Mr. Graffley:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) put a very serious question before the house. We have figures that tell us that between now and 1970, if nothing is done, one million Canadians will be injured-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):

Order, please.

Mr. Graffley:

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that by now the hon. member would-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):

Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat.

Mr. Graffley:

Yes.

The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Would the hon. member state his point of order and not-

Mr. Graffley:

My point of order-

The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member is raising a point of order?

Mr. Graffley:

Very definitely.

The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Would the hon. member state his point of order without getting into an argument with the hon. member who has the floor?

Mr. Graffley:

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me that with regard to the problem of highway safety per se, introduced sincerely by the hon. member for Gaspe and a question on which many members of all parties wish to speak, the hon. member who now has the floor should have been allowed such latitude. I fail to see how his remarks have been germane to the debate and it is incredible to me that he was not brought to order long ago.

The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): I thank the hon. member for his remarks. However, as hon. members know, the problem of traffic safety has a great many facets. If the hon. member wishes to participate in the debate he will be able to do so later.

Mr. Graffley:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to press my point of order. We are not having a debate. The hon. member is reading to us documentation that has been put in his hands.

February 28, 1966

Trans-Canada Highway

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):

Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.

Mr. Grafftey:

This increases the cynicism of the public toward parliament. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Stewart:

During the 1930's at a time when the government of Canada was giving assistance to highway construction through "make work" programs and for a period after the second world war, many so-called "major" highways were built, not only to serve vehicles but also to service the immediately adjacent land. Generally these roads were located so as to pass through the central part of each town or city. Consequently, what has come to be called "strip development" occurred on each side of these highways, particularly those adjacent to urban areas or to what the hon member for Gaspe has called "settled areas".

As vehicular traffic and strip development increased, these roads became overcongested and no longer had the capacity to move traffic in sufficient volumes or at adequate speeds. As this happened, new roads were required. These were built away from the older highways and in many cases they bypassed urban centres and the strip development areas. These new highways are what are called arterials or freeways. On these highways traffic movement is the primary consideration, with local access a secondary consideration. Building development along the arterials is either prohibited or discouraged.

In the case of freeways passing through built-up areas and arterials passing through areas where land access to the road is required, service roads parallelling the main route are now often provided. The older highways, those with the strip development, have reverted to the status of what are now known as local or collector highways.

I am saying that the thinking of the hon. member for Gaspe focuses on these local or collector highways and not on what is called an arterial. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the trans-Canada highway can now be classified as an arterial.

Mr. Keays:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction here. I was not referring to urban areas. I referred to rural areas and arterial roads to which the hon. member has referred, those roads which are built to pass through sparsely populated areas.

Mr. Stewart:

The notion of an arterial road is that there should not be any secondary traffic on the right of way. That is inherent in the very nature of an arterial road. On these arterials vehicular traffic movement is of primary concern and access by people owning property or living immediately adjacent to the road is definitely secondary. Through or around heavily urbanized areas and in many rural areas where the traffic is heavy-

Mr. Graffiey:

Tell this to the bereaved families.

Mr. Siewari:

-the trans-Canada highway is designed to freeway standards with no access to adjacent land except at regularly spaced interchanges. We have illustrations such as the Ottawa Queensway, the Winnipeg by-pass and the trans-Canada highway through the city of Montreal. I could illustrate this by reading to the hon. member a description of the Ottawa Queensway.

Mr. Keays:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my motion refers to rural areas and this is the problem on which I should like an answer. I am not interested in urban areas, because they have limited access to the arterials of which the hon. member spoke. I am interested in rural areas and highways on the fringe of small towns.

Mr. Slewart:

The trans-Canada highway is not yet completed in many of the provinces, for example, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. Where the trans-Canada highway does pass near or through these settled areas, even though they are not incorporated towns or cities, what I am saying applies, namely, that this is a limited access highway and secondary traffic on the roadway or on the shoulders is not expected and indeed may very well be prohibited.

Therefore my argument concerning an area such as the city of Ottawa is equally apt for one of these "settled areas". It is true that there are areas wherein the trans-Canada highway was built before this arterial concept came to be fully developed. Part of the hon. member's motion would apply to such reaches of highway; this is quite true. But surely the thing to do in those areas is to provide secondary roads with adequate pedestrian paths and sidewalks and gradually to eliminate this kind of secondary traffic on the shoulders where there is no adequate protection.

The hon. gentleman said he would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to move along on the paved shoulders. I wish to submit to him

February 28, 1966

through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is really inviting the kind of danger that I am sure he wants to avoid. Here you have automobiles moving at a target speed of 60 miles per hour, and that may very well be the low point in the bracket rather than the high. Some of these automobiles will get over onto the shoulder. If you have children playing there, as children will if they are allowed there at all, and cyclists moving along there, they are going to be hit by these vehicles.

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)

I think the hon. gentleman will have to face up to the fact that you cannot have an arterial highway and at the same time allow children to walk and play on the shoulder of that road, even if you do draw a white line down the edge of that road. You cannot have bicycles careening around there as the hon. member and I careened around on our bicycles. You cannot have that condition without inviting tragedy; and tragedy is precisely the sort of thing that must be avoided. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are members other than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who are concerned for the safety of the people of this country.

What I am arguing is that the hon. member has a very good motive but that the method he suggests for accomplishing it is one which might frustrate the purpose of the trans-Canada highway as it has developed over the years and which at the same time might frustrate the purpose set forth by the hon. member.

At the risk of being harangued by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for being out of order, I want to suggest another problem that I feel is quite serious. I refer to the question of the constitutionality of the procedure that is being recommended. We must proceed within the context of the constitutional law as it now is. It may very well be that some alterations ought to be made in that constitutional law, but that is another question. We have to deal with the law as it now is. I am sure any gentleman learned in the law would insist that that is the realistic approach, at least in this debate.

You will notice, sir, that the motion would have the government take the initiative in introducing the requirement for sidewalks or pedestrian paths to be constructed alongside the trans-Canada highway where that highway passes through inhabited or built-up areas. I want to suggest to you, sir, that it is doubtful that this house has the constitutional

Trans-Canada Highway right to prompt such an initiative. Transportation within a province is the responsibility of the provincial government, and it is exercised either directly or by delegation to incorporated towns, cities or other municipalities.

I am quite ready to contend that the trans-Canada highway as a whole is hardly a local work or undertaking, but it is notable that in the building of the highway proper the work of planning and construction has been left to the several provinces. It would strain credulity to the utmost to contend that sidewalk or pedestrian paths appropriately could be declared by this parliament to be works for the general advantage of Canada and thus fall into the category suggested by subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act.

Mr. Reid:

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell us what the federal government's contribution was to the trans-Canada highway? I think it is a shared cost basis. Just what proportion does this parliament pay?

Mr. Stewart:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give some figures on that. As of February 25, 1966, the estimated value of the approved work was $992,418,300 and the share of the federal government of that-