1960-03-30

Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I rise on a question of privilege. On March 24 I asked the Minister of Labour for the latest available figure of live claims for unemployment insurance benefits, and the figure the minister gave was 783,686. At the time I was concerned about the figure, because it was below that which the minister had given for February 4, 9,314 less.
I see that according to today's Canadian Press story the dominion bureau of statistics gives the figure of the number of people regarded as live claimants as of February 29 as being not 783,686 but 814,200.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: When I gave this figure to the hon. member for Essex East on Thursday, February 24, I stated that there were 783,686 live claims. The bureau of statistics figure is 814,241. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the bureau includes fishermen. The figure I gave the hon. member did not include fishermen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister a question? Will the minister say that when he gave the figures in the month of January fishermen were not included? In any case, fishermen out of work are still human beings out of work.


Michael Starr: I am unable to say whether or not the figure I gave for January included fishermen. I would have to check on that, but I do say that fishermen were not included in the figure I gave for March because they have also been excluded by the unemployment insurance commission from the unplaced applicants' list.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in the light of the answer he gave to my friend the hon. member for Essex East that fishermen were excluded from the number of those counted as unplaced 79951-0-165
applicants, whether that means that no attempt is made by the commission to find jobs for fishermen.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, most certainly the national employment service always endeavours to find jobs for people; but if they live in areas where their means of livelihood is fishing some difficulty is experienced in placing these people at work in the winter time, and in occupying them in something they have never done before in their lives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister mean that no record is kept of the names of those persons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this crossexchange is more of a debate than a proper question for this time of day. I wonder if the hon. member could not find another time to pursue the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the greatest deference, this point was raised today by the minister, and it is a very urgent matter if it is true that these names are not considered for employment.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, that is most untrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking, that is all.


Michael Starr: In the figures released by the unemployment insurance commission for both the unplaced applicants and the live claimants, fishermen are not shown as part of those figures, but they are included in the figure of the dominion bureau of statistics to which the hon. member for Essex East referred today.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I ask leave to table copies in English and in French of the annual budget white paper-and for the convenience of hon. members as well as of subscribers to the

Starred Questions
reports of this house I move that the budget white paper be published as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings and also as an appendix to tomorrow's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does that meet with the wish of hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-26 (from the Senate) to amend the National Energy Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Batten: 1 To what person, or persons, were the latest contracts awarded to carry mall from Deer lake to Norris Point, Newfoundland?
2.	What is the amount of each contract?
3.	Were these contracts awarded as a result of tenders being called?
4.	Who was the previous mail courier and what was the amount of his contract?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the four parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Charles Theodore Burden and Selby Martin, Bonne Bay.
2.	Charles Theodore Burden, $4,000 per year; Selby Martin, $3.75 per trip, four trips per week.
3.	Charles Theodore Burden, yes; Selby Martin, no.
4.	Stewart Blanchard, Bonne Bay, under temporary arrangements without tenders called, August 17, 1956 to October 1, 1959 at $4,800 per year.


ANNA BADMAN, VANCOUVER  BAIL REFUND
Mr. Mcllraith: 1.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or any other member of the government receive any representation either written or oral urging the government to refund estreated bail to Mrs. Anna Badman of Vancouver?
2.	If so, what persons made such representation and in what form?
3.	Was any member of parliament directly or indirectly instrumental in presenting any such representation and, if so, what member or members?
4.	Was the refund in question recommended by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other member of the force and, if so, by whom?
5.	Was the refund in question recommended by any other police officer or any court official?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this question stands as an order for return, as there is more than one department involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the rights of parliament are being seriously abridged by this practice that is growing up. When starred questions are put on the order paper that is done because hon. members want the answers in the house. By waiting a week these answers could be collected, as they were by the previous government, and given in the house in the spirit of the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps hon. members will permit me a minute while I find the rule. Standing order 39 (5) reads as follows:
(5) If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and, during the question period on Wednesday, the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the house, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the house, be deemed an order of the house to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
Is it the pleasure of the house that this question 91 should be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with respect may I suggest that this should not be put to a vote of the house. When the hon. gentleman said that another course was followed by the previous government, I think that is just what one might call legislative license. The rule provides, as Your Honour stated, that it is not a matter to be submitted to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, the Prime Minister chose to make a personal attack on me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and to question my veracity about a matter on which he did not take the trouble to produce any evidence whatsoever. I would say, sir, that from the time these starred questions were provided for under the new rules in 1955, this practice was not followed by the previous administration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised this as a question of privilege, and perhaps in so doing has accomplished his intention of making an explanation. I think what was said did not really impute anything improper to the hon. member.


NUCLEAR REACTOR STATION, WHITESHELL, MAN.
Mr. Argue: 1.	Will a nuclear reactor station be built at Whiteshell, Manitoba?
2.	If so, will radioactive waste from the nuclear reactor station be deposited in lake Winnipeg or any of its tributaries, or in what other manner will it be disposed of?
3.	What precautions will be taken to ensure no radioactive contamination of inhabited areas, the waters and the fish population of lake Winnipeg and its tributaries?
4.	Has the government received a petition from the summer residents of the Whiteshell area protesting against the proposed establishment of a nuclear reactor station there?
5.	If so, has the government replied to the petition, and what was the content of the reply?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes, a nuclear reactor station will be built at Whiteshell, Manitoba.
In answer to the second part of the question, all the radioactive waste will be safely stored on the property of the Whiteshell research centre. This will be the same practice that is followed at Chalk River. Radioactive liquids are stored in stainless steel tanks and radioactive solids are stored in special vaults constructed of concrete treated with tar to prevent water moisture from seeping.
In answer to part 3, the same precautions will be taken as have been taken over the years at Chalk River. It is important to realize that the atomic energy control board has jurisdiction over all establishments of this nature, and exercises supervision and control so that no radioactive materials are permitted to endanger the population.
The answer to part 4 is yes.
The answer to part 5 is the same as I have given to these other questions.



FREIGHT RATES


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport received a telegram from the maritime transportation commission requesting that the rollback of the last 17 per cent freight rate increase be extended beyond the present deadline of July 31?
2.	If so: (a) on what date was such a telegram received? (b) on what date was it brought to the attention of the minister? (c) has a reply been made, and of what nature?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler of Transport):: The answer to part 1 is yes.
As to part 2, the telegram was received in my office on March 8 and was brought to my attention on March 16, on which day it was acknowledged with an expression of regret for the delay and with the advice that the matter is now under consideration, and 79951-0-165i
Starred Questions
that a decision would be reached before the present reductions terminate.



CHIGNECTO CANAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has an investigation been authorized in connection with the construction of the Chignecto canal?
2.	If so, when, and by whom is it being conducted?
3.	Have any estimates of the cost of a Chignecto canal project been made since June 1, 1957?
4.	If so, what is the amount of the estimate?
5.	Have any economic studies been made on the feasibility of the construction and operation of a Chignecto canal since June 1, 1957?
6.	If so, what is the result of such studies?


George Harris Hees: The answer to part 1 is that no outside organizations have been employed specially for this purpose, but both economic and technical aspects have been studied by existing governmental agencies from time to time and are kept under continuing review.
Part 2 is answered by the answer to part 1.
The answer to part 3 is yes.
As to part 4, an estimate prepared by the Department of Public Works in 1958 set the cost at above $138 million. An estimate prepared by a private engineering firm within the last year suggested a cost of about $90 million, but subsequent review has indicated that government agencies concerned would find it difficult to accept technical assumptions made therein.
With regard to parts 5 and 6, various economic studies have been made from time to time, as indicated above, and the matter remains under continuing review, but I am not in a position to comment further on their results at the present time.



PRESS SECRETARY'S POSITION, FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
minister's office
Mr. Godin: 1.	Is there a position in the office of the Minister of Finance for a press secretary or public relations officer or some similar official?
2.	If so, what is the precise designation of the position?
3.	Has any such position been occupied since June 21, 1957, and, if so, for what period?
4.	Was such officer paid a salary from public funds and, if so, under what precise authority?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is, special assistant to the Minister of Finance.
The answer to part 3 is since September 1, 1958.
The answer to part 4 is yes, under authority of P.C. 1958-14/1200 of August 28, 1958.

Starred Questions



PRESS SECRETARY'S POSITION, PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Mr. Godin: 1.	Is there a position, in the office of the Prime Minister or the privy council office for a press secretary or public relations officer or some similar official?
2.	If so, what is the precise designation of the position?
3.	Has any such position been occupied since June 21, 1957, and, if so, for what period?
4. Was such officer paid a salary from public funds and, if so, under what precise authority?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is information officer 6.
The answer to part 3 is yes, March 1, 1960.
The answer to part 4 is yes, under the authority of a treasury board minute and appropriation acts passed by parliament from time to time.



C.B.C.-CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 97
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1.	Is the chairman of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a member of the board other than the president?
2.	If so, when was such change made and in what manner?
3.	On what date was such change or proposed change first brought to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue?
4.	What is the specific statutory authority for such change?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is that the board of directors at a meeting on June 24, 1959, amended its bylaws to provide that the chairman of the board should be a director other than the president or the vice president. By a subsequent resolution at the same meeting the present chairman of the board, Mr. Robert Dunsmore, was elected as chairman of the board of directors.
I cannot recall, Mr. Speaker, the exact date the matter was brought to my attention; it is a matter of management of the C.B.C. There was no formal communication with me; I think I heard of it a considerable time later.
The answer to part 4 is that the authority is the Broadcasting Act, being chapter 22 of the statutes of Canada, 1958.



EAST SAINT JOHN THERMAL POWER PLANT, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has a request been made to the government of the province of New Brunswick asking for permission to table in the House of Commons the exchange of correspondence between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick, in connection with the East Saint John thermal power plant?
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l
2.	If so: (a) on what date was such a request made? (b) has a reply been received? (c) what was the nature of the reply?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is
yes.
The answer to part 2 (a) is February 10, 1960; (b) yes; (c) the government of New Brunswick has no objection to the tabling of documents which are not of a privileged nature.



Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has a request been received from the government of the province of New Brunswick asking for permission to table in the New Brunswick legislature the exchange of correspondence between the New Brunswick government and the federal government, in connection with East Saint John thermal power plant?
2.	H so: (a) on what date was such a request received: (b) has a reply been given; (c) what was the nature of the reply?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 (a) is February 26, 1960; (b) yes; (c) the government of Canada has no objection to the tabling of documents which are not of a privileged nature, provided the government is informed which documents the provincial government proposes to table.



PORK IMPORTS FROM U.S.

Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Since the removal of the embargo, February 8, 1960, against the importation of swine, uncooked pork and uncooked pork products from the United States of America, has any amount of these products been imported?
2.	If so, how many pounds?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is that statistics will not be available until some time in April. Further, this is a difficult question on which to provide a suitable answer. Perhaps if the hon. member would consult with me about this we might we able to satisfy his requirements.


Mr. Speaker:: The question stands as to the remainder.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to be sure about the disposition of starred question No. 84 which the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered in part. Is it to stand for revision, or is it to be considered as answered?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is to be considered as answered, but I pointed out that there is some difficulty in getting the information

and that there will be difficulty even in April. None will be available until April, but there will be some difficulty even then. If the hon. member would like to consult with me perhaps the question might be rephrased.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue: 1.	How many resignations have been received in each government department or crown corporation in each month of each year since January 1, 1957, from (a) professional personnel; (b) administrative officers?
2.	How many vacancies presently exist in each government department or crown corporation for positions to be filled by (a) professional personnel; (b) administrative officers?
3.	How long has each of these positions been vacant, what are they, what are the academic qualifications desired in each, and what is the salary to be paid?


Léon Balcer: This question should be amended by dropping part 3. Parts 1 and 2 can then be made an order for return.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD, MONTREAL-LAND TRANSACTIONS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the national harbours board, Montreal, entered into any (a) lease; (b) contract; (c) agreement; (d) rented land, for commercial purposes, since January 1, 1955?
2.	If so: (a) what was the date, purpose, and nature of each transaction? (b) what was the name of the firm or persons involved in each, and the nature of the business engaged in by each? (c) what were the terms of each transaction? (d) what was the yearly (i) revenue; (ii) expenditure, received and made by the national harbours board, Montreal, as a result of each transaction?


RAILWAY PASSENGER LINES DISCONTINUED
Mr. Boivin: How many railway passenger lines have been discontinued in Canada during the last 10 years (a) by the Canadian National Railways, and between what localities; (b) by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and between what localities?


ANNA BADMAN, VANCOUVER  BAIL REFUND
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or any other member of the government receive any representation either written or oral urging the government to refund estreated bail to Mrs. Anna Badman of Vancouver?
2.	If so, what persons made such representation and in what form?
3.	Was any member of parliament directly or indirectly instrumental in presenting any such representation and, if so, what member or members?
Orders for Returns
4.	Was the refund in question recommended by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other member of the force and, if so, by whom?
5.	Was the refund in question recommended by any other police officer or any court official?


Léon Balcer: Starred question No. 91 should be changed to an order for return.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order at this stage. When you called the item of business involving questions to be made orders for returns a list of questions was dealt with, but included in the list read by the Solicitor General was starred question No. 91. My point is that this starred question was dealt with by Your Honour when the house was considering starred questions. Under the applicable rule, which I deem to be standing order 39 (5), there is a limitation expressed in these words, "unless otherwise ordered by the house". Under the order of business, "starred questions", you put starred question No. 91 before the house and the house dealt with it and made it an order for return on division.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. Starred question No. 91 was dealt with and it would be irregular for the Acting Secretary of State to repeat that number. The other questions mentioned by the Acting Secretary of State stand as orders for returns.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of the regulations re administration and contract as given to penitentiary employees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I wonder whether I could have leave of the house to have the word "contract" changed to "conduct". It is an obvious printer's error.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of the inquest report relating to cause of death of one John Waslychen, former inmate of the penitentiary at New Westminster.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Mcllrailh:
For a copy of the order in council or minute of treasury board of July 3, 1959, authorizing the refund to Mrs. Anna Badman of bail of $20,000 forfeited by order of the county court of Vancouver on July 18, 1956.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, there is no relevant order in council or minute of treasury board on this question but I have here the formal document whereby the governor general exercised the royal prerogative, and I should like to table it herewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the revision suggested by the minister, which I take it is acceptable to the hon. member for Ottawa West-


George James McIlraith: Yes.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 81-Mr. Boivin:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport and the city of Granby, from January 1, 1945 to date, regarding the Granby airport.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Hellyer:
For a copy of each regular or special questionnaire used by the bureau of statistics during the months of January and February 1960, in respect to its sampling of the Canadian labour force, including its without jobs component.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the house to allow this to stand until next week, pending the return of Mr. Duffett, the head of the dominion bureau of statistics, who is out of the country on urgent public business.
Motion stands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position now to make a report to the house on the fact finding committee that visited Elliot Lake a short time ago, and perhaps also on the visit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Toronto to deal with the situation in that area.


John George Diefenbaker: I would appreciate it if the hon. gentleman would allow this to stand until tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Have any arrangements been made as yet for members of his

cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Labour or both, to visit Elliot Lake?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the date for the visit has not been determined. It should be decided very shortly. It is being considered at the moment.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I do so because of the courtesy of the Minister of Transport and the president of T.C.A. in enabling me to spend two days in Vancouver after three months' absence. On the basis of what I saw there I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in view of the situation in Vancouver where they now say, in the construction industry and in the fisheries, that they are not in a recession but a state of depression, whether he can inform us what action is being taken, if any, to deal with the unemployment situation in that city.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such situation in Vancouver as described by the hon. member and have received no representations from anyone in that regard.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Did I understand him to say he had received no information whatever about the situation in Vancouver, and has not yet heard that there is not a recession but a depression in the construction industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating the allegations which he made in his earlier question, to which the minister has already replied.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say something on this, if I may. I assumed that the hon. member was making reference to some special representations in this regard. According to my recollection no such representations have been made.
We all know that in the construction industry not only in British Columbia but across the whole country there are lay-offs during this seasonal period, when construction cannot be carried on in the same way it normally is. Lay-offs have occurred in British Columbia during the winter period not only this year but in previous years, and such lay-offs will probably occur in the future.


Harold Edward Winch: But I am talking about the present situation-


Mr, Speaker:: Order.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported worsening of the situation in South Africa, with the reported arrest of persons, including Europeans, who belong to political parties that oppose the government's policy of apartheid, is Canada prepared to speak up clearly in support of appropriate action by the United Nations security council?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows Canada is not a member of the security council, and the Canadian government has not adopted a position with regard to the inscription or substance of the item. These are matters for the individual members of the council to determine. So far as Canada's views are concerned in respect of the situation in South Africa, they have been clearly expressed and are completely understood.
I think there is nothing more I can say at this time. The matter is being considered by the security council.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the government is not prepared to go further in the House of Commons, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Has the government made any representations to members of the United Nations security council as to what action should be taken with regard to this urgent matter?


John George Diefenbaker: I made that quite clear; the view of the Canadian government is known. The members of the United Nations, on the basis of past experience, do not frequently make representations to members of the security council as to the stand of that body.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received any representations from any other member of the United Nations on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, I cannot say from memory. The minister is not here today, and representations would have been made to him. I will bring that question to his attention.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: With regard to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I think it was, a few moments ago as to whether there have been any representations from other members of the United Nations with respect to consideration by the security council of the South African question, the answer is that there have not.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or, in his absence, to the acting minister. Has the minister seen the story in the latest edition of Time magazine which contains certain misstatements of fact in respect to the construction of the school being built at Old Crow? Would the minister look into the general allegations made in that article, and particularly the statement to the effect that 40 tons of building supplies are allegedly being flown into Old Crow to finish the school rather than being freighted in by barge?


Douglas Scott Harkness: have not seen the article to which reference is made, but I shall be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, who will provide an answer as soon as possible.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the many representations of farmers and various farm organizations for continued support prices on butter and cheese and restored support prices or deficiency payments on milk powder, has the minister any comment to make on this matter?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. member very well
knows, when the government is ready to make a statement in connection with the support price of dairy products for the following year it will be made. It certainly will not be made in response to a question without notice on orders of the day.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



REPORTED FAILURE TO OBTAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Has the
minister received a petition, bearing the signature of more than 300 farmers, complaining that some business concerns are using the registration and numbers given to farmers in order to obtain deficiency payments on hogs? Does the minister intend to inquire into this matter?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not received this communication which is spoken of. However, I can assure the hon. member that the system we have set for making deficiency payments for pigs is such that it will be pretty difficult for people who wish to try to break the law in this matter. Of course bank robberies are taking place every week, and I have no doubt that certain people will attempt to break this law as well as laws against theft and so on. However, I think it would be difficult for them to make much progress along that line.
(Translation):



REPORTED TRAFFIC IN PERMITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Boulanger: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister not received complaints that there is a traffic in permits granted to hog breeders in the large market areas?
(Text) :


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such information.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture when we may expect the tabling of correspondence between the premier of Nova Scotia and the minister with regard to deficiency payments? The minister will perhaps know that the premier tabled the correspondence in the legislature two weeks ago.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the
latter allegations or statements made by the hon. member for Essex East, but as soon as I have received the consent of the province to the tabling of this correspondence I will table it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister asked for that consent yet?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker; immediately after the request was made.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the deportation order made against Irene Rebrin. Can the minister inform the house whether this deportation order was made following a regular inquiry by an immigration board, or was it a ministerial order?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the
former is true.


Leon David Crestohl: I would like to direct a
supplementary question to the minister. If I understood her reply, she indicated that the deportation order was made following a regular immigration board hearing. If that is so, was an appeal lodged by the person deported?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member will permit me I will give him a full report on this matter.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharf Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question in view of the pending investigation into federal income tax as it affects Hutterite colonies. Can the minister say whether this investigation will also apply to commercial and/or agricultural enterprises operated by other religious organizations in Canada?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the word "investigation" is the proper word to use, but as a result of representations which have been made about this matter by the hon. member for Acadia, as well as other hon. members of this house, I have asked my department for a full report of the practice which has been followed in the past with respect to the application of the Income Tax Act as regards Hutterites, as well as the practice under the existing law. A complete



I960

[Stage Direction]
study is being made and a memorandum is being prepared on that particular matter.
Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister would be able to say whether a report is also going to be made as to the application of section 62 to other religious organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is reviving a matter of previous debate. As I recall his contribution to the debate on the grievance raised recently, that was the point he made there.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this question of mine is as the result of a news item, a copy of which the minister has. It is a new development. I am only asking the minister whether the efforts now being undertaken will also apply to other religious organizations, and the minister has not replied.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, studies in my department are being made from time to time of all matters with respect to the application of our taxation laws.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Is this particular study being made in regard to all religious organizations or just one?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have answered that question.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING AWAY FROM HOME LIVING EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received any representations that the income tax deduction for expenses occurred in the course of employment while living away from home now accorded' to construction workers be extended to woodworkers or else cancelled? If so, what type of consideration has he been able to give?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member might defer that question until the budget debate because it refers to matters which are proper subject of budget resolutions.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the federal government has offered to loan the province of British Columbia half the cost of the Columbia river power development.
79951-0-166
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a similar question yesterday, and I would respectfully refer the hon. gentleman to the answer I gave then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked that question, and the minister said he had not seen the press clipping and that he was not in a position to answer it. I now ask him the question again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that was not all I said. I also pointed out that a matter of this kind was not appropriate to be dealt with by a short answer on orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Huberi Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of any negotiations being carried on by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway toward the amalgamation of railway station services which would eliminate the Canadian National Railways downtown office at Fort William? If not, will the minister give an assurance that if and when such negotiations are initiated he will inform the house?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have inquired of the management of the Canadian National Railways, and I am advised that no such negotiations are going on.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER OF ONTARIO RESPECTING ADDITIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of Premier Frost's statement yesterday in the Ontario legislature that he proposes to come to Ottawa in July with the firm resolve of getting $100 million more revenue, will the Minister of Finance say whether, in the preparation of the budget which he will be presenting tomorrow night, he will take into account Premier Frost's thirst for justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know all hon. members would like to have an advance view of the budget, but it would be quite improper in my view to draw it out bit by bit in the

Inquiries of the Ministry way suggested by the hon. member for Essex East. Of course if the hon. member disagrees with the view I take I will be glad to hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. However, we differ so rarely that I would not press the matter. Of course I was not asking the Minister of Finance to tell us what is going to be in his budget. I was simply giving him notice. The minister is preoccupied these days and may not have seen what Premier Frost said. I asked the minister whether in the preparation of his speech, which must be engaging his attention very much at this time, he was going to take into account the very deep desire that the premier of Ontario has that justice be recognized by the federal government. I suggest that is not asking for budget details. I am sure my dear friend would welcome-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot agree that the further refinement to the question which the hon. member has made, alters it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On reflection, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Vancouver Centre asked me to comment on the reported death of Mrs. Eva Ada Harry while being transported from the Vancouver General hospital to my department's Indian hospital at Sardis, British Columbia. In reply to the question, and to one asked by the hon. member for Gatineau yesterday, I would report as follows.
Mrs. Harry was received in the out-patient department of the Vancouver General hospital on March 9. After it had been diagnosed that she was suffering from tuberculosis, my department's local Indian and northern health services office was asked to arrange treatment, and in the meantime she was taken care of in the infectious diseases section of the hospital.
A vehicle from the Indian hospital at Sardis called for Mrs. Harry at 3.20 p.m. on March 11, removing her on a stretcher. It then called at Shaughnessy hospital for another patient, at which time the driver noticed that Mrs. Harry seemed to have taken a turn for the worse. He returned quickly by way of the Indian and northern health services clinic to the Vancouver General hospital, where death was confirmed a little more than an hour after he had originally called for her.


A coroner's inquest held last week found death to be due to a natural cause. The jury recommended that an ambulance similar to those used in Vancouver should be used in such cases, and that an attendant with first aid qualifications should be with the patient.
It must be remembered that my department requires a type of vehicle which can travel through difficult road conditions, and the vehicle used in this case is particularly well suited for such purposes. It could best be described as a station wagon body on a light truck frame, and is widely used by other agencies facing similar transportation problems where ambulance service has to be provided. For example, I believe the Department of Veterans Affairs and the provincial division of tuberculosis control use similar types, and that the specifications invariably include ambulance-quality springs.
I regret that such an incident should have taken place, and particularly that no qualified attendant was present on this trip. It is the custom of Indian and northern health services to have a first aid man or even a qualified professional officer accompany a patient on a transfer when it has been indicated that the patient's condition warrants such a precaution. In this case as, in all others, however, transfer was made on the basis of a diagnosis by the hospital staff, and there was no indication that the patient's condition would deteriorate so rapidly.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY    REQUEST FOR FRENCH COPIES OF EXHIBITION FOLDER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This morning I received from the national art gallery of Canada a folder prepared in connection with the inaugural exhibition which closes on April 5. This has been printed in English only. Can the minister tell us if copies are available in French?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I really do not know. I will inquire.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hal):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is aware that at long last there is in Ottawa today some choice beef, red label beef from Alberta. My question is this. In addition to those we have invited,

will the minister impress upon hon. members from British Columbia, and particularly on the hon. member for Kootenay West, that they attend in the dining room at seven o'clock this evening?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise the house whether the Honest John missiles to be obtained for the Canadian army are to be equipped with atomic warheads?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I believe the answer to the hon. member's question was given yesterday by the Minister of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With deference, I do not think the question was answered yesterday, and I wonder if the associate minister will be good enough to answer it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have now had a chance to check yesterday's Hansard, and since no reference was made to the question previously raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the lack of indication yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should be given an opportunity to ask his question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the Associate Minister of National Defence now advise the house whether or not the Honest John missiles will be equipped with atomic warheads?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister not aware that this question was not asked yesterday, so how could it have been answered?


An hon. Member:: It was dealt with.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps the associate minister would take the question as notice and advise the house tomorrow.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: There was a comment made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence concerning this missile. If the hon. member 79951-0-1661
Inquiries of the Ministry for Trinity wishes to have more information, I will take the question as notice and advise him.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue when the capital budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation tabled yesterday will become generally available to members.


George Clyde Nowlan: It will be distributed in accordance with the usual practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Can the minister now throw any light on the intentions of the C.B.C. with respect to the Flin Flon area?


George Clyde Nowlan: Not at this time, other than to say that the matter is under review and consideration, and that action will be taken at the proper time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there any such provision in the capital budget?


George Clyde Nowlan: The capital budget has now been tabled.



REQUEST FOR TELEVISION COVERAGE OF U.S. BASEBALL GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: While we are on the subject of the C.B.C. I have a question for the minister who reports to parliament for that organization. Has the hon. gentleman received from any person, persons or organizations in my constituency a telegram or other communication requesting that consideration should be given to the televising of American baseball games? If so, would he care to comment?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have received many communications from various organizations, labour unions and so on with respect to this matter. I also have one which I can exhibit to the hon. member at this moment. I think most of his constituents, or at least a substantial number, have joined in sending this telegram.
This matter is receiving the attention of the C.B.C., as are all problems which are

Inquiries of the Ministry presented to the corporation, and in due time the most intelligent decision possible will be made.


Some hon. Members:: Head it.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave
to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister would have it made an appendix to Hansard,'!


George Clyde Nowlan: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the house whether or not the national energy board has now made its report to the cabinet with its recommendations concerning the export of natural gas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have nothing further to add to the answers I have been giving to similar questions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister still of the opinion that the decision of the government on this important question will be announced by the end of this month?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not said that at any time. I said the report would be received and a decision reached before the end of this month.


Hazen Robert Argue: When a decision is reached, will it be made public?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The government will announce all matters of policy in due course.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware of the loss of a mail bag containing several hundred applications for refunds on 1958 income tax returns between St. John's, Newfoundland and Ottawa? If so, will he see to it in consultation with the Postmaster General that there is no undue delay about making the proper reimbursement for the people of Newfoundland?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not seen the report to which the hon. member refers. I will check on the matter. As I recall it, the hon. member said these were returns for 1958 rather than for 1959-


Some hon. Members:: For refunds.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. Can the minister inform the house why there is such a delay in tabling the documents and exchange of correspondence on the East Saint John thermal plant, as covered by motion No. 9 passed by this house on February 3, some 56 days ago?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is a very good reason for this delay. This will be tabled as soon as possible.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not know that permission was obtained from the government of New Brunswick over a month ago?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while these questions are being asked could I ask the Acting Secretary of State what progress he is making with respect to a return passed by this house pursuant to a question I asked on July 1, 1959, and with respect to which I have already asked him questions more than once in the house?


Léon Balcer: I am looking it over, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation) :



PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF queen's PRINTER
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Secretary of State a question?
Could he tell us if we can look forward to the appointment of a queen's printer in the near future?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of government general policy, and when an appointment is made, the house will be informed.

(Text):



APPROPRIATION ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-55, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not going to make a speech?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall follow the time-honoured practice of the house and refrain from making a speech on the second reading of an appropriation bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 29, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Walker

Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to extend until March 31, 1964, the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces under the act and to prolong until December 31, 1963, the period in respect to 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 four hundred million dollars.
Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday
afternoon, at five o'clock, I had reached the point in my remarks where I was talking about the trans-Canada highway in my district. Within the district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador there are 1511 miles of trans-island road. Of this, 18.8 miles are paved; 36.4 miles are graded to trans-Canada standards, and 96.3 miles are ordinary gravel road. The necessity of paving is very apparent. Gravel road will not stand up to heavy traffic and the cost of maintenance is growing with every mile of new road built.
I mention these figures in my district to show, at least in one part of Newfoundland, how small a proportion of the road has either been brought up to trans-Canada highway standards or is finally paved. Since Newfoundland entered confederation I believe about 300 new communities have been linked up by a road system. Those communities, formerly isolated, now have the advantage of having road connections; but there are many other communities yet to be linked and, at the same time, the trans-Canada highway must be completed. The cost of building is very high. But, as I said before, the cost, is even
Trans-Canada Highway Act more burdensome when the cost of maintaining new roads is added to the province's outlay on roads.
Trans-Canada highway is a heavy load for the province to finance. The province of Newfoundland is sparsely populated; the distance between settlements is often very great and the average income is low. Thus far trans-Canada highway has cost the province of Newfoundland approximately $11,500,000. Taking everything into consideration, the number of miles built, the number of miles paved and the number of miles still to be brought up to trans-Canada highway standards, I cannot see how the road can be finished for some years yet. Under the 50-50 formula, my personal opinion is it would take from 10 to 15 years to complete the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland.
Many tourists are finding new interests in the great new native attractions of Newfoundland, but the need for the completion of the trans-Canada highway stands between the tourists who want to come to Newfoundland and the prosperity of the tourist industry in our province. New adventures in the native attractions of Newfoundland await those who want to see the oldest part of the new world and the newest part of Canada. Money is needed to finish the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland quickly. In order for the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland to be finished quickly the old formula must be abandoned and a new, more equitable formula substituted.
It is in the interests of Canada to have the trans-Canada highway finished as quickly as possible. I do hope that the government of today will emulate the government of the past which made transportation the nation's business, and give the completion of the trans-Canada highway the same kind of thinking which created the transcontinental railways.
In conclusion, I should like to quote the following:
We should, and this government does, consider this newest of our provinces-
The speaker was referring to Newfoundland.
-as not a new province in the circle but as something special, something extra, because it can boast of being the oldest and most esteemed colony in the British Empire.
These words, Mr. Speaker, were spoken in this house last year by the present Minister of Public Works. I and all other Newfoundlanders appreciate his sympathy and his interest and we bespeak his making the completion of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland his personal responsibility.
2618	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this resolution before us today, I should like to bring up a few points that should be considered at this time by the Minister of Public Works.
During the past several years we have spent millions on our present trans-Canada highway. Also, we have been building it for over 15 years and it is still far from completion. This has been a major project for a period of over 20 years. Since we can see the completion of the highway in the foreseeable future, we should now have a second trans-Canada highway projected, at least on paper, which would service the populated areas of southern British Columbia.
Several years ago the people of the southern sections of Alberta and of British Columbia formed the southern Alberta trans-Canada highway association and presented their views to the government of Canada. They expressed the urgent need of a through highway across those sections of the provinces. It would serve not only as a tourist attraction but, in an emergency, we would have a through highway not obstructed by ferries and toll bridges on the way.
I should like to impress upon the minister the necessity of supporting financially the early completion of this second highway. A good roads program is now being completed across the centre of the province of British Columbia, and also across the centre of the province of Alberta. It will be an asset to the northern sections of the provinces. It will also be a wonderful assistance in the development of British Columbia; but we must also promote immediately a second road and, of necessity, it will have to be located through my district, and preparations made for feeder lines connecting up with the trans-Canada highway. This southern route should be constructed to meet future demands. The tremendous increase in tourist traffic is demanding more adequate roads. Our travel bureaus, both provincial and federal, are doing a wonderful job but we must support them with good roads.
The provision of better road conditions for the country is supported by boards of trade, chambers of commerce, cities and towns all across the southern section of the western provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. At the present time we are losing millions of dollars every year because of an inadequate highway program, especially across the mountainous sections of our area.
Present development in our area will be greatly enhanced by the initiative of the present government in promoting a second trans-Canada highway across the southern sections of the provinces. It does seem to me


that if the federal government could see its way clear to participate in the construction of the southern trans-Canada highway it would be an impetus to the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and it would hasten the completion of this route. I have been advised that federal funds are being made available to improve the roads in the north, and we are also in a similar position. This matter has been placed by the provincial minister of highways before the federal department but I am advised the discussions have been in general terms. Therefore I should like to specify an early allocation of funds for the southern provincial highways, this, of course, being in addition to the provincial arrangements for a roads to resources program.
At the present time traffic is being diverted from various sections of the roads coming into Canada from the United States and tourists are being requested to use United States highways in preference to roads through Canada. Traffic is taking routes at the present time through the province of British Columbia for part of the way, then going south into the United States at Kings-gate and returning to Canada at Osoyoos and thence to Penticton and onward to our coastal points. If the new route is completed at an early date from Crowsnest through Cranbrook and Creston-I might also mention that at Kimberley, only 20 miles north of Cranbrook, we have the largest lead and zinc mine now operating and in addition a steel mill is being constructed this year-it will be a tremendous tourist attraction and will also give us an all-Canadian route. The major factor is that this is a route that can very easily be kept open all year round. Driving time will be cut in half for through traffic from the eastern and prairie provinces to the coast and for people who come from the eastern and southern states to see our glorious country.
With the advent of trucking operations by our major transportation systems, the Canadian Pacific railway and Canadian National Railways, we have a dire need for a four-lane southern trans-provincial highway to handle the tremendously increased traffic, a highway which will serve not only the people of British Columbia but of all of Canada both industrially and domestically.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on this resolution which has to do with an extension of time and certain payments as far as construction of the trans-Canada highway is concerned. I am, of course, in complete agreement with any extension of time that is required and any additional expenditure of money that is

necessary. But I should like to ask the minister in charge and the government to reconsider the routing of the trans-Canada highway and the question of federal financial responsibility as far as my own city of Vancouver is concerned.
I do not believe the exact situation in Vancouver, the first city of British Columbia and the third by population in Canada, is generally understood. If you look at a map you will see that Vancouver is almost an island. The only way out is through the city of Mission. As far as access to the trans-Canada highway is concerned, Vancouver is almost in the position of being an island.
Until a few years ago when the government came into the picture with respect to the planning and construction of the trans-Canada highway, unless the people of Vancouver went about 60 miles out of their way they had to pay a toll to get out of the city of Vancouver. When the federal government first took part in the planning and financing of the trans-Canada highway the major ingress to and egress from Vancouver was over the Pattullo bridge which was built by the province of British Columbia. The federal government made an arrangement with the provincial government whereby, on the payment of a certain amount of money to the province, the bridge became toll free.
In the great city of Vancouver we are now in this position. We have the Pattullo bridge which by agreement between the federal and provinical authorities is now toll free. However, the Pattullo bridge can no longer handle the traffic originating in the major city of Vancouver and in Burnaby and New Westminster. Therefore the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver had to get together on the construction of the Oak street bridge and the Ladner tunnel which are primarily routes leading to the United States although they also lead to the trans-Canada highway.
The federal government has refused to pay any part of the cost of what I maintain are not only international connections between British Columbia and the United States but also routes leading to the trans-Canada highway. People using the Oak street bridge and the Ladner tunnel have to pay tolls, but even with these routes and the toll-free Pattullo bridge traffic from the third largest city of Canada to the trans-Canada highway is so great that the province of British Columbia and the municipalities concerned have had to undertake to construct what is going to be known as the Mann bridge together
Trans-Canada Highway Act with all the connecting links. The Mann bridge with all its connecting links from Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam and Burquitlam will be a link connecting directly with the trans-Canada highway. It is my understanding that although it is a direct link between Vancouver and the lower mainland and the trans-Canada highway across the Fraser river, no contribution is being made by the federal government.
On behalf of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam and Burquitlam, which together make one of the largest communities in Canada, and because of the peculiar circumstance of Vancouver being almost an island, I should like to ask on what basis the federal government will not consider these most necessary highways leading from Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Burquitlam and Coquitlam over the Fraser river to the trans-Canada highway as being part of the trans-Canada highway. I do not believe there is any other city in the whole of Canada which is in the peculiar situation of Vancouver and its environs in linking up with the trans-Canada highway. It is not that the province, the city and the municipalities involved have only spent a few dollars. In the last few years and taking into consideration the construction commitments made of necessity by the provincial government in order to cross the Fraser river to the trans-Canada highway, millions upon millions of dollars have been spent. If you add the cost of the Oak street bridge, the Ladner tunnel, the new Mann bridge and the necessary approaches, I think I am safe in saying that the total expenditure will not be less than approximately $50 million; I think I am pretty close on that, not less than around $50 million for the approaches, bridges and tunnels. They are all in the city of Vancouver but lead to the international border or tie in with trans-Canada highway.
I understand that the only bridge toward which the federal government has made any contribution was the Pattullo bridge and its approaches. I would, therefore, under this motion, ask the minister if, because of the peculiar situation in the city of Vancouver, it is not possible to apply the same understanding that was reached in connection with one bridge to these new roads and bridges within the city. As a matter of fact, part of my property is being expropriated in order to put a road through, but that does not mean anything. I would ask the minister if, on the basis of Hastings street, Grandview highway, Kingsway, Marine drive, the ingress and egress to trans-Canada highway, there is not some responsibility on the federal government

Trans-Canada Highway Act to make a contribution toward the millions of dollars that have been spent and the more millions to which my province is now committed.
I sincerely hope the minister can advise us as to whether or not an agreement has been reached as to sharing the cost of the Mann bridge over the Fraser river to tie in with the trans-Canada highway, even though it is now completed, and also the cost of the Ladner tunnel.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the resolution which is presently before the committee I should like to commence by saying that I am extremely pleased to learn of the extension of the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces in connection with this trans-Canada highway. I am equally pleased to learn that the fund in relation to this project will be increased. At this time, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin in which he suggested that funds should be made available for the construction of a second trans-Canada highway route. Other hon. members including the hon. member for Kootenay East have spoken about this second route, and I feel it is a very important question at this time.
I say it is very important in so far as the people in all parts of Canada are concerned. I am certain that plans of this nature would be heartily welcomed by all the citizens of Manitoba. As the members of the committee probably know, the Manitoba government has embarked on a fairly extensive program of highway construction and the improvement of provincial roads in general. Extensive plans have also been made, in conjunction with the federal government, under the roads to resources program. Many of these roads to resources in Manitoba are currently under construction, and others are planned.
Apart from the important effect of providing better road facilities for the people living in some of the northern parts of our province, a second trans-Canada highway would have a number of other important benefits. It would be a great boon, of course, as other members have mentioned, to the tourist trade. It is my opinion that we must have better roads, such as the trans-Canada routes, in order to attract tourists into the general area of the northern part of our province in which these tourist attractions are found. Many of these areas are today only accessible by chartered aircraft, although some scheduled flights are available to certain areas. I think it is very important to have these road links constructed under joint federal-provincial financial arrangements. These roads would bring the tourists into the


general area where they could then avail themselves of the roads to resources which are being constructed.
I might mention some of these roads which would lead to tourist attractions, and I am speaking now particularly of the northern part of the province of Manitoba. There are roads leading off No. 10 highway going north to Flin Flon. Some of these roads will open up territory which up until now has only been accessible to people who could fly into the area. We have a road under construction off No. 10 highway in northern Manitoba from Simonhouse to Wekusko. Then, there will be a roadway into the Snow lake mining area. Also planned as an extension of this Wekusko road is a road into the nickel mining area of Thompson, Manitoba. Once this road is constructed as far as Thompson it is not going to be too great a job to continue the road on up to the port of Churchill. Many people believe that a road to Churchill is just a little bit out of the question, but after being up there on many occasions, I can visualize that the seaport of Churchill could easily become one of the major tourist attractions of Canada.
I believe if we can extend plans in the near future for a second trans-Canada highway, regardless of which route of the many which have been suggested is followed, it will bring these tourists into the area on good roads. Then they can, in time, make use of the roads to resources which will be quite accessible. However, for some length of time they will not be as good as the roads that are classified as highways.
There are one or two other things, however, which are just as important in regard to these roads through the northern areas. Just as important as the tourist trade is the fact that once we get these roads into these areas, many of them probably running closely adjacent to railway lines, we believe it will solve another of our great problems, namely the problem of the indiscriminate freight rates which all people in the northern parts of the provinces have to face. I have seen on many occasions through personal experience that the moment a road goes into an area and there is trucking competition down come the freight rates. So that we hope these roads will be planned as quickly as possible to help solve this very great problem.
Apart from the question of freight rates, a lot of the people living in the more populated areas probably do not realize that where there is no competition from other modes of transport there are many other little services which we are not entitled to have. Many of the areas of northern Manitoba are at the present time continually battling to have such

things as free pick-up and delivery service of express and l.c.l. freight, and this all ties in with our railway problems. Although the authorities who have charge of these affairs will not admit it, it is quite evident that once there is this competition from trucking these services are provided, and, as I said before, the freight rates come down.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest briefly to the Minister of Public Works that, despite the fact that there are going to be many briefs presented with regard to just where this second trans-Canada highway should be routed, in Manitoba the route which seems the most feasible is one going northward on No. 10 highway up through the Dauphin area as far north as Flin Flon. I know there are many chambers of commerce, boards of trade and communities in general who are interested in suggesting that consideration should be given to taking a cut-off from No. 10 highway at or near Mafeking, probably going west through the towns of Westgate, Baden, Powell and through to Hudson bay, and then west from there to the Saskatchewan road link.
However, I would like to get back to this previous suggestion that a very good look be taken with regard to the possibility of continuing on No. 10 highway directly to Flin Flon, and then going southwest from there and linking up with the Saskatchewan road system. At the present time the Saskatchewan government are constructing a road going southwest out of Flin Flon under another roads to resources program from Creighton, Saskatchewan, which is adjacent to Flin Flon, going southwest and linking up with the Saskatchewan road system at a point near Smeaton, very close to the city of Prince Albert. I realize there will be many such routes suggested, but I would like to go on record at this time as heartily supporting the proposal that full consideration should be given to a route going north on No. 10 highway directly to Flin Flon, and then using the route which we hope will soon be available going southwest from Flin Flon into Saskatchewan.
I have very few further remarks to make on this resolution. However I would like to say, as has been said before, that we in northern Manitoba have found in talking to tourists that at the present time, with only one road going north, tourists stay for just a week or two and then have to return home along the same route over which they entered the country. I think it would be of tremendous help to them and certainly more attractive if they had the opportunity of coming in along one route and returning home along one or two alternative routes.
Trans-Canada Highway Act Favourable consideration to putting through the second trans-Canada highway as I have suggested would aid considerably in those problems before us. The tourist trade is one of our greatest revenues and we should do all we can to encourage it to the fullest extent.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, may I intervene not to speak in the debate but to move an amendment? I notice that as this item No. 16 appears on page 10 of today's order paper, the word "March" is inserted instead of "May". It is just a printing error, but so that the resolution be correct, it should read "May 31, 1964" instead of "March 31, 1964".
Therefore it would read:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to extend until May 31, 1964, the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces under the act-
And so on. Accordingly I move that the resolution be amended by deleting the word "March" in the second line thereof and by substituting therefor the word "May".


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee agreeable to this change?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister if that is the way it was in the message from the crown?


David James Walker: I have not seen the message from the crown, but it has always been, as I understand it, an extension of three years to the day in each instance, and it was that way in the old bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
(Translation):
Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution would extend until December 31, 1963, the period in respect to which construction costs may be incurred under the Trans-Canada Highway Act and would increase to a maximum of $400 million the aggregate of all expenditures under the act.
I do not propose to speak at length on the resolution this afternoon, since I already had occasion to do so last year, when a similar resolution was considered. Besides, on second reading of the bill, we shall have a chance of asking questions about this highway and I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) will not consider them out of order.
However, I want to take this opportunity to tell the minister that, once more, like many others, I was unpleasantly surprised to find that the members of this government had forgotten the promises they made when they

Trans-Canada Highway Act were in the opposition and, had failed to carry out the suggestions they put forward when they were sitting on this side of the house. It seems to me that, after the many criticisms they expressed at the time, we might have expected that the federal government's contribution would be increased in proportion to the building cost of the highway.
I have no intention of mentioning the promises made by the key men of this government, nor all the commitments they made when they were sitting on our side of the house, because my leader, when dealing with the resolution yesterday afternoon, reminded the house of those promises made by the members of the Conservative party.
Mr. Chairman, I also thought that the minister would take this opportunity to tell us that the government intends to call a federal-provincial conference, as the previous government had done in 1955, as a result of which the federal government increased its contribution, with consequent greater activity in the construction of that highway.
The minister has no doubt been informed of the statement made by the president of the Canadian Construction Association who, speaking before members of that association at Calgary, in early January, suggested that a federal-provincial conference should be held this year to consider the national highways problem. He also added that, in his opinion, members present at this important meeting must work in close co-operation with Ottawa and the provinces.
On the other hand, according to the answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), some time ago, no official talks, so far, have been opened with the provinces in connection with that project. In my view, it is high time such a meeting were called, because two or three western provinces have already completed their highway, and it is desirable that plans be made for the construction of highways that would be in the national interest.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that in replying to the various questions that were put to him the minister will be able to give us more detailed information in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, the trans-Canada highway project, which is of major interest to all provinces of Canada, was launched 11 years ago. All provinces, except Quebec, shared in that project, through which millions of
[Mr. Bourget.l
dollars were made available to them by the government of this country.
Now, despite the many representations made by both the former federal government and the present one, the province of Quebec, under the specious pretext of autonomy, invariably refuses to participate, thus causing Quebec people to lose millions of dollars that the province could have spent on the construction of this highway.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer and furthermore, I do not pretend to be an expert on constitutional law. However, I have consulted a few of my colleagues who are lawyers and they told me that section 92 of the British North America Act, which sets outs the powers of the provinces in different fields-


Mr. Asselin:: It is section 10-


Maurice Bourget: Well, in subsection 10 of section 92 of the act, we find this:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
Paragraph (a) reads as follows:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
And now, I read paragraph (c):
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
Now, not being a lawyer, I can hardly interpret the law, but I do not know of a single member who objected to that section. Moreover, I stated reasons why that section did not prejudice the right of our country's government to build a national highway through the provinces. Besides, my hon. friends from the province of Quebec know that on various occasions the most autonomist papers in the province have blamed the Quebec government for its failure to participate in the trans-Canada highway project, one which, they pointed out, in no way affects our rights.
I now ask my friends from the province of Quebec, and more particularly those who are cabinet members this question: "If the Trans-Canada Highway Act is in conflict with the provincial autonomy, why do they not protest to the cabinet, and why do they not tell their fellow members that this legislation is a violation of Quebec's rights as a province?" I ask them to rise today and tell

this house, instead of just accusing us on behalf of the province, of violating the rights of Quebec.
You have been elected in Quebec because you said that you would salvage all the rights that those wicked Liberals had taken away. If that is the case, prove it now. Do not hide behind the curtains. Take your responsibilities.


Mr. Pigeon:: We are not afraid, not at all afraid. We have not sat pat for 22 years as you did.


Azellus Denis: You sat down between two stools.


Maurice Bourget: We have seen great repudiations, starting with the great repudiation by their provincial leader in the province of Quebec; but we shall have other occasions to refer to that.
I said that the most nationalist and autonomist newspapers rightfully blamed the government of the province of Quebec-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The reform.


Maurice Bourget: Many a time, we have heard the late premier, Hon. Maurice Duplessis, and after him, the present premier of our province, as well as the present minister of highways, emphatically state that this project was altogether unacceptable, and incompatible with Quebec autonomy.
Yet it will be remembered that not so long ago the Hon. Paul Sauve stated that autonomy should be forgotten for the time being. He said that an important matter of dollars and cents was involved in that project. I am not the one who said this. It was said by your former leader who for four months recently, was prime minister of the province. And he added, after pointing out that the province of Quebec had built a good portion of the road entirely on its own:
Why should we not get some financial compensation?
And then, quite rightly, he said:
Why should we be dupes?
That is clear, quite clear. I hope my fellow members from the other provinces realize the problem and understand what we mean.
To Mr. Sauve it was not a question of autonomy but of the benefits we might derive therefrom. It was a business matter. That is how he saw the interest of his province.


Azellus Denis: Contracts without tenders.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: With a sob in his voice.
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Maurice Bourget: With a sob in his voice Mr. Chairman, if you had heard those people since 1944 when they were talking about autonomy; if you had heard them say on the platform that French Canadians were going to lose their institutions, their language, if we lost autonomy.
I personally heard myself the ex-premier of the province-


Mr. Ricard:: Tell us about conscription.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the hon. member must realize he is straying away from the subject of the resolution before us.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I did realize I was straying away but I was invited to do so and sought to comply with the request of my hon. friend.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are talking like Jean
Lesage. Jean Lesage has no seat.


Maurice Bourget: He shall have one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, he is licked before he starts.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The rules permit only one hon. member at a time to have the floor.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Unfortunately, this is not the policy of Mr. Sauve's successor because since March-and I am talking about the new premier of the province of Quebec, he-


Azellus Denis: That is not so sure.


Maurice Bourget: He stated in the legislature:
If our government did not share In this project- (Text):


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have sat here for 15 minutes because of the respect I hold for the hon. member for Levis but the resolution provides for an extension of the time to complete the three years and makes provision for another $50 million and in no way concerns the province of Quebec which is not participating in the Trans-Canada Highway Act and I therefore respectfully suggest that the hon. member's speech which has been devoted entirely to a discussion of the policies in the province of Quebec is out of order at this time.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member realizes that we must confine ourselves to this resolution. As an hon. member of long standing in this chamber I am sure he will appreciate the situation and co-operate with the Chair.


Maurice Bourget: Speaking to the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works, may I suggest that we are considering a resolution which could mean millions of dollars for the province of Quebec. As hon. members of this committee and representatives of our own province are we not entitled to get a share of the money that is spent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you make a ruling could I say a word on this point. After all, the trans-Canada highway is offered by the federal government to all ten provinces and not just nine of them. What my hon. friend is seeking to do is to show that it would be in the interests of the people he represents in the county of Levis and the people in the province of Quebec generally to participate with the rest of Canadians in this national program. It seems to me when he is arguing about that matter he is arguing about the very essence of the question.


Azellus Denis: Since the inception of the expenditure of this money for the highway not one foot of road has been built in the province of Quebec, Mr. Chairman-


Harold Edward Winch: Because of the choice of the Quebec government.


Azellus Denis: Yes, but there are about 50 Conservative members from Quebec and we would like to know if they intend to take advantage of this.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair does not intend to restrict any hon. member in speaking on anything relevant to this resolution and I think the committee understands that but I hope hon. members will refrain from indulging in what is perhaps best termed a political speech and will stick to the terms of the resolution.


Azellus Denis: This is not a political speech. We are giving facts.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Levis.


Maurice Bourget: I hope hon. members will allow me to complete my speech which I shall do in four or five minutes. This afternoon we listened to speeches made by hon. members for Manitoba and British Columbia who I believe mentioned the requests of their provinces and no one rose in his place to stop them from speaking so why should


not I be entitled to speak about my own province when this resolution could mean millions of dollars to my province. We are allowed some leeway on a resolution and I think we should be entitled to represent not only the views of Liberal members of parliament but the general views of the population of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The Conservative government will settle that.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: The gag, the gag.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Bourget gag.


Maurice Bourget: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this is not the policy of the one who has succeeded to the Hon. Mr. Sauve in the legislature, because early in March he stated that if our government had not shared in the project, it was first and foremost because it involved the principle of provincial autonomy. Well, section 92 of the British North America Act, which I quoted earlier, clearly shows that such is not the case-unless I am mistaken in the interpretation of the text. In any case, I have heard no one contradict that fact in the house. If, on the other hand, the province of Quebec did have technical objections to raise, it should have raised them. Now, that project has been going on for 11 years, and the government of the Union Nationale has never, in any way, introduced any proposals or counter-proposals that might have settled that matter definitely.
During this session, about two or three weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Public Works whether the province of Quebec had made any proposals or counter-proposals concerning the trans-Canada highway, and the answer was no.
I have here the record of the debates that took place on that matter in the Quebec legislature early in March.
(Text):


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Maurice Bourget: Certainly.


William Joseph Browne: Is the hon. gentleman criticizing the government of the province of Quebec or the government of Canada?


Maurice Bourget: I am criticizing the government of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Is that in order here?


Maurice Bourget: Why not?


John Ferguson Browne: I can answer that, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wishes.


Maurice Bourget: Is Quebec in Canada? As representatives of Quebec are we not entitled to speak on behalf of those people? What are hon. members trying to do here, suppress the views of our population?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Levis has the floor.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order, the hon. gentleman is straying from the resolution under discussion. If the hon. gentleman reads it he will find he is out of order.


Maurice Bourget: Why am I straying? Quebec is part of Canada, is it not? After all, it means millions of dollars for us.


Mr. Spencer:: Read the resolution.


Maurice Bourget: I have read the resolution.


Norman Leonard Spencer: The hon. gentleman read the wrong form.


Maurice Bourget: No. That money is voted by the federal government. Quebec is as much entitled as any other province to benefit from the money spent all across the country.


Norman Leonard Spencer: That is for Quebec to decide. (Translation):


Maurice Bourget: I have here a record of the proceedings when this matter was dealt with in the Quebec legislature early in March, and
I	find that the provincial minister of highways attempted, probably to confuse things, to give a few reasons to justify the refusal of the province of Quebec to share in the construction of the highway. And among the reasons mentioned by the minister, there is not a single one has to do with provincial autonomy. They deal solely with matters of procedure and details.
May I add, Mr. Chairman, that in the
II	years that this project has been going forward, I have never heard a member of this house, from any party or from any province, complain about the way the federal government had handled the provinces with regard to this scheme. I ask the Minister of Public Works whether, since his appointment as minister, he has received any complaints from the provinces with respect to the treatment they have received from the federal government.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Personally, I had the opportunity, when I was parliamentary assistant to the minister of public works, to travel to western Canada, where I had the pleasure to meet the four provincial ministers of highways, and they all told me that they were fully satisfied with the good relations existing between their respective governments and the federal government with regard to this plan. From what I was told, there appeared to be the highest degree of co-operation in the matter. This shows that similar relations might have existed with the province of Quebec if it had really wanted to share in the plan.
It is quite difficult to figure out exactly how many millions of dollars the people of the province of Quebec are losing because of the stubbornness of their provincial leaders, but on the basis of the total length of the trans-Canada highway, 4,500 miles, excluding the province of Quebec sector-I And that the length of the highway within our province represents about one eleventh of its total length. Well, one eleventh of the $400 million spent on this project by the federal government is $36 million. That is the amount the province of Quebec is now losing in this case.
And that is not all; we hear now of the construction of a highway that would cross Montreal from east to west. There again the province and the city of Montreal stand to lose many million dollars because this highway could certainly be part of the trans-Canada highway.
I realize that under the present legislation, it might be impossible for the province of Quebec to recover the millions it could have obtained, either as payment for sections of the highway previously built between 1928 and 1949, or for other sections of the highway built since 1949 to date. But I believe it would be easy to amend the act, and I am convinced that not one member in this house would object to an amendment that would allow our province to recover its part of the amount spent on the construction of this highway.
This is perhaps the last opportunity the province has to share in this program, and I hope it will not let it go by.
I hope the ministers who represent the province of Quebec in the cabinet, and the other members on the government side will finally realize, as their former leader, the Hon. Mr. Sauve, did so well realize, that we must stop being dupes in our own country. (Text):


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
Is it not correct that the only reason why Quebec has not received any money under the trans-Canada highway 50 per cent formula is that the government of Quebec would not, up until recently, make an agreement with the federal government to accept any contribution?


Maurice Bourget: That is absolutely right.


Mr. Jones:: 
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, the construction of the trans-Canada highway can be compared with great Canadian projects of a magnitude such as that of the transcontinental railway of the nineteenth century, the St. Lawrence seaway, the trans-Canada pipe line and the proposed Saskatchewan dam, projects which required not only faith in the future of Canada and vast sums of money but also an almost visionary concept of what this country

is going to be for future generations to benefit from and to enjoy. I appreciate the privilege of participating in the discussion of this resolution to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act in order to extend until May 31, 1964 the period during which contributions by way of payments may be made to the provinces under the act and also to increase the amount that may be expended to $400 million. I congratulate the Minister of Public Works for sponsoring the resolution because it will enable those provinces which have not availed themselves of federal government participation in the past to make it possible that the national highway will be completed from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
The Canadian Automobile Association made a submission to the federal government advocating the urgent need of a national highway policy for Canada in order to develop the nation's highways efficiently. In its brief it recommends the convening of a conference with the provincial governments and representatives of the municipalities for the purpose of planning and building a national system of roads.
Automobile transportation, because of its convenience, has brought about much of what we like to call our Canadian independent way of life. It has become so popular that automobile manufacturers, through constant research into which untold millions of dollars have been poured, have far outdistanced the efforts of governments to build adequate roads for these vehicles. In 1890 there was not a single mile of pavement in Canada. In 1958 there were 252,000 miles of roads and highways, 41,000 of which were paved.
As everyone knows or should know, the automobile industry and the many economic enterprises that spring from it have actually become a decisive factor in the production of national wealth. The industry has completely transformed rural as well as urban living. May I point out that one out of every seven persons employed in Canada is now directly or indirectly dependent for his livelihood upon the economic activities related to the automotive industry and highway transportation.
In a survey conducted by the Canadian automobile chamber of commerce it is reported that six of every ten automobile owners use their cars to travel to work or use them in the conduct of their business. The same survey found that nearly seven out of every ten cars were operated by families whose chief wage earner earned less than $3,000 a year. A nation of not quite 18 million people uses for transportation five million vehicles. It can be predicted with
Trans-Canada Highway Act reasonable assurance of accuracy that by 1970 ten million vehicles will travel on the roads and highways of Canada, without taking into consideration the millions of tourists who will visit Canada every year. Therefore, at the present rate of highway construction by all three levels of government, construction will fall far behind the requirements for reasonable and adequate provision to accommodate the ever-increasing number of vehicles competing for space on our highways.
It is true that the responsibility for road building and maintenance is established by the British North America Act, but that was done at a time when there were no automobiles. Those days produced no prophets who foretold the advent of the automobile and the evolution of transportation. Therefore there is a substantially good and sufficient reason why the government should consider an amendment to the act to enable the establishment of a highway program based on national need, which program should be second only to defence.
The present Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed in 1949 and established the framework within which the trans-Canada highway is being constructed. Under the act the federal government has made provision for substantial assistance, and the resolution we are discussing now again provides a sum of money and an extension of the time limit. At the same time, certain inequalities are present. This is what I particularly wish to point out to the minister.
Those provincial governments with few construction problems have completed their construction projects under the earlier agreement. Those provincial governments with longer stretches of highway and more difficult construction problems have not completed their projects. Others have not elected to participate in the federal assistance plan. The result has been that those governments which have completed their portions of the highway according to their agreements with the federal government are now deprived of financial aid. In other words the responsibilities for highways in Canada are not sufficiently co-ordinated nor clearly enough understood to justify the hope that a national system of highways, with a uniform construction will materialize.
As pointed out by the Canadian Automobile Association, the federal government should recognize the necessity of a co-ordinated plan. Canada is one of the few major nations of the world that does not have an integrated transportation policy and a national system of highways. The trans-Canada highway could be the starting point for a national

Trans-Canada Highway Act system of highways. The Canadian Automobile Association suggests in their brief that the assistance for access roads which this government implemented last year is a good move but is only a partial answer to the problem.
I should like now to quote what the Canadian tax foundation has to say on its study of taxes and traffic, and which is very pertinent to the subject under discussion:
Undoubtedly highways have some "national" implications in Canada, just as they have provincial and municipal implications, and these are probably broader than the federal government has been willing to recognize in the past. The Trans-Canada Highway Act and some of the earlier legislation has been in the right direction and more of this type of program should be planned for the future. The "national" implications of highways in Canada are far more intangible than in most other countries-particularly in the United States- and the danger is that they will be valued too low rather than the reverse. We will not truly be a national community until it is possible for the masses of our citizens who own cars to travel the country from coast to coast in comfort and safety during at least the milder times of the year.
Just where the line falls between national effort that will achieve this end and federal assistance to the provinces and municipalities in meeting their normal responsibilities for highways, roads and streets cannot be said categorically, but undoubtedly experience and experiment would produce some workable rules. Wherever the line is drawn it should be consistent with the concept of highway financing set out previously.
The trans-Canada highway does go through the Canadian lakehead but unfortunately the condition of the highway west of Fort William practically to the Manitoba boundary, with the exception of a few stretches, can be described as poor for ordinary traffic and absolutely inadequate for the heavy traffic now resulting from the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. When a similar resolution was introduced by the former minister of public works I expressed the fear that unless the highway from the lakehead to Winnipeg was considerably improved we were going to lose some of the benefits of the seaway to the cities of Duluth and Superior in the United States. The highway between Duluth and Winnipeg is preferable to our own and they are planning a four-lane highway all the way to the Manitoba boundary.
I advocated that we should not be caught sleeping at the switch, and that we should also plan a four-lane highway to Winnipeg if we are serious about the potential freight movement which the seaway is bound to create. I regret to say that little or nothing has yet been done on this portion of the highway and, consequently, hundreds of tons of freight unloaded from ships at the lake-head have found their way to western Canada via Duluth, Minnesota. A share of the blame for this "do nothing" policy on our trans-Canada highway link between the lake-head and Manitoba properly rests on the

Ontario government. However, since the federal government pays a substantial, indeed the major, share of the cost it should also have some say in where the moneys are going to be spent.
Some of the hon. members here know that the provincial government is spending proportionately far more in the eastern parts of the province than in northwestern Ontario. This is a policy which has irritated the people of northwestern Ontario to the point of sparking talk of secession and the formation of a new province. I am not advocating such a move at the present time, but if this neglect continues the people of the northwest corner of the province will undoubtedly ask for a separation in the years ahead when a separate province may be economically feasible.
The lakehead is the natural gateway to the prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We share their common interests. We are the key to their communication system in which is wrapped up the movement of goods from eastern Canada and overseas, a large portion of which is being carried by motor transport. I believe that a considerable movement of grain may, in the future, be made by motor transport until a pipe line is constructed which will transport wheat from the west in a manner similar to that in which oil is transported by pipe line.
A good trans-Canada highway will also benefit the tourist business, and this means additional millions of dollars coming into this country to help balance the present adverse trade with the United States. Large sums of money have been spent to develop recreational facilities, to develop motels, and for advertising, especially in the United States. But much of these expenditures would be positively wasted if good all-weather highways were not provided. Good roads are an integral part of the tourist industry, just as the development of parks, resort facilities and advertisements in newspapers and magazines.
Motor car travel has a high priority for the Canadian people once provision has been made for the necessities. It is a pattern of life which is characteristic of North America which enjoys the highest standard of living in the world. Canadians are spending an increasingly larger amount of money on touring their own country, especially in places where they know they can rely on good roads. The growing number of car owners in Canada is one of the most spectacular developments of our Canadian way of life since the war. Approximately five million motor vehicles were registered in Canada in 1959, and every car owner becomes a tourist at some period during the calendar year. The federal government collected from the sale of these vehicles



I960

[Stage Direction]
an estimated $500 million, $134 million of which represented the sales and excise taxes. The provinces collected more than $500 million in licence fees and gasoline tax.
I realize also, of course, that the construction of highways is costly, but I venture to say that it does not come anywhere near the amount of revenue received by the federal and provincial governments from various sources directly connected with the automobile industry which provides the source for the tourist dollar. It is a generally accepted fact that the tourist business is the third largest industry in Canada today. It is, therefore, an important factor in the national prosperity as well as the welfare of the community. Someone has said that the tourist trade is Canada's greatest invisible export.
Only wheat and newsprint bring in more money from outside Canada than visitors do. Only newsprint brings in more money from the United States than visitors do. We must give constant consideration to the need for providing good and safe highways in which our trans-Canada highway plays a major role. What needs to be done is to make the trans-Canada highway safer for motor travelling in order to attract United States tourists, such as levelling off the hilly portion of a road where the summit is approached from both sides, straightening dangerous curves and the laying of a good pavement.
It is expected that by next October the new highway around lake Superior will be completed. Nothing would please the people of northwestern Ontario more than to have the Minister of Public Works officiate at the official opening upon the completion of this important link of the trans-Canada highway along the shore of lake Superior from the lakehead to the Soo. This road, which is part of the trans-Canada highway, would open 450 miles of scenic splendour, the unsurpassed beauty of which will defy description unless one is possessed with the endowment of a Dickens or a Longfellow. Unfortunately the road will not be up to standard but it is to be hoped that it will not be as long before it is paved as those other sections of the trans-Canada highway which, though open for several years, are still in very poor condition.
This lakeshore drive is expected to bring in an additional three million tourists annually to northwestern Ontario. This trend was started two years ago by the opening of the Mackinac bridge, the largest suspension bridge in the world. The building of the lake Superior highway, which is designated as part of the trans-Canada highway, has added an attraction to millions of tourists
Trans-Canada Highway Act living in the central and west central sections of the United States. This would also place the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur at the head of a transportation system which stretches from Mexico along the Mississippi waterway, into Ontario, the lakehead and Kenora. It opens up countless lakes and rivers for the sportsman who likes to fish pickerel, northern pike and speckled trout, to say nothing of good moose hunting.
A vacation paradise awaits the action of this government and co-operation with the government of the province of Ontario would make it a reality.
Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with a great deal of interest to the special pleas put forth on behalf of the Atlantic region, first by the Leader of the Opposition and then by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. While they did present what to my mind are very telling factors in arguing the case of the Atlantic region, I think they also showed themselves to be cursed with remarkably short memories.
What are the sound arguments they did advance before I turn to their short memories? First, the sparse population compared with areas elsewhere, which is particularly true of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Second, the lack of tax raising resources in these provinces, which is a fact that has haunted us before and since confederation. But their memories have proved to be remarkably short on the problem of the trans-Canada highway, for I suggest that since the government changed in 1957 we have gone a long way toward meeting the objections that our predecessors raised when the Conservative party was in opposition.
There are two very important measures which have been adopted which go toward meeting these reasonable objections of the hon. members of the opposition. For one thing the Conservative government has taken account of the problems of the Atlantic area in raising taxes for highway building and other pubbc services. I refer to the special grants to the Atlantic provinces of $7.5 million to the three largest provinces and $2.5 million to the province of Prince Edward Island.
Some of this money has undoubtedly been spent on roads, and that fact alone would overcome some of the objections and arguments raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member from northern Newfoundland. In fact, in the province of Nova Scotia, my own province, we have had the most active road building in history since

Trans-Canada Highway Act the people there in provincial voting followed the proper course which the people in the rest of Canada took in 1957.
But this alone is not the whole story. Very recently agreements were signed to provide $7.5 million to each of those provinces for roads to resources, and this again is of very special benefit to areas where the tax raising potential is not high, and in particular the area of the Atlantic provinces. So that in effect we have met, and I think met very effectively, the objections made by hon. members when they were in opposition which were quoted and read into the record by the Leader of the Opposition when he took part in this debate a day or so ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member for Halifax permit a question? Is the hon. member for Halifax, as a representative of the Atlantic provinces, satisfied with the contribution the federal government is now making toward the trans-Canada highway?


An hon. Member:: That is not a fair question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think it is considering the source.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He was satisfied prior to 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I suggest that the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member from Newfoundland who preceded me in this debate-doubtless other hon. members from Newfoundland can be expected to follow me-simply show that remorse and repentance can work wonders, particularly when you are in opposition.
I think these points should be made clear, otherwise the people could get the impression that the Atlantic provinces have special needs and special arguments which are not being met. I say that we do have these special needs; we do have these special arguments which were fairly pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition. But I would definitely quarrel with him in the proposal he has made, and I say that the government is not only recognizing those needs but has gone a long, long way toward meeting them. That is something which the hon. members in opposition can well ponder upon before they make this kind of suggestion.
I return briefly to another matter, namely consideration of the trans-Canada highway system. I hope that when the final link is completed from coast to coast some thought will be given to providing additions to it. My own city of Halifax, for example, does not enjoy a position on the trans-Canada


highway, but 60 miles of pavement would overcome that difficulty. I think we people in the Atlantic provinces would be better advised to save our arguments on the completion of the first trans-Canada highway to ensure that we are not put in a bad bargaining position should a second trans-Canada highway system be considered or, as I say, additions are made to the first one.


Mr. Howard:: On rising to participate in this discussion during the resolution stage, may I say at the outset that I was extremely interested in the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Liberal party. I would imagine that if the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, is still a member of the Liberal party, he could properly classify himself as a Liberal in a hurry. These new views which the Liberal party has adopted indicate how stimulating is defeat in the promotion of the imagination; except, I may say, that the official opposition is four or five years too late in reaching these conclusions about the deficiency of their proposals concerning the trans-Canada highway when they were in office. However, I will say, also, that the government should now cease the practice of taking something which the Liberal party did when they were in office and extending it a few years. It seems that the Conservative party is not using the grey matter between its ears and is merely content to stumble along continuing what the Liberal party did during its years of office.
In any event, the request indicated in the resolution is acceptable as far as I am concerned. I have some complaints to make about the financial conditions attached to the building of the trans-Canada highway and with regard to certain other matters with which I will deal in a moment. If I may, I will first make reference to the report of the proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, which was submitted by the Minister of Public Works to the Governor General, and read a few lines from it. At the top of page 2 it says:
The progress of construction during the 1958 season was generally satisfactory with most provinces proceeding with the work at an accelerated pace in order to ensure that travel will be possible on a paved road over the entire highway mileage by December, 1960. This may be so in all provinces except Newfoundland-
I ask the minister to consider seriously whether in future reports of this nature he should not be more truthful with regard to the impression he leaves with the general public and with the house. I am quite sure that when this was reported and when it

was compiled the minister knew full well that the trans-Canada highway would not be completed by 1960.


David James Walker: On a question of privilege, is the hon. member referring to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959? Is that the report from which he is reading?


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is what I said when I started.


David James Walker: That is the answer, then, is it not?


Charles Benjamin Howard: It indicates, too, that when this report was made the minister knew full well that the program would not be finished by 1960.


David James Walker: A year ago?


Charles Benjamin Howard: If the minister does not know that far in advance what he is doing, he should not be in office.


David James Walker: The hon. member has a great capacity for insolence, but he will be good enough to understand that I became minister in August 1959, and this report is dated March 31, 1959, not March 31, 1960, and only expresses the provinces' intentions a year ago.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It says: "Respectfully submitted, David J. Walker, Minister of Public Works.'' I assume the hon. member is the person who signed his name to this report. Even if what the minister says is true, and he did not know what he was submitting to the Governor General, that is a sad commentary on the situation, and he is merely putting the blame on one of his colleagues, the former minister, now Secretary of State for External Affairs. One of the two gentlemen is wrong and should be more truthful in the future when these reports are made. Does the hon. gentleman wish to ask a question?
I should like to deal now with this formula of 50 per cent of the cost paid by the federal government plus an additional 40 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage, and to suggest it should be altered and adjusted in the same way as the initial 50-50 proportion was adjusted when the Liberals were in office. I suggest that such a revision is even more important now than it was in the past, in the light of the fact that some provinces have not completed work on their portions of the highway, and in the light of some of the comments made by the Prime Minister a few days ago about the acceptance of the principle of financial participation in this work.
I suggest that some of the things which should be taken into account in developing
Trans-Canada Highway Act a formula more generous than the one we have at the moment are such factors as road building costs, which vary considerably from province to province, the weather, geographical and topographical considerations, labour costs, mileage, the state of the economy of the particular provinces and so on. All of these factors should be taken into account and some increase should be made in the amount of money which the federal government contributes.
As I have mentioned, the difference in mileage between the various provinces is considerable. Prince Edward Island, for example, has only some 71 miles as compared with 1,436 miles in Ontario. Differences of this kind emphasize the necessity of revising the formula upward, taking into account these disparities. Road building costs, too, vary widely from province to province.
Let us consider, for example, the two westernmost provinces, British Columbia, from which I come, and Alberta. In economic terms they are relatively equal. There is not much difference in their ability to pay. However, we know that in British Columbia road building costs, on account of geographical and topographical features, are much higher than they are in Alberta. In British Columbia we have a number of what are called million dollar miles; stretches of highway where, in other words, it costs a million dollars to build one mile of road. That is a cost which has to be reckoned with, and it is met not only in connection with the trans-Canada highway but in the construction of other highways in British Columbia. In Alberta road construction does not cost anywhere near this amount; if costs do run as high as that, it is only for, possibly, a few miles within the Rocky Mountains.
These are factors which should be taken into consideration. I mention the examples of British Columbia and Alberta only because of the comparable economy of the two provinces. But the increased construction difficulties which I have mentioned should be taken into account when determining this particular formula and how it should be developed, in addition to such factors as the economic ability of a province to pay, the per capita income of its population, and so on.
Wage levels in each province should also be taken into consideration. Compare, for instance, the province of Newfoundland with the province of British Columbia. Each province has roughly the same amount of mileage to build, Newfoundland having some 554 miles and British Columbia 568. When we compare the economic factors in the two provinces we immediately realize that economically British Columbia is better able

Trans-Canada Highway Act to build highways than is Newfoundland. This is the most important factor to take into account in adjusting upwards the formula for payment by the federal government to the provinces in finishing the present trans-Canada highway and also when the government gets around to participating in the cost of other highways.
I do not state a flat figure as did my hon. friends in the Liberal party as applying equally to all the maritime provinces and leave that to the statistical people to work out. I say there should be an upward adjustment in the formula and that these are some factors to be taken into consideration in developing a formula. It was wrong to take the position in 1949 that the provinces were equally able to afford to build highways. In its distribution of funds across the nation the government considers the financial situation of the provinces and this same principle should apply in highway building programs.
One province has completed its section of the highway and others are nearing completion. An examination of the table for 1959, for which the present minister apparently is not responsible, indicates that Prince Edward Island has one mile to complete; New Brunswick has 72; Manitoba has 16; Alberta has 6; and Saskatchewan has none. I think we can logically assume that Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Alberta will soon complete their sections barring unforeseen difficulties. This will mean four provinces will have their share completed, three of them being in western Canada. The hon. member for Saskatoon said there is great interest in western Canada in having a start on a second and northern trans-Canada highway following the completion of federal-provincial arrangements. The longer this is delayed the more will the federal government penalize those provinces which will have completed their share of the present highway.
The Minister of Public Works being new to the cabinet has not had time to visit the places he would like to visit but I extend an invitation to him to make an extensive tour of northern British Columbia and in order that he may fully appreciate the need of a highway system there I suggest he make his visit in the spring and discuss the question with individuals and groups such as city councils. His predecessor did visit northern British Columbia during the election campaign but I am sure the hon. gentleman's mind was preoccupied with matters other than highways on that occasion.
We are given to understand that the Prime Minister is interested in a second trans-Canada highway and indeed made a speech on the subject on a "Nation's Business"


telecast on March 3, 1960. 1 have in my hand the text of this speech where on page 3 we find the words I wish to draw to the attention of the committee. I did not see the telecast but can well imagine the artful emotionalism the Prime Minister would employ on an occasion of this nature when he seeks to convince the people that he believes in something about which he intends to take no action.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman's remarks are in my submission a direct reflection upon the Prime Minister and should be withdrawn.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I believe what I said represented a direct interpretation of the Prime Minister's action as I shall show in a moment. The Prime Minister is capable of manufacturing a tremendous pseudo sincerity to make people believe he wants something in which he is not really too much interested.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, is that part of the text? Will my hon. friend be good enough at all times to indicate when he is quoting from the Prime Minister's text and when he is inserting his own inimitable nonsense and then we will be clear on the matter. Just say "quote", will you?


Charles Benjamin Howard: When my hon. friend says "nonsense" I do not know if he refers to what the Prime Minister said or to what I said. One of the things the Minister of Public Works should learn is humility and he should cultivate the ability to listen.


David James Walker: I could learn that from the hon. gentleman who has the floor, could I not?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I doubt very much if you could learn anything from anyone. I suggest you should develop the ability to listen and then you would appreciate what I am quoting. If you will pay attention now I will read what the Prime Minister said and I quote-


David James Walker: Is this a quote?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, the "quote" is not a part of the quotation but I put it in for your benefit. I am reading from the bottom of page 3. These are the Prime Minister's words:
We said we would push the trans-Canada highway to completion and then consider a second possible trans-Canada route across the prairies and the Rockies. The main line of the trans-Canada is now being carried to completion in co-operation with the provinces and, indeed, the time is not far off when the achievement of spanning the land mass of the continent by rail 75 years ago will be matched by a first-class automobile road from coast to coast.. .preliminary discussions are taking place concerning the northern route in the western part.

Unless the Prime Minister talks in his sleep we cannot imagine with whom these discussions took place. The hon. gentleman was asked about it on March 8, 1960 by the hon. member for Assiniboia, as reported at page 1839 of Hansard. After making reference to the telecast in question the following exchange occurred between the hon. member for Assiniboia and the Prime Minister:


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say what is the nature of the preliminary discussions, and what progress is being made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are preliminary: that is their nature, and when we are in the position to go farther than that the house will be made aware of the plans we have in mind.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say with what province or provinces he has had those preliminary discussions?


John George Diefenbaker: The question of another trans-Canada highway has not been discussed with the provinces particularly.
To whom was the Prime Minister speaking? Did someone write him a letter saying, "Dear John, I think it is about time to make a start on this", or what? Who or what is the other factor that is going to participate, if not the provinces? The four western provinces are affected and have, through the trans-Canada highway association, drawn up a route for the second highway.
The provinces will be the ones who will be determining the route and financing part of it. The Prime Minister says that it has not been discussed with the provinces particularly. I submit this is just wishful comment on the part of the Prime Minister; it is a distortion of something which may be a fact. He may have had discussions with the Minister of Public Works. Before the Minister of Public Works insists upon passage of this resolution-if those discussions have been held-he owes it to the committee to rise in his place and tell us with whom there have been discussions. If he has had discussions with the Prime Minister, he is in duty bound to discharge his ministerial responsibility by telling us about those discussions, and what plans, if any, are being made for the building of a second trans-Canada highway.
If those discussions have not been held________
and according to the Prime Minister's comment they have not been held with the provinces-then the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself because he has misled a great number of people into believing that amendments were to be made during this session to permit the provinces to participate in the building of another trans-Canada highway.
I have letters on file from municipal bodies in the riding of Skeena in northern British
Trans-Canada Highway Act Columbia, and I assume the Minister of Public Works has, too, in which they say, following the Prime Minister's telecast, "We understand a second route is going to be proceeded with; can you tell us what it is all about?" There is not any indication in the resolution that there is any second trans-Canada highway route being developed, although it may well be that this is in the minister's mind. I should like to hear from him. Perhaps this may be a good opportunity for the minister to take advantage of the committee stage and tell us what he has in mind.
I think the Prime Minister is only laying the ground work for the next election. He is raising hope now; he will develop it next year and whenever the election is called he will say that discussions have gone on for a number of years and he is almost ready for it.
I submit that so far as western Canada is concerned, a start on a second trans-Canada highway is a must, and a must right now, not two or three years from now, but an indication should be given to the provinces. It should have been given to them already. Perhaps an indication will be given at the conference which will be held later on; but an indication should be given to the provinces that the federal government is willing to participate with them in the building of a second or northerly route.
In northern British Columbia we have quite an interest in a second route and quite an interest in highways of any sort because there are so few of them and what there are, are in bad shape. Of course, this is not the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works. Highways at the moment are a provincial matter. I only wish to relate the need for a second trans-Canada highway and to suggest in general terms the route which that second trans-Canada highway should follow through northern British Columbia.
I think the principle that is established now with the present trans-Canada highway, namely that part of Vancouver island is included in the route, should be applied to the north and to Queen Charlotte islands. The Queen Charlotte islands should be included in the route. The route should run from Prince Rupert and take in Prince George and thence to Jasper.


The Chairman:: I have been following the hon. member. I do not wish to be too strict in my ruling but I do not think this resolution has to do with the construction of a second trans-Canada highway. This resolution, which precedes an amendment to the Trans-Canada Highway Act, has to do only with construction of the present highway. To try to relate it to the construction of another

Trans-Canada Highway Act highway would be stretching the point. I think I have given the hon. member some leeway up to now; I would ask his co-operation.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, 1 am very pleased at any time to co-operate, and to abide by the rules. I do not know whether you were in the chair when the hon. member tor Saskatoon spoke, but his entire speech dealt with a second trans-Canada highway. While the hon. member for Halifax did not deal with a second trans-Canada highway, he did advocate the extension of the present highway into the city of Halifax. I do not want to run foul of the rules but I think, especially since the Prime Minister said on television that we are going to go ahead with it and that this sort of thing was being discussed, I should be permitted to touch on it.
May I submit this for your consideration, sir? At the resolution stage, preceding a money bill, it is my understanding that a member can state his opinions and desires and express the hope that they may later be reflected in the bill. This is what I am attempting to do, express those ideas and opinions and the need for a second trans-Canada highway. I know full well how generous and how receptive the Minister of Public Works is to fresh ideas; perhaps he will incorporate the idea of a second trans-Canada highway into the bill itself.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you would not want to be too restrictive and prevent the Minister of Public Works from having the benefit of the suggestions that I put forward; otherwise, he might come in with a bill that covers only half the problem. In any event, I do not intend to go very much farther into the second trans-Canada highway route, except to say there is a tremendous amount of pressure from organizations and people in the central interior section of British Columbia, notably around Kamloops, who are interested and are insisting on this second trans-Canada highway route, once it is developed, proceeding from the prairies out to Jasper, which is on the Alberta-British Columbia border, and then turning from there northward toward Kamloops and connecting with the present trans-Canada highway.
The minister should not listen to those representations because the need for a second trans-Canada highway through British Columbia would be far better served and it would be of far more value to the economy and it would be truly an addition to the present trans-Canada highway if it were to run in an easterly-westerly direction from Jasper, through to Prince Rupert on the coast. I know the Minister of Justice comes from Kamloops
[The Chairman.]
and the minister of highways of British Columbia, Mr. Gaglardi, comes from Kamloops. I know there will be tremendous pressure on these two gentlemen to bend, or hook the highway and bring it down into Kamloops. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works to resist this pressure, and to ask his colleague to resist the pressure also, and not to sacrifice the needs of northern British Columbia to the desire that the route go down through Kamloops as a part of the second trans-Canada highway.
If we are going to build a second trans-Canada highway, let us do it now. I suggest also that it should go direct. Generally, this route should run from east to west to Jasper and thence to Prince George and from Prince George to Prince Rupert, and thence on to the Queen Charlotte islands. If the minister agrees with this suggestion, then I should like to say this to him. He is welcome at all times, I am sure, to come to British Columbia and to visit Skeena, but he will be far more than welcome if he announces now that he is going to start to build a second trans-Canada highway and that it will run through Jasper to Prince Rupert. I say to the minister, if he makes the announcement before coming out to visit us he will have a better chance to get back.


David James Walker: I appreciate the kind invitation of the hon. member for Skeena. His personality, his good will and his amiability are such that it is difficult for me to refuse the invitation to accept the hospitality which I know would be present if I made a visit to his constituency. Because I appreciate his good humour so much and the natural kindness and charity with which he deals with all subjects, and the lovely, kindly outlook that he has on all problems, may I answer him, just as he asked me to do in order to accommodate him, before making that trip. Of course, he has asked for the pronouncement that we will follow the Prime Minister's telecast and his statement. I say to the hon. member and give him our complete assurance that we will follow the Prime Minister's statement on that telecast. It is the object of the government to do that; it is the plan of the government. The Prime Minister said in that telecast:
We said that we would push the trans-Canada highway to completion, and then consider a second trans-Canada highway.
That is exactly what we are going to do. We will complete the first trans-Canada highway and then we win consider a second trans-Canada highway. Perhaps my hon. and good-natured friend will just keep his seat until I get through with the explanation. What more could the hon. member expect? If British



[Stage Direction]
Columbia is going to be behind in its work and take much longer than was expected-I am not criticizing British Columbia on that account-and if it is going to be some considerable time before the first trans-Canada highway is completed, and this may apply to other provinces, does my hon. friend expect me to misinterpret the plain language of the Prime Minister's statement to a nationwide audience that when the trans-Canada highway is completed we will consider a second trans-Canada highway?
A number of hon. members have made magnificent speeches advocating a second trans-Canada highway. The hon. member for Saskatoon, the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Dauphin, the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Levis have all suggested a second trans-Canada highway. But let me say this. With all the work still to be done on the first trans-Canada highway, let us put our house in order and complete it first. May I also say that our consideration then will not necessarily cover, as my friend suggests, only a second trans-Canada highway. We will consider a national highway policy when the time comes, something that will encompass more than just another highway, but that date is in the future. I know that the provinces are trying to do their best but if they will even accelerate their best a little more and complete the trans-Canada highway sooner we will then be in a position to go further in our consideration, which is as much as the Prime Minister has said we will do.
Maurice Bourget: I am sorry to interrupt the minister-


David James Walker: If the hon. member for Levis will wait, I will only be a moment. When the Prime Minister says that there have been preliminary discussions, may I say that we have literally spent hours with our chief engineers in charge of the trans-Canada highway and with other members of the cabinet in carrying on at great length what could be termed preliminary discussions. However, I want to assure all hon. members who are so enthusiastic that this is not the time to make any pronouncement or even to go further than we have. My hon. friend will appreciate this. May I also say that I appreciate the contributions of hon. members. It shows that they are quite satisfied with the present first trans-Canada highway because there has been little or no criticism of it and most of the speeches have been confined to advocating a second trans-Canada highway. For that, of course, I want to thank hon. members.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I pose a question to the minister? To my knowledge this is the first
Trans-Canada Highway Act time that anyone on the government side has said that the government is not going to give any consideration to a second trans-Canada highway until the first one is completed. That is substantially what the minister has said. I am quite sure that those who are interested in the building of a second trans-Canada highway, especially those from the northern parts of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, will be most disappointed that the representations they have made up to now have been given no consideration.


David James Walker: Apparently my friend cannot understand English because I said, as the Prime Minister himself has said, that we have already had preliminary discussions on the subject.


Charles Benjamin Howard: With whom?


David James Walker: I have already given that answer.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You have had no preliminary discussions with anybody unless you have been talking in your sleep because, as the Prime Minister said, the only people you can have discussions with about the building of such a highway are the provinces and the Prime Minister said that you have not had any discussions.


David James Walker: I always consider the source when the hon. member for Skeena sometimes asks questions or makes statements that do not even beget a polite answer. In this instance he does not want to know the truth. He wants to distort anything he hears. Therefore I refuse to waste the time of the house by engaging in a veritable competition with the hon. member.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Let me say to my kindly friend that he may refuse to do a lot of things. However, he must appreciate that when he becomes a cabinet minister he is not an entity unto himself and a dictator but rather he is in the hands of the house.


David James Walker: Do you still want me to come to Skeena?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister can come to Skeena anytime. Certainly if he comes at the time of the year when the fishing is good I will make sure that he has the opportunity to go to some of the finest fishing spots in Canada and he will not go home empty-handed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He had better come to Essex county.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go fishing right now?
2636	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am trying to do a little fishing and find out what the intention of the government is with respect to a second trans-Canada highway but I am getting nowhere. The Prime Minister said in the house, as found on page 1839 of Hansard:
The question of another trans-Canada highway has not heen discussed with the provinces particularly.
I do not know whether he means that it has not been discussed with the provinces at all or whether particular provinces have not been included in the discussions. We all know that many of the comments made by the Prime Minister can be taken a number of ways. We are very disappointed and I am sure the people who have made representations are disappointed that nothing is going to happen with respect to a second trans-Canada highway until the first one is completed. I assume that means nothing will happen until the last mile in the last province is completed, whether that be some three years from now as is expected or whether it be five or ten years from now which will mean that the government will have to come back in a few years and ask for another extension.
I suggest to the minister and the government that this is most unfair because the financial formula was not equitable in the first place. The financial formula needs to be revised in order that provinces like Newfoundland will have a better opportunity to participate and finance the building of the road. If the government is going to continue to maintain the same financial formula it is simply penalizing those provinces which because of their geography or their economy have been less able to finance the building of the first trans-Canada highway than other provinces.
I think it is most unwise to ask other provinces to wait until the last mile of the first trans-Canada highway in the last province has been built. It is most unwise not to make other arrangements for financial participation in order to enable these poorer provinces to finish their section of the trans-Canada highway.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the minister to comment on the situation I raised with regard to the peculiar situation at Vancouver with respect to access roads and any offers of federal assistance that may have been turned down because of toll highways or toll bridges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister replies I should also like to put a question to him. I have in my hand an advertisement which appeared in the Telegram of St. John's, Newfoundland, on Friday, August 14, 1959.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)

It is headed, "Charter for a New Deal for Newfoundland". In one corner it contains a picture of Mr. Malcolm Hollett, at that time leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Newfoundland, and it also contains the program of the provincial party that was put before the electors in the last provincial election. Point No. 10 is as follows:
Complete the trans-Canada highway on terms consistent with Newfoundland's needs and capacity to pay.
Then it goes on to say:
If a proper agreement, one that took due account of Newfoundland's needs and its low capacity to pay, had been entered into by the provincial Liberal government when they came to power 10 years ago the highway across Newfoundland could have been built and fully paved by now. Progressive Conservative leader Malcolm Hollett has talked with the Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, and with other ministers of the Diefenbaker cabinet, about the impossible position Newfoundland is in under the present trans-Canada highway contract. Mr. Hollett believes that "the Diefenbaker government is prepared to re-negotiate that useless agreement; . .. that the Diefenbaker government is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the submission that the highway be completed entirely by the federal government."
This was the pledge on which the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Newfoundland went to the country in August of last year. I realize I would be out of order to recall the circumstances, but hon. members will remember that Mr. Hollett was the express champion of the Prime Minister in connection with an attitude taken by the Prime Minister in this house which was not so popular in Newfoundland. Mr. Hollett is no longer a member of the legislature, although I believe he is still the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Newfoundland. Mr. Hollett says in this statement:
Progressive Conservative Leader Malcolm Hollett has talked with the Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, and with other ministers of the Diefenbaker cabinet, about the impossible position Newfoundland is in under the present trans-Canada highway contract. Mr. Hollett believes "that the Diefenbaker government is prepared to re-negotiate that useless agreement.. . that the Diefenbaker government is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the submission that the highway be completed entirely by the federal government."
This advertisement appeared on August 14. I do not expect the Minister of Public Works who, at the time this was written, I do not believe was a member of the cabinet, to tell me what actually did take place in these conversations between Mr. Hollett and the Prime Minister. However, I wanted to put this on the record today so the minister would have it before him and have an opportunity to ascertain what did take place in connection with the conversations and to ascertain whether or not Mr. Hollett was right in his contention that the Diefenbaker government

was prepared to re-negotiate this "useless agreement" as Mr. Hollett calls it and, if so, if the Diefenbaker government was prepared to carry out that undertaking given to Mr. Hollett. I put that on the record so that the minister will have an opportunity, when the committee next considers this matter, to give an answer, unless the minister is prepared to give an answer right away.


Harold Edward Winch: I want on the record an answer to my question.


Jacques Flynn: For the sake of orderly debate, I was going to recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister was just getting up before the previous hon. member spoke to answer my question about the position of Vancouver.


David James Walker: There are only five minutes to go before adjournment, and I could not possibly state the position with respect to Vancouver; I will take half an hour to answer the hon. member.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There are only five minutes before adjournment, but I will try to complete what I want to say in that time. There has been criticism during this debate about the slowness of the province of Ontario in completing its section of the trans-Canada highway. I think it is well recognized that the longest portion of the highway is in the province of Ontario through some of the most rugged country.
I should like to take, for example, the stretch of highway through the eastern Georgian bay area in the neighbourhood of the town of Parry Sound. During the last two years I have watched the progress of this section of the trans-Canada highway, as bridges have been built, sections of the road have been prepared and contracts have been let. The road is making good progress. It has not been easy work, but it has been progressing as rapidly as one could expect in view of the type of territory through which construction is proceeding and the bridges and other works which must be completed. I should like to say, in support of the resolution, that the building of this highway through the eastern Georgian bay area has opened up a tremendous section of the country to development.
A number of hon. members have mentioned the tourist trade that has developed as a result of the building of the trans-Canada highway. This particular section is no exception. As a result of the impetus provided by the building of this highway, the same Minister of Public Works has recently undertaken a dredging job in Key river area 79951-0-167
Business of the House
which will open up the area for boats and for pleasure craft, to which access is provided by the trans-Canada highway. A few years ago this highway did not go any further north than the village of Britt. Since then, it has been completed, in a partial state, through to Sudbury. This particular section of the highway is of great value in the development of this excellent recreational area. It is not yet completed and further time will be required. It is for this reason that the resolution is greatly appreciated because it does extend the time for completion of this section, in common with all the others that are being completed across the country.
May I call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house could possibly indicate the course of business right up to the Easter adjournment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. We will continue with the business as I outlined last night, that is, we will start with Bill No. S-26, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act. If that is completed we will continue with the resolution that was under discussion today concerning the Trans-Canada Highway Act and the other items of business that I outlined last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister mind repeating them, so they would be in the record?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The third item would be the resolution in the name of the minister of northern affairs, which is No. 11 on today's order paper, dealing with the Yukon Act; then after that, a resolution also in his name dealing with the Northwest Territories Act. This will occupy all the time tomorrow. Thursday night is the budget speech. Friday, we start with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. If that is completed on Friday we will continue with these items I have been talking about now.
Monday, April 4, would normally be a private members' day. I have already had consultations with hon. gentlemen on the other side and I suggested it might be advisable, in order to have a continuous budget debate and complete the budget debate by April 13, to transfer the private members' Monday from April 4 to April 25 so that there will be no loss of time whatsoever. If there is agreement to this course being followed, perhaps an order of the house could issue to

Business of the House
that effect. It would permit us to commence the budget debate on Monday, April 4 and carry it right through for the eight appointed days, ending on April 13 when the house would then rise for the Easter recess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I might say that as far as we are concerned we would be quite agreeable to that arrangement on the understanding that the budget debate would be continuous.


Mr. Herridge:: 1 understand the leader of this party has indicated our agreement to the same arrangement.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps this would be the appropriate time for the house to give unanimous consent and order that next Monday, private members' day, be deferred in favour of the budget debate, presumably until the Monday after Easter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Monday, April 25.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. Does the house agree to that course?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

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

Mr. Boivin: 1.	On March 1, 1960, was Jean Pelletier in the employ of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2,	If so, (a) where; (b) in what capacity; (c) at what salary; (d) during what period?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that they have no one in their employ known specifically as Jean Pelletier. They have on regular staff and among those who are engaged occasionally in programs some persons with the surname of Pelletier, who use a second Christian name coupled with the name of Jean. To properly reply to the question a more specific identification of the individual concerned is required.
79951-0-167J

Thursday, March 31. 1960