Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report on the problem of crossing the strait of Canso.

On September 15, 1950, a meeting was held in my office for the purpose of considering the plans and specifications of the low-level bridge prepared by the consulting engineer, Dr. P. L. Pratley. This meeting was attended by the members of the board of engineers of the strait of Canso and by representatives of both the Canadian National Railways and the department of highways and public works of the province of Nova Scotia. At this meeting it was disclosed that engineers of both the railway and the province were of the opinion that the low-level bridge as designed was not practicable, and that they could not approve such a project.

As a result I immediately reconvened the Canso board of engineers with instructions that, in the light of the discussions, they review their previous findings and recommend the best method of improving the present rail and highway facilities across the strait. I am now in receipt of the report of the reconvened board.

The report indicates that further studies were made of two projects, one of which involved improvements to the existing ferry service, and the other the construction of a causeway and lock structure. The board advise that their estimate of cost of replacing the existing railway ferry service at

present capacity would be $9 million, which figure would be increased to $13,400,000 if present capacity were to be increased by provision of larger vessels and wider ferry slips. The estimate of cost of replacement of the highway ferry service amounts to $1,287,000, or a total estimated capital expenditure for combined services of $14,687,-

000. As to the annual operating costs as estimated for these services, the board states that the operation of the railway ferry service would require $1,587,000 and the highway ferry service $370,000, making a combined total annual operating cost of $1,957,000.

The board also reports that, in reviewing their previous findings on the causeway and lock structure, their chief object was to search for ways and mqans to reduce the probable cost. They are now of the opinion that the best site is that of the low-level bridge at Balache point as proposed in the March, 1949, report. They propose a causeway which would be entirely built of rock placed by dump-trucks working from west to east. The slopes on this causeway would be finished at about the proportion of 1 vertical to 1J horizontal, and a lock of Welland ship canal dimensions but with sliding gates would be located on the Cape Breton end of the causeway. The railway and highway diversions would be similar to those as originally proposed for the low-level bridge.

In conclusion the board reports that in view of the elimination of the bridge projects and the high cost of improving the ferry services, the causeway scheme remains as the only practical solution to the problem. The capital cost of the causeway and lock is estimated by the board at $22,760,000 and the annual operating charge at $1,130,000.

I now table the report.

Mr. Black (Cumberland):

I am pleased that this report has been brought down, and I would like to know whether the minister on behalf of the government can state when the construction of this causeway will be undertaken. I point out that it is very urgent to a great many people in Nova Scotia, who have been waiting for it for a long time.

Mr. Chevrier:

In the first place, the report will have to be considered by the government. That has not yet been done fully. When it is, a decision will be made as to

Questions

whether or not it will be possible to imple- per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in ment the recommendations. The report will store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, be considered at the first opportunity.

Mr. Black (Cumberland):

Will copies of this report be distributed to members and a great many other people who will want them?

Mr. Chevrier:

Copies are available at present, though not for every member. In connection with the first report that was tabled, I believe copies were made available to the maritime members. I have copies now, but not with the maps attached. It will be another twenty-four hours before those will be available. If hon. members who are interested will telephone my office, I shall be glad to see that they receive copies.

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to table order in council P.C. 3344, establishing the interest rates under the recently amended National Housing Act. The new rate to the borrower for joint loans under sections 4 and 8 is five per cent. The rates under other sections are correspondingly increased by one-half of one per cent.

1. How many bushels of class II milling wheat were sold since August 1, 1950?

2. At what average basic price per bushel was this wheat sold?

3. What is the average basic price at which wheat has been sold to millers for milling into flour for consumption in Canada?

Mr. Mcllraith:

It is not the policy of the board to publish details of its operation for the crop year in which it is operating.

Note: The board posts at the close of the market each day its selling price for wheat sold:

(a) for domestic use

(b) for export under the international wheat agreement

(c) for export as class II wheat.

For the period from August 1, 1950 to June 25, 1951, the average of the board's daily quotations for wheat sold under the international wheat agreement and for domestic use was $1.91 J per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. For the same period the average daily quotation for class II wheat was $2.10

1. What were the values in dollars of (a) Canadian exports to the United Kingdom; (b) Canadian imports from the United Kingdom, in each of the years 1928 to 1951, inclusive?

2. What are the values of this two way trade in the first quarter of the present year?

Mr. Mcllraith:

Exports Imports

Year 1928 $446,128,667 $190,756,7361929 290,294,564 194,777,6501930 235,213,959 162,632,4661931 170,597,455 109,468,0811932 178,171,680 93,508,1431933 210,697,224 97,878,2321934 270,491,857 113,415,9841935 303,500,846 116,670,2271936 395,351,950 122,971,2641937 402,062,094 147,291,5511938 339,688,685 119,292,4301939 328,099,242 114,007,4091940 508,095,949 161,216,3521941 658,228,354 219,418,9571942 741,716,647 161,112,7061943 1,032,646,964 134,965,1171944 1,235,030,206 110,598,5841945 963,237,687 140,517,4481946 597,506,175 201,433,2201947 751,198,395 189,369,8551948 686,914,277 299,502,2001949 704,955,726 307,449,8001950 469,910,011 404,213,449Jan.'1 to Mar. 113,294,454 92,141,499

31, 1951