1960-04-28

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Following the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on April 26 concerning the recent earthquake in Iran, hon. members will wish to know that on the recommendation of the Canadian Red Cross Society a grant of $10,000 has been made from the international relief fund to assist the unfortunate victims of the disaster. These funds are being sent by the Canadian Red Cross Society to the league of Red Cross Societies in Geneva for the purchase of urgently required medicines and emergency supplies.
We are keeping in close touch with the situation in Iran through the Canadian representative in Tehran and with the Canadian Red Cross Society in case further assistance of this kind may prove appropriate.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I am not quite sure to whom I should address this question, but perhaps in the circumstances I might address it to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether he can inform the house who, in the absence of the Prime Minister, is to be Acting Prime Minister, and who, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is to be acting in that capacity.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime Minister):: I will do my best to fulfil the duties of the first role.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the
minister, in his new capacity, could answer the second part of the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) will be the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: I wonder whether I may ask the minister a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Finance if he is also acting president of the council?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We shall do our humble best to fulfil the duties that may devolve upon the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the minister did not hear my question. I asked him whether he was acting president of the privy council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no president of the privy council as such in the present government. The practice has been that the Prime Minister acts as president of the council. In the present instance the Acting Prime Minister will endeavour to discharge all the duties that devolve upon that office, including that of acting as president of the council as occasion may require.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a still further supplementary question. Will the Acting Prime Minister ascertain whether the Prime Minister was not in fact made president of the council some time after he became Prime Minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have stated the fact, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would verify it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he say whether the government has under consideration a draft national cooperative act, as submitted to the government for consideration by the co-operative union of Canada? Is it the intention of the government to introduce such a bill or a bill of this type during this session and have it stand over until next session for further action?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime
Minister): I am not aware of any such draft bill having yet been submitted. It may be the fact that it has been submitted by the

Inquiries of the Ministry organization to which the hon. member refers. If it were the intention of the government to bring such a bill forward for enactment either at this session or at a later session, that fact would be made known to the house in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the Acting Prime Minister's statement and in view of the recommendations of the royal commission having to do with food marketing, may I ask whether the government itself is considering, without this submission, the introduction of such an act this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The same response applies, Mr. Speaker. If such a measure is contemplated for introduction at this session the house will be made aware of the fact in due course.



REFERENCE OF NATIONAL DEFENCE ESTIMATES TO SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Could the Minister of National Defence advise the house whether it is his intention to move sometime next week that his estimates for the current year be referred to the special committee on defence expenditures, which I understand will be set up next week?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I believe that will be done by the house leader.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on a press dispatch from Geneva which has just been brought to my attention. Because I have not been able to give him notice of the question he may wish to take it as notice. The question is whether it would be possible to make public a proposal which is reported to have been made by General Burns at Geneva, and which is given in some detail in the New York Times, with regard to an international police force as part of the western proposals at the current disarmament meeting.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Aciing Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to obtain a report, look into the matter and give the Leader of the Opposition an answer at the earliest possible moment.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Minister of National Revenue whether his inquiry in connection with the program to which I referred on two earlier occasions has materialized, and whether he is able to give any information to the house in connection with it now.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I was awaiting an opportunity to reply to the question of the hon. member for Laurier.
I am advised by the C.B.C. that the broadcast about Marshal Petain was part of a C.B.C. recorded series which started some time ago. As a matter of fact the sequence of the broadcasts was set at the time the series was first planned and organized in October of 1959. This was prior, of course, to the announcement of the visit to Canada of President de Gaulle. The sequence placed the Petain broadcast on April 18. This happened to be the day the President of France arrived in Ottawa.
In the same series a week previously- that was on April 11

another broadcast in that series on "The Liberation of Paris" dealt with the role played by General de Gaulle in that very historic event.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a telegram from the citizens' committee of Hay River, Northwest Territories, requesting that he carry out his promise of three years ago that he would do something within a year to prevent the citizens of that community from being isolated from the rest of the world each spring because of the washing out of the fill across the Hay river connecting the Mackenzie highway with that community?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: To my
knowledge there has been no recent wire, but there have been frequent communications and consultations with the community of Hay River, and they are fully aware of the actions that are being taken at the present time.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the wire is dated April 27. This is a very recent wire.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works not to proceed with the building of the new hopper dredge on the west coast, as I understood was decided earlier, at a cost of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.2 million?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I have nothing further to report to the house, Mr. Speaker, than that which I have already gone into in detail.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say why the laying of the keel was delayed from November of last year to April of this year?


David James Walker: I was not aware that there was any delay, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, apropos of the question I asked the Minister of Public Works earlier, I should like to ask him an additional supplementary question. Will he inquire from his departmental officials whether it is a fact that the laying of the keel of the dredge was postponed?


David James Walker: I will be very happy indeed to do that.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: On Tuesday the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) directed two questions with regard to Canada's bid for the world's fair in 1967 to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said the questions could more properly be answered by myself.
The first question asked if the house could be informed whether the mayor of Montreal had been invited as an official representative to the conference. In reply I may say that the federal government is anxious for the inclusion in its delegation to the bureau of international exhibitions meeting on May 5 of representatives from both the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, and we have so indicated through appropriate channels. However, up to the present we are not aware who will represent the city of Montreal.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In the second part of the hon. member's question he asked why the Postmaster General had announced in Montreal that Canada has a slim chance of having the fair. I draw his attention immediately to the fact that the use of the word "slim" was by the newspaper headline writer, and was not my own word at all. I did say that the sudden entry into the bureau of seven countries which have consistently supported the U.S.S.R. in its international relations has made the position of Canada and Austria, which are the only other two countries seeking the fair, more difficult. I think this is obvious, since the choice between the U.S.S.R., Austria and Canada will be made by the bureau based on the votes of its member states, and the hon. member is quite conversant with the voting practices.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Has consideration been given to the possibility of persuading seven of Canada's friends to join the bureau?


William McLean Hamilton: The
latest development took place quite suddenly, and membership in the bureau must be sought at least one month before the meeting in which the new countries will vote.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, based upon government of Canada immigration services advertisements placed in British provincial newspapers.
In view of the unemployment here, and the advertising campaign of the minister's department in Great Britain for immigrants in a wide category of occupations, can the minister explain the scope and intention of the recruiting now being carried on in the United Kingdom?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 'the advertisement to which the hon. member refers is primarily an invitation to persons to attend film showings. Included in it, I believe, is a list of occupations in which there are vacancies at the present time. These are openings of which we were advised by the national employment service. There are always a few openings at various places in Canada, regardless of the employment situation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I ask a supplementary question. I have recently seen this advertisement, and it states that there are many openings in Canada for carpenters, painters and electricians. Will the minister kindly explain why this advertisement in the United Kingdom should say there are many openings in these trades, in view of the fact that unemployment in these trades constitutes a major part of the unemployment problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is undertaking to debate the matter rather than ask a question.


Harold Edward Winch: No, I am not. I am asking why.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, and ask if he would check the information that is provided as to these vacancies with the department of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because the types of jobs set out in this advertisement would seem to be already very well covered in this country.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: I will be very happy to bring that matter to the minister's attention.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. With housing starts down nearly 50 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with the first quarter of last year, and with unemployment still with us to an alarming degree, will the government now give consideration to altering its present declared policy of restricting house building in 1960 below the level of 1959?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for the question, and to reassure him that the government has this matter under constant consideration.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister received any protests from the municipalities of northern and northwestern Ontario as to the effect the new amendment will have on the construction of new houses in these localities?


David James Walker: Would the hon. member be good enough to tell me what municipality?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: All of them in northern and northwestern Ontario. They are all up in the air about it.


David James Walker: We have had some representations from people in municipalities, but not from municipalities.


John Richard Garland: May I ask a supplementary question. Since we are rapidly approaching what normally should be the peak of the building season, I wonder whether the government is giving any consideration to making more funds available for direct lending; funds, I might add, which have already been approved by parliament.


David James Walker: May I reiterate that all day to day matters in connection with housing have our constant consideration and if, as and when any change is made the matter will be drawn to the attention of hon. members.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SUGGESTED SCHOLARSHIP FOR MONTREAL &quot;GAZETTE&quot; CORRESPONDENT FOR ORIGINAL POETRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I apologize for not sending him notice; I have just thought of the question. Would the minister read today's Gazette, which contains a poem by Arthur Blakely entitled "Stanzas Written in Dejection on Being Misquoted", and say whether it justifies a recommendation to the Canada Council for a scholarship?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware that under date of April 12, 1960, the district director of postal service issued a circular to post offices directing that whenever possible United States coins accepted by post offices should be handed out as change to other patrons, in view of the fact that a discount is charged on such coins by the banks?


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this rather ingenious suggestion on the part of the district director.


Azellus Denis: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister look into that matter and make a comment on it? If it is

true, then would he accept these falsified dollars in any amount which may be given to the postmasters?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, seriously, to the best of my knowledge United States coinage has been accepted in this country for a good many years, and has passed back and forth across the counters. I imagine it will continue to do so for some time to come.


Azellus Denis: This circular is addressed to every employee accepting money-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will give the hon. member a chance, I shall try to determine whether or not he is asking a question.


Azellus Denis: It is only in order to contradict-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the post office estimates are to be called very shortly, and the hon. member will find that a more suitable opportunity for pursuing the matter.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Postmaster General. Would he explain to the house why he has had his postmasters instructed to get rid of United States coinage to members of the public in that way?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As
I explained to the hon. member for St. Denis just a moment ago, I had no particular knowledge of this order, but I will be glad to look into it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask whether this is another difference of opinion between Coyne and Fleming?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, when the agriculture estimates are called later today or tomorrow, it is his intention, in his acting capacity, to continue the statement on deficiency payments which the Prime Minister unfortunately had to interrupt the last time the estimates were before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.
79951-0-212
Trans-Canada Highway Act TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT



AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND PERIOD OF PAYMENTS AND INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES

David James Walker: the second reading of Bill No. C-57, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to say anything?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of principle involved today. This act has been gone into in 1949, 1956 and 1959, and the principle of the bill has been debated at great length. I would only be guilty of repetition in taking up the time of the house by adding anything further at this stage, so at this time I do not propose to make any comment. I will be very happy, however, when the house goes into committee to answer any questions and perhaps say something at the end of the discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will not surprise you when I assure you that I have none of the fear of repetition that seems to be in the mind of the Minister of Public Works. Not only have I no fear of repetition, but in view of the scant impression which seems to have been made on the mind of the minister by the debate which took place at the resolution stage it seems to me that a certain amount of repetition is called for, and urgently called for.
At the time the resolution preceding this bill was before the committee, namely on March 29, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition set out, as recorded on page 2562 of Hansard, the position of the Liberal opposition on this bill. I want to repeat, not in the same words precisely but in substance, what was said by the Leader of the Opposition at that time. I do this because we on this side of the house are constantly being taunted by the government with the statement that we have no alternatives to suggest to the policies which are put forward by the government.
I want to make it abundantly clear that in this matter we have an alternative. We have an alternative which has been put clearly before the house and the country, an alternative which goes some part of the way, but not the whole distance, that hon. gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches, notably the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), suggested it should go when the previous government were in office.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
Put very briefly, the position of the Liberal party of Canada in this matter is that owing to the disability under which they suffer with respect to transportation, the government of Canada should pay in the Atlantic provinces, and in the Atlantic provinces only, 90 per cent of the cost of building this national undertaking.
The first statement on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition was made before March 31, 1958, in these words. This was a statement issued from the office of the Leader of the Opposition:
In reply to a request about the scale of assistance contemplated in the Liberal program to provide special assistance for the building of trunk highways in the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Pearson 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 which would be eligible for federal assistance.
As the Leader of the Opposition stated when he spoke here on March 29, that continues to be the policy of the Liberal opposition. Moreover, when he spoke on that occasion, the Leader of the Opposition quoted a statement by the present Minister of Justice when he was sitting on this side of the house on April 16, 1956. He said, as reported on page 2942 of Hansard of that date:
I said a few words prior to the adjournment on that day in which I had just got to the point where I was seeking to demonstrate that the proposal now before the house-
That is the proposal which is now before the house, I would remind the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works, because there has been no change whatever by the present government from the scheme put forward at that time.
-is neither adequate to ensure the completion of the trans-Canada highway by the date mentioned in the resolution, namely, December 31, 1960, nor is it fair-
I hope the Minister of Public Works will mark these words.
-as between provinces which are participating members under the trans-Canada highway agreement.
So here we have the Minister of Justice when he was sitting on this side of the house saying that this legislation was not "fair as between provinces". Those are his words; yet he is now participating in a government which brings forward an extension of precisely the same legislation without changing anything in it except the date of completion of the road.
What accounts for this extraordinary change in view? I could go on and quote the Minister of Transport who, speaking with that moderation with which he always spoke when

he sat on this side of the house, carefully weighing every word, so characteristic of that hon. gentleman in those days, had this to say as reported on page 2955 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
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.
I repeat; "must stop playing around with makeshift methods", said the present Minister of Transport in 1956. I assume there is still a little collective responsibility left in the government in 1960, although after the display of the day before yesterday one sometimes doubts it. If there is any collective responsibility the Minister of Transport is equally responsible with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Justice for the legislation now before the house. What did the Minister of Transport call it when he sat on this side? It was a "makeshift method". This Liberal makeshift method is the Tory policy to build the trans-Canada highway.
That is the situation, sir. I have no doubt that the Minister of Public Works, who is like a Bourbon who learns nothing

I do not know about the forgetting part, but he is half a Bourbon-will get up after I am finished speaking, and I am sure he will say, "Well, you didn't do it. Why didn't you do it?"
Well, sir, why did not we do it? We started this trans-Canada highway in 1949 on a 50-50 basis, and this was quite a departure from the previous policy in this connection. It was a pioneering venture undertaken as the result of a decision made at the national Liberal convention of 1948 and implemented by the government of Mr. St. Laurent after the election of 1949. It was a very progressive step, but it was only a step; and when in 1956 the government found that this great project was not being completed at anything like the rate we felt it should be, we made an improvement in the formula, an improvement which provided that 90 per cent of the cost should be paid for 10 per cent of the highway.
I was a member of the government when that decision was made and was of course bound by that decision, and I defended it. However, I do not mind admitting that even at that time I would have liked to go a bit further, and we found even after that change that the progress was not as rapid as it should have been. We also found that the rate of progress was very different in different provinces. In the prairie provinces, where

the problems of building were not nearly so great and where the road was in fact the main road across the province anyway, they were getting ahead very rapidly. But in other parts of Canada, for one reason or another into which I will not bother entering here, the progress was very slow, notably in the province of Ontario, and for that it is hard to find any excuse whatsoever.
At any rate, Mr. Winters came in here and proposed, and parliament agreed, to pay 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the highway. Of course the provinces had the chance to choose the most difficult 10 per cent, and I would guess most of them did so.
In order to speed things up, we in the Liberal party came to the conclusion by 1958, when we held our national convention, that even this would not get the road in the Atlantic provinces completed within a reasonable time. Why? It was because those provinces could not afford, out of their annual revenues, to devote enough money to this particular project. In fact in Nova Scotia they had barely started. The view taken by the government of Nova Scotia through the early years after 1949 was that this road, because it was not the main highway in the province and because there were other roads in the province serving the same areas, did not have the same priority from the provincial point of view as other roads did. In fact an agreement was not entered into for several years.
The plain fact is that while from a national standpoint this road is, in my opinion, very important, in some of the provinces-Ontario, for example-it does not assume the same importance. I know about this, in the case of Nova Scotia, because I was in the gallery of the Nova Scotia legislature myself a couple of years ago and heard the minister of highways say that they did not feel they could give a high priority to the trans-Canada highway over other roads for which they also had to pay.
It is not for me to say why this situation should exist, but it certainly does, as experience has shown. Even, as in the case of the province of Newfoundland, where the highway is the main road in the province, there is still not enough in the provincial budget that can be devoted to the completion of this project after all the other essential expenditures have been made. That is why we took the view at the national Liberal convention of 1958 that additional help should be given to the provinces with respect to the construction of roads in the light of the fact that considerable provision had been made elsewhere to assist railway construction. In the Atlantic provinces, except 79951-0-212J
Trans-Canada Highway Act for one small line in New Brunswick, railways were no longer the answer to transportation problems, and roads obviously were. However, railways were still being built-very long railways in the province of Quebec, and considerable branch lines in Ontario, in addition to railways in all the prairie provinces and in British Columbia- for virtually all of which very substantial assistance was provided by parliament.


Harold Edward Winch: We have not been paid yet in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not know the hon. gentleman had joined the Social Credit government of British Columbia, but if the Social Credit government have not yet been paid it is because they did not apply for payment, because payment was provided for part of that railway, if I remember well, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will recall that also because I believe he was a member of this parliament when the provision was made.
In any event, in most of the provinces of Canada, from and including Quebec westward, very substantial sums were provided since the war for the building of railways, while virtually nothing has been provided for the building of new railways in the Atlantic provinces, though I admit that a good deal has been spent on the improvement of existing lines. There was nothing exceptional about that; it is the general practice in all the provinces.
However, we took the view that since roads were the real need, roads rather than railways, which were helped elsewhere, had become a matter of national importance, because we in the Liberal party were of the opinion that it is a national responsibility to try to maintain conditions across Canada as nearly equal as it is possible to maintain them. The Minister of Justice said this legislation which he is now helping to sponsor was unfair. It is unfair; there is no question about that. It is very unfair, and that is one of the reasons why we adopted this proposal which was put forward in 1958.
My hon. friend from Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) in a speech he made on March 31, I think it was, made a masterly analysis of the situation which gave one a real insight into the per capita costs and the difficulties encountered by the various provinces. It was a masterly speech which it would be wrong of me to repeat to the house at any length but in my opinion the most striking of all the many remarkable statistics my hon. friend put on the record was the comparison between British Columbia and Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) can relax, because I am going to admit

Trans-Canada Highway Act the point he wants made. We all recognize that the difficulties of building roads in British Columbia are great, that they are probably greater in some areas of that province than they are in any other province. But they are not very much greater than they are in the province of Newfoundland, and there is this additional difficulty with which I shall deal. The figures show that 13 per cent of the total length of this trans-Canada highway is in British Columbia and 13 per cent is in Newfoundland. In other words there is about the same length in each of the two provinces. However, the cost of the provincial share has to be spread among less than half a million people in Newfoundland as compared with about two million people in British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: What is our area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The area is precisely the same, as I pointed out. The trans-Canada highway has the same width and the same length. If you multiply the width by the length you get the area. It happens to be 13 per cent of the total in each case.


Harold Edward Winch: There is a big difference when you multiply the area by the width. There is a difference between a small wood and a big wood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for his diversion. It is almost worthy of the Prime Minister.
The point from which I refuse to be diverted, because it is an extreme example, is this. Here we have a road which we are building as a national undertaking right across Canada. Thirteen per cent of it is in the most westerly province and 13 per cent in the most easterly province, but there are at least four times as many people in the westernmost province to pay their share. Then, to compare incomes, the westernmost province enjoys the highest average income in the whole country, while unhappily-I am sorry to have to say it, but it is true-the easternmost province has the lowest. No wonder the Minister of Justice when he sat on this side of the house and was free to express his opinion said this situation was unfair. It is unfair, and that is why we changed our policy -and we are not ashamed of the fact that we learn things.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did you change it in 1958, after you were defeated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because we did' not change it before. That seems to me to be a good reason, and I am not ashamed to admit that I have changed my mind about a good many things. Why did we change the 50-50 formula to the 90-10 formula? It was because we had

learned something. The Minister of Transport, when he sat over here, said the whole road should be paid for by the treasury of Canada. What has happened to him since he went to sit over there?


An hon. Member:: He has learned something and changed his mind, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has learned that he is not the boss. He has learned that the Minister of Finance would just say no. He was not the only one to offer hopes. I have here the text of a very interesting television performance put on by the Minister of Public Works in the city of St. John's on October 19, 1959. That was the same day the minister had the satisfaction of presiding over the opening of a public building in the city of St. John's which was at that time, I think, the largest building in that city, and which was built by a Liberal government. On that day the minister made a very favourable impression in St. John's, I might say. I happened to be there, and I had the pleasure of seeing him on television. I thought he put on a very good performance. However, I thought I should like to have the text of his performance, because I anticipated that the day might come when it ought to be recorded in a less perishable form than on television. There are bits of it I should like the house to read, and I am sure the minister would be delighted to hear them. Mr. Jamieson, the interlocutor, had asked the minister some questions about term 29. I am not going to repeat those questions, because I realize they would not be relevant to this debate, though perhaps I could make them relevant if I were challenged. Mr. Jamieson said this:
In other words, I gather that this is another way of saying what was emphasized earlier-
That was in the minister's previous answer.
-that in so far as the federal government is concerned, it is not a matter of wiping out Newfoundland's special needs, but that there is still recognition of the fact that we do have special needs in this province.
This is the minister's reply:
Very, very much so, and there's no one, I think, who appreciates the needs of Newfoundland more than the dominion government at Ottawa.
There might be two views about that matter, but this is what the minister said. Then a little later on-there are several other questions which are not relevant to the trans-Canada highway-I come to this question:
Well, sir, something else that came up at the press conference this morning was the question of the over-all attitude of the federal government here with regard to the trans-Canada highway. Again, this is of great concern to us in Newfoundland, and I think you had some comments that the paving, in the park at any rate, would be done next year.

This was in 1959. Here is the minister's reply:
Yes, the part that we are 100 per cent responsible for is your wonderful park-
I am extremely pleased that the minister recognized that the park the Liberal government established in the year 1957 is the wonderful park that we know it is. He said:
Yes, the part that we are 100 per cent responsible for is your wonderful park, and that 26 miles will be completed early in 1960.
I can tell the minister that was very good news. I have since learned that tenders have been called, and I hope he will not be too long in deciding to let the contracts. Some of us expect to ride over that road this summer, early in 1960, if we can get away from here. Then he went on to give some figures of the cost, and went on to explain the cost-sharing formula which is well known to the house and which it would be an imposition to repeat. Then Mr. Jamieson said this:
Sir, I am aware of the fact, of course, that you can't discuss matters of government policy.
I do not know why. When I was a minister I did not hesitate to discuss matters of government policy, but perhaps the minister is more discreet in this matter. I continue with the quotation:
There has been a suggestion, in other parts of Canada as well, that perhaps the whole basis for the construction of the trans-Canada highway might have to be changed. Is there any likelihood, or is there any suggestion that the whole policy might be reviewed?
The minister's reply was as follows:
Oh, well, I think the policy ought to be reviewed.
I emphasize that statement. He said:
Oh, well, I think the policy ought to be reviewed ... At the end of 1960, the trans-Canada act runs out and certainly we can't see the provinces left in the lurch, and this is a tremendous project, particularly in Newfoundland where you really want to have a trans-Canada highway go from sea to sea, and we're anxious to co-operate and I am sure that some form of extension will be arranged and I trust it will be satisfactory to your provincial government.
I am not seeking to suggest for one minute that the minister in any of those words went one iota beyond the bill that is now before us, because that would be unfair. But I suggest that the average Newfoundlander listening to those words would get the impression that when the new legislation came along we were going to get a better deal than we had before.
The minister did not say so. I am not saying that he said so. However, I am saying that even I, with all my experience and with all my suspicion of the minister, thought there might be some faint chance that these words were meant to be more than just a hope.
Trans-Canada Highway Act Then the best this government could do was to go on precisely along the lines of the previous government which they are so fond of condemning so much of the time and which they promised, of course, not merely to replace on the treasury benches but to change all those things that were being done so inadequately.
One would have thought that one of the things that would most assuredly have been changed would be something which the Minister of Justice, of all men, said was not fair, and particularly when so influential a member of the government as the Minister of Transport said the whole thing should be paid for out of the federal treasury.


An hon. Member:: You said that before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that before, but
perhaps it is important occasionally to repeat these things until they are grasped by some hon. members.
There was one other thing that I found extremely disappointing in the debate on the resolution, apart from the intransigent attitude on the part of the Minister of Public Works in insisting on sticking to the old policies-not the new ones-of the Liberal party. Of course I suppose that would be a definition of conservatism, that Conservatives wear the old, worn-out clothes that Liberals have discarded. I have seen that definition of "Conservative".
In this particular instance that is the thing they are doing. I was greatly disappointed by the speech that was made in this debate by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Mc-Cleave); I do not know whether I should call him the taller or the junior member for Halifax. I refer to the hon. member for Halifax who sits on this side of the house. The hon. member for Halifax said in effect [DOT]-and if he thinks I am being unfair to him I am quite willing to read the extracts from Hansard-that because the Atlantic provinces grant, for which all of us in the Atlantic provinces who have any sense are very grateful; it is the only thing we have to be grateful to this government for-the federal government had no other obligations in the highway field to the provinces, although the hon. member expressed the hope that some time or other they would build a road into Halifax. I might say that if he and enough people like him had supported us that road would have been started by now, because that is one of the trunk roads that it would be part of Liberal policy to build and one of the most important of them, quite obviously.
But I would remind the hon. member for Halifax that a much different attitude was taken by the Conservative party in 1957, at

Trans-Canada Highway Act the time that hon. gentleman was elected to this house. At that time, although I have not seen the list of names, I imagine the hon. member for Halifax was present at the historic meeting in Moncton when the great charter of the Tory party for the Atlantic provinces was drawn up. At that time the Atlantic provinces were promised Atlantic provinces grants or something equivalent to them. Special adjustment grants they were called in this document, and I take it that is the same thing.
But they were also promised-and it is No. 4 of the Atlantic resolutions-the "adjustment of freight rates and provision of transportation facilities to allow our producers reasonable access to the markets of Canada". The only adjustment in freight rates has been an adjustment upward of 17 per cent, and then 10 per cent was taken off afterwards. So that the only adjustment we have had so far is 7 per cent up, nothing down. It just says "adjustment" here in the Atlantic resolutions. People were intended to believe that it would be an adjustment down, not up, but that is what we have. As for the provision of other transportation facilities, we have had nothing whatever.
That is the whole point. It does not seem to me that any Tory member of this house who subscribes to this Atlantic resolution should be satisfied to support and vote for this bill in its present form, because certainly people in the Atlantic provinces were led to believe by everything that was said before hon. gentlemen opposite attained office that the situation would be different.
There is just one other thing I wish to say about this matter. I regret, and I think every Canadian who really believes that this is a great national project in which all parts of the country should participate regrets very much, that the government of the province of Quebec up to now has not seen fit to participate. I hope, if certain events that many of us look for should come about, that the situation will be changed before too long. This is one reason I am glad that at any rate, if no other change is made in this bill, the time is being extended so that our fellow citizens in Quebec who pay their share in taxes for this road, will get their share of the benefits to which they are entitled and which it is no fault of this parliament, and particularly of this party, that they have not had long ago.
But I do say this, sir. I am rather astonished after the constitutional expose made to this house by the Solicitor General the day before yesterday in which he told us with respect


to another piece of legislation, and perhaps I should quote his exact words from page 3288 of Hansard:
The Liberal legislation was made applicable only to nine provinces out of ten.
He suggested that any law that was applied in only nine provinces out of ten was not constitutional. The Solicitor General is a member of this government, and we all know that our cabinet ministers are equal one to another, even if some are more equal than others. The Solicitor General is a member of the government. He shared the responsibility with the Minister of Justice who said this bill was unfair, and with the Minister of Transport who said it should be on an entirely different basis, and with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, when he was over here, said the country could afford to spend far more on this road.
That is their record. They all come in here together and jointly recommend the renewal of this Liberal legislation unchanged except for the dates. That is what they are doing, these gentlemen on the treasury benches. But the most astonishing of all is the Solicitor General because, having told us two days ago that a law that was applied only in nine provinces out of ten was unconstitutional, he now comes and brings in a bill which by his own definition is unconstitutional, and he asks us in this house to vote for it. Well, of course, you know-


Mr. Cardiff:: Are you going to vote for it or not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not make the
slightest difference, as the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well, whether we vote for it or not. It is going to be rammed down our throats anyway.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is not what I asked you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course we are not going to stop the trans-Canada highway, and we are not going to end old-fashioned Liberal legislation if we cannot get anything better; but I am astonished that hon. gentlemen opposite should not be ashamed that they cannot produce anything better after all the claims they made before they went into office. That is the whole point I am trying to make, and I am very grateful to the hon. member for Huron for enabling me to underline the point, because that is what I have been seeking to do.


Mr. Palleii:: Is that spelled "underlying"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much to have to raise a question of privilege, but if I heard correctly what the hon. member for Peel said I fancy he would wish to change it.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, there was no statement made by me; there was a question asked of the hon. member. He can answer it or not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member wishes to leave it on the record in that form I certainly do not intend to make any issue of it, but I felt that I should draw attention to the words he used.


Mr. Phillips:: You are not denying it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have nothing whatsoever to deny. I am not interested in the denial, but I am rather surprised that the chief government whip should indulge in that particular kind of debate on that particular level.


John Cameron Pallett: I will get the hon. member a crying towel in a minute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to say one more thing about this matter, and it is pretty fundamental. I do think, sir, that experience with the trans-Canada highway and with some of those other 50-50 sharing arrangements-I said this the last time this bill was before the house and wish to say it again- has shown, as the Minister of Justice said when he was over here, this is a very unfair way to have federal financial participation. It creates a great incentive for provinces that are wealthy or provinces that are favourably situated to accept those proposals and get money out of the taxpayers generally, and it often imposes programs upon other provinces, because of the incentive of some federal money, that perhaps they would not give the first priority to if they were managing their own affairs themselves.
I do think that normally-I say "normally" -the federal government should not make conditional payments to provinces to further provincial objects. I believe it is far better to increase the amount that is paid under equalization payments and leave the provinces generally free and autonomous to carry out their functions as they and their electors see fit.
I was fully in agreement with the Minister of Public Works when he suggested that we should go slow on a second trans-Canada highway and on some of those other projects, not because I object in principle to a second trans-Canada highway, but because I think the whole financial basis of the project should be looked at from two aspects, the financial and also the constitutional basis. I do not mean the phony constitutional basis of the Solicitor General; I mean the genuine constitutional basis, that is to say whether it is really desirable for the federal treasury to be paying half the cost of provincial services when they are really just provincial services,
Trans-Canada Highway Act instead of leaving the responsibility to the provincial electors, the provincial legislators and the provincial governments, and putting them, through equalization payments that have no strings attached, in a position to do it themselves.
I think this is doubly important, sir, so long as we are going to have the situation that has now existed for 10 years in the case of the trans-Canada highway, where one province with almost one third of the population is having to bear a share of the cost of this project while getting no benefit from it. I say again, it is no fault of ours, it is no fault of this parliament, but it is a fact. It is a fact that we cannot escape, and I think we should be more careful about the proliferation of schemes of this sort unless we are really sure there will be universal participation right across the country, and unless we are convinced that the division of cost is really equitable, as it certainly is not in this case.
There is no doubt that the greatest beneficiary by far of this trans-Canada highway legislation is the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario has by far the longest stretch of the road, and what we are doing is taxing all the people of Canada to pay out of the federal treasury half plus 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of that road in the province of Ontario. I think it was a good thing to do, because we need a trans-Canada highway. I do not question that we need it very badly, but it should be right across Canada and not part way across. I say that the proposal to extend this kind of sharing into normal provincial services is very dangerous and, as the Minister of Justice has said, it is a very unfair way to do it. I think we should look at it with the greatest possible care.
I would hope that at the federal-provincial conference which is to take place in July this whole question will be considered in relation to the question of equalization. I cannot help but feel that if we could increase the equalization grants, which is fairer because it puts the poorer provinces on a genuine level of equality with the better off ones, and then leave the provinces to do their own job in their own way, we would be acting more in the genuine spirit of confederation and would be distributing the money more fairly. If there are to be more projects of this kind I hope the division of financial cost will be more along the lines of the hospital insurance plan, where there was not only a 50-50 division but some account was also taken of the burden upon the province and its capacity to pay.
3356	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
I do not agree too often with what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) says but I must say that I was very pleased that in the debate on the resolution the hon. member, if I understood him correctly and I think I did, gave support to that proposition; because it does seem to me that it is a really important point in the whole business of federal-provincial partnership, of which there has to be a good deal if Canada is really to be a nation and not a series of Balkanized provinces.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must express our disappointment with regard to the limited amendments contained in the bill now before us. After the lengthy debate at the resolution stage we had expected that the government would agree to accept a number of amendments that were offered by the opposition. However, we have to deal with the amendments as contained in the bill now before us.
I regret very much that the minister of highways of the province of British Columbia did not assist us at the resolution stage or even before the resolution stage. Unfortunately he came to Ottawa after the resolution stage had already passed, and he then attempted to persuade the government as to what kind of amendments it should make to the Trans-Canada Highway Act. I believe that as a legislator and cabinet minister he should have known a little better, and should have realized that if he wanted to have any major influence on the policy decisions of the government the time to approach the government was at least not later than the end of the debate at the resolution stage, so the government might have taken cognizance of whatever representation he wished to make before the debate on second reading began.
I regret that the legislation before us will permit the richest provinces of Canada to continue to procrastinate with regard to making their contribution to the completion of what will be our first trans-Canada highway. I should have liked to see in the bill some kind of penalty by way of reduced percentages payable by the federal government to those wealthy areas of Canada that have been standing idly by. I have special reference here to my own province of British Columbia and even more particularly to the province of Ontario. I do not think the House of Commons can continue to encourage indefinitely procrastination on the part of these two richest areas of Canada by continuous postponement of the termination date beyond which the federal contribution will no longer be payable.
We do not intend to oppose the further postponement of that date by three years


now being sought by the government. However, we feel that if British Columbia and Ontario do not begin at a very early date to show evidence of more honest intentions to complete their portions of the trans-Canada highway, then the whole basis of federal sharing should be given a very serious review so that an incentive for early completion on the part of the wealthier areas of Canada may be contained in the legislation.
I note that the permissible amount of government expenditure is to be raised from $350 million to $400 million, and I regret very much that at least a portion of the additional $50 million will have to be spent for the completion of the federal government's share of the trans-Canada highway, namely that portion running through our national parks. Much as we regret that some provinces are being very slow in completing their share of the work, we regret even more having to make the observation that the federal government has also been unduly slow. It should have completed its share of the highway, the mileage through the national parks, long before any of the provinces should have been expected to complete their share of the work.
I also regret that in the bill before us there is no amendment to enable the government to undertake the building of an alternative western route as a second trans-Canada highway. It is obvious that the decision of the government is rather confirmed by now, and that the building of an additional national highway will have to wait until the slowest of the provinces has completed its portion of the first trans-Canada highway. In my opinion the lack of any such authority in the bill now before us constitutes discrimination against the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta which, if they have not already done so, have about completed their share of the first highway. The lack of a suitable amendment in the bill indicates that they will have to continue to wait indefinitely before they can proceed with other major highway building unless, of course, they are willing to pay the whole cost themselves.
The official spokeman for the Liberal party introduced a rather novel idea as to how the poorer provinces of Canada might be aided and encouraged in building their portions of the trans-Canada highway a little more rapidly. I have great reservations as to the remedy he proposed. He referred to my attitude with regard to the national hospital insurance plan, and attempted to compare the arrangements arrived at in that regard with the arrangements that exist under the Trans-Canada Highway Act.

I believe there are reasons that obtain in the hospital insurance field for the formula that was adopted there that do not apply in this particular case. I am very concerned about the remedy that was offered, because I am not too sure that this is the way in which the Atlantic provinces can be helped to meet their responsibilities. Is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate advocating that this policy which he suggested might be made applicable in many fields of federal legislation? If so, perhaps he would be quite happy to see varying rates of old age pensions being paid in different parts of Canada.
I believe that when this parliament legislates it must legislate under rules and conditions that are applicable to all parts of Canada without discrimination. I am not saying that cognizance should not be taken of the ability of the provinces to meet their responsibilities, but I feel that the federal government should see it is not in the form of discriminatory legislation. This situation should be met by changes in the financial arrangements between the two levels of government. If aid is needed in this field by these eastern governments, that is the time and place where financial resources must be made available to these governments in such a way that they can take their proper place and receive the benefits of specific legislation offered by the parliament of Canada.
I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, with a particular complaint in mind. I regret that in the amendment now before us the government has not seen fit to enact into law a policy decision that was announced in this house by the previous Liberal government. This policy was that if federal money were being used in the building of any portion of the trans-Canada highway, tolls could not be imposed. We in B.C. had serious complaints and differences of opinion in years gone by, I will admit, with the government that is no longer in office. We wanted a federal contribution, for instance, toward the construction of the Oak street bridge, and we wanted to recover part of our contribution by the imposition of tolls. The former minister of public works, Hon. Robert Winters, made it very clear in this house that the government was not prepared to make a contribution to the building of a bridge within a province, or any part of the trans-Canada highway, if tolls were to be imposed and the provincial government enabled to recover its share of the cost thereby.
We heard the same argument again at the time of the building of the new Port Mann bridge. The policy of the federal government was reiterated, and we had to abide by the decision of the federal government in this
Trans-Canada Highway Act regard. The reason I would have loved to have that policy announcement included in the amendment now before us is that I notice this policy is not being followed in the province of Nova Scotia. I have received this information since the resolution stage. In a return tabled on April 4 last the Minister of Transport admitted that up to March 1, 1960 the federal government had expended $20,157,201 on the building of the Canso causeway, but the Nova Scotia government is not committed, under any conditions, to the spending of more than $5.5 million. However, the Nova Scotia government are allowed to recover whatever expenditures they may have made by imposing a toll of 75 cents- and that is a high toll-on people using the Canso causeway.
I believe the federal government owes a responsibility to the other areas of Canada that have not been granted this right. It is right to insist that whatever agreement may have been made with the government of Nova Scotia, that agreement be so amended that it forbids Nova Scotia to do this, or that there be written into the legislation a clause whereby any provincial government shall have the right to recover any of its contribution by the collection of tolls on any public undertaking to which the federal government has made a contribution.
I believe that if the people of British Columbia are going to be denied the right to collect tolls, and I agree they ought to be denied that right, we should ask that the same rule of law be made applicable to the people of Nova Scotia using the Canso causeway, which is part of the trans-Canada highway. At one time the Pattullo bridge was not part of the trans-Canada highway, but immediately upon it being made a part of the highway we had to desist from the collection of tolls. We did so, and the bridge has been toll-free ever since. The Port Mann bridge, similarly, should be a toll-free bridge.
Let me say again that I am sure we are aware of the fact that the government of Nova Scotia may need these revenues. They may need them in the worst possible way, just as the hon. member was able to outline the needs of the government of Newfoundland for vast sums of additional revenue if it is going to be able to play its proper role in the development of its economy. However, we feel that the proper method of helping these Atlantic provinces is by substantial increases in their revenues at a time when the federal tax-sharing agreements are up for revision.
We regret that the amendment before us, in the light of the need for national development, in the light of the need for national

Trans-Canada Highway Act unity and the part that highways have played in that regard, in the light ot supplying employment and reducing unemployment in Canada, has not made more allowance for the development of the Canadian economy.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (McLeod):: I have great pleasure in rising to speak on the amendment which is before the house. Before doing so I should like to make one comment. I take a vastly different position from that of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In my opinion if this country is to be developed, and particularly west of the great lakes, we must have highways. We cannot wait forever to have these highways. Therefore, instead of adopting the thought emanating from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate this afternoon, I think we must have a policy which will provide federal assistance for the building of additional trans-Canada highways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman has brought my name into it, would he permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I did not mention your name.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, my constituency. He identified me so would he permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall be happy to answer it now or at the end of my speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would not mind answering now, my question is this. The hon. gentleman, if I understood him aright, said that west of the great lakes they could not wait forever for highway development. Does the hon. gentleman think that we east of the great lakes and east of the St. Lawrence do have to wait forever? That is what I was complaining about.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I did not bring the eastern part of Canada into my remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I did.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I took the hon. member at what he said, which was in effect that he was not in favour of the development of a further trans-Canada highway because it would not benefit the area he represents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: But you inferred it.
Mr. Speaker, turning now to the question of trans-Canada highways, I live in that part of western Canada known as southwestern Alberta, about which I wish to speak briefly at this time because it has a very direct bearing on the route which I believe the next trans-Canada highway should take. I refer particularly to that area in southwestern Alberta around Lethbridge, the Crowsnest

pass, Cranbrook, Nelson, Okanagan and through there-the area known as the southern route. In my remarks I shall refer to this route as the southern route.
When plans for trans-Canada highway No. 1 were being developed a decision had to be made as to whether it would go from Medicine Hat, Calgary, Banff, Lake Louise, Cranbrook and on west, or whether it would take the southern route and go through Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Fort Macleod, Crowsnest pass, Cranbrook, Nelson and on west.
One only has to look at a map to see which is the best route and the most economical route, and which, if physical conditions and economic development were to be considered, should have been the route. But there was a lot of discussion at that time about which route it should take. Since Calgary was the largest city and Banff had the tourist attractions developing at that time, the pressure was to put it in through that way, and the southern route was left as a by-passed route.
It is about that route which I wish to speak today. I do so because the southern route is now one of the fastest developing areas in western Canada. It is the most direct route from Medicine Hat to the west coast. Not only that, but if it were developed we would have in that area tourist trade coming up from the south in greater numbers because often people on vacation have not the time to go further north. In other words, if the tourist had four or five days he could come up into Canada visit Waterton lakes, go through the Crowsnest pass and visit the scenic points in that area and we would get that tourist's dollar. At the present time we are missing that tourist's dollar.
That is only one argument in favour of having a four-lane highway through that area. However, while talking about scenery and the tourist trade I should like to emphasize one or two points. I said before that we lost out when it came to the location of highway No. 1, and we certainly should have priority for consideration of any additional trans-Canada highway to be built. Any new highway should follow the southern route through southern Alberta and the Crowsnest pass and then through sourthern British Columbia. Let me say that along that route there are such fast growing industrial cities as Lethbridge, Nelson, Cranbrook, et cetera. Then there are areas of amusement such as Waterton lakes national park, one of the finest summer and pleasure resorts not only in western Canada but, people have said, in the world. It is a place where the tourist can go and rest and be quiet, and that is of course often the feature the tourist puts first.

Then there is the Frank slide at the eastern end, of the Crowsnest pass which is one of the most scenic spots existing in western Canada. It is the place where a mountain fell across the valley covering the town of Frank and the railroad and the highway, and it is a scenic spot which I am sure any tourist once having seen it will never forget. The tourist could go on through the Crowsnest pass, Fernie, the beautiful Okanagan lakes, and so on. I need not recite to this house why the southern route should not be chosen from the point of scenery.
Let me now turn to the industrial side. At the British-American plant at Pincher Creek a large proportion, I should say, of the natural gas coming into Ontario originates in that field. Then there are the scrubbing plants, industrial development, and more industrial development is in the making. Then going through the Crowsnest pass will be the 36-inch pipe line exporting gas to the United States. There are other lines criss-crossing to join up with the trans-Canada pipe line. In other words, we have in that area an industry now in existence and a great deal more development in the offing. Step across the line from Alberta into British Columbia and you have there the development of the Columbia basin. What need is there for me to give any more reasons for asking and pressing for first consideration of this southern route, the shortest route, as the next trans-Canada highway?
Before leaving the question of the tourist trade, I might say that there has recently been set up the Crowsnest pass historic sites and development board. That board, or it may be called a society, is doing everything possible to develop the beauties of the Crowsnest pass area and when it is fully developed it will be a tourist's paradise. With regard to accommodation we have plenty of excellent accommodation and more will be built as time goes on. Therefore as the route where a second trans-Canada highway should be put to accommodate the tourist traffic and industry, the southern route has everything in its favour and the area is losing millions of dollars waiting for this development.
Let me say in conclusion that we have been by-passed by those who planned the No. 1 highway 15 or 20 years ago. I do not think the Minister of Public Works or the government should be left to find this out for themselves. I feel it is my duty, since I represent the Fort Macleod, and Crowsnest pass areas to bring this to the attention of the government. It is a matter which would be given serious and first consideration, and I urge the government when it is studying the construction of a future trans-Canada
Trans-Canada Highway Act highway to give full weight to representations in favour of developing this southern route. I go one step further and suggest that in view of the fact that this route was by-passed in the planning stage of the present No. 1 highway it is appropriate that we on the southern route should press for construction of this route first and foremost, and the people of southern Alberta will look with disfavour on any other choice, unless the southern route is developed either first or simultaneously.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize another speaker, now that we have heard speakers from all the parties represented in this house I think I should express my concern about the relevancy of some of the speeches we have heard up to now. I should like to have the help of the house if it is felt I am in error, but I should point out that this bill is merely to extend the present act until 1963 in respect of the works, and 1964 in respect of the expenses. I have some doubt as to whether a discussion of a second trans-Canada highway, for instance, would be relevant. I do not by that statement refer to the comments made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate because, if I remember correctly, he discussed that matter in the light of the possibility of the unconstitutionality of the act. But to discuss a second trans-Canada highway as such, or the choice of the route, or even tolls here and there, does not seem to me to be relevant and I think I must ask the co-operation of all hon. members in bringing the debate within the rules of order.


Harold Edward Winch: The very reason I rose before you did, Your Honour, was to raise this matter. Until you yourself spoke, no one had raised any question about the relevancy of what was being said. I wish to point out that 80 per cent of the remarks of the previous speaker concerned a possible second trans-Canada highway, and it was with regard to a second trans-Canada highway that I myself wish to make some very pertinent remarks.
In view of the fact that Your Honour has now raised this question, and since it has not been raised before, I wish to say that there is only one matter on which I want to speak, and that is the subject of a second trans-Canada highway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word on the point of order which has just been raised, I did not wish to interrupt the speech made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), who does not speak very often in the house, but I thought the speech he made would

Trans-Canada Highway Act have been perfectly in order on the resolution stage when we are discussing whether or not there should be such a bill as is proposed. I think there should then be the widest latitude to discuss the wisdom of spending the money for one purpose, as opposed to another. However, I would agree with Your Honour that on second reading we have to stay within the broad ambit of the bill itself. I think we could argue that we should not go ahead with the measure because something else would be a better thing to do, but just to use it as a vehicle for a general debate on roads or highways would, I agree, be out of order. On the other hand, I was happy that Your Honour recognized that any questions about the constitutionality of the bill or any questions about the participation of all the provinces, or some of the provinces, are certainly relevant to legislation which applies to the whole of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: May I, then, just add this? I cannot understand why neither Your Honour nor anyone else raised any objection to what was said by the previous speaker. We did not do so, because we believe in freedom of speech even if it goes outside the bounds of order. The fact that you did not interfere indicated that hon. members who were to follow could speak on the same lines. However, in view of Your Honour's feeling that the hon. member was completely out of order-which, without doubt, he was-I hope it may be agreed through yourself and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) that when the first vote in the departmental estimates comes up for discussion the question of a second trans-Canada highway can be fully raised. If it cannot, then I want the same privilege as was accorded to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In fact, I believe that on the first vote of the estimates of the Minister of Public Works we can discuss this question of a second trans-Canada highway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There can be no doubt about that.


Harold Edward Winch: I am still on my feet-


David James Walker: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate is assisting the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: I am asking if this matter can definitely be discussed during consideration of the estimates of the department.


David James Walker: As the old veteran who has just taken his seat has said, there can be no question about that.


Harold Edward Winch: In that case we shall not seek to discuss this particular subject further at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I say that I did not interrupt the hon. member for Macleod when he was speaking about this alternative route because I had given some latitude to the previous speaker. However, I do not wish to give in advance any interpretation concerning what is likely to be relevant, and I do not want my silence to mean agreement with the interpretation given to my ruling by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate.


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Having listened to the remarks about what is, and what is not in order during discussion of this bill on second reading, may I say that I did not have the opportunity to speak during the resolution stage.
I had intended, today, to make some comments with regard to a second trans-Canada highway but since you have ruled, sir, that that would be out of order, I shall have to refrain from doing so and try to keep within your direction. However, what I wished most particularly to say on behalf of the part of New Brunswick that I represent would deal, more or less, with a subject which would probably be not strictly in order on second reading. It has been intimated that we can discuss this matter on the first item of the minister's estimates when they are before the committee.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) gave a resume of what transpired in connection with the Trans-Canada Highway Act, when he spoke on the resolution stage. He was brief at that time and he was also brief today because I think he felt that the background of the Trans-Canada Highway Act had been well covered on previous occasions. This amendment before us today is one to extend until May 31, 1964 the period during which payments may be made to the provinces and to prolong until December 31, 1963 the period in respect of which construction costs may be incurred under this act and to provide also that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of $400 million.
For reasons I just mentioned when I rose to speak, I shall be brief today. But at the outset I want to assure the minister of my support of this bill. I am sure that all other members of the house will also support the bill, particularly those of the Liberal party, realizing that this is Liberal legislation.
The Trans-Canada Highway Act in its present form as amended in 1956 provided that no contributions or payments were to

be made to a province after May, 1961 or in respect of any construction costs incurred after December 31, 1960. The first purpose of the bill is to extend the time limit a further period of three years. The second purpose of this bill is to increase the present limit from $350 million to $400 million. As I said, I am not going to give the background of this act which was born on December 10, 1949. From time to time it has been necessary to increase the total amount of federal contributions. Hon. members are in a general sense familiar with what has taken place since this act first came into force. The extension of the time limit to March 31, 1964 was not looked for based on the statement made by the former minister of public works when, as found in Hansard of February 24, 1959, a year ago, at page 1345, he said:
The actual problem dealt with by the legislation, amendment of which is sought, is the completion of a trans-Canada highway to join the ten provinces of this nation by a first-class road. That is our main objective. That is the objective we aim to reach by the end of 1960.
We now have an amendment seeking an extension of three years beyond 1961. It is obvious that the present Minister of Public Works did not have very much faith in his predecessor's estimates of the time of completion of the trans-Canada highway; and it is apparent that the former minister of public works was not very well advised on the progress and approximate time of completion. The present minister is planning to avoid getting into a similar situation. He is allowing himself three years for completion, perhaps on the advice of some of the provinces that money is going to be hard to find and that it will be too expensive, with the resulting slowdown of trans-Canada highway construction.
When the time limit for completion was first set out by the Liberal government, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Green), then in opposition, and who later became minister of public works in charge of the trans-Canada highway construction, said this back in the opposition days and I quote from Hansard of 1956, page 3094:
The minister-
He was referring to Hon. Mr. Winters.
-should take far more aggressive action to see that this particular gap is closed.
I think it is very difficult for us to understand why such further delay is to be granted. The gap that was referred to by the former minister of public works was a gap in the province of Ontario. The previous minister of public works questioned in 1956 the reason for the further extension. We now find the government in which he is a cabinet minister
Trans-Canada Highway Act and until recently responsible for the public works portfolio asking for a three-year term of extension to 1964.
The other change is to increase the present limit of $350 million to $400 million. Here again the previous minister of public works stated at the resolution stage of last year's amendment to this act, as found in Hansard of February 20, 1959, page 1246:
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.
In fairness to the former minister and I should probably say in fairness to his staff, a more realistic figure of $371 million was tabled on the second reading of the bill. It is difficult to understand now why the public works minister of that day tabled an estimate of $371 million and on second reading of the 1959 amendment he only adds $350 million to the authority to spend.
This question also rises. Does the increase to $400 million cover expenditures in the province of Quebec up to 1964? If this province joins in the trans-Canada highway agreement I would think that this amount is not sufficient and that it would probably be necessary to seek another amendment to the act in order to cover construction of the trans-Canada highway.
It is interesting to read what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) said as an opposition member representing the constituency of Broadview, as found at pages 2954 and 2955 of Hansard of 1956. Let me quote only part of his remarks of that day:
In short, if this highway is going to be built in the foreseeable future, the federal government must assume financial responsibility and get on with the job.
I wonder what he thinks now and I wonder what has been his thinking over the past three years as Minister of Transport, with the trans-Canada highway far from completed and the government insisting that the provinces contribute to the cost.
I recall the words of the Minister of Justice, speaking in 1956 when he was an opposition member. I was interested in his remarks because I felt they had considerable merit and offered a plan for an extended system of connecting highways. I hope you will bear with me, if I make a short quotation. I do not want to be out of order in this regard. In the 1956 debate the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) moved an amendment which reads in part as follows:
And therefore the government should take into immediate consideration with the governments of the various provinces the advisability of enlarging the scope of the existing trans-Canada highway agreements so as to develop a system of national

Trans-Canada Highway Act
highways, both east-west and north-south, financed and maintained jointly by the dominion and the provinces on an acceptable and realistic basis.
I do not want to pursue that matter having regard to the ruling just made by the Chair. However, I am looking forward to a further opportunity when the public works estimates are before this house to make certain suggestions that I feel are necessary for the economy, not only of the province of New Brunswick but of the Atlantic provinces. I have in mind something which I really think would help the economy of that area and which may have to do not only with the trans-Canada highway but also with connecting highways.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ruling that was made a short time ago, I am rather hesitant to take the time of the house at the moment. I do not wish to speak on a second trans-Canada highway but I wished to say a few words about what might be called an alternative or a detour through or by a particularly bad section, particularly in the province of British Columbia. I would appreciate very much, Mr. Speaker, if I could have your views on the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am sure the hon. member heard the ruling which was made previously to my taking the chair. Of course, that ruling must be abided by.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I be permitted to say a word on the point of order? If the hon. gentleman was merely going to talk about an alternative route for that part of the trans-Canada highway he would certainly not be transgressing the ruling that was previously made; therefore, there would be no objection from this side if he proceeded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The Chair will be very happy to hear what he has to say.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: 
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make any extended remarks at this time on the trans-Canada highway since I expressed my opinion on this matter at the resolution stage. If I am not out of order in saying so, Mr. Speaker, I was rather interested in what was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat and also by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt). I think many of us in this house would be very happy at some time to hear expressions of what they consider should be done as far as a main network of roads across this country is concerned, rather than just one trans-Canada highway. Perhaps when the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) are before the committee it might indeed be a very good time to discuss such matters as that. I would like to have the opportunity of discussing roads in my province of Newfoundland other than the trans-Canada highway which provides the present prescribed course. But in view of the ruling that has been made, Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep to the right lane and see if I can stay in order.
First of all, I wish to say I am going to support the principle of this bill. However, I have always had the private view-I said

so when I was on the other side of the house, I say so now-and it has always been my opinion that the federal government should have built, paid for and maintained a road across this country. I still believe that; but if the government of 1949 and the present government were not able to see it that way, well, then, of course, I am quite prepared to vote for the principle of this bill which at least gives part of what I should like to see; but I repeat, it is my private opinion that the federal government should have built, paid for and maintained a trans-Canada highway from St. John's to Vancouver.
I had hoped that when the amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act was discussed in the house we might have had some change from the original act. We remember that when the act came before parliament in 1949 it was named a 50-50 deal. I have already passed my opinion on 50-50 deals and I do not propose to do so now, but it was a 50-50 deal in 1949. In 1956, when the act was first amended, there was the addition of 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the mileage. If the mileage under that 10 per cent had had an average cost with the other miles across the country, then of course the federal government would have been paying 54 per cent of the total cost rather than 50 per cent.
Under the new amendment, which was brought in in 1956, the federal government paid 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the total mileage, as I said. When the bill was amended the third time in 1959 I could understand the present government going along with the program as it existed; but, in view of the many comments that were made during the discussion of the amendment of the bill in 1956, and again in 1959, I had hoped that when the present government brought in its second amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act some amendment other than what had been suggested would have been contained in the bill.
What changes could have been made? I think some plan could have been devised which would have been of greater assistance to those provinces which are finding the burden rather heavy under the present plan. I made some suggestions in my speech at the resolution stage as to what could be done. We, too, have the suggestions contained in the platform of the Liberal party. Again I had hoped that this amendment would have contained some reference to the maintenance of this road. In some provinces I do not think we are too far from the time when the maintenance bill is going to be one that will have to be considered. I do not
Trans-Canada Highway Act know how long the pavement of the trans-Canada highway will last in all the provinces. It may be possible that in some provinces it will last for 10 years; in some other provinces it may last for 15 years and in still others it may last for 20 years. But, at any rate, the time is going to come shortly- and 20 years is not a long time in the life of a province-when a repaving job on top of annual maintenance will have to be carried out. I would hope that at some time, when this act is further amended, some consideration will be given to the maintenance of the trans-Canada highway.
I have said before that the trans-Canada highway is of particular importance to Newfoundland. For example, we have in Newfoundland a narrow gauge railway. It was a very good railway at the time it was built. During the first and second world wars it gave yeoman service to the people of Newfoundland. In the second world war particularly, when a large number of troops from the United States were stationed in the province, this railway was able to carry on very well and served the needs of that time. But I think it is apparent to most people that a narrow gauge railway is not able to provide the people of Newfoundland with the service that a wider gauge could. However, I think it is pretty evident now that we are not going to get a wide gauge railway in Newfoundland within the immediate future. When I was on the other side of the house I suggested that this railway should be widened.
If the railway is not going to be widened, then obviously there is going to be a greater burden placed on any trans-island road from Port aux Basques to St. John's. I speak of this because it gives added importance to the necessity of getting this road built and built as quickly as possible. We all know that there is going to be a federal-provincial conference in June. I hope that at that conference the trans-Canada highway will be discussed by the representatives of the federal government and of the 10 provinces. It is my hope that in that discussion of the trans-Canada highway there will be some reference to further trans-Canada highways but certainly some reference to the maintenance of the first trans-Canada highway in the years that lie immediately ahead. Otherwise the provinces are going to find themselves under the same burden in maintaining the road as they are now experiencing in building it. I have concluded the remarks I wish to make at this time, and again I say that I am going to support the principle of the bill.

Trans-Canada Highway Act (Translation):
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-
Rosemoni): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57 is an act to amend sections 4 and 7 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, first by extending for three years the period during which payments or contributions may be made to the provinces and, second, by adding $50 million to the expenditures authorized under sections 4, 5 and 6.
If my memory serves me well, the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed in 1949 by the Liberal government under Mr. St. Laurent, and its purpose was to enable all the provinces to share the benefits of a trans-Canada highway scheme, in the national interest.
Unfortunately, since 1949, when the act was passed, the province of Quebec has remained aloof, refusing to take advantage of this legislation, for reasons which have never been made clear. The money thus lost by the province of Quebec, to the detriment of its citizens, can now be assessed at close to $30 million.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from a few newspaper reports which indicate quite clearly that, since 1949, the attitude of Quebec authorities with respect to the Trans-Canada Highway Act has been not only confused, but inconsistent.
Here is an article which appeared in La Presse for February 25, 1959, and in which the minister of highways of the province of Quebec is quoted as saying:
-provided that the set standards are met; however, those standards are not acceptable to the province of Quebec. In the prairie provinces, things are different: there are no expropriations-
(Text):


Mr. Chambers:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Chair has ruled earlier on questions of relevancy. The bill we are discussing extends a date and I do not believe that the remarks currently being made by the hon. member concerning the attitude of one particular province are in order at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on this very point the Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair when the ruling was made, referred to some observations I had made precisely on this point and said that they were in order. What the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont was discussing was the question of whether all the provinces were going to participate in this legislation which is applicable to all the provinces. It does not seem to me that there is any possible subject that could be more completely in order.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Speaker, I shall resume my remarks. While-
[Mr. Batten.1
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I think we should try to clear up the point of order raised by the hon. member. The hon. member certainly can refer to the province of Quebec with regard to this matter but I do not think that he should discuss the attitude of the government of Quebec toward it. He can discuss what he would like to see done in his province but I think that to discuss the attitude of the provincial government might not be relevant to the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have raised a more fundamental point of order than the one raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It is surely not going to be a new restriction upon our freedom of speech in this house to say that we cannot discuss the attitude of a provincial government with respect to legislation we are dealing with in this house in which the provincial government is to participate. I would quite agree that if we were to discuss the attitude of the provincial government to family allowances, let us say, which are paid exclusively out of the federal treasury, that might be out of order, but to say we cannot discuss the attitude of the provincial government to legislation when the legislation provides for the partnership of that provincial government in the legislation would, I think, be a very dangerous restriction indeed. I wonder whether Your Honour has considered the full implication of that point.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rea): What the Chair means is that the member cannot urge the pros and' cons of it. Certainly he can refer to their attitude. I did not mean that he could not, but we cannot get into a discussion of the pros and cons and whys and wherefores of it. That is what I was trying to explain to the hon. member.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 1959, precisely in regard to this Trans-Canada Highway Act, the minister of highways said this, and 1 am reading from the article I started to quote earlier:
In the province of Quebec, part of our towns and cities would have to be bought. In the end, this might well constitute a gift from the Greeks.
The minister observed that it would be possible to build a new road, according to federal standards, where there are no dwellings: on the other hand, in order to build the road through built up areas, practically all villages would have to disappear.
According to another article published in the Montreal Star of March 9, 1960, the provincial minister of highways added this: (Text):
Mr. Talbot added that Quebec already has fine highways crossing the province and serving as a trans-Canada link. "In addition Ottawa doesn't

help in the cost of putting up new fences, gates for existing fences, or cost of moving or adding sewers, public utilities and traffic signs," the minister said.
(Translation):
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an article dated March 18, 1959, when the government of the province of Quebec received a brief from the highway transport association urging the provinces to parley with Ottawa so that the province of Quebec might share in the funds made available to the province for the trans-Canada highway. I quote:
Included in the brief were the resolutions passed at the convention held in Montreal last February. One of the resolutions expressed the hope that an agreement be reached, so that the federal government might pay to the province of Quebec the amounts "to which it is entitled" for the trans-Canada highway. It added that other provinces had already received $157,494,650 for the same purpose.
In explaining his disagreement with this request, Mr. Rivard stated that Quebec did not need any money from Ottawa for a trans-Canada highway, because we already have four up-to-date highways servicing the province and linking it up with other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I should also mention that on March 9, 1960, the present premier of Quebec indicated in the legislature that an agreement with the federal government was possible, but not under present terms. We all know that, in the fall of 1959, when the premier of Quebec, hon. Mr. Sauve, attended the conference of provincial premiers here in Ottawa, he stated that, as far as he was concerned, he saw no constitutional obstacle to Quebec sharing in the benefits of this scheme, but that it was rather a business proposition to be considered on its merits by every provincial government.
In other words, the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Sauve, was definitely of the view that nothing in this act was inconsistent with provincial autonomy.
Again, on this matter of autonomy, I should like to quote from an article which appeared in Le Devoir for October 29, 1954, over the signature of Pierre Vigeant:
The tax agreements are not the only federal-provincial agreements to which the province of Quebec has refused to subscribe. There are several others, including the agreements on construction of the trans-Canada highway. Was the refusal as justified in the second case as it was in the first? Would it not be in order for the provincial government to reconsider the matter?
It seems that the answer is yes.
Perhaps the time has come for the province of Quebec to join in this co-operative effort.
It is hard to see how participation in this project could endanger provincial autonomy.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put those various articles and statements on record in order to establish quite clearly that no one has
Trans-Canada Highway Act ever been able to prove that this act encroached upon provincial autonomy. I also wanted to remind the house that it is urgent that the province of Quebec take advantage of it.
Then, there is another problem. I said earlier that so far the province of Quebec, because of its unjustified non-participation, has lost more than $30 million. Therefore, should not or could not the province of Quebec, with the co-operation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), enter into negotiations in order to recover at least a substantial part of the amounts so lost?
On this matter, I would like to read an article concerning a brief the chamber of commerce of the province submitted to the present premier of the province of Quebec and which explicitly states that:
Quebec, as we know, has always refrained from entering into agreements with the central power for the construction of its portion of the said highway. Under Mr. Duplessis, the refusal of the province has always been categorical. Under Mr. Sauve, apparently the matter was not taken up in a direct way, but he had implied that he would take it up once the problem of grants to universities had been settled.
All provinces, except Quebec, have taken advantage of the financial co-operation of Ottawa for the construction of the sections of the trans-Canada highway in their respective territories.
In its present brief, the chamber of commerce also expressed the view that representations could be made to the federal government to recover the Quebec share of the amounts which would have been voted by the central government for the development of access roads. This is another case where Quebec never accepted to enter into agreements with Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, as a representative from a constituency of the island of Montreal, I would now like to suggest, as did other hon. members, that Montreal and the province of Quebec should join with the other provinces in taking advantage of this act. Montreal is especially interested inasmuch as its population might benefit from two large projects that could be incorporated in the trans-Canada highway program.
One of the projects is the east-west superhighway already planned by the Montreal planning commission. As I have said, that super-highway along the Montreal waterfront could come under this act.
As already mentioned, the route is laid out and the federal government could contribute substantial amounts that could speed up the completion of the project and help the city of Montreal and the Quebec provincial government.
I think that east-west highway across Montreal can be likened to the local "Queensway" which was built under an agreement between the province of Ontario and the federal government under this act.

Trans-Canada Highway Act Second, the construction of the Metropolitan boulevard, also running from east to west in northern Montreal, is finished or nearly finished. That boulevard cost about $25 million. I understand that 65 per cent of that amount will be paid by the city of Montreal, and the balance by the neighbouring municipalities. In my opinion, that section could also come under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. If negotiations along these lines were undertaken by the Quebec authorities, as it is their duty to do, this would be a relief for surrounding municipalities and to all Montreal property owners whose real estate tax has never been higher than it is now.
I find it extraordinary-to say the least- that the authorities of the province of Quebec, on a problem which should not involve any difficulties in the matter of provincial autonomy, should not at least have seen fit to get in touch with this government to inquire about the possibility of coming to an agreement on that matter.
I should like to refer here to an article which appeared in La Presse on January 14, 1960, reporting a question put in this house by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker): Has the government of the province of Quebec got in touch with the federal government about the trans-Canada highway since the present minister has been in office, that is since last fall?
The Minister of Public Works replied that he had never received any communication from the authorities of the province of Quebec about the matter.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this Trans-Canada Highway Act provides for the expenditure of money for a national project which benefits all provinces. It is particularly unfair that the citizens of the province of Quebec should be paying taxes for the sole benefit of other provinces.
I also submit that the Minister of Public Works is partly responsible for that breakdown in federal-provincial relations, with regard to the trans-Canada highway. I do not think the present Minister of Public Works ever tried to undertake any negotiations with the province of Quebec. If the project is national in scope, although we know that Quebec authorities have shied away from it, I think the Minister of Public Works should have found out why the province of Quebec did not see fit to take advantage of it. Furthermore, I would ask him to enter at once into discussion, in order to put an end to that absurdity which causes the province of Quebec to lose money, and adds to the tax burden of Montreal property owners 

and of the province in general, who should benefit from a greater share of their tax outlays.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to add, although I may, a little later in the debate, or before the adoption of this bill, have other questions to ask.


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at great length on second reading of this bill this afternoon, because I had an opportunity of expressing my views on this bill at the resolution stage.
However, since it has become fashionable, particularly in the last few weeks, to go into the constitutional aspect of some of the bills submitted to the house, I think it might be interesting for all hon. members to know exactly if this bill is consonant with the constitution.
In the past, and more particularly this year, we had the opportunity of hearing government members and especially a minister of the crown express their views on the constitutional character of this legislation. I shall therefore refer to a statement of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) when he aired his views on the trans-Canada highway bill on March 4, 1959. This is what he said, as can be seen on page 1600 (page 1 of the Appendix) of last year's Hansard:
The province of Quebec has on several occasions expressed her opinion on the subject through the provincial authorities, and more particularly last week, when the provincial minister of highways said what he had in mind, stating that provincial autonomy is involved in the building of that highway and that the government of the province of Quebec cannot, at this time, accept to take any part in this project because, he said, the conditions set by the Ottawa government are not in accordance with the sovereign policy of the province.
And, a little farther down, on the same page, he stated:
Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be proper to consider the problem, to approach it in the only way it should be approached, from the angle of provincial political sovereignty. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the government consider the problem from the angle of provincial autonomy and consider the possibility of entering into arrangements which would not impose such conditions as are now being refused by the Quebec provincial government.
Thus spoke a member sitting on the government benches. Moreover on March 31, 1960, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) made the following statement, and I quote from page 2666 (page 2 of the Appendix):
The sole object of this legislation is, after all, to increase to $400 million the contributions required to complete the trans-Canada highway and to extend to December 31, 1963, the period required

for its completion. The resolution says no more and no less. It does not at all raise the matter of principle;
And a little later on, he said;
I might perhaps let it go at that. However, having long since learned to face my responsibilities,
I shall go even further and say that, in view of the wording of the 1949 act, I doubt that its provisions are contrary to section 92 of the 1867 constitutional act. Though the act does not expressly refer to the exceptions provided in paragraph 10 of section 92, it is fully in accord with the spirit of that paragraph.
I believe it would be worth while to recall that, quite recently, the former premier of Quebec, Hon. Paul Sauve, said in a press conference on T.V. that the construction of this highway was a business matter rather than a matter of autonomy.
Now, I want to refer to the statement the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) made in this house on April 26,	1960. I quote from
Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, any legislation which finds its place in only nine provinces out of ten and is not acceptable to the tenth province leaves a very great doubt as to its constitutionality.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that after having quoted the views of four government members, one of them a minister of the crown, it seems clear that, in the minds of many members in this house, and of many Canadians, and more particularly in the minds of the citizens of the province of Quebec, there is still some doubt about the constitutionality of this act.
Therefore-and this was my only purpose in joining in the discussion this afternoon- I would ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) to indicate whether, in his opinion, the Trans-Canada Highway Act is constitutional, either in the terms of the act itself or with regard to the conditions set under the act.
I would therefore ask him to answer this question, when he rises to end the debate on the second reading of the bill. The matter must be clarified for all concerned, and there must be no doubt that the Liberal party, in introducing this act in 1949, in no way encroached upon provincial autonomy. I would therefore ask him to indicate whether this act is constitutional or not.
(Text):


Mr. W. H. Payne (Coast-Capilano):: In joining the discussion on the subject before the house this afternoon there are a few matters I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members. In doing so I should like to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and to his predecessor
Trans-Canada Highway Act on the fact that for the first time in all the years the trans-Canada program has been operated, it has become a truly trans-Canada highway.
Speaking earlier on this subject, hon. members of this house have stated that the trans-Canada highway ends at Vancouver. I think it is most important to point out that the trans-Canada highway has an extensive connection on Vancouver island from Victoria up to Campbell River. But even more important than the island, a link was necessary along the north shore to connect the highway to the port of Horseshoe Bay where ferries transport vehicles from the lower mainland to the highway on Vancouver island itself. This extensive gap was not recognized for many years until the present and immediately previous minister of public works determined that this section running from the Second Narrows on Burrard inlet through to Horseshoe Bay should be considered part of the trans-Canada highway.
In making these remarks I must admit it is not with any surprise that British Columbia members realize that hon. members from the rest of Canada do not recognize what the trans-Canada highway program consists of in British Columbia, for in our province we have an odd situation. Our roads, both the trans-Canada highway and the others, are not built by joint co-operation between governments; they are not even built by the province, but by a strange, garrulous and bombastic individual by the name of Gaglardi, according to his publicity. I say this to bring to the attention of the house the fact that this essential link from the Second Narrows to Horseshoe Bay is not recognized by the public as a part of the trans-Canada highway system. Again I want to pay my compliments to the minister for including this vital link in this program. I would ask again that during the meetings to take place in June with the provinces he should review the policies of co-operation with regard to the Second Narrows bridge itself, an essential link between the north shore and the south shore on Burrard inlet. I trust that in such negotiations he may be able, as I realize he would wish, to ensure that this great structure should be toll-free to the motorists and a proper part of the trans-Canada highway system.
On the subject of the trans-Canada highway routing I think it might be proper to state that while those who have not visited our beautiful west coast do not recognize it, extensive population centres exist up the

Trans-Canada Highway Act coast on the mainland, the chief community of which is the city of Powell River, home of the world's largest pulp and paper industry. Here again I would hope the minister might enter some discussion to see if it might be possible to extend the trans-Canada highway, in co-operation with the province of British Columbia, from Horseshoe Bay to Squamish, thence making the connecting link of road from Squamish to Port Mellon, thus avoiding the current necessity of a most unsatisfactory ferry service from Horseshoe Bay to Granthams Landing. Then extending the road from Port Mellon up to the Sunshine coast to join with Powell River across Jarvis inlet. I think this extension of the trans-Canada route would be of great value not only to those living in these up-coast towns but to people everywhere throughout this dominion.
In closing I again reiterate my congratulations to the minister and to his predecessor for recognizing, at long last, this very essential link in the trans-Canada highway project, that is, from the Second Narrows bridge on Burrard inlet through to Horseshoe Bay.


Hazen Robert Argue: The bill before the house is disappointing, I think, in that it is so limited in its application. We had hoped, from statements made in a similar discussion last year by the former minister of public works, that the government would have brought forth an over-all highway policy for this country.
There is no doubt that there is a need to extend the provisions of the Trans-Canada Highway Act in order to allow the provinces which have been slow in construction the opportunity to continue their construction so that we may at some time in the future have an adequate trans-Canada highway system. But this bill, being the government's major highway program for this year, apart from the roads to resources program, is a disappointment in the light of the promises made to the Canadian people that the government would not be satisfied with merely a continuation of the very narrow program which had been instigated by the previous administration. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made this very clear during the election campaign. He said, for example, in Toronto on February 4, 1957:
I am one of those who believe that a national highway policy should be launched to provide highways for peace, and defence highways should war come.
We are still looking for this highway policy for peace, these roads designed to provide Canada with adequate highway and road


facilities. It is certainly not contained in this present bill and it is not contained in any indication which the government has given to the house during the course of this session. As a matter of fact, when we asked whether the government was considering any extension of the trans-Canada highway program all we received was the nebulous answer: this is still under consideration, it is a question of government policy to be announced in due course. The government has no policy. Certainly no indication of any has been given so far. All we are being asked to pass is an amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide for an aggregate expenditure of $400 million, an increase in the aggregate of $50 million.
I think there are good reasons why Canada should have a comprehensive highway program, and good reasons why the federal government should bear part of the cost of such a program. The bill before the house indicates that the government, like the former government, has accepted the principle that at least as far as one main highway in the country is concerned the dominion government should bear some financial responsibility and assume responsibility for leadership with regard to construction. I think it is very much in the national interest that there should be an extension of this program.
I am one who believes-as we thought the Prime Minister used to believe-that there is need for additional highways, or a second trans-Canada highway, if you will, or for further main arterial highways to be constructed running north and south, with federal assistance, in order to provide more adequate road facilities. I think more adequate highways are necessary for a great many reasons. I think they are necessary because of local needs of transportation, including the need of roads for school buses.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest there has already been a ruling from the Chair earlier this afternoon that this debate be confined to the second reading of the bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act and that the debate not be allowed to lead down other byroads and side roads.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. It is a well-known fact that on second reading of any bill, on the principle of the bill, discussion can be broad and general. I think it is very much in order to suggest an extension of the moneys provided in the bill or a

contraction. I would suggest that a perusal of the statements that have been made on this question this afternoon will show a very wide-ranging discussion-much wider than anything I have attempted-getting into the question of federal-provincial financial arrangements, the federal government's policy with regard to the province of Quebec and the whole field of equalization grants and the principles that are applied. I would suggest that this year, just as last year when I raised this very same matter on the trans-Canada highway bill, it is in order to discuss-as has been done by hon. members and as was done by the hon. member who just sat down-* an extension of this particular act and the provisions of this act to other sections of a trans-Canada highway or other roads in this country.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be lenient because under the rules of the house as they have been applied for many years, when discussing the principle of a bill some latitude in discussion is allowed. I would suggest that it is very much in order to discuss what additional provisions should be made as far as the highway policy is concerned or an extension of this act. I would not think it would be in order to take 40 minutes to discuss something that is not in this bill. However, if one relates what is in the bill to other matters associated with it, I think that procedure is very much in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question of discussing a second trans-Canada highway or byroads was raised at the beginning of the discussion this afternoon. I think there was general agreement on all sides of the house that this matter would not be relevant to the bill. A general reference might be in order. I would ask the co-operation of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) because I think he was going a little bit too far when he was interrupted. I would ask his co-operation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am perfectly willing to endeavour to abide by the ruling as you have laid it down, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the chamber when Mr. Speaker made the statement to which you have referred. I do not know whether or not Your Honour was in the chamber or whether you have read it. I am not wishing to comment on it in any case. But I was informed that this ruling had to do with discussion of the details of the proposal for a second trans-Canada highway, something which I say is different from saying that we should have an over-all transportation policy to meet the needs of this country and that there should be an extension of the principles of this measure.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
The money that is being provided in this act will not accrue to all of the provinces in this country. Of those provinces that obtain money under this new act or the changed act some will, of course, receive money in much different proportion from that received by other provinces. This situation arises from the fact that a good deal of progress has been made in the building of the trans-Canada highway in some provinces and relatively little progress has been made in some other provinces.
I have in my hand the report of the proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the last year available, namely the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959. It sets forth the construction accomplishments under this act up to that time. I am not going to quote all of the figures. I am merely going to point out that many provinces have a large mileage yet to be constructed. The province of Newfoundland has 502 miles still unpaved; Prince Edward Island has one mile. In other words, up to that time in Prince Edward Island the trans-Canada highway was almost completed. Nova Scotia had 90 miles to go, New Brunswick 72 miles, Ontario 349 miles, Manitoba 16 miles, Alberta 6 miles and British Columbia 209 miles; national parks 63 miles. Out of a total mileage through national parks of 143, the federal government had succeeded up to that time in paving just 80 miles. Saskatchewan was the only province up to that point that had completed its section of the trans-Canada highway.
We need a broader highway policy in order to make such highway facilities available to Canadians who wish to travel; to Canadians in their own business undertakings; to Canadians who need to obtain various services, some of them as important as emergency hospital and medical services.
I suggest to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) that an expenditure of money on an accelerated highway program at this time-that is accelerated in order to speed up the completion of the trans-Canada highway and to provide other main highway facilities in this country-is money well invested. I think the government should not look at money spent on the trans-Canada highway in the narrow sense of some other moneys that are currently spent in the budget. Rather, I think the money spent under this act should be considered a capital investment and, as far as our national government is concerned, a self-liquidating investment.
I am convinced that money spent on adequate highway facilities in this country-

Trans-Canada Highway Act completion of the trans-Canada highway, an auxiliary or secondary trans-Canada highway and other main north-south roads connecting with international highways in the United States-would return great dividends to the Canadian nation. Even from the revenue position of the federal government, considering the additional money that would come from tourist traffic and the additional money spent by Canadians, I am positive that this is an investment that would be very much a paying proposition.
At a time when our tourist trade is on the decline and when we have a larger and larger imbalance in our foreign accounts I would think that the government would be farsighted if it were embarking on a program of highway development in order to attract tourists into this country and in order to reduce the imbalance in Canada's international payments.
There are other reasons why an acceleration of this program would be very much in order at this time. The government cannot claim that we are not in a position to do the work, that we lack construction equipment, that we lack personnel for such a highway program. Contractors have been looking for work in recent years. We are told that some of the machinery has been idle because of lack of opportunities for construction, and we know that half a million Canadians are unemployed. Why should the country be allowed to stagnate? Why should the government not take a lead in providing necessary highway facilities when those are so obviously in the national interests of our country?
The government had a vision before the election, but the election is over and the vision has disappeared. Now we have just the same warmed-over program that the government inherited from the previous administration. We have statements made by the Prime Minister on television that representations about a second trans-Canada highway have been received, but he is not meeting the provinces on this question. As far as I have been able to find out he is not considering at this time an accelerated highway program, nor is the government considering an extension of the present measure.
I think the government should be doing everything to encourage those provinces that have so far lagged behind in construction of this highway. As the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) pointed out, I think additional measures will have to be taken by the government to bolster the financial position of at least some of the provinces and that on the basis of an exact formula, a

fair formula, the government should consider increasing the amount of money paid under this act.
As far back as 1916 the United States inaugurated a federal system of roads, and in that nation because of federal leadership, they have built a system of interstate highways, state highways and local farm to market roads largely because the federal government has been paying money into the building of those roads. In Canada our vision has been narrow, it has been short. This government is paying into this highway and it is putting into the roads to resources program.
The people of the province of British Columbia can be very critical, I believe, of their own provincial government. I leave that to them. But they certainly have a legitimate claim that this government should embark on a secondary trans-Canada highway. The people of Alberta are in much the same position. The people of Manitoba think in exactly the same way. I think the people of Saskatchewan feel more aggrieved on this question than the people of any other province, because the province of Saskatchewan was the province which co-operated so well, so readily, so closely and so efficiently with the previous administration that it completed its section of the trans-Canada highway in
1957.	Since that time the government of Saskatchewan has been endeavouring to impress upon the federal government the need to embark on a more extensive highway program. There is a large file of correspondence that has been exchanged between the government of Saskatchewan and various federal ministers on this question but to no avail. Today the government of Saskatchewan stands ready and anxious. It demands a chance to co-operate with the federal government in an extension of this very program.


David James Walker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Assiniboia is not on the hustings; he is in the House of Commons. He seems to forget that. Already you have ruled twice this afternoon that a discussion of a secondary trans-Canada highway is out of order. I do not care except that many hon. members on this side of the house have been denied the privilege of expressing their views on the subject because they agreed with your ruling. The hon. member for Assiniboia, who recognizes no law except his own, continues to thwart the ruling of the Chair. I would ask you to call him to order, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the minister is out of order himself.


David James Walker: Never mind what you think.
May we have a ruling?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. This ill-mannered, ill-tempered, junior minister of the government-


Mr. Ricard:: You are looking at yourself in the mirror.


Hazen Robert Argue: -should not, in raising a point of order, talk about such things as not being on the hustings and the other extraneous matters that he raised in his so-called point of order. This point has been raised before, Mr. Speaker. We had your ruling a few moments ago. I was endeavouring to abide by it. I was not saying-


David James Walker: For 10 minutes he has not said anything but talk about a second trans-Canada highway.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am rather surprised that the minister does not know he cannot raise a point of order when another point of order is being discussed.


Mr. Graffley:: It is the same one.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought a man of his alleged intelligence-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not like this kind of repartee, but I suggest to you, sir, that it was the minister who started this kind of thing.
Mr. Pallet!: You had better go back to Montreal and get a new text.


Hazen Robert Argue: Put that on the record; go ahead. The chief whip just whispers something to the Hansard reporter; he has been doing it all afternoon. If I may go on to the point of order, I believe that I was in order in what I was discussing when the point of order was raised.


David James Walker: Why?


Hazen Robert Argue: What I was discussing was the request by the government of Saskatchewan for an interview to discuss with this government an extension of this act. That had nothing to do with discussing the details of a second trans-Canada highway. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it has to do very closely with this act, and that the request was for a discussion of an amendment that would make this act applicable to the government of Saskatchewan.
Before you rise, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. In my 15 years in the House of Commons I have never had points of order raised by government members on the second reading of a bill as has been done on this occasion and on other occasions. I would suggest that there is a definite drive on the part of the government to endeavour to get Your Honour to restrict, more than has been
Trans-Canada Highway Act the practice in this house, discussion on the second reading of a bill. I submit with respect that in the discussion of a bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act it is very much in order to refer to consultations that have gone on between governments as to possible improvements in the act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I listened to the hon. member I was going to rise myself because I thought his reference to the extension of the act because a certain province had completed or nearly completed its section of the trans-Canada highway could have application only to a second trans-Canada highway. Therefore I consider that the hon. member is not relevant. I would also draw his attention to the fact that the question of a second trans-Canada highway or the policy of the government concerning highways may be discussed on other occasions. The principle of the bill is, of course, to extend the act for a further period and to provide an additional amount for the present trans-Canada highway. Therefore, even if we want to extend latitude to hon. members I do not think the points that the hon. member was discussing are relevant. I would ask his cooperation as there will be ample opportunity to discuss these matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing a similar bill on March 4, 1959 we discussed the possibility of the government making a statement as to its highway policy. On that occasion, as found at page 1603 of Hansard, the former minister of public works, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), had this to say in reply to a question of mine:
The officials of the department have, of course, been studying the best type of highway policy to follow the completion of the trans-Canada highway program. I am not yet at liberty to disclose what policy would be followed at that time. All of these points which the hon. member and other members of the house have raised in the course of this debate will be very carefully considered in this connection.
There was a long discussion. I have quoted this passage for the record today, not on the point of order but as an indication that the government has retreated from what appeared to be a broadening of its highway policy as indicated by the discussion last year when we were considering this very act. I am exceedingly disappointed, after having this indication from the former minister of public works, that the indication today is that the government does not intend to consider anything beyond the very words contained in the bill.
I do not think it necessarily follows that to advocate an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway Act you have to have a second

Trans-Canada Highway Act trans-Canada highway. As the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Payne), I believe, said, there can be particular sections within a particular province-


Mr, Walker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling this afternoon which deprived many government members of the opportunity to discuss a second trans-Canada highway. I raised a point of order, and the hon. member for Assiniboia, whom you found to be out of order, continues to persist in flouting the ruling of the Chair. This is the second time he has done so. Would the hon. member be good enough to wait until I have finished? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member persists in flouting your ruling you should again bring him to order. He is continuing to discuss a second trans-Canada highway.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the hon. gentleman is very ill-informed. I have said that to discuss the extension of the trans-Canada highway does not necessarily mean that you have to ask for a second trans-Canada highway and that that had already been made clear in the house this afternoon. Surely if a particular province wishes another 10 miles to be built the hon. gentleman is not going to say that is another 5,000 or 6,000 mile trans-Canada highway. The point I was trying to make did not have to do with a second trans-Canada highway but with the refusal of the minister to meet with the Saskatchewan government.
I think the attitude of the minister has been contemptible in failing to meet with the provincial government when requested to do so to discuss this very policy and the very act that is now before the house. I can scarcely believe that this was the attitude of the minister. When he replies he will be able to explain why, at least for one province, the door of consultation has been closed and why a provincial government which has co-operated fully in the past as far as this act is concerned should not have a full opportunity to discuss its provisions with the minister involved.
If one looks at the mileage that has been built under the act and the mileage remaining to be built he needs no further proof that the legislation as it stands today is inadequate and ineffective as far as completing even a single trans-Canada highway is concerned. Not only is the government anxious that discussion be limited to the very words contained in the bill, to say nothing of the principle of the bill, but the government apparently is not willing to

endeavour to formulate a policy that will speed up construction of the trans-Canada highway.
I ask the minister if the people of Canada are going to have to wait until December, 1963 to get a statement of government policy. Are the people of Canada to be denied even a single trans-Canada highway for many years to come because the government has failed to meet this problem? I do not know why the government is in such great retreat. This was the government that believed in expansion. This was the government that had a vision. But the vision is so narrow today that all the minister is prepared to do is to extend for a further period the ineffective and inadequate policy followed by the former administration. That policy was under heavy attack by the Progressive Conservative party when it was in opposition but now that it forms the government and its members occupy the treasury benches apparently it is prepared to continue indefinitely the very narrow scope provided by the act.
I would hope that when the minister speaks in closing the debate on second reading he will give the house some indication of what the government's attitude is toward an accelerated trans-Canada highway program and when the government intends, as promised by the former minister, to enunciate its highway policy. I challenge the minister to meet the government of Saskatchewan, to remove this discrimination and quit making Saskatchewan something of a scapegoat. I would think that the province of Saskatchewan, known so well by the Prime Minister, a province whose people have been so loyal to the Prime Minister on so many occasions, would get not preferential but equal treatment, and I suggest that under the present federal administration the province of Saskatchewan is today getting inferior and shabby treatment. We in this group are looking toward a highway policy that will mean the early completion of the trans-Canada highway and provide adequate roads for an expanding and growing nation.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I, in turn, add a few words in support of this legislation, since we were all agreed in this house that the trans-Canada highway is of a great importance to the country and therefore to all provinces, including the province of Quebec.
You are undoubtedly aware, Mr. Speaker, that this year again we have heard nothing of the share which the province of Quebec

should be getting under this legislation. In previous years, some of the present ministers made statements to the effect that they were on excellent terms with the Quebec government and that there was every reason to believe that they could obtain the cooperation of the present Quebec government. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) said so on many occasions. I further remember the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) also saying that particular attention would be given to any request from the province of Quebec, and that some arrangement was desirable and even probable. In fact, according to the present Minister of Public Works, there was possibility of agreement being reached so that the province of Quebec would benefit from this legislation.
Unfortunately, Quebec premiers succeeded each other without any of them bringing about a solution. However, we have lately read the statement of the present Prime Minister to the effect that the legislation was not acceptable to the province and inconsistent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member allow me to point out that there is nothing in this bill, nor even in the act which the bill purports to amend, which deals with the province of Quebec or its participation in the program. I therefore fail to see the relevancy of any of the remarks he has made so far.


Azellus Denis: With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and for your function, may I point out that there is reference in the bill to the extension of this legislation until 1963. Therefore, if nobody warns the present government that the province of Quebec has not yet benefited from that legislation, it means that in 1963, the province of Quebec will be left high and dry.
Section 7, mentions that "a certain amount not to exceed $400 million will be spent." I therefore believe, with regard to the sums spent by the government under that legislation, and which should benefit this country and the provinces, that the province of Quebec is interested in knowing, first of all, what amount will be spent under the act and how much time remains for the province to adhere to this legislation.
I think, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for your decision, that Quebec, more than any other province, is interested in taking advantage of this legislation, and that is why I wanted to say that Quebec should benefit from it.
79951-0-213
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that it is up to the government of the province of Quebec, and to the Quebec legislature, to take a position to this effect, and that it is not a responsibility of hon. members of this house to take decisions on behalf of the Quebec government or its legislature.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I am completely m agreement with your statement. However, I think it is proper for the representative of St. Denis, as for all other hon. members in this house, to warn this government that if it believes in good understanding, and in the national interest-if it believes in assisting and developing this country, it should try to reach some agreement with any province, whether it be Quebec or Ontario, particularly after the statements made over the years to the effect that there was some question of an agreement being concluded.
I therefore, Mr. Speaker, ask the present minister to carry out his promises and show his good will towards the government of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, if you rule that the province of Quebec has no say in the matter, since it has not benefited from the advantages resulting from that legislation, well, I will change -the pattern of my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member to change the nature of his speech. He may have the opportunity, when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are considered, to deal with the administration of the Trans-Canada Highway Act. His remarks will then perhaps be relevant; however, in the present context, they are not.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I respectfully submit that if, in the light of the principle on which you base your ruling, we may not now discuss the relations between the federal government and the province of Quebec, I fail to see how we could, when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are submitted to the house, deal with the attitude of the province of Quebec, since Bill C-57 is national in scope, thus providing for contributions to all provinces. Now, if I correctly understood the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), I am of the opinion that as a member from the province of Quebec, he was trying to find out why the province of Quebec has not benefited from that act. If the hon. mem-

Trans-Canada Highway Act ber for St. Denis had been allowed to go on with his remarks, I think we would have realized that he was about to criticize this government for not having taken the necessary steps, and for not having inquired from the Quebec authorities about the motives preventing them from taking advantage of that act.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in this context, the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Denis were in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think the remarks of the hon. member are in order, because the bill does not refer to the province of Quebec. It is merely a matter of extending the period during which contributions may be paid to the provinces, and of increasing the amount of the expenditures authorized under the act. There is no reference in the bill to representations or to the application of the act in the province of Quebec.
As to whether the point raised by the hon. member for St. Denis may be discussed when the estimates of the Department of Public Works comes up before the house, a proper decision can be taken at the time. I referred to this possibility only to illustrate the reason for my ruling.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, when you say there is no reference to the province of Quebec in Bill C-57 which is now placed before us by the present government, let me point out to you that under the terms of Bill C-57, the province of Quebec is a province like the others, because in the explanatory notes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have made my ruling, and I see no need to discuss the matter further.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest we call it six o'clock?
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, before recess we were speaking of that legislation, and more particularly of the benefits it might bring to the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, you decided that hon. members from 
the province of Quebec had no right to discuss any advantages the act might bring to Quebec, even if the province has had no benefit from it for several years.
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation is of more particular interest to the province of Quebec because one section mentions that the act would be in effect only until December 1963. That is why I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) did not come to some arrangement with the province of Quebec, there would be danger of the province never benefiting from it.
Since the legislation was passed in the national interest; since it is to the national advantage of this country, and since I feel that the province of Quebec is part of Canada and that, contrary to the views of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), an act does not become unconstitutional because it is satisfactory to nine provinces only and not ten, I submit with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that I have the right to discuss the matter. As a matter of fact, when university grants were discussed, the Solicitor General mentioned on several occasions various premiers who succeeded each other in the province.
He referred to Messrs. Barrette, Sauve and Duplessis, and, every once in a while, he reverted to the subject. If it was permissible for the Solicitor General to talk about his province in the matter of the universities, I believe it is also permissible for the humble member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) to speak about his province, with regard to a different bill.
The hon. member for St. Denis is aware that the province of Quebec has not yet taken advantage of this act, one that will lapse, in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, after 1963, because the act will then be annulled.
Yet, the Minister of Public Works, as well as members generally, are of the opinion that the trans-Canada highway is of vital importance for this country, in peacetime as well as in wartime, and for its development, because who knows what the future may hold for a country like ours?
I have explained that one of the most important, if not the most important, of the provinces had decided it could not take advantage of this bill because it is unacceptable to her.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Public Works, that instead of letting the province of Quebec stand by itself and say that this bill is unacceptable, instead of merely saying himself: "It is acceptable", he should ask the Quebec government: "Why is it unacceptable?"
That is why I ask the Minister of Public Works to be a minister for all ten of the provinces and not only for nine of them.
He is aware that, maybe for electoral or other reasons-I do not want to impute motives to anyone-it is possible, because we once had a Liberal government in Ottawa. While the Quebec government was the Union Nationale, it is possible that for electoral or other reasons-I am not accusing anyone-it is possible that the Union Nationale which was entrusted with the future of the province of Quebec was not interested in finding an answer to the problem.
It is possible that there were certain reasons that we know nothing about, underlying or implicit reasons-call them what you will, Mr. Speaker, for which no agreement was possible.
It is a known fact the the present government is on good terms with the present Quebec government.


Mr. Rouleau:: They go hand in hand.


Azellus Denis: They co-operate hand in hand. It is also known that the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have stated that there was good cooperation. I would therefore suggest that the Minister of Public Works, while taking his responsibilities, ask the Quebec government why this bill is unacceptable to Quebec, and which provisions are unacceptable. I think the present Minister of Public Works has a duty to write or get in touch in some way with the Quebec authorities. After all, Quebec is no different from the other provinces, and if grants are due to the provinces, Quebec is entitled to them just as much as Ontario, for instance.


An hon. Member:: Vote Lesage.


Azellus Denis: I would like the Minister of Public Works to get in touch with the premier of Quebec who, at the present time, regards this act as unacceptable. Have no fear, the members who are friends of the Quebec government and the other members will still support this bill, even if their provincial leader says it is unacceptable. They will 79951-0-2134
Trans-Canada Highway Act decide that it is constitutional for nine provinces, and unconstitutional for one province, and vice versa, as the situation requires.
I therefore urge the Minister of Public Works to kindly ask the Quebec provincial government why Quebec cannot take advantage of the bill, which of its provisions would have to be amended, which of them are harmful or encroach upon provincial autonomy? What are the monetary, financial and other conditions? We should then know just why the province of Quebec refuses to have anything to do with the present program which is excellent, I think.
As a matter of fact I should say-if I may be excused for taking somewhat after the present government-that this is Liberal legislation. As you know, hon. members opposite never miss an opportunity of saying that this or that is Conservative legislation. Well this one is truly a Liberal one. And were it not for such Liberal legislation, leaving the Conservative party what little lingering popularity it still has I think this Conservative government would be pretty short-lived.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like the Minister of Public Works to give us the assurance that he is going to get in touch with the authorities of the province of Quebec. I ask the minister-and I am going to repeat my question to the Minister of Public Works, as he is probably going to have discussions with his counterpart in Quebec- I am in no hurry, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: My colleague is trying to explain the situation to him, but it is difficult.


Azellus Denis: When the minister has
finished his conversation with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Tassd), he might be able to answer the questions I put to him; but if he does not listen, no wonder we never get any answers to our questions.
It is important that the Minister of Public Works tell us whether he will finally get in touch with the province of Quebec so that we might learn why it does not support this bill. What clauses are not acceptable to the Quebec premier? What clauses should be amended? What sum of money is it not acceptable?
I listened carefully this afternoon to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) when he pointed out that the provincial minister seemed to suggest that mention was made of fences and gates which
3376	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act are not included in the agreement. Maybe the minister could add a few gates so that the Quebec government might accept and then my province will get a few million dollars if it is only a matter of a few missing posts or signs-
I am told that it has been suggested that the highway would mean the razing of some towns and villages. Could the Minister of Public Works make arrangements with the provincial government so that those towns or villages could be by-passed; perhaps then the hon. premier of Quebec could agree to this project. Those are all ridiculous objections, I think, which prevent us from sharing in the funds expended on the trans-Canada highway which, being of vital importance to the country, is evidently so to the province of Quebec, as to the province of Ontario and to all others.
Therefore, I think that the present Minister of Public Works should be concerned about this refusal by the province of Quebec to share in this project. It is all the more important because if the province of Quebec decided to participate in this project, the amount that we are asked to vote might not be large enough, for we know that not a single mile of highway has been built in the province of Quebec under this project, while the other provinces have largely taken advantage of it.
I am told also there are at least 413 miles of highway to be built in the province of Quebec.
Our Conservative friends from Quebec claim that our roads are very good. Well, I have here an analysis of the estimates of the highway department, made in 1957 by the Canadian Good Roads Association. It shows that the amounts per capita spent by each province for their roads are as follows:
Newfoundland, $27 per capita.
Prince Edward Island, $40 per capita.
Nova Scotia, $47 per capita.
New Brunswick, $43 per capita.
Quebec, $26 per capita.
Ontario, $45 per capita.
Manitoba, $28 per capita.
Saskatchewan, $31 per capita.
Alberta, $51 per capita.
British Columbia, $50 per capita.
Average for all Canada, $45 per capita.
And it is suggested, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec, with expenditures of $26 per capita, has done its duty as far as roads are concerned.


I have here a statement from the highway transport association, which says:
The highway transport operators finally hope that Quebec come to some agreement with Ottawa, so that the province of Quebec might recover-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for St. Denis realizes that I have given him much latitude; but I notice that he wanders further and further away from the subject matter, because he is now discussing the policy of the Quebec provincial minister of highways, which has no connection whatsoever with the bill now before us. I hope the hon. member will henceforth cooperate, in view of the latitude which has been allowed him until now.


Azellus Denis: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the latitude you have given me, and you probably did so because I was not out of order.
As I was attempting to show the proportion between the efforts made by the various provinces, and also to prove that Quebec had not done its full share, I had to mention that some important organizations in my province were hoping that an agreement might be reached between the present Minister of Public Works and the premier of Quebec. Consequently, I had to prove the importance of taking advantage of the minister's good will towards Quebec. And if the Liberals, the citizens of the province of Quebec, do not approve of the policy of the Conservative party or the Union Nationale, let at least the minister's good will towards the province of Quebec allow those sums of money which are being spent all over the country to benefit the province of Quebec as well.
I say that in Quebec, we do not have the highways we need. One of the reasons why we did not agree to the arrangement, according to the Union Nationale, is that we have excellent highways. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we have excellent highways almost everywhere, why does not the present minister ask Quebec authorities to mention those that are not excellent, so that we may know exactly where we are, and that we may do something about it.
Take for instance, the case of Montreal, which has a population of over a million people. The citizens of that city are up against great difficulties at this time. On the northern side, there is the Metropolitan boulevard, and the municipal authorities have prepared plans for a super-highway running east-west on the southern side. The trans-Canada

highway will necessarily have to go through there. Why could not the authorities of that city get some of the funds made available by the present government?
Have no fear, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to suggest a second trans-Canada highway. Bad enough that, so far, we have no such highway at all in the province of Quebec.
However, with regard to those two highways, perhaps the present Minister of Public Works could ask the government to tell us to which of those two constructions it would be prepared to contribute. The province of Quebec could thus share in the advantages of the act, at least in Montreal, and at the same time we should know whether the additional amount of $50 million that we are asked to vote would be enough.
I understand that the Minister of Public Works has increased the amount by $50 million, for he knew full well-as he is prepared to say-that Quebec would still turn down the program, for if the Quebec government changed its mind and decided to join the program this year, and went ahead and built the 400 miles of highway called for under the act, it is not a mere $50 million that would be needed, but a hundred million dollars. Therefore, would the minister indicate whether the amount that would be needed, if Quebec did accept to join the program, is included in the $50 million added to the total amount to be spent.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I thought I was dealing with a request to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act by adding $50 million as our contribution to the provinces and by extending the time for the completion of the highway. However, I find myself in a fascinating position tonight. I have been invited by my good friend the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget)-he is a great friend of mine-to become a constitutional authority and to give a constitutional answer for the benefit of the loyal opposition and, I am sure, for the benefit of the opposition in the province of Quebec. I have also been asked a question by that Bob Hope of the House of Commons, that straight man, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).
Trans-Canada Highway Act I am honoured also to think that we can get his mind away from post office robberies and on to this subject. Even if it is not on the subject, at least he is addressing questions to me and I am really honoured. This is the first time in my career that I have drawn his attention and I am really greatly honoured. I hope he will continue. I have not had as much attention in a long time.
I am asked whether Quebec is going to participate and whether I think Quebec should participate. All I want to do in answering the hon. member for Levis and the hon. member for St. Denis is to say this. If the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Barrette, is always as able, good, wise and charming as he was in his visit to Toronto last week when he captivated that city and that province, I think the premier of Quebec can manage his own affairs and he does not need any advice from the new Minister of Public Works for Canada.


Azellus Denis: Will the minister permit a question?


David James Walker: Yes.


Azellus Denis: Does the minister mean that if he is as good, wise and charming, he is going to accept this contribution?


David James Walker: I did not quite catch the last part of the question.


Azellus Denis: Does the minister mean that if he is as good, charming, wise and popular, he will accept participation in this project?


David James Walker: One of the fundamentals that I learned as a youngster-and I have never forgotten it in the practice of law-is that one should mind one's own business. I therefore do not pretend to interpret the mind of the premier of Quebec. All I can say at the present time is that we are dealing with nine provinces. Put on the horn, my friend, and listen in on this. At some time my hon. friend might try that solution himself. If he did so, we would of course be deprived of a great deal of humour in this House of Commons. I appreciate that fact.
May I say this. I know that Quebec can manage its own affairs and that Quebec certainly would not seek advice from a Torontonian. That really means something. I am sure the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) would not even suggest that anybody from Quebec should ask advice from Ontario.
May we tonight come back to realities just for a few minutes. We have not discussed this subject since some of the hon. members of

Trans-Canada Highway Act the government here followed the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill). This has been a heyday. It has been a picnic. We have had a lovely time on constitutional rights, the interpretation of the mind of the premier of the province of Quebec, second highways, extra highways, this, that and the other thing, plus all-round condemnation with trenchant blows from that conqueror from Assiniboia who has just returned from the hustings and who forgets always that he is in the House of Commons. May I bring him back to realities and correct him, if he will permit me to do so. He is a very good friend of mine. We are fellow sufferers. We both study French. We take French from the same professor. I admit that he is making great progress. I am a little bit jealous of him because I do not shine along that line.
But may I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), so that he will not feel too hurt, that never since I became the Minister of Public Works-and that is only a period of nine months-have I ever received a request either from the Saskatchewan government or any member of the Saskatchewan cabinet for a conference. I am always open for conferences. I have sometimes five, six and up to 12 delegations a day, assisted ably by my friend, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Tassel, who always sits in on these conferences. I cannot think of any more delightful experience than that of having a delegation from the province of Saskatchewan. I would ask my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia to extend on my behalf an invitation to the premier- the Black Douglas-or any member of the Saskatchewan government because I always like to see what makes these socialists tick.
Just to show how broadminded I am, I had a meeting with Hon. P. A. Gaglardi, minister of highways of British Columbia. He was in to see me the other day and we had a very pleasant time. I know I would do the same with Mr. Douglas. May I say this. The premier of that province did have a conference on highways with the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). I think they discussed highways before I came in.
In connection with the province of Saskatchewan and its role, I should like to deal with that matter as I deal briefly with this bill. This is a simple bill. There is nothing to it. All we are trying to do is finish up what we started eleven years ago and is not yet finished. We are the people who are putting up a sum of money; I refer to the dominion government. Unfortunately, we have not the conduct of this highway. We check it and


when the work is done we pay our share. Whether it is finished or not, I am not going to blame anyone; but I object to hon. members of the opposition blaming the dominion government. We did not set up the manner in which this highway was to be completed. It was done by our predecessors, and I am not even blaming them for it. All I am saying is that I am attempting to complete one of the grandest enterprises entered into by Canada since Sir John A. Macdonald brought about the completion of the unification of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific by a railway.
Let me now talk about this highway and get it cleaned up. The bill contains two simple clauses providing for $50 million more and an extension of the time. As to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I thought I would test him out this afternoon. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) always told me that if you do not say anything he falls fairly flat; but if you interrupt him he blows up and carries on with great gusto. I therefore did not say a word to all the challenges he threw out, all the innuendoes and all the rhetoric. After about 20 minutes he just faded away. I was very happy to note that fact. As long as I am minister I shall always endeavour to use that method with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
It was a wonderful exhibition we had this afternoon of twisting and turning. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), who spoke very ably today and on the resolution, spoke in the same way in 1956. He is a member from Newfoundland. I appreciate the problems of Newfoundland and I appreciated the way in which he spoke. He has been consistent throughout. But the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for the first 20 minutes was very eloquent in support of something that he steadfastly opposed all the time he was a member of the government, namely any change in the participation on a percentage basis of the provinces and the dominion in the completion of this highway.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he remember when, on a similar occasion, he took me to task because I was discussing a matter concerning the department of the Minister of Transport, and he was not here although it was on a motion to go into supply? Does he think that under the circumstances he should attack the member when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is not in his seat? Is there any difference between the two situations?


David James Walker: There is a great difference. I thank the hon. member for Laurier for asking that infantile question. When he attacked the Minister of Transport it was on a supply motion. The Minister of Transport had a long standing engagement which the hon. member knew about, and the attack was launched when the minister was not here.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order.


David James Walker: I am replying to the question. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is supposed to be here.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order; the Minister of Public Works has said that the Minister of Transport had an engagement that I knew about at the time of the debate on the supply motion. I say here on my responsibility that I knew of no such engagement, and the Minister of Public Works has to accept my word. He must accept the word of a member of parliament under these circumstances. I am still on the point, sir.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: State your
point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment.


David James Walker: You see the difference.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not see the difference, because the minister is trying to be facetious-


David James Walker: No, I am very serious.


Lionel Chevrier: -and he is not succeeding. I should like to continue and say that when a motion to go into supply has been announced by the house leader a minister of the crown should be in his place.


David James Walker: It is quite obvious that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) had no idea that an attack would be launched on him that day. Had my friend been his usual courteous self he would have notified him. He did not notify him.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no obligation to notify him.


David James Walker: I was attacked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Because he chose to dine late tonight, that is no reason why I should not answer him and his attack. Does he seek to escape-


Maurice Bourget: What about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)?


David James Walker: Does he seek to escape my answering him by staying away from the house?


Lionel Chevrier: All you are doing is casting
a slur.
Trans-Canada Highway Act


David James Walker: I say to the hon. member who is usually so good-natured, just calm yourself. You hoisted yourself on your own petard, and you had better take it.


Lionel Chevrier: If you will calm yourself I will do the same thing.


David James Walker: In the future, you would do very well not to interrupt me. You know I have been around for a long time and I am not impressed by those cheap interruptions.


Lionel Chevrier: You have been around for a long time, but you are a cheap minister.


David James Walker: Let us just consider that. That was a very clever reply, was it not?


Lionel Chevrier: It was one that you deserved.


David James Walker: May I continue?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister should stay in order and address the Speaker.


David James Walker: Would it be all right to have the permission of the hon. member for Laurier to continue?


Lionel Chevrier: You do not need my permission to go ahead.


David James Walker: When I was attacked this afternoon by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate he could not have been serious because he argued strenuously that he did not participate in the discussions with his government but he went along with it and voted for it, and that was exactly what we are doing today. This arrangement of 50 per cent and 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage was introduced by the Liberal government in 1956. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member of the cabinet of that time; he was in favour of it and voted for it. We have not changed it at all.


Maurice Bourget: After you had promised to change it.


David James Walker: When it was suggested that a greater percentage should be given we had the hon. member for Levis take part in the debate.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: The grand master of the House of Commons.


David James Walker: At that time he held a very important office in the government as parliamentary assistant to the minister of public works and this is what he had to say in reply to the request that more money should be spent by the government in this endeavour to build a trans-Canada highway to help the provincial governments. I am reading from Hansard of 1956, volume III,, at page 2976. This was on April 16:
Another criticism which was made, and which is generally made under similar circumstances, was that we were not doing enough.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
Now we are doing exactly as the Liberals were doing. I continue:
Well, Mr. Chairman, we of course do appreciate the demands that are made upon provincial treasuries, but we also cannot lose sight of the fact that heavy demands are made upon the federal government for national defence and for social security measures. We frequently hear demands to increase social security measures such as family allowances, old age pensions and the pensions of superannuated civil servants.
May I interpose and say that they heard the demands but they turned a deaf ear to them. I continue with the quotation:
If we are going to meet all the requests that are made by hon. members of the opposition we certainly will have to find new sources of revenue. We will have to be practical and increase taxes. We must not lose sight of that fact.
I simply cannot understand, Mr. Chairman-
My hon. friend spoke very eloquently in English. I continue:
I simply cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, how hon. members can get up in this house and repeatedly ask for more money and in the same week accuse us of taxing the people of Canada too heavily. We will probably hear that accusation tomorrow when we resume the debate on the budget. Hon, members opposite will say that the people of Canada are too heavily taxed.
Now, the hon. member-


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker...


David James Walker: My time is limited, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask you how long a minister of the crown may be out of order before being called to order?
I respectfully suggest that all he is saying now has nothing at all to do with this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am very glad that the hon. member for St. Denis raised this point of order with regard to the relevancy of the debate. In my opinion, I can hardly deny the minister a chance to reply to the arguments and objections raised during this debate.
(Text):


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the then minister of public works, who is now Mr. Winters, president of Rio Tinto, had this to say in reply to a similar argument raised by the opposition today. I am reading from page 3070 of the debate of April 19, 1956.


Lionel Chevrier: Are you going to cast a slur on him, too?


David James Walker: You can determine yourself. These words are not a slur on him. They indicate the frame of mind of the government of the day of which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a member. At that

time I believe the hon. member for Laurier was the chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Augustin Brassard: What about your
own promises?


David James Walker: I am going to deal with those; I will be delighted to.
The Hon. Mr. Winters said this:
It has been suggested that federal contributions should be increased above the present level of 50 per cent. In fairness to those provinces which have made the greatest progress, any general or over-all increase beyond 50 per cent would have to be retroactive-
I hope all hon. members will follow this. I continue:
-to the dates upon which the federal-provincial agreements were signed.
I interpose this remark. That would be 1949. The quotation goes on:
Retroactive legislation of this nature gives rise to many problems and moreover I have serious doubts as to whether this approach would achieve the desired end. Further, no advantage would be gained if the federal government increased its contributions only to have the provincial governments reduce expenditures on the highway by a similar amount. What is required is an increased effort on the part of all concerned.
This is the end of the quotation.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask a question of the minister?


David James Walker: Would the hon. member do so at the end of my speech? My time is limited. I should like to hear the hon. member.


Maurice Bourget: I will.


David James Walker: In 1958, of course, after the Liberals had been flung from power and were getting ready for another election they switched over completely and decided that 90 per cent should be paid by the dominion and 10 per cent by the provinces. That was their convention jargon. They went to the people but the people did not take them seriously and gave them the greatest licking any political party has received since confederation.


Lionel Chevrier: If you carry on the way you are carrying on now you may get a licking.


Mr. Crestohl:: You forget that there is always another election coming.


David James Walker: There is always another election coming and my friend will note that according to the Gallup poll we would get 180 seats if there was an election tomorrow. Could this scheme have been changed? Perhaps it could have been changed in 1956 but could it be changed now? Up to 1956 only $225 million of work had been approved for construction. I should like your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker, because

I want to emphasize this point. In the period from 1956 to 1960, $313 million more work was approved for construction. So you can see that with that tremendous sum expended it is too late to change the percentages in 1960 when three of the provinces have practically completed the work, when others will have completed it very shortly, most of them, we hope, by the end of 1963. We agree with the minister of public works of that day- hon. members will appreciate this-that any over-all increase would have to be retroactive to 1949 to cover all the provinces, including the province of Saskatchewan from which the hon. member for Assiniboia comes. To do otherwise would be discriminatory and that is something of which the Diefenbaker government can never properly be accused.
It would involve paying all the provinces on a 90 per cent basis and would require an increase of $265 million in federal funds- think of it, $265 million-so that the Atlantic provinces could be treated on a 90 per cent basis as was suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I do not think there is an hon. member in the house from any one of the 10 provinces who would suggest that an act such as the Trans-Canada Highway Act, which required each of the provinces to enter into a contract similar in every paragraph except as to the schedule of work to be done, should be changed unless all provinces were going to be treated alike. How could you change the contracts of one, two, three or four provinces without changing the contracts of all provinces? It would be an impossible situation, that $265 million more than has already been provided should be spent by the federal government so that some of the shortcomings which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate claims have been perpetrated on certain provinces can be corrected. One cannot change the percentage for one of the nine participating provinces without making the same change for the other provinces. If there had been a separate deal for the province of Newfoundland alone there would not have been any trouble.
But this is not the way to get extra relief. It might be done as it has been done in the past. The Atlantic provinces have received additional stipends because of the fact that they have required general over-all stipends. No member of the house has complained about that, but you cannot make such a change in the Trans-Canada Highway Act. I would ask hon. members to keep in mind that all these agreements are exactly the same for all the provinces and that the only variation is in the schedule.
79951-0-214
Trans-Canada Highway Act
I want to answer the hon. member for Assiniboia. He has left the house. Probably like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, I am in the chamber.


David James Walker: Thank you very much. I am glad of that. Now I can speak with impunity without the hon. member for Laurier criticizing me for taking unfair advantage of the hon. member's absence. All the provinces have entered into the same contract and are being treated exactly the same so far as contributions by the federal government are concerned. All the provinces have one thing to do. No province was forced to come into this deal. They all came into it voluntarily. Each one of them had an obligation to complete the share of the trans-Canada highway within their own borders and when they had completed the share within their own borders and had been paid by the dominion government they had been dealt with fairly, could require nothing more and could not claim that they had been dealt with unfairly.
If the province of Saskatchewan, through no effort of the socialist government, happens to be a great plain where there is no necessity for bridges or detours Tommy Douglas and the hon. member for Assiniboia cannot claim that they are responsible for that. If they get their part of the highways built on time and are paid by the dominion government as they have been paid and if they have the use of that magnificent highway that goes right across their province, how can the province of Saskatchewan complain? It has been dealt with fairly under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
So I say to hon. members that the object of this federal government-I do not claim that the former government had any other purpose-is to deal freely and fairly with all the provinces, but the federal government wants the trans-Canada highway completed and the sooner it is done the better.
My conclusions can be summed up in this way. In the first place, we cannot discriminate by changing the contract now for one province or two provinces and leave out the others. Second, in the alternative it is impossible at this stage in that we cannot afford to change the contracts of all the provinces because it would cost another $265 million. I should like to discuss the suggestion of some hon. members that there should be a second trans-Canada highway but I know that has been ruled out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: The Speaker said you could go ahead.


David James Walker: I will not attempt to buck the ruling of the Chair. I want to thank the hon.

Trans-Canada Highway Act member for Bonavista-Twillingate for recalling that I did go to St. John's, Newfoundland, that I did make a speech on television and that I did carry out what I said I would do in that speech, namely review the policy under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. We have reviewed it and after serious consideration we have continued the legislation for a further period and asked for additional money in order to complete the highway. When hon. members of the opposition who were members of the government in 1956 argue that the provinces should have a greater share their argument is applicable to a time when it was possible that all the provinces should have a greater share because up to then only a small amount of money had been expended on the trans-Canada highway. It was perfectly proper to do so then, but anybody contemplating the amount that has been spent up to the present time will see how impossible it is to make a change in 1960 which was feasible in 1956.
I am enthusiastic about the trans-Canada highway, Mr. Speaker. It is a magnificent achievement. The portion in the national park in Newfoundland I am proud to say will be completed this year. The dominion government will complete its chore and that is not included in the $400 million that we are spending as our contribution to the provinces. This is a magnificent project. We have had tremendous problems. The problems in Rogers pass in British Columbia are almost beyond description. The problems in that great wide belt of northern Ontario north of lake Superior are fantastic. The difficulties being encountered are almost incredible. Newfoundland has its problems, Mr. Speaker. At this stage, I have nothing but good will for all the members of the house-


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


David James Walker: -including the hon. member for Laurier.
I should like to suggest, with the greatest deference to all hon. members in this house, that the job we are completing is a job which has to be completed. I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that until it is completed we should not consider a second highway. In saying that, I might be out of order, but that is all I am going to say here. If, in the committee stage, there are any questions I can answer I shall do my best to answer them.


Maurice Bourget: I hope the minister will now allow a few questions.


David James Walker: May we wait until the committee stage?


Maurice Bourget: I believe the minister mentioned what I said in 1956 when the act was

amended. I can tell the minister that I have nothing to withdraw. As a result of what the minister said in his concluding remarks I should like to ask him how he can logically say that the act could not have been amended in 1957 to pay more to the provinces. This was only one year after the Conservatives made promises right here in this house that they would increase the federal government's share. If the minister does not believe me, he only has to ask the hon. member for Victoria, (Ont.) (Mr. Hodgson) who is sitting right behind him and who said the federal government should pay 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: How can the minister explain the fact that within one year they could not change the act and pay more as they promised to do?


Some hon. Members:: Order. Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; may I remind the hon. member that he may not speak twice in the same debate.


Maurice Bourget: I am just asking the minister to answer that.


David James Walker: I have always thought, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) should have been a lawyer and not an engineer. He is very eloquent.


Lionel Chevrier: He would have been a good one.


David James Walker: A very good one; I am glad the hon. member for Laurier agrees with me. In reply to the hon. member for Levis may I say that unfortunately in 1957 I was not the Minister of Public Works.


Maurice Bourget: There is another question that I asked, a very serious question-


Some hon. Members:: Order; committee
stage.


Maurice Bourget: The minister has allowed me to ask him some questions at the conclusion of his remarks. I am in order, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the minister, to ask a question. I am asking the minister, and I think it is a very serious question-


William Heward Grafftey: Let us hear it.


Maurice Bourget: You had better wait.


William Heward Grafftey: We will tell you if it is
serious.


Maurice Bourget: A serious question is the kind of question you would not understand.


William Heward Grafftey: I never understood your first question.


Maurice Bourget: I like my hon. friend, so I will not say anything. I ask the minister to answer the question that I asked him this afternoon, does he believe that the trans-Canada highway bill that is now before the house is constitutional?


David James Walker: I am just the plumber of the government, not the lawyer.


Maurice Bourget: You will agree with me that it is a very serious question. I feel the minister should not evade the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I must remind the hon. member that he can put a question but he cannot decide what answer he is to get. Is the house ready for the question?
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Regier
Robichaud
Rogers
Rompre
Rouleau
Simpson
Slogan
Smith (Lincoln)
Southam
Speakman
Stearns
Tardif
Tasse
Taylor
Thrasher
Tucker
Villeneuve
Walker
Webb
Webster
Welchel
Winch
Winkler
Wratten-122.
++NAYS
Nil.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Hazen Robert Argue: We listened to the remarks of the minister with great interest. I am not sure he was always in order, but it was very pleasant hearing from him this evening. I was glad he was able to admit that the good province of Saskatchewan was the first to complete its section of the trans-Canada highway. I do not think the fact that we have relatively level terrain is the main reason why it was completed first, because if this were the only factor the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta would be in a comparable position. We have a government that wished to proceed with this project as rapidly as possible, and although our resources are relatively limited compared with those of some other provinces, we pressed forward, and we are very pleased with the fact that we are the first province in Canada to complete its section of the highway.
The minister has advanced some arguments as to why this government is not prepared to change the formula. He says that if it does so the formula will have to be made retroactive. With that I certainly agree, but as I have already pointed out it is not very many months from the time when members of the Conservative party were advocating vast changes. They advocated these changes until they had the opportunity to perform, and they proved a complete failure when it came to performance.
The people of Saskatchewan feel aggrieved, not only because they have had to wait for so many years without any extension of this act but also-and I do not intend to go into this at length-because they feel that in another program which has to do with roads they have been short-changed by a few million dollars that have been charged against the province in an unfair way, having to do with the Prince Albert bridge.
I wonder if the minister could give the committee a report as to the number of miles

Trans+Canada Highway Act of highway yet to be completed in the various provinces. As I have said before, I have a report-I believe it is the latest report which hon. members have-going up to March 31, 1959. I wonder if the minister could bring the committee up to date as to the number of miles completed in each province; the total mileage, and the mileage yet to be completed. While the minister is doing that, I hope he will pass some comment concerning whether or not the federal government believes there is any real likelihood that all the provinces will complete their portions of the highway within the time set by this present amendment. If we are going to wait until every province in this nation has completed its section before this government announces its highway policy, we shall wait for many, many years and the majority of the people of Canada will be extremely disappointed inasmuch as they are having to suffer because other provinces are so tardy in proceeding with this program. In addition to the information as to the number of miles completed in each province, I should like the minister to make some comment about what progress the federal government expects will be made on the trans-Canada highway within the period of this act.


Mr, Walker:: I want to thank the hon.
member for Assiniboia for asking this question. I should have given this information sooner. The total mileage of the trans-Canada highway in the nine provinces, including Newfoundland, is 4,491, and the grading contracts approved to date-this was up until April 27; I have had the figures changed three times waiting for this bill to come up -amounts to 3,317. Grading contracts completed add up to 3,068 miles. Paving work approved for construction amounts to 2,617 miles, and paving work completed to 2,373 miles. I may say that 800 miles of the designated trans-Canada highway route was paved prior to the act being passed and, of course, that distance is not included in the figures I have given. The total value of the work approved for construction up until April 23 was $562.6 million of which Canada's share is $335 million. Total payments to date by the dominion government amount to $260 million. This amount has been paid on provincial claims in respect of work undertaken and completed.
In reply to the hon. gentleman as to the amount of work completed, does he want this information with respect to each of the nine provinces?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr, Walker:: If I can get the consent of the committee, I shall be very happy to have appended to Hansard, if possible, supplementary tables indicating, first, the length of the highway by provinces; second, the grading contracts; third, the paving construction for each of the provinces; fourth, the structures built; fifth, a summary of the contractual commitments; and, sixth, a summary of Canada's commitments for the additional 40 per cent contribution arranged in 1956 and the payments made. Could I have the approval of the committee to have them printed?


Hazen Robert Argue: For what date?


David James Walker: Up to April 23. Some of them are just up to March 31, but most of them are to April 23, 1960.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think I have already indicated that if the minister asks for permission to have them printed at this point in his speech, the committee would have authority to give that permission. But if the minister asks that these documents be printed as an appendix, it would be necessary for him to ask permission from the Speaker when he resumes the chair.


David James Walker: I would appreciate if they
could be printed as part of my speech because it would save a great deal of time; otherwise we would be getting quite confused.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee consent to having the documents printed at this point in the minister's speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to are as follows:]
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES Index
Table 1 - Length of highway by province	
Table 2 - Grading construction	
Table 3 - Paving construction	
Table 4 - Structures _
Table 5 - Summary of contractual commitments	
Table 6 - Summary of Canada's commitments for additional 40 per cent contributions and payments made	
10 December 1949 to 31 March 1960
10 December 1949 to 31 March 1960
10 December 1949 to 31 March 1960
10 December 1949 to 23 April 1960
10 December 1949 to 23 April 1960

Table 1
Length of Highway by Provinces
Newfoundland	
554	MilesPrince Edward Island	
71	"Nova Scotia	
318	"New Brunswick	
390	"Ontario	
1,453Manitoba	
309	"Saskatchewan	
406	"Alberta	
282	"British Columbia	
568	''
National Parks
Terra Nova	
25	"Banff-Yoho	
80	"Glacier-Revelstoke	
35	**
4,491 Miles
Table 2
GRADING CONSTRUCTION 10 December. 1949 to 31 March, 1960
Province	Miles of Grading Contracts	Mileage
	Approved	Completed
Newfoundland 	375	288Prince Edward Island	71	71Nova Scotia	119	118New Brunswick ....	190	181Ontario 	957	872Manitoba 	250	245Saskatchewan 	406	406Alberta 	281	280British Columbia ...	528	477National Parks	Terra Nova 	25	25Banff-Yoho 	80	80Glacier-Revelstoke ..	35	25Total 	3,317	3,068
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Table 3



PAVING CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
10 December 1949	to 31 March	1960
	Miles of Paving Contracts	Mileage
Province	Approved	CompletedNewfoundland 	108	63Prince Edward Island	71	71Nova Scotia 	80	34New Brunswick 	142	133Ontario 	775	650Manitoba 	297	297Saskatchewan 	406	406Alberta 	281	278British Columbia 	377	361National Parks	Terra Nova 	Banff-Yoho 	80	80Glacier-Revelstoke ..	-	
Total 		2,617	2,373
Note: In addition to the 2,373 miles of completed pavement, there are approximately 800 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 March 1960
Structures Structures Province	approved completed
Newfoundland	
40	36Prince Edward Island	
5	4Nova Scotia	
28	24New Brunswick	
35	21Ontario	
126	98Manitoba	
38	35Saskatchewan	
15	15Alberta	
38	33British Columbia	
90	71
National Parks
Terra Nova	
4	4Banff-Yoho	
24	24Glacier-Revelstoke	
11	3Total	
454	37i
Province
Newfoundland .,
P.E.I	
Nova Scotia ___
New Brunswick
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ..,
Alberta	
British Columbia
Table 5
SUMMARY OF CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS December 10, 1949 to April 23, 1960
Total Commitment Approved $
38,983,940.80
9,101,695.78
22,301,424.21
51,090,002.91
180,182,229.50
33,140,701.15
27,837,759.07
37,022,807.57
162,921,828.86
[Stage Direction]
Canada's Share Incl. Additional 40 per cent $
24,639,646.17
5,881,243.00
16,009,074.10
33,759,647.41
104,207,489.72
18,887,186.58
15,904,024.55
22,142,805.16
93,914,632.62
[Stage Direction]
Canada's Share Paid to Date $
19,724,201.09
4,979,962.09
10,395,086.92
30,153,094.95
75,589,390.59
16,383,318.99
15,252,461.19
20,559,000.98
66,939,901.30
[Stage Direction]
Totals
[Stage Direction]
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Table 6
Summary of Canada's Commitments for Additional 40 per cent contributions and payments made December 10, 1949 to April 23, 1960.
Province	Additional 40 per cent Commitments	Payments MadeNewfoundland 	5,147,675.77	3,705,076.37Prince Edward Island	1,330,395.11	803,769.40Nova Scotia 	4,858,362.00	2,539,795.86New Brunswick 	8,214,645.96	7,591,657.42Ontario 	14,116,375.00	8,826,868.76Manitoba 	2,316,836.00	1,832,103.14Saskatchewan 	1,985,145.00	1,835,013.57Alberta 	3,631,401.37	2,894,120.01British Columbia 	12,453,718.20	7,746,670.58Totals 	$54,054,554.41	$37,775,075.11
David James Walker: Does my hon. friend want the provinces broken down for the grading construction or the final stage, paving construction?


Hazen Robert Argue: The figures I should like to have would be figures comparable to those given in table No. 1 in the annual report. The minister should have that report available. On page 4, in the third column, is shown the paved mileage. If we had the paved mileage brought up to date I think it would give the committee in a very brief way some indication of the extent to which the highway has been completed in each province and what progress has been made.


David James Walker: I shall be glad to do that. However, I want to say this. I know that the hon. member for Assiniboia appreciates the fact that the greatest problem we have is to get into a position to grade it. Once you have it graded, of course you can travel over it. But I shall give you the paving construction which, of course, is not nearly as great as the grading. In Newfoundland: miles of paving, contract approved and mileage completed, 108 miles approved, 63 miles completed; Prince Edward Island, 71 miles approved, 71 miles completed; Nova Scotia, 80 miles approved, 34 miles completed; New Brunswick, 142 miles approved, 133 miles completed; Ontario, 775 miles approved, 650 miies completed; Manitoba, 297 miles approved, 297 miles completed; Saskatchewan, 406 miles approved, 406 miles completed; Alberta, 281 miles approved, 278 miles completed; British Columbia, 377 miles approved and 361 miles completed.
Just in order to give a comparison, may I say that as to grading the figures for Ontario are 957 miles approved, 872 miles completed; for British Columbia, 528 miles approved, 477 miles completed. In Newfoundland, because of the fondness I have for all the people in that province I am very happy
[The Chairman.]
to say that you can go right across the trans-Canada highway from sea to sea. At the present time I will admit, with other hon. members, that it is not too good. However, 375 miles have been approved for grading and 288 miles have been completed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister the totals for the various figures he has given?


David James Walker: Yes. For the provinces the total mileage approved for grading is 3,317 and the mileage of grading completed is 3,068 as compared with paving; the number of miles of paving for which contracts have been approved is 2,617 and the mileage completed is 2,373. I should say that to this figure we must add the 800 miles which are included in the highway but which were done prior to the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister where the most expensive mileage in the whole trans-Canada highway has been undertaken and whether, in going through the Kicking Horse pass region at Revelstoke and particularly through the parks, it was found necessary on occasion to change the type of construction from that which was originally intended or to modify it on account of possible snow slides and the nature of the rock.


David James Walker: As the hon. member for Kootenay West, the squire of the house, knows,-and I am sure he does not mind my saying that-his province has had the most expensive mileage. But there are parts of Ontario where there are tremendous problems with regard to bridges, grading and so on; this construction has also been very expensive. But in all the provinces, with the exception of the prairie provinces, there is some point where the construction is very expensive. The hon. member has asked where would be found the most expensive mileage; not the total number of miles, but the mileage. That would be British Columbia, I am advised, with Ontario running fairly close. Newfoundland is also well up.


Mr. Tucker:: I wonder whether the minister could advise the house whether the 25 miles through the national park is included in the 108 miles in Newfoundland?


David James Walker: No; I am happy to say that is extra. The amount of the cost of building that mileage, which was a very good sum, is not included in our figures. It has nothing to do with the Trans-Canada Highway Act expenditures.


Augustin Brassard: I have a couple of questions to ask of the minister. Is it still an obligation on the part of every province participating in the trans-Canada highway

scheme to call for public tenders with regard to the construction works on the roads? That is my first question. My second question is this. Is there still a provision calling for some kind of supervision of the work by federal representatives? My last question is this. If so, in view of the fact that lately the premier of Quebec has led the people of Quebec to believe that his late government was about to adhere to the federal plan, is it the intention of the federal government to amend the act with a view to removing those two obstacles for Quebec?


David James Walker: What was the third question? I will ask the hon. member what it was when I come to it. I could not grasp that question about Quebec.
In reply to my hon. friend's first question, may I say that the system, of course, is public tender open to all bidders and on the principle that low tenderer gets the contract. In some isolated parts of the provinces- principally Newfoundland-there are areas where it is not practical to have a public tender on certain local matters, where there is some day labour. I think that has been principally in Newfoundland. I am told that it is not just confined to Newfoundland. There are other provinces where locations are out of the way, where a public tender would be useless for small parts of the highway, but the general principle is public tender.
As to the second question, my hon. friend is quite right in his suggestion that there is careful federal supervision. Each area is constantly inspected. Before any payment whatever can be made on any part of the highway by the dominion to the provinces, a federal inspector, of course, must approve it. What was the third question?


Augustin Brassard: The minister's reply was so polite that I do not intend to ask my third question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister give us the total mileage that was finished in 1959? The minister has said that the total mileage paved to date up to the trans-Canada standard was 2,373 miles. I should like a comparable figure for a year ago.


David James Walker: I have here the report that my friend was reading from, the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959. The paving constructed up to the end of March, which was a little more than a year ago, or the paving contracts approved numbered 353 and the miles completed were 396. There must be a mistake there.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is not surprised.
Trans-Canada Highway Act


David James Walker: In the calendar year 1959 the number of miles approved amounted to 421 and the number completed was 270 miles.


Hazen Robert Argue: This gives us a very adequate picture of the progress that has been made to date. The minister has already said that of some 4,491 miles, 2,373 miles have been paved to trans-Canada standards to date. Another 800 miles have been paved, I understand, to somewhat lower provincial standards. On the basis of the mileage of road paved to trans-Canada standards, after 11 years of operation we have just over half of the total mileage paved. If one adds in the mileage paved to the lower standards we still have some 1,300 miles or so yet to be paved. I suggest that at this rate we shall be lucky if we are half way through by way of time of construction of the trans-Canada highway across this nation by 1963, and in this I am making no reference at all to the province of Quebec. For a nation like ours to take 11 years to construct approximately 50 per cent of the mileage to standard is far too slow.
I suggest to the minister that the government should have a new look at the trans-Canada highway program, and the problem that it is endeavouring to solve. I suggest that now is the time that the government, as a government, should do some of the things necessary to speed up construction, to make more money available to the provinces so that this highway can be completed and in use before too many more years go by.
I hope I am pessimistic; I mean, I hope I am too pessimistic, I hope my pessimism is not borne out by events, but it looks to me as if we shall be back in parliament a few years from now considering a further extension of this act because with the leadership, or the lack of leadership, I should say, given to this problem by the federal government I see little hope of a completed trans-Canada highway being available to Canadians even as late as the end of 1963.


Mr. Bigg:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest to the government-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Utter nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the limit of the contribution of my hon. friend over there, an interjection inaudible to most hon. members.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I said it was utter nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: I ask the minister whether he feels that there is any real possibility of this highway being completed by December, 1963, at the rate it is now being constructed? Will he comment on the possibility of some agreement being made with the province of Quebec? I would appreciate very much
3388	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act his doing that. I would like him to he as specific as he can and tell the house what conversations or consultations he has had with the various provinces that have not yet completed their section of the trans-Canada highway in order that he may give parliament and the nation the information that is available to him as to how long we shall have to wait before we can expect this greatly needed highway to be completed.


David James Walker: I thank the hon. member for these pertinent questions. My answer is this. When the hon. member is away from the house making political speeches-and as the leader of that party I think he should do that-I shall be grateful to have his assistance in whatever province he goes in stirring them up and encouraging them to complete their particular part of the highway. After all, we can only do that. We have opened up this offer and we say, "Now here it is, boys; we will pay you when you deliver." We pay them as soon as they deliver, and all I can tell my hon. friend in reply to his inquiry as to whether or not this highway will be completed by the end of 1963 is that the plans of each of the provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland, call for the completion of its share of the highway before 1963.
Before coming to this house with this legislation we had our departmental inspectors right across the country make inquiries as to that and that is why we were able to come to the house and make the proposition that we make tonight. I must admit, however, that we are relying on the information that we have from the provinces. In view of the enthusiasm of my hon. friend and other members, I am sure they will encourage the provinces to complete their own program by the end of 1963.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister mentioned the fact that as soon as the provinces delivered the goods in connection with the construction of their portion of the highway they were paid. I have not the newspaper clipping here-I intended to have it with me; I overlooked it-but quite recently I read in a newspaper report a statement by Premier Bennett of British Columbia in which, if I am correct, he complained about the delay in payments being made to the provincial government on account of the trans-Canada highway. Can the minister inform the committee whether there has been any delay?


David James Walker: I might say that when I said that as soon as they completed it we paid them, I meant that we do not pay them until we are satisfied that they have completed their share of the highway in accordance


with the standards laid down in the trans-Canada highway agreement. They are strict standards, of course,
As far as Premier Bennett is concerned, I do not know what he has said recently but I saw his inimitable minister of highways less than a week ago and if he had any complaints I am sure that in our hour-long interview he would have mentioned them. He did not utter a word of complaint.


Maurice Bourget: If, for instance, the province of Quebec were to decide to take part in this program, would it be entitled to receive 50 per cent of the cost of the road built between 1928 and 1949? Would the act that we have now and the amendments that were passed in 1956 entitle the province of Quebec to receive 50 per cent of the cost of the road built between 1928 and 1949?


David James Walker: As I told the hon. member for Levis a short time ago, I am not the Minister of Justice; I am just the Minister of Public Works and I am not going to embroil myself or the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Minister of Justice in the house?


David James Walker: The hon. member may ask him if he wishes. He is a very able minister. I have always looked up to him and to serve under him was a great pleasure. But my reply to that would be that my hon. friend has asked a hypothetical question and I know that under all the circumstances he would not expect me to be able to reply at this time. Never having had the matter presented to me before, never having contemplated it, never having had any request except from my hon. friend this afternoon and from a few others at the resolution stage, I have never gone into the matter and I am unable to give the hon. member a reply.


Maurice Bourget: I am most surprised because a year ago I think the minister was recognized as one of the best lawyers in Canada when he was the prosecutor in a committee.


David James Walker: I know you thought so but I do not think everyone did.


Lionel Chevrier: I certainly did not.


Maurice Bourget: Nevertheless I think that the minister as a lawyer and having beside him the Minister of Justice should be able to answer this very simple question. I simply ask him this question. If the province of Quebec decided today to take part in this program would the province of Quebec be entitled to receive 50 per cent of the cost of work done previously from 1928 to 1949 and recognized by the federal government? That is what I should like to know.



I960

An hon. Member:: It is hypothetical.


Maurice Bourget: It is not. Surely we are entitled to receive that information because we have read in the newspapers that Quebec may take part in the program. Surely the people of Quebec are interested in knowing what they can get and what they cannot get. It is a very simple question.


David James Walker: I am under strict instructions from the Chairman to keep in order and he has declared this discussion out of order. On this occasion all I am interested in is an additional $50 million and three years more to complete the highway. At the moment the plan concerns nine provinces. My job tonight is to get the bill through as it stands at present and with the present participants in the plan. With the greatest respect, as the humble Minister of Public Works I do not think you should ask me a question like that. I am burdened with cares. I have not only public works with all the problems that are involved there but I have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the national capital commission and now I am chairman of a Hull-Ottawa bridge project.


Maurice Bourget: After all, Mr. Chairman, the minister is a lawyer, he has been Minister of Public Works for some months and he has beside him the Minister of Justice. These are the men who had all the answers in the elections of 1957 and 1958 but the minister cannot even answer a simple question. Surely it is a simple question.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that one way or the other the amendments to the act which we are studying do not relate at all to the question he has put.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Here is the expert.


Hazen Robert Argue: -as I understand the situation, this is a measure brought before the House of Commons to make provision for a trans-Canada highway and not to discriminate in any way against the province of Quebec. I will be greatly surprised if the province of Quebec has not equal rights under confederation with those of any other province so far as this act is concerned. I suggest that it is very much in order and very pertinent for the hon. member for Levis to ask whether or not the terms of this act, as now applied to nine provinces, are available to the province of Quebec and, if so, if this money would be applied on construction prior to 1949 in exactly the same way as was done with the
Trans-Canada Highway Act other nine provinces. I suggest it is a fair and proper question and that the house is entitled to an answer.


William Heward Grafftey: Where is the member for Port Arthur?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address another question or two to the overburdened Minister of Public Works. I wish I had brought the newspaper with me but in reading the newspapers lately it has been interesting to note that the minister of highways of British Columbia, Mr. Philip Gaglardi, came to Ottawa and had a discussion with the Minister of Public Works since our discussion of this measure at the resolution stage. My curiosity has really been aroused in view of the caustic comments about the federal government in connection with the trans-Canada highway that have appeared in the press of British Columbia. Would the minister be able to report to the committee any of his conversation with the minister of highways and tell us whether the minister expressed severe dissatisfaction with the conduct of the government in this respect?


David James Walker: It is very good of the hon. member to have such consideration for me and the comments I have made. I had a very pleasant interview of over an hour with the minister of highways of British Columbia. He told me in parting that he had thoroughly enjoyed himself, that I had answered some questions and that he would like to be in the same party as myself. That was an invitation for me to join the Social Credit party and he did not offer to join the Conservatives. We had a very pleasant time and the only time that I had to say no was to his suggestion that I should amend what I had said in the house with regard to a second trans-Canada highway. I had to tell him, of course, that that was a question of government policy and, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, we did not feel that this was the time to contemplate a second trans-Canada highway or even to consider it when we are so far from completion of the first trans-Canada highway.
He was disappointed because he said they had a program in British Columbia and would like to chisel in on the federal government for some more funds. I asked him if he got more funds would he still take credit for all the highways that were built with federal money? Signs have been put up all over indicating that highways have been built by the provincial government and Mr. Gag-lardi's name is prominently displayed at the bottom of these signs. All in all, it was a very pleasant visit, but although we have

Trans-Canada Highway Act made fantastic monetary contributions to the province of British Columbia so far for their part of the trans-Canada highway, not only have we received no thanks but we have received no recognition. One would think that the federal government, and I include the former government as well, had made no contributions to British Columbia whereas that province is the second greatest recipient. The sum of $162 million has been approved and, including the additional 40 per cent, $93 million has already been paid. We have paid them $66,939,901, and I would ask the hon. member if he can find anybody in the whole province of British Columbia who realizes that the federal government has paid a cent.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the minister would not hesitate to deal with a question concerning the province of British Columbia but would consider another question, that asked by the hon. member for Levis, as being hypothetical. May I suggest to him that the question was not hypothetical because a former premier of the province of Quebec indicated an agreement could be forthcoming and the present premier has given his views in no uncertain terms in connection with the matter. So 1 suggest to the minister that the question is not at all hypothetical. While the minister has been very good at giving evasive answers, let me tell him that I think the committee is entitled to more than evasive answers in connection with a matter of this kind. I do not see why the minister will not make an honest attempt to answer the question put by the hon. member for Levis.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I will try to make an honest attempt and I thank my hon. friend for making that reference. My hon. friend has drawn a long bow and is trying to make a comparison where there is none. There is no comparison between the situation in British Columbia and the situation in Quebec. British Columbia is now, and has been, a signatory to the Trans-Canada Highway Act and is under contract with the dominion government. I was able to talk with their minister on a subject which exists, namely the contract between the dominion and the province.
The province of Quebec is not a participant. There is no contract existing between the federal government and the province of Quebec. For my part, I have neither seen nor heard from any minister in the province of Quebec in connection with this matter. My hon. friend, who is an astute lawyer and a much more astute politician, I think can appreciate that it would be folly for me to

attempt a positive answer to something which must be completely hypothetical because the terms of any contract which might be entered into with the province of Quebec are something which I could not even contemplate at the present time, and something which has not been given any consideration by me. I do not intend, for the purpose of satisfying my friend, to inject another political issue into the provincial election coming up in Quebec next month and to commit myself on something about which I have no information.


Maurice Bourget: I am quite sure that the minister is very wrong. I asked a question, and I can assure the minister I am right. I am giving him my word, as a member of this house, that I had no political aspects in mind.


David James Walker: I accept my friend's word.


Maurice Bourget: I am only asking a very reasonable question, Mr. Chairman. I feel that tomorrow, when the minister reads my question, he will request this information from the Department of Justice. If the Minister of Justice is not capable of giving me an answer tonight, I am sure he will ask his deputy ministers tomorrow whether or not my question is a logical and honest one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only answer I will get will be that it is neither.


Maurice Bourget: Are we going to get the brush-off like that? I am asking the minister if Quebec should decide today-


William Heward Grafftey: Hypothetical.


Mr. Anderson:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Bourget: I am asking if Quebec-


William Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; have you not ruled that this question is out of order?


Maurice Bourget: I am going to pursue that for two days.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman; I did not understand your ruling to be that the question was out of order. I think your ruling had to do with the fact that we were discussing clause 1 and that, under that clause, a specific question such as that put by the hon. member, although not that particular one, was not in order. The hon. member for Assiniboia, and I think rightly, drew to your attention the fact that it is clearly set out here that this amendment would extend for three years the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces-


An hon. Member:: Participating provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: It does not say "participating provinces", it says "provinces", and that being the case it would appear to me that questions are in order about a province which is not a participant. It is for that reason I submit that the point of order was well taken and that the question is in order.


William Anderson: The chairman has already ruled it irrelevant to the subject.


Jacques Flynn: I mentioned that it was my feeling this question was not relevant to the bill. However, the question has been put and it seems the problem now is that it is becoming repetitive and, for that reason, might be out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer was not satisfactory.


Jacques Flynn: A question cannot be put again and again merely because the answer is not satisfactory. Therefore, I think the rule must be invoked when a member repeats a question.


Maurice Bourget: I want to appeal to you personally, Mr. Chairman, because you come, as I do, from Quebec, and if you would allow me just a minute or two I would explain my case. You know, and the minister knows-


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Bourget: Just let me speak. You have said that you are a plumber, now do not show it. Let me explain. Mr. Sauve said before he died that he was studying the question of taking part in the trans-Canada highway because, as he declared, it was not so much a constitutional question as it was a question of business. This leads us to believe that Quebec, even with a Union Na-tionale government, may take part in that program. Is it a hypothetical question to ask, then, if Quebec-


William Heward Grafftey: If?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, if; we have to put so many "ifs" in a question when we have a Union Nationale government in the province of Quebec.


William Heward Grafftey: Lesage will be proud of you.


Maurice Bourget: I am asking the minister, and I think it is a fair question as he will realize, if Quebec decided to take part, let us say within two or three months-


William Heward Grafftey: It is a hypothetical question.


Maurice Bourget: Never mind the hypothetical; if Quebec were, within the next two or three months, to take part in the trans-Canada
Business of the House
highway would the province of Quebec, according to the act passed in 1949 and the amendment passed in 1956, without amending the act as it is be entitled to receive 50 per cent of the cost of the route built between 1928 and 1949, to which the other provinces were entitled before the amendments of 1956? I believe that is a fair and reasonable question.
I think you will admit, Mr. Chairman, that I am in order and I am entitled as a member of parliament to an answer. If the minister is not ready now, would he be kind enough to look into it and give me an answer tomorrow?


David James Walker: It is almost ten o'clock. May I say to my friend-first, may I ask him a question. Did he know that a provincial election had been called for the twenty second of June?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, I know that, just as you know.


David James Walker: May I say that my friend became so involved, and since he has a couple of minutes to go I would ask him to be good enough to repeat his question?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; I think that reply by the minister is not worthy of him, particularly the first part of the reply. After all, a minister-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: A point of order; I am speaking to a point of order.


An hon. Member:: What point of order is this?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, may I ask that you call it ten o'clock?


Lionel Chevrier: I have a right to speak to a point of order, nevertheless, and the point of order is this: When a minister comes before the committee seeking funds he should not take the high-handed attitude that the Minister of Public Works has taken all evening.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think it is necessary to decide whether or not we have a point of order because it is ten o'clock and I shall have to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business is for tomorrow and whether there is any change in the

Business of the House
announcement made for Monday and Tuesday, and the item for Wednesday?


Mr. Brooks:: There is no change so far as the business for tomorrow is concerned: it will be the agricultural estimates. On Monday and Tuesday there is the motion to go into supply.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is first tomorrow? The estimates?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The estimates are the first item tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask, do we go back to the provincial tax-sharing agreement on Wednesday, as announced?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That will be announced on Monday night.


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

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	brucellosis-free areas
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39: