 50-50 arrangement plus an additional 40 per cent of 10 per cent of the cost of the highway and then computing an additional grant based on the mileage distance in each province.
To give hon. members an idea of the situation I would refer them to page 4 of the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act dated March 31 of last year where mileages in the different provinces are given. We find, for instance, that Ontario has a total mileage of 1,436 while Prince Edward Island has only 71. We find that Ontario has two and a half times the mileage of the province with the next largest number of miles to construct. In my opinion we should take into account, in determining additional payments, the difference in the mileage which exists between provinces, and attempt to ensure that in addition to the basic arrangement of 50-50 plus 40 per cent of 10 per cent Ontario should receive more money in terms of grants because of the much greater mileage which has to be built in that province compared with Prince Edward
Trans-Canada Highway Act Island. I use those examples because the one province has the longest mileage and the other the shortest.
In addition, other factors should also be taken into account and payments made to provinces should depend on their road building costs. Let us compare, for example, the two most westerly provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. I take these as examples because they are close together. In British Columbia we have, as the minister knows, a number of what we classify as million-dollar miles, that is to say it costs $1 million to build one mile of highway to trans-Canada standards. This is the general figure that is used; I may be out by a few dollars one way or another. But I am sure that in Alberta road building costs are not nearly as high per mile as they are in certain sections of British Columbia. Certainly, the same can be said of Saskatchewan. The minister himself remarked that costs in Saskatchewan may be relatively small as compared with the cost of some sections through British Columbia. The minister also mentioned the Newfoundland section where road building costs are higher proportionately than in other parts of the nation. This factor should be taken into consideration, because it is evident from a study of the financing involved that the cost in certain sections of Canada can be much greater than in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or other provinces where the cost per mile of highway construction is relatively small.
Another factor which must be taken into consideration and used in developing a formula for payment is the economic ability of a province to pay its share of the cost. One of the assumptions behind this 50-50, 40 per cent of 10 per cent formula-and it is an incorrect and false assumption-is that the ability of one province to pay is as great as that of any other province in the nation. We know this is not the case and that all provinces are not equally able to bear their share of the cost.
Let us take two provinces which have comparable mileages to build and in which economic conditions are different. I choose New Brunswick and Alberta. New Brunswick has 390 miles compared with Alberta's 282; it has more miles to build and certainly it is a province which is less rich than Alberta and less able to pay its 50 per cent of the cost of the program. Some consideration should be given to ensure that additional payments are made to, say, the province of New Brunswick and the province of Newfoundland because of the economic differences.
For instance, we have Newfoundland and British Columbia at opposite ends of the nation, each with about the same number

Trans-Canada Highway Act of miles to build, some 550 miles in each case, or maybe a little more in British Columbia than in Newfoundland. Certainly I think it can be said without contradiction that the per capita income in British Columbia is far greater than that of Newfoundland and that the British Columbia budget is far greater than that of Newfoundland, and that British Columbia's ability to pay the cost of road building under this type of program is generally better than that of the province of Newfoundland. This is a factor which should be taken into account in developing a more equitable formula for sharing road building costs throughout the nation on projects of this kind.
So much for the financing. I have not developed any specific type of formula. That is something which I am sure could be worked out by the departmental officials without too much difficulty if the minister would in his kindly way, especially since he has now returned from a visit back home where he has [DOT] looked at the crocuses and daffodils, just say to them: the hon. member for Skeena has what seems to be a good suggestion; just look into it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the member a question? Does he really think that this would be wise in view of the fact that the agreements are about to expire and that some provinces have already completed the work.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am glad the minister raised that point. He must be psychic or reading my mind because I was about to deal with another aspect of road building to which a formula of this kind could be applied more readily than by any attempt to make it retroactive, especially since, as the minister has said, some provinces have already completed the work-Alberta has only six miles in the city of Calgary to go, Prince Edward Island has one mile to build which will be completed shortly, and so on. If this type of contract were to be applied from here on I do not think it would be objected to by those provinces which have completed or will be completing their sections of roads. It could more readily be applied to programs in the future.
We should not confine our thoughts as in the years past to the understanding that road building falls entirely within the hands of the provinces. We moved away from that thought in 1949 when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was enacted by parliament. Parliament then decided that at least in these circumstances the building of this particular road was a project for which the federal government should have a certain responsibility. We have moved in that direction and I feel it is time we went a little further in

realizing there is a greater responsibility devolving on the federal government for participation in the cost of road building programs in the provinces.
There is also the question of additional so-called trans-Canada highways, if they can be designated in that fashion. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi mentioned a second trans-Canada highway running through a portion of New Brunswick. We in the west have had in mind for a number of years the construction of a road which we have referred to as a second trans-Canada highway. We know in effect it will not completely traverse Canada but it has come to be known by this name as is the case in the maritimes.
The federal government should become involved in assisting financially in the construction of additional cross country or interprovincial highways. It is not too early to begin to lay the legislative and administrative groundwork for participation with the provinces in this type of project on a broader basis involving increased financial contribution on the part of the federal government. There are other types of roads including north-south roads, roads leading to the United States, Alaska and the Northwest Territories in the cost of which the federal government should be prepared to participate. It should accept greater responsibility in sharing the cost of interprovincial and international roads.
We have in existence at this time a roads to resources program which is being developed under another department of government entirely with respect to financing yet I understand the engineering and technical part of it is being handled by the trans-Canada highway branch of the Department of Public Works. As we expand our program of participation in the construction of roads we should consolidate the programs in one group so there will be a general knowledge of what the left hand and the right hand are doing.
There is also a need for the federal government to move into the field of assistance to municipalities for the construction of interurban roads and projects of that nature. I suggest that we may be guided to a certain extent by the attitude in the United States. I understand that if it was not the Minister of Public Works it was one of his colleagues who made a rather extensive study of the extent to which the federal government of the United States participates in road building programs which goes back to about 1912 when that government began to participate in cross country roads, interstate highways, state, county, school and farm roads and practically every other type of road. The government there participates in the cost of nearly every

kind of road or highway. We could move in that direction without too much difficulty and we should attempt to ensure that our roads are built on a co-ordinated, integrated and planned basis with the federal government accepting the responsibility of financial participation.
I should like to make reference to a subject on which the minister was reluctant to give detailed information as to what the plans were but I believe he intimated what they were and I was able to reach certain conclusions. I refer to what we classify as a second trans-Canada highway in the west which is pretty well confined to the four western provinces. In referring to this project as a second trans-Canada highway I do not wish to detract from the suggestion of hon. gentlemen from the maritimes. I merely used the phrase because it is the term which has grown up in the west with reference to this road.
In answer to a question asked by the hoa member for Assiniboia as reported at page 898 of Hansard of February 10, the minister was kind enough to give us certain information. I should like to make reference to the figures he used as they apply to the four western provinces to indicate that we are on the verge of being in a position to participate in the construction of a second cross country, interprovincial highway in the four western provinces. We find that British Columbia has 210 miles to be completed in the province which represents 37 per cent of the route. Alberta has 6 miles to complete which represents about 2 per cent of the route. Saskatchewan has completed its section of the highway and Manitoba has 16 miles to complete which represents 5 per cent of the route. Excluding British Columbia we find that the highway is practically completed through the three prairie provinces. This indicates that there is less than 15 per cent of that road to be completed.
The attitude of British Columbia has been made known to the previous government and I do not doubt that it has been made known to this government. British Columbia is willing to accept some form of federal contribution toward highway building costs for this second trans-Canada highway. I shall relate in a moment the route we envisage. A great proportion of it runs through the riding I represent. We had the pleasure of a visit to Skeena from the Minister of Public Works-


Howard Charles Green: It did not do me much good.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am sorry that the minister was so busy that he could not stay and take a ride over the roads there to see the shape they are in so he would realize the need that exists for participation by the federal government in the cost of the construction of 66968-9-80
Trans-Canada Highway Act roads. Did I understand the minister to say that his visit did not do much good?


Howard Charles Green: It was not very effective. I was on a political trip.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would say that the minister's trip was most effective because that was one of the reasons why we got such a large majority and we would like him to come back again.
The route planned as far as northern British Columbia is concerned is this. It should reflect the agreement that exists at this time with respect to the first trans-Canada highway, namely that it crosses a body of water and goes to Vancouver island. The same principle should apply in the north central coastal part of British Columbia in that the road should extend to the Queen Charlotte islands. That should be included in the arrangements I know the minister is on the verge of entering into with the province with respect to financing. The route should run along the present provincial road that is on the Queen Charlotte islands from Queen Charlotte city through Port Clements to Massett. Then it should extend along highway 16 through Prince Rupert, Terrace, Hazelton, Smithers, Burns Lake-to name but a few of the larger communities in that area-and on to Prince George. When we get to Prince George we have to either go a number of miles out of our way north through Fort St. John or we have to go many hundreds of miles south to get to Alberta. There is a gap of some 100 miles between Prince George and a place called McBride where there is no highway at the present time. The C.N.R. goes through but there is no road. This should be included in the route so people who live in northern British Columbia or Alberta may travel in a direct line without having to go out of their way hundreds of miles to reach their destination.
In northern Alberta the people from Edmonton are also quite interested in this road and so are the people in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The route is there; it is laid out. There are roads there now. This government should expand the policy it has toward the present trans-Canada highway. Additional payments should be made on some sort of formula, reflecting an expansion of highway policy and payments should be made to cover this suggested route. Whether it is called a second trans-Canada or an inter-provincial highway is immaterial. This philosophy should be undertaken and in as much as within the next couple of years the trans-Canada highway will be pretty much completed it is time now to start negotiating with the provinces or give an assurance to the provinces of the west

Trans-Canada Highway Act that the federal government is prepared to enter into financial arrangements with respect to the building of other highways along the lines that I have suggested.
If the minister takes the opportunity to speak again I hope he will give us a fairly complete understanding of his acceptance of the things I have suggested so that we in British Columbia may realize that it is not the Hon. Mr. Gaglardi who builds all our roads but that the Minister of Public Works also has some say in the highways in British Columbia and also pays something toward their cost.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, for my part the Minister of Public Works could not ask for money for a more worthy purpose than the trans-Canada highway, provided of course that I can make some suggestions regarding its disposition. Speaking generally, I would say that nothing is really more important to the Canada of today than transportation and perhaps nothing is more important to the Canada of the future than the plans we make today for future policy regarding transportation. Teachers, doctors, clergymen, and all the others who are serving mankind need roads in order to service their charges. I do not mean to say that road building is more important than education or health for instance but I do say that the success of almost any program for human betterment is gauged by the adequacy of available transportation. And no means of transportation is so valuable or so important as roads. No means of transportation is so personal. Roads not only tie the nation together but they tie families together.
The modern highway has speeded civilization in a way that no other means in history has. The trans-Canada highway is an expression of Canada's belief in national transportation. Originally the plan was for the federal government to share in 50 per cent of the cost, and later it was agreed that 90 per cent of 10 per cent would he paid by the federal government for what is termed gap building.
I want to speak particularly of the needs of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland, and in order to do that, to place Newfoundland in its proper perspective I would ask for the indulgence of the committee while I recite a little bit of the history of road building in Newfoundland and where Newfoundland fits in today in this present scheme. I would begin by comparing the roads in Newfoundland with those in the Atlantic provinces. Nova Scotia has approximately
15,000	miles of motorable roads; New Brunswick, 13,000; and Prince Edward Island,

3,200. Newfoundland, which is much larger than Prince Edward Island, has 3,500 miles.
The reason why Newfoundland lags so far behind the maritimes is largely owing to its history, partly to economics and partly to the fact that Newfoundland was settled by people who were interested only in the fisheries. They settled in hundreds of settlements around the 6,000 miles of Newfoundland's coast line. The sea was not only their farmland, the place from which they got their harvest, but the sea was their highway. They built their houses as close to it as possible and seldom did they turn their eyes away from the sea to look inland. For generations it remained the same and very little road building was done. Actually, I believe the first road was built in Newfoundland in 1832, and it was built from St. John's to Portugal Cove, followed shortly afterwards by a road to Harbour Grace and later from Holyrood to Placentia. Gradually the Avalon peninsula began to get a system of roads. That was about all, with the exception of perhaps roads such as existed between Bonavista and Catalina, which connected a large and important fishing area with a seaport. But apart from those roads of an entirely local character there was no road building in Newfoundland until the 1920's, and then people began to get road conscious. The sea was no longer fast enough or dependable enough. The motor car was arriving and an effort was made to link up settlements, sometimes by short-cuts between coves, but generally speaking a road program developed during that decade. This was brought to a halt by the economic collapse around the end of the 1920's, or certainly by the early 1930's. The commission government did build some good highways but they did not catch up with the progress which had been made in the maritime provinces.
Our biggest road building program has taken place since confederation and from 1949 to 1957 Newfoundland constructed 1,100 miles of new roads and rebuilt 500 miles of old roads. But increasingly heavy traffic tore apart the gravel roads faster than they could be built and just last year the new minister of highways, the Hon. Gregory I. Power, instituted the team system of mechanized maintenance and that has proved to be very successful. Actually, 3,100 miles of road were reconditioned and 300 miles were rebuilt. All this has meant the spending of millions of dollars on equipment, personnel and so forth. Seventy miles of road were paved last year with a much larger paving program set down for this year.
If you look at the map of Newfoundland you will notice that the island has many long peninsulas and deep bays. The coast line is

long and very indented. Isolation has always been the curse of the Newfoundland people. The new road program is designed to break that. Roads have been built on the Bonavista and Burin peninsulas and the Baie Verte peninsula and well down the Great Northern peninsula and other areas. Perhaps the most spectacular evidence of how much progress has been made was when the premier of Newfoundland and the minister of highways made a motor trip across Newfoundland last November without the benefit of ferry. But much remains to be done. The cost of what has been done is staggering in a province such as Newfoundland which has a great deal of roads to build and a small population to find the money. Perhaps what I have said and the importance of roads other than the trans-Canada highway and the necessity of bringing the remote parts of Newfoundland together show that from the provincial point of view and certainly, from a parochial point of view, the trans-Canada highway may not be the most important road, judged by the growing needs of settlements to be linked by roads to hospitals, seaports and centres of population.
I come now to the trans-Canada highway and I would like to quote briefly from a speech made by the minister of highways to Rotary in St. John's last month:
According to survey, the total length o ^ the highway from Port aux Basques to St. John's will be 568 miles. Twenty-five miles of this is through the national park, and is all a federal responsibility. This leaves a distance of 542 miles to be constructed by the province of Newfoundland. Of this 542 miles, 256 miles have been built and made ready for paving, 35 miles have already been paved, 286 miles remain to be built and 508 miles remain to be paved. The estimated cost of completing the highway is as follows: the construction of 286 miles, $31,500,000; the paving of 508 miles, $22,600,000; the building of 34 bridges, $4,223,000, making a grand total of $58,225,000. Under the present agreement with the federal government we will have to find $28,112,000 of this amount. Actually, Newfoundland has to build more miles of trans-Canada per capita than any other province and, when the present agreement expires in 1960 we feel, as do other provinces, that a more realistic division of costs should be agreed upon; otherwise, the trans-Canada highway, from St. John's to Vancouver, will not be completed for perhaps another ten years.
I have mentioned the heavy load that the province is carrying now in a heavy and necessary program of building roads to isolated places and distant communities. I was with Premier Smallwood when he officially opened the road to Ladle Cove, linking the north side of Bonavista bay with the trans-Canada highway. The warm appreciation and enthusiasm of the people affected was rewarding and indicative of what still must be done. Yet we are faced with these facts as far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned: 66968-9-80J
Trans-Canada Highway Act
1.	The number of miles of paved road in Newfoundland is very low compared with the mileage in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
2.	The miles of motorable non-paved roads in Newfoundland are also very low compared with the other Atlantic provinces.
3.	The cost of building the roads in Newfoundland up to maritime standards generally is staggering.
4.	Newfoundland has more miles of trans-Canada highway to build per capita than any other province.
5.	The per capita income in Newfoundland is lower than in any other province.
6.	Some of the other provinces have finished or almost finished their parts of the trans-Canada highway.
7.	These provinces have had 70 or 80 years of the benefits of confederation, which have included federal assistance in many spheres. We in Newfoundland have only enjoyed these benefits for the past ten years.
If Newfoundland does not have an adequate road system its economy will never be developed. Bearing these facts in mind, I can only express the hope that the federal government will shoulder a greater part of the cost of building the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland, and in that regard perhaps I might suggest 90 per cent of the amount of road yet to be built.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take more than a few moments but there is one aspect of the trans-Canada highway with regard to which I would appreciate hearing from the Minister of Public Works. I refer to the city of Vancouver and its relationship to the trans-Canada highway under federal government policy. Knowing the city so well, the minister is familiar with the circumstances so far as access to the city is concerned. The city is almost completely surrounded by water, either by the strait of Juan de Fuca, the Fraser river, Burrard inlet or the Pitt river. You have to cross a body of water to get to the city of Vancouver.
For all practical purposes the city is the terminus of the trans-Canada highway on the mainland of the province of British Columbia. That being the case, the minister must recognize very clearly that it is absolutely inadequate to have only one trans-Canada highway entrance into the city of Vancouver. It is absolutely essential to have more than one bridge and more than one road classified as "trans-Canada highway" as far as the city of Vancouver is concerned.
I would appreciate it very much if the minister would explain the viewpoint of the department with regard to paying a part of

Trans-Canada Highway Act the construction cost of the major highway bridges that are required in order to be able to get in and out of that great city.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interrupt the hon. member for a moment, the route of the trans-Canada highway is designated by the provincial government, and in the case of British Columbia that province designated a route which more or less cuts across the northeastern corner of Vancouver in order to get to the new Second Narrows bridge. We do not designate the route at all. The provincial government does that.


Harold Edward Winch: I know that is what was
decided at one time but my hon. friend knows the situation in Vancouver at the present time with regard to getting in and out of the city. The traffic cannot be handled just over the Pattullo bridge. There has got to be another bridge and I understand that is now in the process of planning. It is ridiculous at the present time to speak in terms of four-lane bridges. They must be at least six-lane bridges. So far as the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster are concerned it would be completely stupid to think about four-lane bridges over the Second Narrows or the Fraser river.
I should like to know what part the federal government can play under the trans-Canada highway program by way of making a financial contribution toward the construction of six-lane bridges, not four-lane bridges. I have noticed in the newspapers on more than one occasion that contributions would only be made on the basis of four-lane bridges, and I think that is completely wrong. The minister knows that it is impossible to handle the traffic going from Vancouver to the interior of the province or elsewhere in Canada on the Pattullo bridge. If people wish to go south, to the interior of the province or north they have to cross the Fraser river and I maintain that because traffic must all cross the Fraser river it should all come under the trans-Canada highway program and the most earnest consideration should be given under the program to making use of other roads that will lead to the trans-Canada highway, whether people are going south, north or to the interior of the province. All the millions that have been spent already on the Marpole bridge, on the Deas island tunnel, the new Second Narrows bridge and that will have to be spent on the new bridge that will cross around Port Moody, I believe-[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Port Mann.


Harold Edward Winch: Port Mann-have to be spent because of the geographical location of Vancouver. All these major bridges have one

purpose, egress and ingress so far as Vancouver is concerned and should be considered as being basically on the main route and part and parcel of the trans-Canada highway. There should be a federal contribution toward the building of all these bridges and the roads leading thereto.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member suggest that the federal government should be responsible for all ingress and egress to and from every city in Canada that happens to be on or near the trans-Canada highway?


Harold Edward Winch: I am certain that my hon.
friend, with his knowledge of Vancouver, knows that its geographical location is peculiar and that as the terminus of the trans-Canada highway it is in a different position from a city on the prairies, for example, which can be by-passed by a road and which is not surrounded by water, be it an inlet, river or ocean, as is the city of Vancouver. I think it is this peculiar and particular situation which most certainly merits every consideration from the minister of the type of assistance I have been suggesting.


Norman Platt Lambert: I should like to add my support, in a few brief words, to those who have been advocating a second trans-Canada highway in western Canada. I spoke about this in 1957 as did the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and several others. I would commend this to the attention of the minister for immediate consideration, and I do not believe he should wait until the whole of the trans-Canada highway is built before entering into negotiations with the provinces with respect to this particular section of the highway.
There has been recently held in Edmonton the annual meeting of the Yellowhead route association, and I would commend its proceedings to the attention of the minister. I know that the people who live in the northern part of Alberta, where the big bulk of the population of that province is now located, find it extraordinarily difficult to understand why they must go through the southern part of the province or even the United States, at present, to reach Vancouver. I know the Minister of Public Works would like to see people from northern Alberta out in Vancouver, and we would like to go there. Frankly, we must travel about 1,100 miles at the present time, but if we had a more direct route through Jasper national park and connecting with the highway system of British Columbia the distance would be much shorter.
Most of the highway system in Alberta is almost up to trans-Canada standards at the

present time. I would most earnestly commend a second highway to the minister's attention, especially from the defence point of view. From a commercial viewpoint, it would mean a great deal to the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta if we could have a direct highway connection, and as I have already pointed out the advantages from the tourist point of view I need not repeat them.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin my remarks by saying that the question of the trans-Canada highway is of vital importance to the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. I wish, therefore, to commend the government for the introduction of this resolution which calls for an increase in the expenditures for the purpose of improving existing portions of the trans-Canada highway and completing others. We, at the lake-head, are much concerned over the activities in connection with the development of the seaway port of Duluth in Minnesota. The Minister of Public Works had this to say on January 29, 1959 as recorded at page 512 of Hansard:
I wish to refer also to these famous old cities of Fort William and Port Arthur at the Canadian lakehead. They are greatly worried at this time. They see the St. Lawrence seaway being developed and they read in the Duluth News-Tribune of January 11 that a group of Canadians, if you please from Winnipeg are proposing to build a big port development at Duluth, Minnesota, for this purpose, and I quote from this article: "Freeman"-
Mr. Freeman is the Winnipeg promoter of this scheme.
-"is reported to have in mind making Duluth the port for the rapidly developing western Canadian provinces as well as the midwestern and western parts of the United States."
This is not the whole story. I wish to quote from an article in the same paper to which the minister referred:
The authority (that is, the authority of the port of Duluth) also expects Duluth to benefit through trade in Canada and Alaska. The distance from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Rotterdam, for example, is 3,200 miles shorter through Duluth than through the Panama canal. The Alcan highway would become the route for overland traffic between this port and Alaska.
In addition to this huge development, it has been reported that a four-lane highway is being considered from Duluth to Winnipeg. This highway, Mr. Chairman, would undoubtedly attract business away from the lakehead ports on which the government, as stated by the Minister of Public Works, will spend $5.5 million. It has been estimated that as soon as the seaway is completed the number of motor transports expected to carry freight to the prairie provinces will reach a daily total of between 50 and 100. The present highway west of the lakehead to Winnipeg is
Private Bills-Divorce
in such poor condition that I am sure it could never sustain such traffic. The only solution appears to be a four-lane highway between the lakehead and Winnipeg.
As far back as 1956 the hon. member for Victoria had this to say with regard to the necessity of building a four-lane trans-Canada highway, and I quote from Hansard for March 22, 1956, page 2523:
But this is a national road and it should be built, not 10 per cent of the gap but all the gap, by this federal government at least to the extent of 90 per cent.
Then farther down he says:
This road should be built to a minimum width of 30 feet, and where the traffic is heavy it should be at least a four-lane highway.
This is the point we are stressing so far as the lakehead is concerned, the necessity of a four-lane highway to carry the heavy traffic which we expect as a result of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Now, the present Minister of Justice blasted the then government in the following words-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave for the second reading of the following bills:
Bill SD-19, for the relief of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie.
Bill SD-20, for the relief of Patricia Burnell Fraser Rosensweig.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, these two bills have been before the house on two separate occasions in the past week and I do not propose to take more than a minute or two to dispose of the points that have been made by the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, including particularly the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg). In discussing the evidence they brought forward some points which, if accepted by this hon. house, would in effect probably force hon. members to vote against both of these bills.
I could go into a discussion of the evidence in order to meet the arguments they have advanced. However, I do not propose to do so today. I think that we have perhaps had

Private Bills-Divorce
sufficient debate on divorce lor the moment and that it would be pleasant to get on to other matters. I am going to appeal to the sense of fair play of the house, ask hon. members that they pass these bills and give us an opportunity to consider them in committee where we can go into the questions of fact and the points raised by the hon. members.
In this connection I should like to refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition at page 351, paragraph 482:
482. The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
With this point in mind, Mr. Speaker, I again make an appeal to the sense of fair play of the house and ask hon. members to pass these two bills which have been disputed here, and to let us in the committee deal with the facts or the allegations and the arguments on the facts that have been brought out by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-23, an act for the relief of Jeanne d'Arc Gravelle Senecal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-24, an act for the relief of Barbara Mary Scott Norman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-25, an act for the relief of Alice Schleicher Dorotich.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-26, an act for the relief of Mary Jane Holmes Phillips.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-27, an act for the relief of Barbara Lorrain Champbell Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-28, an act for the relief of Helen Margaret Davidson Beckett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-29, an act for the relief of Ruth Dankner Liberman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-30, an act for the relief of Norma Mary Rose Purchard Clarkin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-31, an act for the relief of Eva Greenblatt Besner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-32, An Act for the relief of Ruth Millstein Backman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-33, An Act for the relief of Percy Kark Claxton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-34, An Act for the relief of Marion Beulah Francis Meehan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-35, An Act for the relief of Nina Olga Titow Dorion.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-36, An Act for the relief of Sylvia Florence Van Straten Weber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-37, An Act for the relief of Joseph Fernand Roger Boucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-38, An Act for the relief of Jacqueline Shirley Mary Parnell Gardner.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-39, An Act for the relief of Esther Daisy Moynan O'Regan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-40, An Act for the relief of Susan Pick Bereznik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-41, An Act for the relief of Josephine Zauberman Schiller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-42, An Act for the relief of Hanna Liselotte Gertrud Tiegs Kallus.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-43, An Act for the relief of Dorothy Louisa Stradwick Coffin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-44, An Act for the relief of Marc Aurele Bourget.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-45, An Act for the relief of Marie Yolanda Marotta Henshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-46, An Act for the relief of Bernice Sylvia Sinclair Somerville.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-47, An Act for the relief of Judith Ortenberg Baxt King.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-48, An Act for the relief of Yaroslavna Zonia Lazarowich Johnson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-49, An Act for the relief of Gertrude Scharge Izenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-50, An Act for the relief of Joseph Moreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-51, An Act for the relief of Sydney Hislop, otherwise known as Sidney Hislop.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-52, An Act for the relief of Lenoir Grace Spencer Jennings.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-53, An Act for the relief of Olive Florence Andrews Bowness.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-54, An Act for the relief of Pearl Severs Schrieder.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-55, An Act for the relief of Vivien Joyce Taylor Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-56, An Act for the relief of Jacqueline Jeanne Lamy Harper.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-57, An Act for the relief of Kathleen Iris Daunt Robinson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-58, An Act for the relief of Jacques Flahault.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-59, An Act for the relief of Gladys Allen Marvin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-60, An Act for the relief of Miriam Keppel Segal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-61, An Act for the relief of Ronald Ernest Fyfe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-62, An Act for the relief of Elsie Elizabeth Wand Bourret.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-63, An Act for the relief of Margaret Sonia Lawrence Canny.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-64, An Act for the relief of Andree Pauline Dorothy Pryce Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-65, An Act for the relief of Henry Frank Whiston-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-66, An Act for the relief of Rita Thibeaudeau Cardinal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-67, An Act for the relief of Janine Sutto Dagenais.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-68, An Act for the relief of Evangeline Vaughan Fortin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-69, An Act for the relief of Gloria Helen Gross Caplan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-70, An Act for the relief of Thelma Georgine Ferguson Strathy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-71, An Act for the relief of Percy Herbert Manuel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-72, An Act for the relief of Irene Balk Goodson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-73, An Act for the relief of Jean Grant Shacklock.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-74, An Act for the relief of James Kennedy Andrews..-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-75, An Act for the relief of Lillian Haber Rudner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-76, An Act for the relief of Esther Lilian Issenman Rosen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-77, An Act for the relief of Ana Nili Indursky Seeman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-78, An Act for the relief of Joan Howell McShane McNulty.-Mr. McCleave.


Samuel Boulanger: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, respecting flags of Canada. He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, before I come to the heart of the matter, which has to do with the house taking position in favour of the second reading of bill concerning the adoption of a distinctive national flag, I should like to
National Flag
assure all members of the house that it is in a wholly unprejudiced frame of mind, free from any partisanship, that I wish to deal with this subject.
For my part, whether our party was in power or in the opposition, I have always been and still am in favour of a Canadian flag.
Besides, on this score I feel I am expressing the opinion of my party. I have always felt too, that a national flag should be a rallying sign rather than a factor of division and discord. In that respect also, I fully agree with the long standing attitude of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. In fact, when he was prime minister of Canada, he said:
We shall have a national flag when we are in a position to make it a symbol of unity and not a subject of controversy, for it must be an object of pride to everyone. First of all, extreme views must be reconciled. The province of Quebec- through a legislative measure unanimously adopted by the legislative assembly-now has a flag bearing no British symbol, while in Ontario the provincial government buildings are flying not the Red Ensign but the Union Jack only.
I am quoting the very words used at the time by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent.
National unity is increasing and gaining strength. Neither Mr. Duplessis nor Mr. Frost is on our side. Those differences of opinions are normal under a democratic system: we cannot all see eye to eye on everything. But as long as everyone gives evidence of good will it shows that everyone considers problems of this sort with an open mind. Thus, in a democratic country, is progress made towards unity of feelings, which alone may make a flag acceptable to a whole people.
I should like also to pay a tribute of gratitude to a Liberal member and former minister of the government, the Hon. Mr. Chevrier, who, at a meeting in Moose Creek, Ont. undertook to demolish the arguments of a Conservative member for the province of Quebec who had said that Mr. Chevrier had felt patriotic inclinations only since he had moved into the province of Quebec:
Many Canadians, including myself, are of the opinion that the time has come for Canada to be less hesitant in asserting its autonomy within the British Commonwealth, by adopting a distinctive national flag.
I could also add the testimony of a Conservative minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) who stated in the course of a meeting at Yamachiche in 1957, as recorded in Le Nouvelliste of May 20, 1957:
Mr. Balcer stated that among the questions particularly close to the hearts of French Canadians are the matter of a distinctive flag for Canada and the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.
Whenever these matters have been raised in the house, he said, federal members from the province of Quebec have been seen to remain seated until a vote was taken, and then to rise to vote negatively.

National Flag
I must also acknowledge another debt oi gratitude to the Solicitor General for understanding as we do the necessity of a distinctive flag.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal I am introducing today does not mean in any way that my opinion has changed on this problem because I am now in the opposition. It is not my own opinion, but the Canadian people's opinion that has changed, and allows us at last to take up the problem of adopting a national flag which would be a symbol of unity and not of division.
Time, the great healer, has put an end to spurious sentiment and we can now discuss a truly Canadian flag without giving rise to backward and outmoded reactions.
Evidence has come in from all racial groups that make up this nation. From every part of the country and from every cultural, university or trade association we find that there is spontaneous enthusiasm for a symbol of unity appropriate for an independent nation. Canadians no longer want barriers between races, languages and religions; 90 per cent of Canadian citizens are broadminded enough to understand that the time has come to unite under a distinctive Canadian flag and to continue our progress in peace and unity.
This feeling was convincingly expressed when a poll was conducted in the high schools of ten large Canadian cities: Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Calgary, Toronto, London, Montreal and Saint John, New Brunswick. The results of this poll were published in Canadian High Life News of January 25, 1958.
Twelve hundred students were polled, and were asked the following question: "Do you believe that Canada should have a distinctive national flag?" The replies in favour of this were 83.7 per cent; against, 13 per cent; while 3.3 per cent were undecided.
A second question was asked: "If you are of the opinion that Canada should have its distinctive national flag, should it carry the fleur-de-lis or the Union Jack, or both, or be altogether different?" The answers were: fleur-de-lis, 1.9 per cent; union jack, 12.8 per cent; part of both, 28.2 per cent; altogether different, 35.7 per cent; undecided, 21.4 per cent.
The inquiry was pushed one step further and the following question was asked: "Do you think Canada should have its own national anthem?" The answers to that question were

as follows: 73.7 per cent answered yes; 23.9 per cent, no, and 2.4 per cent were undecided.
As for the fourth question of the report which asked: "If you believe Canada should have its own national anthem, what do you think it should be?" 29.9 per cent answered "O Canada"; 1.6 per cent, "The Maple Leaf Forever"; 1.4 per cent "God Save the Queen";
67.1	per cent were undecided.
In fact, we have opinions from all ethnic groups, as I said a moment ago, and I could give you the results of several inquiries, but I shall confine myself to the major organizations which sent in reports.
Thus, at the general convention of the chambers of commerce last October, delegates defeated a motion recommending the adoption of the red ensign as a distinctive flag and approved without discussion a motion introduced by a delegation of the Sarnia chamber of commerce, which reads as follows:
Whereas Canada, now the fourth largest trading nation in the world, is still without a national flag:
Whereas surveys conducted among the people of Canada show that a great majority of citizens, especially among younger people, want a national flag;
Whereas a national flag would be a factor of strength and unity in the nation:
Be it resolved that the chamber of commerce urge the government of Canada to officially adopt and approve a distinctive national flag.
That resolution reflects the desire of allFrench-speaking Canadians that Canada have its own distinctive national flag. However, those people cannot be accused of trying to force their choice on the rest of the country, since that resolution was introduced by a delegation of English-speaking Canadians. The chamber of commerce decision therefore shows that all Canadians are unanimous on that point. Almost 800 cities across Canada were represented at this national conference. Half the delegates, 700 of them, were from Ontario.
Another body with no less merit and quality, the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada saw fit to conduct an extensive inquiry across Canada. The flag committee, under the direction of Messrs. Marius Crete, of Shawinigan Falls, and Bill Bellefontaine, of Scarborough, Ont., prepared a list of questions which was sent to its 2,000 members. That committee sought the advice of 16,000 members, 13,200 or 80 per cent of which unreservedly supported a distinctive Canadian flag. Most of the objections originated from Newfoundland and eastern Ontario.

Why, even the Toronto Daily Star voiced strong protests against certain ambitions of the Ontario premier, Mr. Frost, who wanted to suggest a Canadian flag bearing the Red Ensign. The said article reads as follows:
The Red Ensign should be eliminated as a national emblem on two grounds. French Canadians, who make up one third of the Canadian population, will never accept It. They demand a flag devoid of any sign of allegiance to another country. Moreover, the Red Ensign looks so much like the flag of the British Navy that in other countries one is often mistaken for the other.
And the Toronto paper went on to say in a vein which hardly leaves any room for doubt:
Canada must have her own flag. But it must be a flag recognized and respected by all Canadians, irrespective of their race or origin. In addition, it must be a wholly Canadian flag. The Red Ensign, even when adorned with a maple leaf would not meet these requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to read into the record some excerpts of letters written to me by many people, over the last month especially, to the effect that we should have our own distinctive national flag. Such excerpts are fairly indicative of the frame of mind prevailing among younger people, and more especially among the veterans of the last two wars and the Korean war.
A letter signed by Mr. Katch of Oshawa, Ontario, says:
(Text):
As a native and ex-R.C.A.F. veteran, and as one Who loves his country and enjoys democratic freedom, I am convinced that our demand for a purely Canadian flag is justified. I also believe that our flag must not contain any racial emblems on it at all. The only emblem on it should be our own maple leaf. Under this emblem, and it alone, we can unite as one nation and one Canadian people.
Sir, I must say that I am not anti-British but on the contrary I have and will always respect the British, their institutions, their flag, the Union Jack, the Queen and commonwealth.
But I also have deep affection for my country and I pledge my duty and loyalty to Canada first. Canada being an independent commonwealth nation therefore should have her own flag and anthem.
(Translation):
I have here an article signed by Mr. Cameron of Bridgeville, Nova Scotia, which reads in part as follows:
(Text):
Regarding the Union Jack, it's a grand old flag, but there is nothing Canadian about it. It was all right in the days when we were a colony. But we are a nation today. We want an all-Canadian flag. The maple leaf should be the most prominent part of it. I think everyone agrees with that statement. And no union jack in our flag. The only fair way to settle the question is by a 66968-9-81
National Flag
plebiscite. The members of parliament won't settle the question. They're afraid of it. In Nova Scotia we sing "O Canada" at the beginning of a meeting and "The Queen" at the conclusion.
(Translation):
I have here the evidence given by a person who did not sign his name, but I should like just the same to quote part of it in this house-
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I point out that unsigned letters cannot be read into Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is quite true that unsigned letters cannot be put into the record. It would be preferable if the hon. member were to describe what he has seen in these letters in his own words. He should not read verbatim from an anonymous letter.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the opinion of that person reflects the feeling expressed by others who have written to me, and whose letters I have just quoted in part. Out of some 30 letters, only one expressed an opinion unfavourable to the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
With such evidence, one can say that the French Canadians are not the only ones to ask for the adoption of a distinctive flag. The unanimity which exists on the question of a distinctive flag is a perfect indication of political maturity and a guarantee of unity between the different ethnic groups which form our nation.
The absence of a real Canadian flag has also its international implications.
Several examples could be given in this connection. Allow me to remind you that, in the last few years, Canadian soldiers have been assimilated to British soldiers, when we took part in patrolling duties in Egypt on behalf of the United Nations.
Canada took one of the greatest steps of its history when it introduced in the United Nations a resolution whose adoption allowed the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East. Canada was invited to provide important elements of the international police force for the maintenance of order in the Suez canal area.
This conciliating and courageous attitude, which was initiated by our secretary of state for external affairs at the time, the Hon. Lester Pearson, and for which he received the Nobel prize for peace, increased Canada's prestige all over the world.

National Flag
No doubt our prestige has increased because we were asserting our country's absolute independence, but may I add that the two nations which were being called to order were precisely both countries of origin of the two main racial groups of the population of Canada. However, that magnificent gesture lost much of its value when the time came to send our Queen's Own Rifles regiment under a flag which, in short, is but a replica of the union jack, the official emblem of England.
We all know that, at the time, the Egyptian prime minister, General Nasser, claimed that our men were not sufficiently distinguishable from the British soldiers, the invaders, and that they were taking the risk of being mistaken for them by his countrymen. That situation could have led to very serious and deplorable incidents. When we ask our soldiers to risk their lives abroad, the least we could do for them would be to give them a truly Canadian flag, a flag which would be a real emblem of Canada, quite distinctive of other nations' emblems, and under which our sons would be happy to seek glory, without having to suffer the cruel affront of being mistaken for soldiers of another country.
Need I add that the military field is not the only important one on the international scene? Was it not last summer, at the Brussels' fair, that our representatives and all Canadians who visited the fair felt the humiliation of being assimilated to people of another country? Besides, the lack of a distinctive Canadian flag is deeply felt at the United Nations and in all countries where we have diplomatic representatives.
Mr. Speaker, newspapers, public organizations, chambers of commerce, the Ligue du Drapeau, distinguished members of universities, in short, the pick of our population unanimously demand a distinctive national flag which would be the common denominator of our patriotic aspirations and the expression of an independent nation.
The flag model which would surely meet with the nation's approval and which remained after all elimination processes, out of 2,696 designs submitted to the competition of the 1945-46 parliamentary committee, is the white and red diagonal with a green maple leaf in the centre. The red and the white recall both main racial groups of Canada, while the green maple leaf is the symbol of this country's unity.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay for a moment the time when the house will wish to take a decision on this resolution. However, I feel obliged to recall a particular fact of present day history. In the world today

even the smallest nation, as soon as she achieves independence, quickly adopts her own flag. Canada where we have been bragging about our autonomy for over a quarter of a century, does not yet have the national emblem her people have been demanding for so many years. This lack of national pride is truly unaccountable. How can this country which is giving leadership in so many fields be satisfied with the position of a nation devoid of any pride and ideal?
I think I have proved that nothing now prevents Canada from providing herself with a distinctive flag uniting in its folds all the races which make up this nation and which are called upon to achieve the greatness of this country. Frankly I would be deeply humiliated if a single member, a single Canadian should object to the adoption of a truly Canadian flag.
On Cap Diamant, in Quebec city, a monument was erected to the memory of two heroes: Montcalm and Wolfe. There is on this monument a Latin inscription which can be translated as follows:
Gallantry united them in the same death,
History awarded them the same fame,
Posterity built them the same monument.
As Canadians commemorating the 3rd centennial of their utmost sacrifice, let us unite together in the same spirit of pride and love for this country in order to raise a flag in their memory as they stood united in death for the love of Canada!
Before resuming my seat, I shall in a last effort urge the members of any party not to prolong the discussion, or at least to interrupt it a few minutes before the adjournment of this sitting, so that the house may vote on the second reading of this bill concerning a distinctive national flag which will fly tomorrow, I hope, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and of which all Canadians will be proud.
(Text):


George Clark Fairfield: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in his desire to have a distinctive Canadian flag but he has left very little time for any of the other members of the house to discuss it. If he wants us to pass this immediately without further discussion that is a different matter. He has intimated that if we talk at all we are against a distinctive Canadian flag. I want to set his mind at ease right now by telling him that I am not against a distinctive Canadian flag. However, I find that in his bill which is before us at the present time

there is a great deal of haste since the explanatory note states:
As it is desirable and urgent that Canada possess a distinctive national flag this bill provides a method of obtaining a flag with the least possible delay.
It then goes on to say:
In this manner Canadians could have a distinctive national flag at the end of this session.
Mr. Speaker, when he discusses the attitude of some of the members of the house and some of the attitudes of former governments I would like to take him back to the meetings of the joint committee of 1946, which were certainly held under a Liberal regime. I would like to read to him the order of reference of the House of Commons for a joint committee on a national flag. On Tuesday, March 26, 1946, this motion was passed:
Resolved that in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag.
This resolution was concurred in and the committee met off and on from March 29 until July 11, 1946. To show the hon. member that this cannot be a very rapid decision by order in council and how difficult it is to arrive at such a thing as a distinctive Canadian national flag, I would like to read to him some of the evidence of that committee. This statement was made by Mr. Mac-Nicol, one of the members of the committee:
We have had 2,409 flags.
I interject here. This is not a soap contest, Mr. Speaker. It is a flag contest. Mr. Mac-Nicol went on to say:
Of those 2,409 flags I, by elimination of what I saw of them, have arrived at certain principles. One thousand six hundred and eleven of those flags had the maple leaf on them. So I made up my mind that by far the majority of those who sent in flags wanted the maple leaf on the flag. Therefore I marked as No. 1 choice for myself that the flag must have a maple leaf on it. As compared with the maple leaf, the other matters suggested to go on the flag were, first, stars. Two hundred and thirty-one flags had stars on them. Our American cousins have stars on their flags. The Australians and New Zealanders have stars on their flags and India has a star on its flag. Of that 2,409 flags, according to my count-and I may be one or two out because it is quite a problem to count 2,409 flags-231 had stars against 1,611 with maple leaves. So the star went out at once. You cannot have both leaves and stars. One hundred and eighty-four had the fleur-de-lis on. I must confess that in the commencement I had a very strong preference for the fleur-de-lis.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is not at all dealing with the subject. I suggest he did not get the drift of my argument.
(Text):
May I ask the hon. member a question?
66968-9-Sli
National Flag


George Clark Fairfield: Yes.


Samuel Boulanger: Did the hon. member
understand what I said in my speech? I did not talk about that at all; I talked about the principle.


George Clark Fairfield: The principle is very broad, 1 must say. The speaker in this committee went on in like vein for a great length of time. He finally narrowed it down to some 76 flags.
To get back to the history of our present Canadian flag, we see that an order in council was passed on September 5, 1945, part of which reads:
That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag, it is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings within as well as without Canada, and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
This is not the order of any of the members of our cabinet, or of any Conservative government. This took place in 1945. I understood, through the medium of the bilingual translation system, that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska drew the conclusion that the flag recommended at that time was to consist of a design of red and white with a green maple leaf in the centre of it. I do not know what committee proceedings he was reading but I find that at the last meeting of the committee it made this recommendation:
That this committee recommend that the national flag of Canada should be the Canadian red ensign with a maple leaf in autumn golden colours in a bordered background of white replacing the coat of arms in the fly, the whole design to be so proportioned that the size and position of the maple leaf in relation to the union jack in the canton will identify it as a symbol distinctive of Canada as a nation.
He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. He said that our attitude is very difficult but this is not our attitude. We were not in the government at the time that flag, which was called distinctive, was recommended to the government of the day by the committee. But nothing whatsoever has been done to this date about a distinctive national flag. The hon. member wants to have a flag suddenly created in a matter of a few weeks during this session.
I should like to give him a little of the history of where some flags come from. Perhaps he does not know but flags have histories. I have here a book entitled "Flags of the World" by H. Gresham Carr. He deals with the origin of the so-called union jack which is wrongly named because the union jack is the British union flag flown at the foremast of British schooners. First of all I should like to refer to the length of time

National Flag
involved in bringing about the union jack. The flag of St. George, for instance, was the battle flag of the British nation. It was first used in 1277. The flag of St. Andrew was first used by the Scots in 800. I understand there was a little bit of trouble between the Scots and the Sassenachs. One group would fly St. Andrew's cross and the other would fly St. George's cross. James I had his heralds design the first union flag in 1606. St. Patrick's cross was then added to it. No one has any idea where the cross originated in heraldry. The first British union flag was adopted in 1801. That is a period of hundreds of years and yet the hon. member wants us to develop a distinctive flag showing our ancestry in a matter of four months, you might say.
Take the history of the stars and stripes. I was curious about where the stars and stripes, the flag of our great neighbour, came from. In this same book, "Flags of the World", I find the following on page 114:
With that began the war and the making of many flags. Massachusetts had its tree; New York its black beaver on a white field; South Carolina its handsome silver crescent on blue, designed by Moultrie, which was soon afterwards replaced by the very unpleasant yellow with a rattlesnake on it; Rhode Island, best of all, had the white bearing the blue anchor of hope; there is no need to .give them all, but they were so various, and so [DOT]disfigured with mottos, that none would or could -without jealousy, be adopted as a national flag. A national flag was wanted; what was it to be? The answer came on January 1, 1776, when a flag was hoisted at Prospect Hill in Somerville, or, as some writers would have it at Cambridge, where General Washington had his headquarters- less than two miles away.
This flag is known as the great union flag or the Cambridge flag.
This was a design of red and white horizontal stripes, seven red and six white stripes, I believe, and in the canon or corner of the flag was the British union flag. One wonders where that was discovered. Later on the writer goes on to say:
To complicate the issue even more, a most definite fact emerges. The Cambridge flag was exactly like that of the East India Company. In fact, the likeness is more than remarkable, it is extraordinary.
It was an exact copy of the East India flag. One may say then, where did the idea for the stars come from? Possibly the hon. member will forgive me, as well as members of the cabinet, if I read a further excerpt from this interesting book. At the bottom of page 116 there is the following:
In spite of all that has been written, and it is considerable, about George Washington's Arms being responsible for the stars and stripes, or the part Mrs. Betsy Ross of Philadelphia is supposed to have played in the construction of the first flag, we cannot perhaps do better than quote the well-known American authority, M. M. Quaife. who wrote in 1942 as follows:	"Homer, alive,
attracted but scant attention; when safely dead, and assured of immortality, numerous Grecian

cities eagerly claimed him as their son. A like obscurity shrouds the birth of the stars and stripes. No one bothered at the time to record the name of its creator, or claim the honour for himself."
Even within the past year there has been a further development with respe%t to the stars and stripes, the flag of our great neighbour. No one knows the origin. We only know that the original flag of the revolution was an exact copy of the East India Company flag, and no one knows where the stars came from.
There have been many new flags since world war II. In Compton's Encyclopedia of World Flags, to be found in the library, we find, for instance that the flags of Monaco and Indonesia are exactly alike. The flags of Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Paraguay are so much alike that there is hardly any distinction between them. The flags of Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia are all very much alike and are copies of the original flag of Bolivar who freed the slaves in South America.
So I should like to remind the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) that the choice of a flag is not something that can be done by picking one out of a hat. That may well have been done in the first committee in 1946. Perhaps it would save a great deal of time, but the choice of a flag is a developmental thing that requires a great deal of thought and a great deal of time.
I know that many Canadians are very interested in a distinctive national flag. I too am interested. With respect to the point about confusion of forces in world war II, may I say that I do not recall going into battle at any time when we flew the union jack over our scouts and snipers or in the vanguard of our battalion. That would not be done. The only time a flag was used was when we were in rest, so that is of no importance. It appears to me that the confusion is merely a confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
I would reiterate here that any design should be purely Canadian. I do not feel it should be half French and half English with some hodgepodge in the middle. I think we have to get experts, and we have to concentrate on this for some time. I do not like the idea of a contest such as the one that preceded the establishment of the committee in 1946, and by means of which everyone sent in their design. Then, you play a game of tick-tack-toe to see who wins. I feel that is wrong. I believe that the heralds and the people who are interested in the history of our nation should be given an opportunity

to submit some new, distinctive design and then, perhaps, the House of Commons should decide.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I only desire to say a few words on this matter. There can be no question but what there is a great deal of interest in Canada in the question of a distinctive Canadian flag. I think I can say also that there are a great many ideas as to what that flag should be. I know that there is hardly a week goes by that I do not receive letters on this matter and a number of designs. In the main, each one is different. All these people are sincere, and everyone seems to have a good, basic reason for suggesting his own design.
I believe that the committee which met in 1946, I believe it was, endeavoured to give serious thought to the entire question. Although I was not here at that time, I have read parts of the report and, basically, I thought that the committee had come up with a fairly good design and with very sound reasons for that design. However, I understand that for certain political reasons the entire matter was dropped. I am told that the report itself was actually never submitted to the House of Commons at all. Perhaps we would not be facing this issue at this moment if it had been submitted to the House of Commons.
I believe we have to realize that there are strong sentimental feelings connected with history and tradition mixed up in nearly everyone's mind when they think of a specific Canadian flag. I know that from the viewpoint of those who would like the fleur-de-lis there are good reasons for wanting that. From the viewpoint of those who want certain colours, there are good reasons for wanting them. From the viewpoint of those who want the union jack, there are excellent reasons for wanting it because of tradition and history. Because of the fact there is this great feeling, I believe that, although action along the lines suggested would be welcomed by the majority of the people of Canada, there has not been a condensation of thought on a reasonable and logical basis as to the design of the flag. I believe that evidence of this fact is seen in the answer given to a question by one of the ministers the other day to the effect that there are between 1,300 and 1,400 designs already on file.
Although we agree in principle with what is being suggested at the present time; although our own organization on a national
Business of the House
basis and provincially has passed resolutions in favour of a specific Canadian flag, we do think the hon. member has made a contribution in again focusing attention on this matter, I am certain that as a result of his action interest will continue to grow. I can only add my words to those of the previous speaker, that I think we should let it go a little while longer and that will pay off in dividends because it will enable the eventual discussion to be based upon a consolidation of thought, of sentiment and tradition. This will enable us to evolve a flag that is not based on a contest or a competition but on the opinion of the majority of the thinking people ini Canada. This will enable us to work out a proper flag to fly over the men and women of this country in peace and in war, a flag that has meaning for the people who make up this country. We support this motion in principle and we think the member has done a good job in bringing it forward. We think that eventually the problem will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock* I do now leave the chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the house leader tell us the business for Monday and Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: Monday will be private members' day and on Tuesday we shall commence with item No. 5 on today's order paper, the Trans-Canada Highway Act resolution; then item No. 4, the Fisheries Improvements Loans Act resolution; then second reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act; then item No. 12, which went through today, the resolution concerning the National Defence Act and we will take up the bill on Tuesday; then item No. 2, the second reading of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act; then item No. 6, which was the National Housing Act resolution and which will be in the shape of a bill; then, the resolution concerning parliamentary secretaries and the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act. This will be the business on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thursday, by agreement, there is to be a debate on the motion to refer the estimates of external affairs to a standing committee. I am not sure yet about Friday, but on the following Monday there will be a supply motion.


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

[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. Houck: What were the names of the special solicitors retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and what fee was paid to each of them in the year 1958 in the counties of (a) Lincoln; (b) Welland; (c) Haldimand; (d) Halton; (e) Wentworth?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
The names of solicitors who were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or who were paid fees in respect of work allocated by the corporation in the year 1958 are outlined below. Because there is normally considerable time lapse between retainer and payment, fees paid will include work for which the solicitor was retained prior to 1958 in some cases. Similarly fees paid do not cover work for which the solicitor was retained in 1958 but for which he has not yet submitted his account. Amounts paid in each instance include both fees and disbursements.
(a)	Lincoln county
Macoomb, Colter, Cash & Sullivan $ 139.90
Coy & Pothier	
Sullivan, Mahoney, Gordon & Chapman	
F.	R. Dore	
Johnston & Secord	
Cavers, Chown & Cairns	
Flynn, Franklin & Sullivan	
Begora & Tisdale	
Freeman & Frayne	
D. M. Rogers	
J. E. Murphy	
Seymour, Lompard, Goulding &
Nicholls	
Lancaster, Mix & Welch	
Forster, Morrow & Morgan	
Reid, McNaughton & Morrow 

H. W. Edmonstone	
J. L. Reid	
L. A. Lillico	
(b)	Welland county
Cavers, Chown & Cairns	
Begora & Tisdale	
J. D. McNamara	
Seymour, Lompard, Goulding &
Young	 1,399.49
Bench, Keough, Rogers & Grass ...	768.00
S. S. Maclnnes	 451.00
G. A. Green	 305.25
La Marsh & La Marsh	 137.50
W. S. Martin	 410.50
532.77
916.10
499.29
469.25
157.00
517.83
349.86
459.15
136.75
192.75 460.27 303.50
103.00
168.22
(b) Welland county-Cone.
J. Broderick	 $ 217.50
E. W. Tyrrill	 138.00
Mathews & Mathews	 1,046.24
J. T. Clement	 976.07
W. J. Mars	 668.27
N. K. Young	
G.	A. Nash	
A. L. Brooks	
R. H. Riley	
J. Woodhouse	
(c)	Haldimand county Nil.
(d)	Halton county
D.	M. Duncan	 812.50
Ramsay A. Evans	 177.30
Ross & Robinson	 170.90
Nyland & Voortman	 150.00
Brown & Brown	 177.30
E.	Okuloski	
J. L. Agro	
Christilaw, Gage, Wigle & Millar 76.55
Gage & Gage	
Sidney Paiken	
H.	E. Lashmar	
Moriarity, Harrington & Palmer ...
Robert Jones	
George Kerr	
Douglas Latimer	
T. H. Can Sickler	
Hewson, Ord & Helson	
Humphrey, Depew & Ham	
Isard & Holden	
(e) Wentworth county
E. T. Bradfield	 202.15
D. W. Morrison	 151.25
McBride, Hickey, Green & Mc-
Callum	 391.00
Brown & Brown	 369.25
Ross & Henchey	 169.25
K. Y. Hinton	 139.75
Ramsey A. Evans	 255.60
Ross & Robinson	 635.40
S. Paiken	 289.00
J. L. Agro	 297.50
Christilaw, Gage, Wigle & Millar ..
D.	Duncan	
Gage & Gage	
E.	Okuloski	
H. E. Lashmar	
Moriarity, Harrington & Palmer ..
Robert Jones	
White, Paikin Robson & Foreman 928.50


SURPLUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Boulanger: What stock of surplus agricultural products are presently held in storage by the federal government?

Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculiure):
As at January 31, 1959, the agricultural stabilization board held the following stocks:
Butter	
69,682,444	poundsDry skimmed milk	
65,126,806	poundsCheese	
1,205,883	poundsShell eggs	
75,541 casesFowl	
832,254 poundsCanned tomatoes	
101,924 casesPork products	
16,150,361	poundsPresent stocks held by the board	are not
necessarily surplus since substantial quantities of many products will be resold in the
Questions
domestic market during periods of low seasonal production.


BANK OP CANADA QUARTERS, HALIFAX
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Bank of Canada move into new quarters at Halifax recently?
2.	If so. who owns the property and what are the terms of occupancy?
3.	By what fuel is this building heated?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minisier of Finance):
1.	No.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.

Monday, February 23, 1959