1946-08-10

[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1947
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Beiates
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 10, 1946


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the first reading of bill No. 374 (from the senate), respecting Workers Benevolent Association of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Press dispatches from Vancouver this morning indicate that there is to be some change in the timber control. Could the minister make a statement on that?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, the report has just been called to my attention. It is a fact that Mr. David Rosenberry, who has been associated with timber control for the past six years, has tendered his resignation, to take effect on August 15. He has been suffering from overwork for some time and felt that he must be relieved so that he could take a prolonged holiday before returning to his private business. Consideration is being given to his successor, and the most suitable man seems to be the present coordinator of housing, Mr. Terrence Flahiff. It is the present intention to recommend Mr. Flahiff to succeed Mr. Rosenberry.



FREE PORTS


[Stage Direction]
been made to the port of Quebec or to any representative of that port regarding the establishment of a free port at Quebec?
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I gave no promise to anyone that legislation would be enacted concerning free ports. The delegation which waited on several ministers of the crown was told that legislation would depend on the report of the interdepartmental committee, and then again upon whether the committee recommended in favour of or against the establishment of free ports. The delegation was assured, however, that every effort would be made by the interdepartmental committee to expedite the conclusion of its report.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice give the house a report on the present condition of affairs with regard to the proceedings being taken in connection with coupon revelations affecting Banque Provinciale du Canada, on which he recently made a report? Perhaps the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance will indicate also whether the licence of the bank has been renewed.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, just before I came into the house I communicated with the deputy minister of justice and the chief enforcement officer of the wartime prices and trade board, and was informed that there have been no developments concerning any employee of the bank since I answered the hon. gentleman's question a week ago.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East): Speaker, I should like to inquire from the	Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
Minister of Transport whether a promise has	to the Minister of Labour, based on an item
[Stage Direction]


Army Supplies
from Vancouver in to-day's Ottawa Journal that the British Columbia regional war labour board has announced that it will not approve any wage increases above ten cents an hour until the parliamentary committee on industrial relations has reported. I would ask the minister whether his department was informed of this decision and whether any directive went out from his office in regard to it.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have not seen the report in the newspaper, but I shall be glad to make inquiry of the chairman of the national war labour board in regard to the matter.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, several days ago the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) inquired when we might expect the report of the royal commission on coal. I have a letter dated August 3 from Judge C. C. McLaurin, one of the commissioners, who writes as follows:
Dear Mr. Howe:
I have been advised by your office that further inquiries have been made of you as to the progress being made by this commission.
A substantial portion of the report is now prepared. The work of completion is being vigorously pressed and I do not anticipate any circumstances arising which will prevent submission thereof at an early date.



ARMY SUPPLIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: There is one other question I should like to direct to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, because I believe he is in charge of the department concerned. It has to do with reports in the Montreal Star of yesterday with regard to the dumping of shoes, which is still unexplained, and also the destruction of a quantity of khaki and blue shirts, towels, et cetera. Will the minister have an investigation made into this matter, in view of the fact that there have been so many reports of destruction of necessary goods when they are in short supply? Also will consideration be given to setting up a commission to look into the matter, particularly to report on the dumping of shoes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A most exhaustive investigation was instituted into the ques-

tion of shoes, and it was found that the allegations that were made of destruction of usable property by War Assets Corporation are wholly without foundation. We invited the reporters to visit the plant at Valleyfield at any time they cared to do so without notice, and I understand the Star reporter did visit the plant with photographers yesterday. I expect that Monday's Star will give the results of his investigation. He was given authority to make a most complete investigation on his own. I can assure my hon. friend that since the first allegations were made, every service of the government has investigated the situation from its point of view at Valleyfield and at the point of shipment of the materials. War Assets Corporation have made a thorough investigation and I can assure my hon. friend that the allegations of destruction of valuable property are wholly without foundation.
As to the shirts, so far as we can find out that report is based entirely on gossip. We have found that no usable shirts have been sold as scrap material by War Assets Corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: Or destroyed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Or destroyed.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask a supplementary question? When the minister brings down his report with respect to the destruction and dumping of used materials will he answer a question which I asked, and which has been asked on several occasions, namely, who did. the dumping at Point St. Charles? There has been a good deal of talk about destruction, but I should like to know who did the dumping. I understand War Assets Corporation and the Department of National Defence have the names of those who did the dumping, but they cannot be released as yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I released the name to the press some weeks ago. I do not recall the name at the moment, but I shall be glad to get it. I think to table it now would be giving rather second-hand information, since it has been so widely circulated.



*SHIPMENTS TO ECUADOR-QUESTION OF RESTRICTION OF EXPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Last Monday I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is not here this morning, with respect to the export of certain flour. He has not answered it, and I wonder if somebody would direct his attention to it so that I may have an answer.

Federal District Commission


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: I think I can give the hon. member some information, in connection with the flour. Two fairly large ships arrived in Canada about a week ago to load flour, but it was necessary that they undergo extensive repairs which it would, take a couple of weeks to complete. During that period the railway companies could not unload their cars because the ships were not ready to receive them. They had much other work for the cars to do, and they used their cars for that purpose. In addition, the flour coiild be kept in better shape in the warehouse than in cars alongside the track. I am glad to be able to report that the repairs to these ships are about completed, and the movement of flour will again start from the mills.
'Mr. SMITH (Calgary West): I am sure we are all glad to have the information, but it does not answer the question I asked.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): May I direct the attention of the hon. member to the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be found at page 4376 of Hansard.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you; I was not here.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of bill No. 195, respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control of transactions involving foreign currency of non-residents.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, August 9, consideration in committee of bill No. 357, to amend the Federal District Commission Act-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-National capital district.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention at this time, or perhaps at any time, to make any lengthy plea in favour of the 63260-289J
provisions for the improvement of the federal area. This bill is nothing new; it is simply a continuation of provisions that have been made for almost the last fifty years in that regard. The fact that the matter had been in progress for fifty years should not surprise anyone. I should be very much surprised, and my descendants would be very much disappointed, I am sure, if it did not go on for more than fifty years in the future. I think' it is the fairly general view that the development of the national capital will keep pace with the development of the country as a nation, and I hope that will go on for a very long time.
The leader of th# opposition asked me at the resolution stage if I would make a brief statement on the historical, background of this movement, which is not the policy of any one party but is something to which all those who have had responsibility for government in Canada over the last half century have been giving careful, sympathetic and effective consideration and cooperation.
The historical background of the commission is given on pages 60 and 61 in No. 3 of the proceedings of the joint committee of the senate and the House of Commons, reports ing its sittings of Wednesday, June 28, 1944. I mention this because it is given in greater detail than I propose to give it in summarizing it this morning. But perhaps for the immediate information of hon. members who may not have this report at hand just at the moment, I may say that the federal district commission had its inception as the Ottawa improvement commission in 1899. It was established for the purpose of beautifying and improving the city of Ottawa as the capital of Canada by the construction of parks, driveways, public squares, boulevards and so forth.
Four commissioners comprised its membership, three being appointed by the governor in council and the fourth by the city of Ottawa. The chairman was named by the governor in council. All were to serve without remuneration. An annual grant of 860,000 was provided for a period of ten years from July 1, 1899. By an amending act assented to on August 13, 1903 the period during which the annual grant of $60,000 was to be paid was extended to twenty years, from the first of July, 1899 and the commission was given power to borrow up to $250,000 by the sale of debentures.
By an amending act assented to on May 4, 1910 the annual grant was increased to $100,000 for a ten-year period commencing July 1, 1909. An act to consolidate and amend the acts respecting the Ottawa improvement commission was then assented to on July 17,
Federal District Commission
[Stage Direction]
1919. These dates will indicate that it was a matter that was being dealt with not only by one party but by whatever administration had responsibility for the affairs of the country.
The act of 1919 increased the annual grant to $150,000 for a ten-year period from July 1, 1919, and then in 1,927 the name of the commission was changed from the Ottawa improvement commission to the federal distiet *commission. The act passed in that year increased the powers of the commission to enable it to extend its activities to areas or districts outside the capital proper, and provided for the appointment of a commissioner .as a representative of the city of Hull. The dominion government, I^m told, was actuated by the desire to widen the scope of the commission's functions to embrace not only Ottawa and the immediate vicinity but Hull and the adjoining municipalities on both sides as an integral part of the national capital area.
The act of 1927 also increased the annual grant of the commission to $250,000, but this was reduced again to $200,000 in 1928 when provision was made for a grant of $3,000,000 to be expended upon capital improvements over a period of years. The beautification and improvement works which had been commenced in 1900 for Ottawa and district, under these authorizing acts of parliament, consist of parks, landscapes, driveways, the latter extending from Rockcliffe park east of the city of Ottawa to Aylmer road west of the city of Hull, The driveway follows as closely as convenient the banks of the Ottawa and Rideau rivers and the Rideau canal. Approximately twenty-two miles of driveways have been constructed, Gatineau park, comprising
16,000	acres situated in the Laurentian hills on the Quebec side of the river, about seven air miles northwest of Ottawa, is being preserved in its natural state of wooded hills, valleys, lakes and streams, for the enjoyment of the public.
By orders in council the responsibility of improving and maintaining, the grounds of Rideau Hall, those surrounding the national research council buildings and other dominion government buildings in Ottawa was transferred from the Department of Public Works to the commission in the years 1932 to 1934. Amounts for this work are voted annually by parliament in estimates approved by the governor in council.
The number of properties now serviced by the commission is 110. The land now owned or controlled by the federal district commission in and around Ottawa, exclusive of the 16,000-acre national park, is:	Owned by the
federal district commission, 758 acres; leased from the crown, 224 acres; leased from
£Mr. St. Laurent.!
the city of Ottawa and developed and maintained by the commission, 129 acres; grounds of government buildings maintained through the instrumentality of the commission under these orders in council, about 200 acres, or a total of grounds thus administered and maintained by the commission in Ottawa and the immediate vicinity of 1,311 acres. In addition, as I stated a moment ago, there is the 16,000 acres of land in the Gatineau park.
The leader of the opposition in his inquiry the other day, seemed particularly interested in having a statement of receipts and expenditures of the commission since its inception. The figures I have been given are as follows:
Statutory grants from 1899 to 1909,
$60,000 a year for 10 years	 $600,000
Statutory grants from 1909 to 1919,
$100,000 a year for 10 years		1,000,000
Statutory grants from 1919 to 1927,
$150,000 a year for 8 years	 1,200,000
Statutory grants from 1927 to 1928,
1 year	 250,000
Statutory grants from 1928 to 1946,
$200,000 a year for 18 years		3,600,000
In addition thereto, special grant
made under the act of 1928	 3,000,000
Grand total	 $9,650,000
In addition to that there have been votes by parliament over that period of $1,162,788. There have also been advances from government departments for work on the maintenance of grounds and new buildings of $2,016,766, making a grand total of $12,829,554 over the forty-eight years.
I come now to the expenditures for that period: For the construction and maintenance of the parkway system, $10,690,117; for the maintenance of grounds of government buildings, $1,375,125; for the development of grounds of new government buildings, $641,640.
In connection with the future work of the commission there are a few points I should like to mention. First of all I wish to point out that there is no provision in this bill or in anything parliament is being asked to pass making this a national war memorial. This is a bill to amend the act respecting the federal district commission, and these amendments are required, and I trust will be made by the house, entirely apart from any idea as to whether or not the development of the national capital should be classified as a national war memorial. I know that the Prime Minister has urged that the development of the national capital might be a fitting way for the nation to express its gratification at the role played by the Canadian nation in the last war. That is a matter about which it was apparent from the debate last evening

Federal District Commission
that there is no unanimity of opinion, and it is not my purpose to ask the house to make any pronouncement about it at this time.
This bill is for the continuation of the development of the capital area consisting of Ottawa and the surrounding district. I think there is much to be said for the view that it is something that the Canadian nation would wish to do entirely regardless of any other consideration. I think it is something that the Canadian nation feels should keep pace with the development of the country. The appropriation suggested at this time would not be required, and would probably not be justified, if we in this house felt that the Canadian nation had reached the full stage of its national development and of its importance in world affairs. But as the nation develops-and I think we all feel that it will develop for a long period still, and that this immense area of the habitable portion of the globe is to be the home of a much larger population than the twelve million people who control it at the present time-as that goes on, it will be necessary that the national capital keep pace with the development of the nation. In order that that may be possible I think it is only the part of prudence and foresight to lay out plans which will not be carried out at any early day but which it would be possible to realize without having to destroy too much placed in the way of their realization when the proper time comes. It was for that purpose, and it is for the same purpose, that these capital sums are being asked parliament to appropriate. There are a great many places in Canada where the development has been such that it has necessitated the tearing down of things which would still intrinsically have had some value but which had to make way for something more useful which the developments had made necessary.
As I said at the resolution stage, the work will be somewhat greater in extent than it had been, hitherto, because of two factors. One is that over the past five or six years the development of our people as a nation has proceeded with greater rapidity than it had at any previous period. Canada's position as one of the nations of the world has asserted itself to a much greater degree during the last few years than had happened at any time before, though it must be at once stated that the groundwork for that development and for that expansion had been laid from the very beginning. This is just one example of what I have in mind. The exchange of diplomatic representatives between the Canadian government and the other governments has brought to Ottawa a large body of officials representing other nations of the world. Their presence in Ottawa has put some strain upon the buildings, upon the layout which had previously sufficed for the requirements of the business transacted on behalf of the nation at the national capital, and that is still going on.
The second factor which makes it appear desirable to proceed a little more rapidly is that so much of the maintenance and development work had to give way to more urgent matters during the war period, and they had to be deferred until this time. The federal district commission is like any other large body in Canada. It had to allow activities that were not of vital necessity to win the war to be deferred until the war had been won.
This bill does not deal with any general plan of development which may be decided on for the capital, and I would not expect that there would be any decision made at this time or in the immediate future blueprinting what was to be done and at what dates it would be done. But a general over-all plan is being prepared which would make possible the development of a national capital with a population two or three times what it is at the present time, showing what a city of that size as the national capital would be apt to require. It is suggested in this bill that there be such cooperation between the various authorities concerned as would prevent the doing of things which would be obstacles to the realization of that larger plan, as and when conditions made it proper to develop it.
To cover expenditures of a capital type, such as those for the purchase of lands and works, the development of the parkway system and so on, the bill before the house provides that over a period of years the sum of $3,000,000 may be allocated to the commission, as a similar sum of $3,000,000 was made available between 1928 and 1935 under the terms of the 1928 act. To cover the increased current expenditures an increase in the annual grant from $200,000 to $300,000 is also requested.
The part of the work of the commission which will be connected with the broader developments of the capital will require special arrangements. As hon. members know, the government has had Mr. Jacques Greber to advise on the general planning. I was much interested and impressed by what was said last evening by the hon. member for Eglinton. I think all Canadians wish this capital to be expressive of Canadian mentality and Canadian conditions, that it be the capital of the Canadian nation and not a pocket edition of anything already in existence else-
Federal District Commission
[Stage Direction]
where. But as the hon. member suggested, in that connection it is wise to have advice as good as can be obtained, and I think the knowledge a competent landscape or town development architect has acquired over a long period of years in examining the layout of other capitals or other cities is something which can be of considerable assistance. I do not suppose there is a city in the world where mistakes have not been made. I think it wise to have the advice of one who has studied the situation elsewhere, who knows what mistakes it is necessary to guard against and who can suggest outlines and general plans to be worked out in the atmosphere of a Canadian mentality and of Canadian conditions in this federal area. I have been here only a few years and am not competent to express any views, but I am not convinced that the development of the railway terminal here has not been a mistake to a certain degree, and that it might not have been wiser and more helpful to the ultimate development of a greater federal capital to have made some other arrangements for bringing the railway systems into the city. I am not expressing that as a definite opinion, but there are those who are not convinced that some mistake was not made there.
The work 'being prepared under the guidance of Mr. Greber is being done here in Canada by a staff of Canadian architects and draftsmen, and is something that will make available not a plan for immediate realization but a plan which will show what kind of arrangements it would appear in the light of experience to be necessary to provide for in a national capital that might have two or three times or perhaps even more the population of present day Ottawa.
Mr. REID:: In the report made by the committee the government was authorized to ask the federal district commission to call the railways together with regard to a new union station and also with regard to the elimination of their tracks. I was wondering if that authorization had been carried out.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That matter is under consideration, and I was about to state to the committee what has been done in that connection. Last December the matter was quite fully gone into and a tentative decision arrived at to set up three committees, one to be known as a national planning ccqmmittee, the second to be known as a parks committee and the third to be known as a railway committee. The national planning committee I understand has been authorized and would consist of seventeen members comprising the mayors of both Ottawa and Hull, with the
[Mr. St. Laurent.!
other members to be appointed by the federal district commission, not necessarily chosen only from among their own members, to advise on the acceptance or otherwise of this general plan as something to work to in future years. Some of the members are to be well qualified in the science and practice of town planning and to be chosen, because of the necessity for frequent meetings, largely from the cities of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. They are to be appointed by the federal district commission under authority of order in council P.C. 5634 of August 16, 1945. As I said, two of them are to be the mayors of Ottawa and Hull. The personnel of this committee is to serve on an honorary basis, getting only the reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings. I may add that from the outset the whole of the work that has been done by this Ottawa improvement commission, or the federal district commission, has been done entirely without remuneration, as a voluntary and very willing contribution of public-minded citizens.


Mr. BOUCHER:: A work of love.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: A work of love, to provide for the future generations of Canadians. The principal function of this national planning committee will be to meet as often as required for the purpose of laying down the broad general outline of the master plan for the capital district, with Mr. Greber acting in the capacity of a consultant, a capacity which I understood the hon. member for Eglinton to favour in his address last evening. The actual work is being done at the expense of the federal district commission by a staff which I understand now consists of thirteen members, architects, draftsmen and so forth, working under the general direction of Mr. Greber. This national planning committee will report to the government through the commission and will advise the commission as to the subsequent and gradual development of the general scheme, as and when conditions appear to make it opportune to undertake it.
The second committee which has not yet been formally set up by by-law of the federal district commission, but which is under consideration. could not operate effectively it was felt, until the general plan was available. This parks committee would have a membership of five persons chosen by the federal district commission from the federal capital area, persons who have in particular displayed a keen interest in the formation and development of Gatineau park. Its chief duty would be to advise as to the management and further development of Gatineau park and

Federal District Commission
other park areas, from the point of view of the maximum use the public could make of those facilities.
The third committee would be the railways committee. It was felt that there again there must be this general master plan as a thing to work to in the future before the railway committee could do any valuable or effective work toward the solution of that part of the problem. After the national planning committee have determined the extent of the changes which would ultimately be required in the railway lines in and around Ottawa, in order to conform with the requirements of a much larger capital city and development this committee would work out the details and the cost of such changes. I anticipate that would be something which it would be very important to have carefully gone into.
We have heard the old saying that Rome was not built in- a day. I do not think the capital of Canada is going to be built in a day. I do believe that no matter how desirable certain things might appear to be, they will have to wait until the opportune time-until they can be undertaken without putting any undue burden upon the economy of the nation.
This railways committee will be appointed by the federal district commission and will consist of the chosen representatives of the railway companies, representatives of Ottawa and Hull and also of the board of transport commissioners.
Before concluding these remarks I wish to say a word about the interesting and useful suggestion by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid1) and the remarks and comments made upon it by other hon. members. I think everyone is in agreement that this federal area should be regarded as a thing of interest not only to the citizens of Ottawa and Hull but to the citizens of Canada generally.
The bill does propose that of a commission of fifteen members, at least five-and the number has not been limited to five-would be chosen as representing not the residents of the capital area but the residents of the rest of Canada. It would1 be possible, even with a commission of fifteen, to have a representative from each of the nine provinces. The object the government had in view in submitting the bill as it now stands was to have the Canadian public generally represented in this body.
If it is the feeling of the house that there should be a legislative requirement that at least one member of the commission would be ordinarily resident in each of the nine provinces, it does make the commission a little more unwieldly, inasmuch as there would be a commission of nineteen instead of the fifteen
as set out in the bill. But that is not a serious objection. I am sure that if there were a commission of nineteen there would be occasions when routine meetings would be held, at which times the whole nineteen would not feel they had to attend. But when there was anything of major importance they would feel it their dirty to respond.
Of course hon. members realize that as in the past this is going to be asked of them as a labour of love. They are going to be asked to serve without remuneration because they would be chosen by reason of their vision, outlook and public-spiritedness. We felt we might achieve that object by having regional representation. However, if hon. members feel it is preferable to have the nine provinces, as provincial units, separately represented, there will be no objection to accepting an amendment along those lines.
Having made these remarks I suggest that the committee might now be prepared to consider the terms of the legislation proposed. There may be other points which during the course of the discussion hon. members may wish to urge. They may feel sure that there is no desire to force anything upon the country. There is a desire to do what the predecessors of this government, to whatever party they belonged, have been doing for the last halfcentury, and to which I feel sure all future governments, composed of no matter which of the political parties, will also wish to add their respective contributions.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Mr. Chairman, with the general objectives of this measure I am sure a large proportion of hon. members will be in accord. Certainly this party is.
I should like to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) for the historical background he has given the committee respecting this project over a period of time stretching back for almost half a century. He has shown that this project has had the support of every government in power since 1899. He has shown, too, that during that time $13 million has been put into it. He has pointed out further that the development, which began by costing the state $60,000 a year, had recently cost more than $300,000 a year and, when this measure passes, is likely to cost $600,000 a year. I mention this only as a fact, and not necessarily as a criticism.
During the course of his remarks the minister said that there is nothing in the bill which states that the present plan is to make of this project a national war memorial. I was glad to hear the minister say that, because if it had been the idea of the government to change the original conception and plan a national war
Federal District Commission

memorial rather than the development of a federal capital area on its own merits I would have felt it necessary to move that any national funds set aside for a national war memorial should not all be spent in Ottawa, but be shared with the provincial capitals. But the minister has removed that doubt from our minds.
With respect to the national planning commission and other commissions or committees working in connection with this project, has there been any intimation by the government to these bodies that they are working now on a national war memorial rather than on a project for the development of a federal capital area?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not to my knowledge. My information is that the instructions to them have been to work out a general plan that might make possible the existence of a city two or three times the size of the present Ottawa, with the facilities and amenities which that kind of city would require. The question whether it be a national war memorial or not I think is more a matter of nomenclature than something that would make any change in the nature of the planning. There has not been I think any request that there be aything specific planned that would be similar, for instance, to the monument in Confederation square or to the peace tower. They have not been asked to plan anything that would be the centre of a national memorial scheme. They have been asked to plan for the possibilities of a national capital two or three times the size of the present Ottawa.


John Bracken: I am very glad to hear the observations of the minister. I think it is important that this house and the country should know what the purpose is behind this move by parliament. If it is for the development of a federal capital area in which the whole Canadian people can take pride, we are all behind it-I am speaking only for ourselves. But if it were to be a national war memorial involving the spending of large sums here and very little elsewhere we would oppose that feature.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are not asking parliament to commit itself in one way or another in that regard at the present time. We are asking parliament to commit itself to the preparation of plans for the long-term development of a national capital area two or three times the size of the present city of Ottawa.


John Bracken: I commend the minister and the government for that attitude. The reason I raised the question was that there is an impression throughout the land that we are being asked to start in now to develop a great national war memorial in the nation's capital. The minister, in introducing the resolution on this matter, said, at page 4384 of Hansard:
As hon. members are aware, the government has taken action to have plans begun for the development of the national capital area as a national war memorial. A large part of the work to be carried out in this connection will devolve upon the federal district commission.
It is because of statements such as that, as well as statements credited to the Prime Minister, that this development would be a great national war memorial that I raised the question. I do not think I need labour it further.
The minister in justification of this project pointed out that this country is growing, that the nation's capital will grow, and that it is wise to plan to avoid so far as possible mistakes in the development of this area. I think that is a very desirable objective. He mentioned that there had possibly been mistakes in some of the cities' plans in the past, and he referred specifically to the railway terminals. I think there will be considerable agreement with him in that. But I do not think that all the mistakes were made in the distant past. I have heard people say that this Confederation square which has been developed since the federal district commisison came into being is not without criticism. That feeling is widespread. So that even though we proceed to plan in the way proposed we are not necessarily going to avoid mistakes in the future.
I have one question in regard to detail to ask the minister. In outlining the expenditures over the last forty-eight years for the development of this area, amounting to about $13,000,000, the minister indicated that the federal district commission administers certain sums which are voted to various departments. Are those in addition to the $13,000,000?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, those are included in the $13,000,000. I gave the details. There are votes made to certain departments, and the amounts are turned over for expenditure to the federal district commission to discharge the responsibilities for which the votes have been made by parliament. But all that is included in the figure I gave.


John Bracken: Thank you. Might I ask the minister if there is any more recent report from Mr. Greber with respect to his ideas for future plans?

4S97
Federal District Commission


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Mr. Greber left Ottawa ten days ago to go back to France after spending nearly five weeks here. He was directing the personnel of thirteen in the Hunter building, Canadian architects and draftsmen who under the direction of Mr. Greber are preparing the master plan. Mr. Greber will be back probably in three or four months and hopes to have a plan prepared for the approval of the federal authorities and the municipal authorities surrounding the capital city. Before any definite plan is decided upon all these bodies will be consulted and have an opportunity to express their views as to the usefulness of making changes in the suggested plan. The joint committee that sat in 1944 recommended the preparation of this plan, including the setting up of the committees which the Minister of Justice mentioned, a planning committee and a railway committee. These two committees have not yet been set up but the federal district commission has passed a by-law which was confirmed by order in council some time ago for the setting up of a planning committee composed of Canadian architects representing the two cities and even the surrounding municipalities across the river. This planning committee has been set on foot but it has not sat yet because Mr. Greber happens to be the consultant to that committee. On his return to Canada we hope that the members of that committee will have been appointed and that the committee will study with Mr. Greber and the local authorities the completion of this plan.


John Bracken: My only comment in connection with the remarks of the minister is that it is to be regretted that when we are considering a measure of this importance we could not have before us the latest report or recommendation by Mr. Greber. In that connection may I ask the minister in charge of the bill or the Minister of Public Works whether the federal district commission was responsible for the development of Confederation square?


Alphonse Fournier: I am glad the hon. member brought up that matter. Those who lived in Ottawa ten years ago will remember the situation at the corner of Sparks and Rideau streets. They will recall the old Russell hotel, the old post office and the other buildings that were there at that time. In those days Ottawa had a population of about
125,000	or 130,000, but during the past few years the population has increased by nearly
40,000.	Compared with ten years ago, traffic in Ottawa to-day is about ten times as great. I do not say that the plan is perfect, but if that square had not been developed we would 63260-290
not be able to get through at all with our present traffic. I think those who lived in Ottawa in those days and remember how it was will bear me out. The hon. member for Carleton knows this city quite well and he will remember the corner of Sparks and Rideau street as it was ten years ago and I think he will admit how difficult it would have been to move traffic through there to-day if this had not been done.


George Russell Boucher: I would probably repeat what it is called to-day, hell's half acre.


Alphonse Fournier: However, traffic can still move through, and that would have been impossible if it had been left in its former state.


John Bracken: I was not asking the minister to justify or excuse the plan; I asked him who was responsible for the plan, and he has not answered.


Alphonse Fournier: The government was. At that time Mr. Greber was called in, when there was some question of where the war memorial in memory of those who lost their lives in the last war should be placed. That memorial was designed by Canadian artists.


George Russell Boucher: March brothers.


Alphonse Fournier: I am speaking from memory, and I may be wrong, but I believe the plans for the square were prepared by Mr. Greber. I know he was called in in connection with the location of the new post office. However, the government of the day was responsible for that work. Perhaps mistakes were made, and more property should have been expropriated, perhaps the boulevard should have been extended down Metcalfe street instead of Elgin, but that is a matter of opinion.


John Bracken: The minister says that the government was responsible for the plan, so the federal district commission is absolved.


Alphonse Fournier: I think everybody had a share in the preparing of that plan.


George Russell Boucher: I think the minister will agree that the federal district commission had no responsibility for that plan.


Alphonse Fournier: I did not say they were responsible.


John Bracken: I am glad to have that answer from the minister, because we can have more confidence in the federal district commission when we know that they were not responsible for that monstrosity. The minister referred to the membership of this commis-

Federal District Commission

sion, and indicated that he was agreeable to an amendment which would provide for every province being represented. I had planned to offer such an amendment when the appropriate section was before us. I do not see why the membership would have to be increased from fifteen to nineteen, however, in the development of the national capital there should not be any province left out of representation on the commission, and when I say that I am not advocating that the membership be increased. I think the nine provinces could be represented in the suggested membership of fifteen.


Mr. BURTON:: I wish to thank the minister for the clear statement he made this morning, and my only regret is that he did not see fit to' say something of that kind when the resolution was before the house. There are a few things I should like to inquire about. The leader of the opposition referred to the fact that this was considered as a national war memorial, and I understood the minister to say in answering the hon. gentleman that that was not necessarily part of this scheme. The explanatory note reads in part:
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, so as to enable the commission to discharge more readily the duties that will devolve upon it in connection with the development of the national capital area as a national war memorial.
If it is not the intention of the government to do that, why should1 that explanatory note be placed in the bill? I would1 suggest to the minister that that be deleted. I am quite in accord with the idea that there should be a national war memorial in the national capital, but let us go ahead with it on that basis and proceed with this other work on its own merits. As I mentioned on the second reading, those whose memories we wish to commemorate by a war memorial did not all come from Ottawa. I contend that the various provinces should be given assistance in the building of suitable monuments or memorials.
From time to time the leader or the acting leader of this group speaks on behalf of this party, but I wish to .make it clear that I have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the people of Humboldt constituency. When I speak on matters of this kind I endeavour to be governed by what I believe are the considered wishes of the people of my constituency. In our party it is recognized that a mentber has that right. The people in the constituency which I have the honour to represent know that I am a firm believer in democratic government. They know that I
[Mr. Bracken.!
am prepared to obey the will of the majority when it is expressed in an orderly manner.
Last night this house approved the principle of this bill, and apparently that approval was given by a majority of the members. Being a true democrat I accept that decision and I shall be prepared to represent the people I am supposed to represent by continuing my efforts to work within that orbit and endeavour to make this bill a better bill. Therefore I shall be prepared to support any amendments, whether they come from this or any other section of the house, which in my opinion will remove the objectionable features of the bill.
While I am speaking of amendments, I may say for the benefit of the member for Fraser Valley that in discussing the principle of the bill yesterday I took occasion to note what some of the objections were, but I fully realized that it was not the time to move any amendments. I might further inform him that my experience in the past has been that if you really want something worth while done for the improvement of a -bill, you should use your persuasive powers to the best of your ability to have the minister, or one of his colleagues appreciate the necessity for such amendments as you may suggest and move them accordingly. I can see that someone, whether myself or the member for Fraser Valley, had some influence on the minister, because he is prepared to go at least part of the way with us. For that I wish to thank the minister, and I may say that if either he or the member for Fraser Valley does not move some of the amendments I have in mind, I am prepared to bring them forward myself. I have some ready.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: My good friend the member for Humboldt rather flattered me- well, no; he did not flatter me; he described me correctly-when he said that I used my persuasive powers on the minister. But the member for Humboldt yesterday did everything he could think of to oppose the bill in principle and otherwise.


An hon. MEMBER:: He knocked it down and threw it out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He may have tried to throw it out, but he did not succeed. There were too many of us from British Columbia for that. After I spoke last night, and I can be checked by reference to Hansard, the leader of the opposition stepped in, and he can read for himself what is reported in the record. I am proud that I brought that hon. gentleman into my little party in this connection, because I believe he will second

Federal District Commission
the amendment I announced last night that I would move. But going still further, the member for Fraser Valley used those same persuasive powers which the member for Humboldt speaks of to win to his side- that is, to win to the side of the member for Fraser Valley-not only the leader of the official opposition but the Acting Prime Minister, who has stated this morning that he will accept the amendment suggested by the member for Fraser Valley.
I am doing rather good work for the city of Ottawa, and if I stayed here long enough I might be able to fix that death trap at Confederation square that has been spoken of. I do not know who is to blame for it.


George Russell Boucher: We should be glad to have you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sure I could be elected in Carleton if I ran there.


George Russell Boucher: At least I admire the hon. member's courage.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I had an amendment which I intended to move in connection with section 2, because I want the people of Manitoba and of all Canada to know that the leader of the opposition was right at least in this instance, because he is prepared, I understand, to second my motion, which will be to the effect that of the members appointed by the governor in council one shall ordinarily be a resident of each of the nine provinces.
In conclusion, may I suggest to the member for Humboldt that the most constructive speech made in this debate was delivered by the member for New Westminster, who said it would be an excellent thing if each province had the privilege of taking part in the beautification of one particular section of the capital. The only thing the member for New Westminster forgot to mention was that ninety per cent of the shrubs, flowers, and ornaments would come from Fraser valley. British Columbia. *


George Russell Boucher: I am pleased to see the
committee in such a happy mood when discussing the beautification of the federal area. One point I mentioned last night I would impress upon the minister who is piloting the bill. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is necessary for me to urge it upon him because in the course of his remarks this morning he mentioned the same thing several times. What I mean is that the word "area" is far more appropriate than the word "district". While it is true that this body was first incorporated as the Ottawa improvement commission, it had a title that more fittingly represented its activity then than that of dis-63260-290J
trict commission. For a number of years in this house and in the country at large a great deal of confusion, as well as some antagonism to the aims and objects of the government in the improvement of the federal capital area, has arisen because of the use of the terms "federal district" and "federal district commission."
I do not think the people of Canada are in favour of creating a federal district to be run by a commission with the probable loss of local autonomy. I do not think the people of Canada want to have established a federal area similar to that in Washington, run by commission government. I do not think it makes for harmony or the welfare of the community or of the project itself, when we bear in mind that we are taking in portions of two provinces with different municipalities, two provinces with different, types of law, different laws governing real property, different educational desires, different municipal management and all the rest of it. Under these circumstances I do not think there should be any doubt about our intentions. There should be no loss to the community or to the province of local autonomy.
The commission that has been appointed has acted well as an advisory coordinating committee rather than as a legislative and enacting body. I feel therefore that the word "area" should be substituted for that of "district", and the word "committee" for that of "commission". The minister who is piloting the bill might consider adopting this suggestion, which would assist greatly in furthering the objects we have in view. I think we should change the name from "federal district commission" to "federal area committee". If such a change were made the people of Canada generally and in the area locally would look much more favourably upon this undertaking, and from a more realistic point of view. I am pleased to notice that the minister himself, whether intentionally or accidentally, used the words "federal area" three times in his speech this morning. Other speakers yesterday and to-day have done the same. It would be a great improvement and would make for better advertising and understanding if the change were made.
As a means of bringing the suggestion before the house for discussion-I will not insist on the exact wording-I propose at the appropriate time to introduce an amendment to that effect.
Some discussion has arisen to-day in regard to Confederation square. I do not think any of us wish to attribute blame to anyone in particular for the location of Confederation

Federal District Commission
square, but we all realize that, beautiful in itself, it is a very great handicap to the community in that it accentuates traffic congestion and adds to the difficulty in going and coming from Rideau street to Sparks street, from Elgin street and so on. Every day in the city of Ottawa trouble is caused by this bottleneck, and the difficulty is increased by the present location of Confederation square.


Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that the city
council has given little cooperation in the diversion, or proper handling, of traffic?


George Russell Boucher: My hon. friend asked a fit and proper question, because just yesterday, in behalf of the. residents of my own riding, I sought permission to get a bus coming from the suburban, area west of the city to Confederation square, to serve the shoppers, the workers and the people from the west end. I was told that because of the bottleneck on Confederation square a bus service to serve the west end of the city could not be permitted there; they could not be served. In further answer to my hon. friend I would say that Ottawa never sought to have Confederation square as it is. They have always sought and continue to seek to have that congested area improved, but their hands are tied. The difficulty is there. I believe that they have done their best to try to re-route traffic, to try to manage traffic, to try to arrange traffic to create as little congestion as possible. They have gone so far as to place extra policemen in the area in busy hours to guide the traffic. I do not know what else can be done, except to put in a new thoroughfare to take some of the traffic from that bottleneck. Until that is done the authorities of Ottawa are helpless to mitigate in any way the conglomerated traffic conditions on Confederation square. I do not know what can be done other than a new route which will take traffic elsewhere.
Now that parliament is considering the grant of $3 million, one of the most necessary, must urgent and most useful ways of spending some portion of that money is to relieve conditions in that area. The minister has said that the committee on railways and the committee on planning must each await the returns of the greater federal area general scheme. I agree with that in part, but only in a very small part. The general scheme is one of long development. It has been worked on in one form or another for fifteen or twenty years. The report of no committee has ever been accepted by parliament, not even the report made by the Holt committee. Mr. Greber has now been working on it for approximately a year. Coordinating com-

mittees are working on it. Surely the time has long since past when for the sake not only of the city of Ottawa but of everybody who comes to this city and who must pass that area, something should be done about it. I believe I would be doing my duty, not as a citizen of Ottawa but as a citizen of Canada, to urge upon the government the imminent necessity of relieving the situation which prevails there. I have had experience in Ottawa with respect to the building of houses, factories, warehouses and all that kind of thing. Buildings of that type are being held up in so far as planning is concerned until a master plan is produced. Ottawa does not wish to complain about it. We are very glad to wait, but I say in a kindly way that the quicker we can get a guide to the development of the city and the relief of traffic and the establishment of industrial areas and some insight as to when, where and how the railway situation can be improved, the quicker it will be for the development not only of Ottawa but of the federal area.
The highway situation throughout both sections of Ottawa, east and west, is not a happy one. It is not as bad as Confederation square, but if you go through the westerly section of the city you will come to a junction of two or three railways, and you find traffic areas seriously congested. Development of improvements in directing the railways and the directing of traffic in the congested areas all await the master plan. May I therefore, expressing my own opinion, and probably asking the members of the committee to direct their thoughts to it, move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo:
That the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, and this bill, be amended so as to have the words "district commission" wherever they appear in the said act or bill be substituted for the words "area committee."


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to ask the minister a question, but before doing that I should like to appear as a dissenter. I think there has been far too much said against Confederation square. I think anybody who goes about his business in an orderly and regular manner can navigate traffic there without any difficulty. Too much talk has been had about the congestion of traffic there. If you go and look at the traffic in other cities you will find that there is no congestion on Confederation square at all. I realize I am merely a dissenter, and on that subject will suffer 'the fate of all dissenters.
May I ask the minister a question.? I do not wish to appear like the proverbial puppy

Federal District Commission
with a rag, but I come back to the war memorial aspect of this bill, for this reason. I find in the explanatory notes that it is still stated that this is for the development of a national war memorial. I want to ask this question, purely as a matter of construction of bills. Before doing that I want to remind the minister that last September in the speech from the throne it was definitely stated that this planning was for a national war memorial. In fact the minister himself reiterated) that last Tuesday, I think it was, and here we have it in the explanatory notes. May I take it from what he said this morning that this bill can be read without carrying this explanatory note. May I take it that what we are now discussing is a matter of government policy, and which is stated to be merely the extension of the activity which the federal district area or commission was set up to engage in and has been actually engaging in these many years.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. There has been far too much importance attached1 to the use of words. Some seem to have forgotten that a rose would smell the same whatever you called it. All that parliament is being asked to adopt are the provisions on the left-hand pages of the document which is before the committee. There are some who may regard this as a tribute to the effort of Canada during the war which has speeded up this development; but all that is being asked for are the provisions which are set out to become part of the statute, and the explanations, can be accepted or rejected without in any way affecting the purport of the legislation parliament is asked to enact.
I know that the Prime Minister personally feels that the development as rapidly as possible of the national capital might be such a fitting memorial that there might not have to be other forms of memorials, but it is quite evident that that is not by any means a unanimous view. What is asked for here is something that would and should be asked for even had there been no war at all, and it will have to be done whether or not there are other forms of memorials provided as tributes to the gallant men who served the state in the armed forces during the war.
With respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member, I would ask him if he would not withdraw it at 'this time. This is a matter in which a great many people are interested. The name "federal district commission" is the name under which the property is now held. To change it would involve rewriting another bill to carry out the idea which prompts this amendment, and I would ask the hon. member if he would not withdraw it at this time. It
has been placed before the house and the country. I can assure the hon. gentleman that it will be given consideration, but I do not know enough about the affairs of this commission to feel at all comfortable about taking the responsibility of accepting or definitely turning down 'this suggestion.
This is a long range matter. The name "federal district commission" has been used since 1927, I think. The fact that in the United States there is under the control of the government of that nation a district known asa federal district may have indisposed some toward the aims of this commission. As a matter of fact there is nothing and there never has been, in the statute or in the attitude of the commission, constituting any threat to the local autonomy of the two bodies governing on the two sides of the river here.
I think the hon. member will agree with that. There is nothing and never has been anything in the statute or in the attitude of the members of the commission that implied the slightest threat to the autonomy of the municipal corporations, and I do not think there has been at any time anything done by the commission or any member of it that would make the municipal authorities feel their prerogatives were being trespassed upon; and I am sure that is the present mentality of the commission. It may be that it would be desirable to avoid any suggestion of a possible menace resulting from the similarity of this name with that of the United States commission, but I would be much obliged to my hon. friend if he would just allow the matter to stand as something to be considered at another time, and not insist that a decision be made concerning it at this moment.


George Russell Boucher: I shall be very pleased to withdraw my motion at the suggestion of the minister, because I believe what he has said is quite correct. But I think this has illustrated the difficulties we have had and those which have been experienced by the federal district commission, and no doubt he has been impressed by the necessity of some change in that regard. I think it would be very improper to press my motion at this time, but I do urge the minister to take into consideration some means to alleviate the fears which do prevail in regard to the creation of a district governed by a commission, instead of an area coordinated by it.


Mr. SHAW:: My colleagues and I have had very little to say during this debate, but just in case our silence may be misunderstood I should like to make it quite clear that we approve the bill at present before the com-
Federal District Commission

mittee. We feel, however, that on this particular occasion it should not require hours of debate to indicate approval, or hours of debate to indicate disapproval. My personal view is that Canada, as a great nation, should have the finest capital possible. Let me repeat what I said at the outset, that we approve this bill.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I am gratified at the tendency of hon. members not to try to isolate this area from other parts of Canada, or to regard it as something separate from the general interest; because after all Ottawa is the capital of our great land. I think it only natural that we should take pride in having a capital which will be a credit to the country generally, and I believe that is the feeling of the committee, regardless of the details which may sometimes divide us in connection with its beautification.
I suppose the idea of associating this beautification scheme with a national war memorial arose from a movement which has made considerable headway in Canada in the period following World War II, as a result of which in various municipalities and counties throughout Canada something perhaps more material in the way of war memorials is being proposed. In many places community centres seem to have gained great favour. I express no opinion concerning the matter, other than to suggest that we should not go too far in either direction. I believe there is a course which will appeal to most Canadians; and if I may express a personal thought in connection with a national war memorial, I should hope that what is set out in the explanatory note of this bill will not prevent further consideration of the whole matter of a national war memorial on some other basis if in the days to come that should be considered the proper thing to do. Our boys have just come back. I do not suppose they have had much opportunity to give consideration to what they believe is the right kind of memorial to their pals and comrades who lost their lives in this war. So I would hope the acceptance of this bill would not preclude the creation in Canada of a national war memorial which would conform to the opinion of those whose views I think are much more important than those of any of us in this chamber, except those sitting here who served in the armed forces; that is, the views of the people who fought the battle that we might have a war memorial in this country.
Before I sit down I want to say this one thing further. There are more than material considerations in the matter of a war memorial. There is the sentimental consideration. Every visitor to these buildings,
{Mr. Shaw.]
whether he be a civilian or an ex-serviceman, goes away more impressed by the dignified reverence of our memorial chamber than with any other single thing in Ottawa. I think that must be kept in mind in considering a national war memorial; and I only suggest [DOT]that we be assured by the government that adoption of this legislation will not preclude a free, open and proper discussion and final decision at some future day in regard to a national war memorial for this last war. Of all the many things I saw a few months ago, when I had the privilege of going overseas, I think especially of the great Scottish national war memorial at Edinburgh.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The finest in the world.


Gordon Graydon: I agree entirely with my hon. friend, who has perhaps had a much greater opportunity of assessing it than I had; but it was the finest I had ever seen.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And ours is the second finest in the world.


Gordon Graydon: That may be so, though in connection with war memorials it is hardly a question of competition. Actually our own war memorial, for its size and type, does not have to take second place. But I will say this-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was speaking about the war memorial chamber, not about the monument. I am not in favour of the monument.


Gordon Graydon: We understand each other on that. But I think for reverence and for dignity, that great shrine at the top of Castle Rock in Edinburgh, overlooking from its prominence that great city of culture, that great centre of so many good things the world has to offer, stands supreme.
While overseas I wrote the weekly newspaper in my area certain paragraphs, one of which I should like to place on record, because it states clearly what my thoughts were as I left that great war memorial. This is what I wrote:
The people of cultured, quiet Edinburgh point with deep pride and reverence to the Scottish national war memorial, built after the last war on the prominent Castle Rock which overlooks from its dizzy prominence the whole city. There in an indescribably beautiful and appropriate setting are to be found the names of the men and women of Scotland who laid down their lives in world war No. 1. Above a bronze plaque on one of its many walls of stone are these words:	In honour of all Scotsw-omen
who amid the stress of war sought by^ their labour, sympathy and prayers to obtain for their country the blessings of peace.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Federal District Commission
On section 2-Federal district commission.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to move an amendment to this section. I am not sure who will second it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am going to leave that up to the house. I hope there will be very little difficulty in getting a seconder. I move, in amendment:
That section 3 (1) be amended to read as follows:	"Of the members appointed by the
governor in council, one shall be ordinarily a resident in each of the nine provinces."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have no objection to the object behind the amendment, but I am not sure that it will accomplish what we wish to have done.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, put it into good phraseology.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member would allow his amendment to be substituted by the following, perhaps its would be satisfactory. The suggested amendment is as follows:
That section 3 in clause 2 of bill 357 be amended-
(1)	By the deletion of the word "fifteen" in paragraph (d) and the substitution of the word "nineteen" therefor;
(2)	By the deletion of the word "thirteen" in paragraph (2) and the substitution of the word "seventeen" therefor;
(3)	By the deletion of all the words in paragraph (5) after the word "in" in line two and the substitution of the words "each of the nine provinces of Canada" therefor.
This would do what the hon. member wishes to have done, and would bring the other subsections into line with the specific amendment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, and through the kindness of the Acting Prime Minister, I should like to move that one instead. My people in the Fraser Valley will be delighted at my legal knowledge.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask one or two questions. First of all, is the hon. member for Fraser Valley sure that the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice is to the same effect as the one he moved? I would ask the minister also whether there is anything in the section which would preclude the appointment of members of parliament to the commission. It seems to me the hon. member for Fraser Valley would agree that it would be more suitable to have members of parliament, who, after all, are presumably as intelligent and patriotic as any other persons, and who are here in Ottawa part of the year and could serve.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That very question occurred to me this morning. I asked the Deputy Minister of Justice if there would be anything in the Independence of Parliament Act which would prevent it. Thus far he did not seem to think there would be any obstacle, and it may be convenient to have that done. It has not been done in the past, and I do not think it would be the desire of parliament that the commission be made up entirely of parliamentarians. The question whether or not there would be any obstacle in the Independence of Parliament Act is one I have asked the deputy minister to consider. If there did happen to be something there, it might be proper at another session to bring in an amendment to that act to say that nothing in it would prevent a member of parliament from serving without remuneration on this district commission.


Mr. HAZEN:: Does the minister think the words "of the nine" are necessary? Are they not superfluous? Would it not be sufficient to say "in each province of Canada"? We may have ten provinces before long.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We shall have to do some amending to get another province and at that time we could also make an amendment along that line.


Douglas King Hazen: "Ordinarily resident in each province of Canada" would cover it. How often do the members of this commission meet? How often did they meet in the past?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the past there has been ordinarily one meeting a month.


Douglas King Hazen: What are they paid?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no remuneration; they serve without remuneration.


Douglas King Hazen: Should it not be stated in this measure that they shall serve without remuneration?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is stated.


John Bracken: Before calling it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, may I compliment the hon. member for New Westminster upon the expedition with which-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, Fraser Valley -not New Westminster.


John Bracken: I meant it as a compliment to the hon. member. But since he has changed his mind as to the number of commissioners I do not know that I can follow him as I would have done before he changed it. I may say that whenever he is right I am glad to follow him. But that occurs so frequently-so infrequently, I should say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Make up your mind.
Federal District Commission


John Bracken: The hon. member has agreed to change his amendment to one which will increase the number of members on the commission from fifteen to nineteen. I shall read the amendment I had proposed, in order that hon. members may consider it. This amendment would not have increased the number from fifteen to nineteen. It would read as follows:
That clause 3, section 2, be amended by striking out the word "thirteen" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor "four";
That clause 2 subsection 5 be amended to read as follows:
"One member shall be appointed by the governor in council for each of the provinces of Canada to hold office during pleasure for such period not exceeding five years as the governor in council may decide."
The only difference in substance between this amendment and the one already suggested is that this would provide for fifteen members as already planned, instead of nineteen as now proposed. I present that suggestion for the consideration of the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That possibility had been discussed. But there are already on the commission nine gentlemen who have served with devotion and distinction. This would have required eliminating some of them, and it was felt it would be ungracious and a poor recognition of the devoted service they have already given if any of them were asked to retire before the expiration of their term of office.


John Bracken: And therefore we have to go to the expense of paying nineteen instead of fifteen.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They serve without remuneration.


John Bracken: Oh well; they do not serve without cost to the state. They serve without personal reward, but there are all the expenses which must be considered.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Before we call it one o'clock may I point out that section 2 was not carried? I believe it was the wish of the committee that that section be carried. We now have an amendment to section 3.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: We are on section 2.


William Henry Golding: It is clause 3 that hon. members are speaking to.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 3 of the original act, but clause 2 of the bill.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

The committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Henry Golding: When the committee rose at one o'clock there was an amendment before the chair moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and later we had an amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, I offered that only as a suggestion for the consideration of the committee.


William Henry Golding: Perhaps I had better read what the suggestion of the leader of the opposition was. It was as follows:
That clause 3, section 2, be amended by striking out the word "thirteen" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor "four";
That clause 2, subsection 5, be amended to read as follows:
"One member shall be appointed by the governor in council for each of the provinces of Canada to hold office during pleasure for such period not exceeding five years."
Is there any further discussion before I put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, which reads:
(1)	That clause 3 be amended by the deletion of the word "fifteen" in paragraph (,1) and the substitution of the word "nineteen" therefor;
(2)	By the deletion of the word "thirteen" in paragraph (2) and the substitution of the word "seventeen" therefor;
(3)	By the deletion of all the words in paragraph (5) after the word "in" in line two and the substitution of the words "each of the nine provinces of Canada" therefor.


John Bracken: The effect of the amendment is to increase the total number of members of the commission from fifteen to nineteen so as to make it possible to have a representative from each province. The effect of my suggestion would be to make it possible to have a representative from each province on the commission without increasing its numbers. The minister has indicated that he prefers the larger number because certain members now on the commission have given good service and out of respect to them he ' does not wish to dispense with their services.
I think I shall have to say that I do not favour the policy of still further increasing the membership of the commission. We have commissions all over this country doing much bigger jobs than this with a much smaller membership than nineteen. I can respect the minister's reason for agreeing to the larger number, but it does not appeal to me as a business proposition.


Thomas Reid: Various small matters of routine will have to be attended to by the com-

Federal District Commission
mission, and if you do not increase the number to nineteen it will mean that only a very small group of men will be dealing with these routine matters, because you could hardly call the representatives of the nine provinces together to deal with matters of detail. I can see a great deal of merit in having enough members to carry on the ordinary work of the commission, and when any larger matter of policy has to be discussed the representatives of all the provinces could be called together.


Joseph William Burton: I am not a stickler as to just how the purpose should be accomplished, and if the minister thinks that the suggestion of the bon. member for Fraser Valley would answer the purpose I would be agreeable, but I was of the opinion that fifteen members on the commission would be sufficient. The leader of the opposition has indicated his suggestion as a possible amendment. I have also prepared a suggestion to amend clause 5 of this section by striking out the words "either" and "or" where they appear in the third, fourth and fifth fines of the clause; and that the clause be further amended by inserting the words "one in" immediately preceding the names of each, of the following provinces: Saskatchewan, Manitoba. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I think that would cover what we have in mind. It would give to each province a representative on the commission and leave the membership on the commission at fifteen, which in my opinion would be sufficient for the time being.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The reason I gave :his morning against this suggestion was that here are already nine commissioners in office who have performed valuable service. The aext section of the bill provides that they shall remain as part of the number to constitute the enlarged commission. It would be embarrassing to ask any of these gentlemen to retire before the expiry of his term of office. In view of the desire expressed that there be a member chosen especially to represent the whole people of each province it was felt that the easier way would be to provide them as additions to the commission rather than to ask the members of the commission who have been giving good service and who are entitled to the gratitude of the community for the services they have given to retire before the time fixed in the following section.


John Bracken: What are the names of the members of the commission?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are:	Frederic
E. Bronson, Chairman; Dr. R. Chevrier; J. W. Ste. Marie; C. J. Booth; J. B. Spencer; J. A.
Ewart; D. K. MacTavish; A. J. Major; Mayor Stanley Lewis; and there is one vacancy, which is to be filled by an appointee of the municipal council of the city of Hull. Of course, technically the desire which has been expressed could be satisfied if we had no one representing the provinces as a whole of Ontario and Quebec in addition to those representing the cities of Ottawa and Hull, but that would not be carrying out the spirit of the proposals. The spirit of the proposal is to have one from each province not representing the immediate locality but the people of the province as a whole. It would not be carrying out that idea to have the whole population of Ontario represented by the Mayor of Ottawa, or to have the whole population of Quebec represented by the mayor or a designate of the council of the city of Hull. So it seemed that the spirit moving hon. members' request that there be a representative of the whole population of each province would be better met by increasing the number of those who make up the commission than by asking any of the gentlemen who have heretofore served to retire and make way for someone else.


John Bracken: I have a suggestion, if the minister would be prepared to consider it, which would perhaps accomplish both his own purpose and what I think would be the desire of the house. As the terms of the present members expire they could be replaced with representatives of provinces not then represented on the commission. I offer that as a suggestion to the minister.


George Russell Boucher: May I point out to the minister another thing that might be taken into consideration in the appointment of these men. Ottawa is allowed one member, and Hull, with a population of about 33,000, is allowed one member, but the suburban areas surrounding Ottawa, which have a population perhaps greater than Hull and which bear a substantial relation do the population of Ottawa, are not represented. As I said last night, I think Carleton county is a most important part of the federal area. In choosing these men we have to choose them from the national rather than the local viewpoint, yet we should1 choose men who will be primarily concerned with the problem facing the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give us the nineteen members and we will be able to do that.


George Russell Boucher: The members of the present federal district commission have been conversant with the problems here and they have done an excellent job. The members of
Federal District Commission

this commission should be familiar with the local problems, the layout of the land and so on, so that they will be able to plan first things first and not always be up in the air with some future plan; -they should develop the area economically as well as aesthetically.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say a word about the last paragraph of this new section, which provides that-
The governor in council may from time to time designate an area within and in the district surrounding the city of Ottawa to be known as the national capital district.
Why is that "governor in council," and why is there no reference to the commission?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The commission
makes the recommendations and they are made effective by an order in council. That is what was done in connection with the present federal district. The federal district commission passed the following as its by-law No. 27.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal District Commission Act under which the federal district commission may cooperate with any municipality, or interested persons or any other body, within the district of the national capital, which is more particularly described in section (3) hereof and shown in outline on the attached plan, for planning, development, improvement and beautification in the aforesaid area, be it enacted as by-law No. 27 of the federal district commission.
The first paragraph deals with the appointment of committee or committees; the second provides that the chairman of the commission shall be ex officio a member of any committee, and the third1 paragraph provides that for the purposes of this by-law the district of the national capital shall be defined as follows, andi then follows the technical description. That was passed on April 13, 1045; it was submitted to the governor in council and made effective by order in council P.C. 5634, of August 16, 1945.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I still do not see where it is not left open to have that change, unless there is something else in the statute. I have only before me that paragraph of the new section 3. Why would it not be proper to have in there, "and the governor in council may on the recommendation of the commission from time to time designate"? Even following the by-law as read by the minister, and even though it were adopted by order in council, it would not be as effective as if it were introduced into the statute.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If hon. members fear that the governor in council will make the description of the federal district different from that found satisfactory by the federal district commission, the members of which will have been appointed by the governor in council, then the language suggested by the hon. member would be appropriate, but I do not think it is necessary. The cooperation that has existed between the commission and the governor in council has always been such that it is unnecessary, but if hon. members are fearful that there may be a clash between the governor in council and the commission, the language suggested would make the requirement of a recommendation of the commission a prerequisite.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to seem to be niggling or technical, but I know there is a feeling in certain quarters that the commission has not had as much to do with certain things as might have been intended, and if the minister would consent to the introduction of these words I should be glad to see them in.


Mr. IRVINE:: It would seem to me that it would be only right and proper that the governor in council should have some say in a project in which the whole Dominion of Canada is interested and on which it is intended to spend money. If I understood the hon. gentleman to my right correctly, he wants to give a greater power to the commission and less to the governor in council; is that right?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to be sure the commission has a say, that is all. I understood the minister to say that these words could go in if they were desired, and I should like to know just how far he is willing to go.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the majority of the committee feel that the qualification suggested should be there, I shall raise no objection,, but I do not think it is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Commission to coordinate work in district.
George Russell Boucher: This section provides:
(6) In any case where the commission does not give its approval under this section the governor in council may give such approval.
As the minister has stated, I do not think it is probable that the commission will be recommending one thing or opposing one thing

Federal District Commission
and then the privy council take the opposite stand, but I believe in the past there have been occasions on which buildings have been erected in inopportune locations near the federal district driveway and which were not approved of by the commission. It is possible that some of those buildings were erected by the government as well as by private individuals and they have interfered with the proper zoning and the proper intentions of the commission so far as the driveway is concerned. In the case of the dominion government deciding to build a building in a certain location and not being able to get the approval of the federal district commission, this section would give the governor in council the power to pay no attention, as it were, to the federal district commission. But I think this section goes even farther, it gives the governor in council the right to overrule any power which may be given to the federal district commission by section 4, which will be the new section 6A. I think it is desirous that there be a limit upon the power of the governor in council to disregard the commission's findings. Has the minister any particular reason for wanting that there? If the governor in council does overrule the federal district commission, it should be in direct and specific terms rather than by implication or necessity, as it might be here.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member reads the section he will find that the bill has not purported to -take away from the municipal authorities their rights with respect to zoning and has not proposed to substitute the authority of the federal district commission for the rights of the local autonomous bodies; and until something has been worked out with them, and to which they will have agreed, it would probably be looked upon as an undue interference with their autonomous powers. This section 6A provides in subsection 1 that the commission shall coordinate construction and development work in the national capital district in accordance with general plans approved from time to time under the act. That is the general principle, and to carry out that principle the following provisions are made:
(2)	Proposals for the location, erection, alteration or extension of a building or other work by or on behalf of the government of Canada or by any person on lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the government of Canada in the national capital district shall be referred to the commission prior to the commencement of the work.
(3)	No building or other work shall be erected, altered or extended by or on behalf of the government of Canada in the national capital district unless the site, location and plans thereof have first been approved by the commission.
(4)	No person shall erect, alter or extend a building or other work on land in the national capital district owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the government of Canada unless the site, location and plans thereof have first been approved by the commission.
(5)	Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with subsection four of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.
So it is only the activities of the government of Canada, or the placing of buildings on land owned or controlled by the government of Canada, that come, under this section and has to be submitted to the federal district commission for approval. It is only in such cases that section 6A applies. It would seem that the matter has to go before the federal commission before the government can act. The federal commission has full opportunity to investigate it and to make its recommendations. If these recommendations are such that the governor in council feels they should not be complied with, it does not seem unreasonable that he should overrule. But it is only the activities of the government of Canada or the activities carried on on land controlled by the government that are dealt with in these provisions.


George Russell Boucher: My main concern about this section arose out of the proposal that was dealt with by the committee that sat about a year or a year and a half ago to deal with federal district commission matters. At that time it was brought to our attention- I forget the details-that the dominion government had erected a building, unwittingly I believe, that did interfere with the federal district commission's scheme, I felt that if we are to set up a federal district commission to deal with federal district land it would not seem necessary for the government to have an overriding power, except to a limited degree, and by specific enactment rather than by implication.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think this means merely implication. In any case where the commission does not give its approval under this section, the governor in council may give such approval. It is something that is normally within the control of the government. All agencies of the government will have to go to the commission. If the commission feels that something should not be done and the government agency feels it is a proper thing to do, the government can overrule the commission in that respect. That I believe is a provision that will avoid any unwitting interference with the plans of the commission. No government agency, after this is adopted, will be able to go ahead
Federal District Commission

within the federal district without communicating its plans to the commission and trying to secure its approval.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-$3,000,000 for purposes of commission.
Joseph William Burton: Will the minister explain this section a little more fully? To me it is ambiguous. Does it apply to the purchasing of property alone? Is the $3,000,000 the aggregate that can be spent in any one year, or is it the aggregate sum that can be spent under this clause for the period of fifteen years mentioned previously?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As far as the appropriation is concerned it is $3,000,000, and there is no more either within or outside the fifteen years, unless and until parliament makes another appropriation for capital purposes. Until then this is all that is available. There is no determination as to when it can be spent, but after it has been spent it will have been exhausted.


Joseph William Burton: In other words, the income of the commission will be the $300,000 per annum provided for under this act plus the $3,000,000 to be spent for the entire period of fifteen years unless parliament votes more at some future time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, not only for fifteen years, but for all time. They get an annual income, plus, once for all, $3,000,000 until parliament votes something more.


Joseph William Burton: It is provided here that *money may be obtained from unappropriated sums in the consolidated revenue fund or by some other means. Is it the intention that the commission may issue debentures in order to obtain a certain amount of money?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. That was done at one time and the bonds were redeemed, and though it remains in this form I believe the commission is apt to say to the Minister of Finance that it would much prefer to have the grant of $3,000,000, or such portion of the $3,000,000 as it might require for proper capital investment, rather than issue bonds for it.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How much of the
$3,000,000 has been used?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	In 1928 $3,000,000
was provided and was used. This is another $3,000,000.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Annual statement.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: This section provides
that the commission shall send to the president of His Majesty's privy council for Canada on or before the first day of September in each year a detailed statement of all its receipts and expenditures up to the last day of March in such year and copies of such statements shall be laid before parliament within the first fourteen days of the next following session thereof. This type of accounting is not very convenient if members of parliament wish to follow the public accounts in order to see that the public is getting value for its money. When you build a railway you know that it costs so much per mile. When you put up a building you can ascertain how much per unit of measurement you will pay for that type of construction. When you come to developments of this type it is difficult for members of the house, or anyone else, from a simple statement of receipts and expenditures, to know whether the public is getting value for its money. Has the commission been in the habit of keeping a working projects cost accounting system so that the various activities of the commission and the expenditures on certain aspects of their work are segregated and analysed and hon. members or any other person interested may determine what certain projects cost or certain parts cost, and so on?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will look at the form of the federal district commission reports which have been issued in the past I think he will find that they are made up in a clear-cut manner, and supply all the information the hon. member has in mind. The act also provides that all expenditures are subject tp the audit of the auditor general in the same manner as other public moneys; and having to keep their accounts so that they may be audited in the same manner as the accounts which are kept for all public moneys, the commission prepares and issues a comprehensive and clear-cut report which indicates what the various projects have cost. The one I hold in my hand is for the year 1942-43. It shows in detail the amount expended on each project. It consists of a whole page of headings. If the hon. member gets these reports I think he will find in them all the information which can be of assistance in coming to a conclusion when further votes are required.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be
read the third time?

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the permission
of the house, now.
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved that the bill be now read the third time.


John Bracken: I wish to move an amendment. I shall not ask that the time be taken for a recorded vote on it, but I do wish to express my objection to appointing nineteen members instead of fifteen on this commission.
I do not ask for a recorded vote, but I wish to put this party on record as being opposed to that section of the bill. Therefore I move: That Bill No. 357 be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the committee with instructions to provide for the representation of each of the provinces of Canada without increasing the number of commissioners from fifteen to nineteen.
I wish only to add, Mr. Speaker, that that can be accomplished without showing any discourtesy to the present members, by providing that when their time is up the provinces not now represented shall become represented.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amendment is lost on division. I understand the hon. gentleman does not wish to press the amendment.


John Bracken: I do want to press the amendment, but I do not ask that time be lost in having a recorded vote.
Amendment negatived on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON CARRYING CAMERAS BY VISITORS TO PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

James Horace King: I am pleased to inform the hon. member for Peel that tourists are no longer obliged to check their cameras at the entrance of the House of Commons before making a visit of the building. As in the past, they will be allowed to keep their cameras inside the building, under the same regulations as were in force prior to the war.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of bill No. 307, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of discharged members of His Majesty's forces and other designated classes of persons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not going to explain?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think much explanation is necessary.


James Horace King: Order. I have put the question to the house.


Howard Charles Green: We are all trying to cooperate in getting the business of the house finished, but it does not help to rush these things through in that way. The minister was half way up to make a statement while Your Honour was calling the second reading. I suggest that he be allowed to make his statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question must be formally put to the house before the minister is able to say a word about it.


James Horace King: I would not have any objection, but the hon. member will understand that I put the motion and nobody rose; therefore, I said "carried." I put the motion that the house go into committee. The minister will have an opportunity to make his statement when the house is in committee.
The house went into committee on the bill, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. GREEN *I should like to have a statement from the minister now.


Humphrey Mitchell: This bill is based on a number of orders in council. Originally the bill was introduced in 1942. It was operated with a number of orders in council providing for regulations, as I explained when the bill was up previously. Then on the advice of the law officers of the crown, in view of the possible expiration of the National Emergency Powers Act, the orders in council were embodied in a bill to which some hon. members took objection; and I may say privately I objected myself.


Howard Charles Green: But you did not say so that night.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, and you would not have said so had you been over here.


Howard Charles Green: Quite right.


Gordon Graydon: There are some things you just do not do.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course. With the consent of the house I suggested that the matter be referred to the committee on veterans affairs, which has consolidated the orders in council and the original bill into the measure now before the committee. I do not know that I need say anything more, except that the regulations, both under the order in council and the original bill, have worked
4610	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
admirably. There is no fundamental change brought about by the consolidation of the orders in council and the bill. As I have said, the bill has been scrutinized by the committee on veterans affairs; and as a member of that committee-though, as my colleague says, one of the "mobile reserves"-I think they did an excellent job. This house may rest assured that the veterans have received every protection in connection with this very important question. If in the course of the debate hon. members want to know the number of veterans who have come under this legislation, or who have been reinstated under it, or the organization that is in existence for its application and to see that the provisions of the act are followed, I shall be very glad to give the information. My own view is that the legislation has worked much better than even the most optimistic anticipated. We have had excellent cooperation as between the employers, the veterans' organizations, the Department of Veterans Affairs and my own department. Out of a total placement of some 175,000 it has been necessary to prosecute only two persons, which gives some indication of the degree of cooperation extended in connection with the problem of reinstating veterans into civil life, following the conclusion of the war.


Howard Charles Green: Is the bill in the identical terms of the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely; word for word.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Proceedings against employers.
George Hugh Castleden: Will the minister outline the procedure in taking action against employers who fail to comply with the regulations? Does the returning soldier have to take action against the company?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; we do it for him.


George Hugh Castleden: Then in any case where he requires legal advice, what is the procedure?


Humphrey Mitchell: We take it if he complains to us, but he can take it himself if necessary. I said just now that of some
175,000	people who have been reinstated there have been only two prosecutions. If my hon. friend would like to know the names of the people who were prosecuted, I shall be glad to give them.


George Hugh Castleden: I was simply interested in the matter of procedure. Has the minister the number of cases in which returning veterans were not given their position?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We could not know, of course, unless they made specific complaints to us, either to the Department of Labour or to the Department of Veterans Affairs; but I think the record stated by the Minister of Labour is most excellent in every way.


George Hugh Castleden: Could the minister give us the number of complaints he has received?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have received none.


George Hugh Castleden: What about the Minister of Labour?


Humphrey Mitchell: 4,277.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that the number of complaints? That is rather large.


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I should say those are the cases pending. We have not had any complaints.


George Hugh Castleden: What I want to know is whether you have heard any complaints from veterans who want to return to their old employment and have not been able to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


George Hugh Castleden: I am asking these questions because on several occasions certain men,
I suppose they are firemen at the C.N.R. shops in Saskatoon, complained to me that when they went to return to their old employment they found themselves put on in the C.N.R. shops as firemen and were granted no promotions for the period of their absence in the armed forces. They find that men who stayed in the shops as firemen later had been acting as engineers, and apparently they were trying to get their cases adjusted through the union. I understood the union had taken their case up with the superintendent of the C.N.R., and the last I heard the matter was in abeyance. In the one instance of which I heard some eight or ten men were affected. Must these men have recourse to any other course of action in order to have their cases properly heard by a court, through the Department of Labour?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is no.


George Hugh Castleden: Then this procedure did not apply to them?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, it does. It is very simple. As you know, seniority on the railroad goes by divisions. You have

Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
seniority as firemen, seniority as wipers, seniority as maintenance men, seniority as maintenance trainmen, seniority as conductors and so on. They are in more or less watertight compartments. You get your seniority in the division or the compartment, in conformity with the agreement between the employers and the employees. Let me say to my hon. friend that I know something about the railroad organizations in this country, that is the engineers, the trainmen, the shopmen, the maintenance of way employees and so on; and I do not know of any organization that could do a better job for the protection of the veterans of this war than those organizations. They have a background of fifty years of experience.
Mr. CASTLEDEN; I do not know whether the case has been finally settled. The last I heard it was being placed before the company for adjustment, and I understood the Department of Labour was assisting.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, absolutely.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the case been settled, and if so what is the settlement?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know the particular case to which my hon. friend is referring. Here we have had 175.000 people-


George Hugh Castleden: You said there were only two complaints.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend, and I have made these observations previously. This is not the place to discuss cases; here we should discuss principles. If the hon. member will give me the names of the individuals I shall be glad to get the information for him, and he can rest assured that they will get justice.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a question in regard to this whole matter of employers, in so far as the employer is the government of this country. I refer particularly to two branches, the penitentiary service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the penitentiary service numbers of employees resigned for the purpose of enlisting for overseas service, and went overseas. During their absence their positions were filled by temporary employees. When these men return my information is that they are refused reemployment because they chose to serve in the armed forces of their country instead of remaining in their civil duties.
The other example I should bring to mention is that of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This matter has been up on more than one occasion, and I take this opportunity to bring it to the attention of the minister.
Men who were in the mounted police, instead of continuing in that organization, saw fit, because of the call which came to them, to go overseas. Some of them upon their return are being refused reemployment. In any event if they do secure reemployment they are penalized in various ways. Surely the government and the people of Canada should give a lead in the matter of showing consideration to those who served, and should comply with the law to an extent no less than is required by private employers.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Justice, whose estimates are still to come before the committee. It will be noticed that this bill deals only with reinstatement in civil employment.


Mr. FULTON:: I should like to ask a question respecting section 14, and in doing so would support what has been said by the hon, member for Lake Centre. My particular reference is to employees who are in the service of the House of Commons. Certain cases have come to our attention showing that, whereas it is true enough that those involved were reinstated or reemployed, the question has arisen whether they have been put back in the positions they would have occupied had they not joined the forces. In other words those who now have the employment appear to have a preference over the returned veterans. The particular case I have in mind has been adjusted by the man's leaving the service of the House of Commons and going to work somewhere else. Therefore I shall not deal with that case in detail. Other hon. members have mentioned to. me the facts surrounding certain other cases. It would seem therefore that there have been times when the House of Commons has not complied with the intent of the measure. I should like to ask the minister to make sure that in respect of employees of the House of Commons particularly we should live up to the spirit of the measure and what was in the mind of the government and of hon. members when the order in council was passed from which this measure has come.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say at once that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. members for Lake Centre and Kamloops. Might I point out that both the Minister of Labour and I happen to be old sweats, and anything in the world that can be done for the veterans will be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just this observation to make: I am sure something will be done if it is brought to the minister's attention. But
4612	COMMONS
Forces-Reinstatement in Employment
I realize he cannot know everything. Perhaps if occasionally he would take a look around and see what is going on, it might help.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend has any cases, let us have them.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate what has been said by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I am sure that the minister and hon. members on this side of the house who have raised the question desire that all their comrades should receive proper attention. But they are not receiving it; that is the point. They are not receiving it in the penitentiary service, and they are not receiving it in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend
permit me to interrupt? If the hon. member himself or the hon. member for Kamloops would bring to my attention any cases in which they think there has been injustice, I will follow them up.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would remind hon. members that penitentiaries employees and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were considered when the estimates of the Minister of Justice were before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: No; with the greatest of deference, they were not fully discussed. The point I make is that if we in parliament pass a measure requiring civilians to grant certain considerations to returning veterans who were formerly in civilian employment, the government ought to carry out those provisions with equal diligence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the hon. member accept my assurance that we will definitely follow out the suggestion which he and the hon. member for Kamloops have made?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Powers of reinstatement officers.
Mr. GILLIS:: I was in the industrial
relations committee and could not be in the chamber when section 10 was discussed. With the permission of the committee I should like to say a few words on that section. What I have to say affects only Ontario. I am not quarreling with the measure, because it is clear and gives the administration and employers considerable latitude.
In Ontario there is a statutory limitation in respect of the provisions concerning vacations with pay. Under the provisions of the

Ontario Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act the soldier who comes back is to be reinstated in his former employment. The arrangement respecting vacation with pay in this province is fixed by statute, and it states that all the employer can pay the soldier going on his vacation is two per cent of his earnings during the time he has been employed. A soldier coming back who has had only ninety days employment and receives vacation with pay would receive only two per cent of the amount he earned in ninety days. The result is that he goes on vacation with a very small amount of money. Many of them want to take only a day or two, but the vacation is mandatory. The result is that they are going on vacations without pay. This condition is peculiar only to Ontario.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that our fault?


Clarence Gillis: No, it is not your fault; it is the fault of the Ontario legislature. This is the only province in which that limitation prevails respecting vacations with pay. If it were in Nova Scotia, and a man were to go on vacation who had worked only two or three weeks, he would get his full vacation with pay. There has been considerable correspondence back and forth. I have received many letters from veterans in Ontario asking if something cannot be done under the federal act, or some representations made by the federal to the provincial government in Ontario with a view to working out an arrangement such as they have in the other provinces.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to make those representations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of bill No. 367, to amend the Immigration Act.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make an explanation on the second reading.


Mir. GLEN:: The reason for this bill is that under the Canadian- Citizenship Act which is now in force certain provisions are made which conflict with the provisions of the Immigration Act, and these amendments are necessary to bring the Immigration Act into conformity with the Canadian Citizenship Act. There are no changes of major importance. There is a redrafting of certain provisions to make them clearer, and when we deal with the bill sec-

Immigration Act
tion by section hon. members will see exactly the changes that are made. There is also the elimination of one part of a clause made necessary by the passing of the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-"Canadian citizen."


James Allison Glen: This proposed amendment
furnishes a new definition of the term "Canadian citizen" to conform with the Canadian Citizenship Act. Until the passing of the Canadian Citizenship Act, the only definition of a Canadian citizen in the statutes was that provided in section 2 of the Immigration Act. By paragraph (b) of this section a British subject who acquired domicile became a Canadian citizen, and such status was relinquished by loss of domicile. Further, a person naturalized also became a Canadian citizen but lost such status on relinquishing domicile. Under section 20 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, a Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen ceases to be a Canadian citizen if he resides outside of Canada for a period of at least six years, unless his certificate of citizenship or passport is endorsed by the officer in charge of a consulate that the person concerned has established that his absence from Canada is of a temporary nature, and that he intends to return to Canada for permanent residence. Since Canadian citizens are admissible to Canada as a matter of right, it is necessary to have the same definition of what constitutes a Canadian citizen in the two acts.


Howard Charles Green: What is the effect of this bill on the British subject who comes to Canada and does not become naturalized under the Canadian Citizenship Act? Under the Immigration Act as it now stands he would become domiciled here after five years for the purposes of the Immigration Act; but now with these amendments he will not do so unless he becomes a Canadian citizen. Is that not right? In other words, we are taking away some of the rights of a British subject from the other parts of the commonwealth.


James Allison Glen: No; the position is just as it was, and he acquires domicile in the same manner as before. We are taking away no rights at all from a British subject.


Howard Charles Green: Does the British subject who comes here, let us say, from Australia not have to take out naturalization as a Canadian in order to acquire domicile in Canada under the Immigration Act as it is now proposed to be amended?


James Allison Glen: No, he does not.


Howard Charles Green: How can he acquire domicile under the Immigration Act as it is to be amended?


James Allison Glen: By five years' residence after legal landing in Canada he acquires domicile and becomes a Canadian citizen.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has that always been so?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the minister is confused when he says that he can acquire domicile and yet not become a Canadian citizen. The procedure for becoming a Canadian citizen is a new procedure which has just been enacted this year in the Canadian Citizenship Act. The case I referred to was that of a British subject who comes here from Australia but does not take out naturalization under the Canadian Citizenship Act. You are now changing the Immigration Act so that that man cannot acquire domicile in Canada at any time unless he becomes naturalized.


James Allison Glen: By five years' residence in Canada the British subject my hon. friend refers to will acquire domicile now, but does not become a Canadian citizen.


Howard Charles Green: Under what section?


James Allison Glen: Under section 2(e) of the Immigration Act, which says:
"domicile" means the place in which a person has his home or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of permanent abode, and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose.
That is the same definition exactly in the new act. Then paragraph (e)(i) provides:
Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaning of this act.
So that the British subject to whom my hon. friend refers, being landed within the meaning of the act and residing here for five years, would acquire domicile.


Howard Charles Green: But the bill strikes out paragraph (e) and substitutes a new paragraph.


James Allison Glen: Yes, we are changing that, and my hon. friend will find when we come to the new clause dealing with Canadian domicile that we have redrafted that long paragraph in order to put it in better form from a draftsman's point of view. We are repealing the present paragraph (e) but retaining the first portion dealing with Canadian domicile.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Rules re the acquisition and loss of domicile.
Immigration Act
Edmund Davie Fulton: With reference to 2A(a), is a person, required to have Canadian domicile before he has the vote, or is the vote just a matter of residence?


James Allison Glen: It is just a matter of residence for the period required under the elections act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Persons leaving Canada to assist enemy.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to know the purpose of section 6(3). I cannot understand why a person who during the war left Canada to fight for an enemy country or for the ally of an enemy country should now be allowed to enter Canada. What is the purpose of this amendment?


James Allison Glen: The only purpose is to change the act with regard to a Canadian citizen. It prevented his reentry into Canada if he had gone to a foreign country and had fought with an alien enemy. This amendment refers not to Canadian citizens but to persons other than Canadian citizens. A Canadian citizen who has done as has been suggested is still a Canadian citizen and is always admissible to his own country when he comes back. However, when he does get back he will be subject to the penalties that are imposed upon him by the courts. The section reads:
A person to whom subsection 3 of this section applies may be prosecuted for any offence of which he may be guilty and shall be liable to undergo any punishment imposed on him pursuant to the said prosecution before he is deported.
The reason is that the Canadian citizen who went abroad had no country if the former section still stood; a Canadian citizen always has the right of admission into this country but he would be subject to the laws for what he had done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It says, "except with the permission of the minister, no person other than a Canadian citizen" may come back. Is it the intention to give them permission to come back and then punish them?


James Allison Glen: That is the intention, yes. Cognizance will be taken of the fact and the authority for these men to come back will be the permission of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: Let us get down to cases with regard to this section. Take a Japanese born in Canada who went to the orient and fought in the Japanese army


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He would not be allowed in British Columbia, I can tell you that.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Veterans Affairs might not want him in British Columbia, but we are amending the Immigration Act so that he can come back.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister gives him permission.


Howard Charles Green: Canadian citizens are excluded from this section. According to the explanatory note, the section previously read:
No resident of Canada, whether he is a Canadian citizen or not . . .
Such a man who goes abroad and fights against us has no right to come back. We are now opening the door deliberately by amending this section, allowing the man born in Canada who went and fought against us to come back to Canada. It is contended that we would then have the right to punish him, but we do not want him back at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Shoot him.


Howard Charles Green: He should not be allowed back at all, and I cannot understand why the Immigration Act should be opened up in that way.


James Allison Glen: There is a power of revocation under section 21 whereby the governor in council may order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon report from the minister, he is satisfied that such a person has fought on the enemy side. There is that power of revocation in the minister. The only change that is made here is that the Canadian citizen 'who has always the right to return to his own country may come back to this country, but that matter would have to be brought before the minister to inquire into and, I presume, take whatever steps were necessary in the circumstances. Meantime, under section 21 of the Canadian Citizenship Act there is the power of revocation.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think there is that power in the minister with regard to a person born in Canada. I would urge upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs that he give careful consideration to this section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As to the man mentioned by my hon. friend, would he not be a Japanese national?


Howard Charles Green: As my hon. friend knows, many of these Japanese are both Japanese and Canadian. Here is a Japanese bom in British Columbia who goes back to Japan and fights with the Japanese army. After the war is over, he cannot get back the way our Immigration Act reads because he has fought against us. But we are being asked

Immigration Act
deliberately to change the Immigration Act so that he can come back because he was born in Canada. That is not right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree entirely with my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the words "other than a Canadian citizen" in the second line should be struck out. The section would then give the minister discretion to let people in, but it would not provide automatic entry to anyone who was born in Canada. That is exactly what it means now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If it means that, I am against it.


Thomas Reid: So am I.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So are we all.


James Allison Glen: A Canadian citizen has an inalienable right to return to this country.


Howard Charles Green: We do not think a man like that has an inalienable right or any other kind of right to come back to Canada. I think the minister is admitting that my submission is correct.


James Allison Glen: I have not said so.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said that the man born in Canada who went to Japan to fight against us has a right to come back to Canada, that nobody can stop him because he was born in Canada. I would move that the words "other than Canadian citizen" be struck out of the second line of subsection 3 on page 3 of the bill.


James Allison Glen: I cannot agree to that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If you will read the section you will find that he cannot come back except with the permission of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: That is the law as it stands to-day, but when this change is made the person born in Canada will be exempted from that provision. The new subsection reads:
Except with the permission of the minister, no person other than a Canadian citizen, whether he has Canadian domicile or not, who during any war in which Canada is engaged leaves Canada to perform any military or other service for any country then at war with Canada or for the purpose of aiding or abetting in any way the enemies of Canada, shall be permitted to land in Canada or to remain therein.


Thomas Reid: That means that the Japanese who was born in British Columbia can return.


Howard Charles Green: He does not require any permission; he has the automatic right to come back.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must assert my right as a private member and disagree with the language of this amendment as proposed. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver South. I did not think anyone who has gone to Japan to fight against us should be allowed to come back to Canada, even with the consent of the minister.


James Allison Glen: Section 18 of the Immigration Act contains the following proviso:
Provided always that Canadian citizens and persons who have Canadian domicile shall be permitted to land in Canada as a matter of right.
That is a principle that has been recognized throughout the years, and I think I am correct in saying that the section that we propose to amend was inserted in 1914 during the war when there was fear of people going abroad and entering the war against Canada. The right to citizens to return has always been a provision in the Immigration Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Were there not means by which these persons could lose their Canadian citizenship, such as going abroad to fight against the country?


James Allison Glen: Persons who are abroad for one year with the intention of remaining abroad, and without having their citizenship established, lose their right of citizenship, apart from Canadian-born citizens. The permission of the minister is now required for any person, in the category we are now discussing, to come back, but that principle of law still applies, namely, that a national, a natural-born Canadian subject, has always the right to return to the country of his origin, and if he is a criminal against the laws of the country the law will punish him for the acts he has committed. That is the only intention in the amendment that is before us.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I rose before and: suggested that we should leave the Japanese out of the question, because I think we can discuss these matters more calmly if we leave particular cases out of consideration. In this case the persons in question were enemies of the country. I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver South where he would suggest that a Canadian citizen, who is now resident in another country and who is considered undesirable in that country, can go if his own country will not accept him. Before the hon. member answers that question, may I say that I would be a little careful about granting Canadian citizenship, but once it is granted I think it should be irrevocable. I suggest that we should be prepared to take the res-
Immigration Act

ponsibility for our own mistake. This man has to have citizenship somewhere, I do not care whether he is in Japan, France or anywhere else; and if he is thrown out of that country, what will you do with him if you do not admit him here? Let us take our responsibilities as Canadians, and if the man is a criminal let us punish him as a criminal. But let us not dodge our responsibility by having him hounded from country to country over the face of the earth. That is my position.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member has asked me a question, and I will give him my answer. I would not spend any time worrying about a man who went from Canada and fought against us, no matter where he may be. He has no right to come back here, and) if we allow him to come back we are crazy. That is the kind of sloppy sentimentality that has got us into a lot of trouble in the past and 't is about time we woke up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One has already been shot for treason, born in British Columbia, and the other is now being tried for treason.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I deliberately appealed to the minister and to the hon. member for Vancouver South to leave out of this argument that particular question of someone who has fought against us.


Howard Charles Green: But that is what the section deals with.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If a Canadian citizen is not considered desirable in another country, where will he go except to his own land, the land of his adoption? We have a responsibility regarding that man. The hon. member for Vancouver South said that we should not worry about him, but he was good enough to be given certification of citizenship in. this country and to me that means something. It is not simply a scrap of paper to be torn up at the will of any particular government that happens to be in power or at the whim of a particular government that happens to be in power when the country is at war temporarily. Our friends of to-day, I would point out, are our enemies of to-morrow, and that works in reverse. I say, however, once a Canadian citizen, always a Canadian citizen. I am proud to be a Canadian citizen; I want to remain a Canadian citizen, and for the same reason I want to take my medicine as a Canadian citizen if I violate any Canadian law. But where shall I go if I cannot go to my owrn country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Go away.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is all very well, but where to? I should like to have that question answered if my hon. friends will leave aside for the moment these hatreds engendered by war.


Thomas Reid: We shall always have trouble in regard to this question so long as we refuse to face up to the situation. For many years now I have propounded this question in the House of Commons: Can a man be a citizen of two countries at one and the same time?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Thomas Reid: Then I would say, put him on a spot and say, "In God's name, to which country do you owe allegiance?" If he says Japan, then what compunction should we have? I am taking the hon. gentleman's argument as he has stated it. He says, once a citizen, always a citizen. But if a man says, "I owe allegiance to Japan or to Russia," what compunction should we have about taking his Canadian citizenship away from him? I do not wish to deprive him of his citizenship, and I may say that my attitude toward the Japanese is not one of bitter hatred. But why do they not come out and say, "I was born in this country and I am a Canadian"? As I say,
I have propounded that question here for many years. I put it to the civil liberties league of Ottawa and so far they have refused to answer it. If an answer can be given to this dual citizenship question, in heaven's name let me have it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Leaving the Japanese out of it for the moment-*


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: British Columbia on the march.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would point out that there are many other rights which we in this party have always regarded as inalienable, which we have inherited, and which the C.C.F. would have no hesitation in taking from us. They do not mind if we set up boards, and we had an example yesterday.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing rights of citizenship, 'and there is not only one inalienable right which we have as citizens of Canada. May I point out that Canadian citizenship is not only a right but a privilege, and further, that every right carries corresponding duties, so that if you do not . live up to those duties you should have the right taken away. If you go abroad and fight against your country you forfeit your right of citizenship and it should be taken from you.
I do not see how the hon. member can put his

Immigration Act
question under this section and expect to have it answered. This section deals with those who fought against us, and his question would have more force if his party would show some interest in, and regard for, some of the rights which the rest of us have always regarded as inalienable.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the hon. members that the explanatory note to this section states:	"The repealed paragraph
reads," and then it proceeds to list "(3)." But actually there is no such number in the Immigration Act. That is a mistake.


James Allison Glen: It has been omitted in the copy the hon. member has. That is an office copy.


Howard Charles Green: There is an express provision in the Immigration Act which I will read.


Thomas Reid: It has been there for years.


Howard Charles Green: It reads:
No resident of Canada, whether he is a Canadian citizen or not, and whether he has a Canadian domicile or not, who leaves Canada to perform any military or other service for any country then at war with His Majesty, or for the purpose of aiding or abetting in any way His Majesty's enemies, shall be permitted to land in Canada, or remain therein, except with the permision of the minister.
That is an express provision which, I submit, overrides the wording in section 18.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why not strike out the last six words?


Howard Charles Green: As I say, we have an express provision in the law as it now stands, and the Minister of Mines and Resources comes along with an amendment to take away that power in so far as a person who is a Canadian citizen is concerned. He says so in the explanatory note, wherein it is stated that the first of these paragraphs has been revised .to exclude Canadian citizens. The very explanation proves my case, and I submit that the words "other than a Canadian citizen" should be deleted. I so move.


James Allison Glen: The effect of the amendment moved 'by the hon. gentleman is to bring us back to the former subsections 3 and 4 which are to be revised1. It is apparent there is a strong feeling that the former sections cover what is desired by this committee. I would not wish to impose my own wishes upon the committee except to say to the hon. gentleman who has spoken that with regard to a citizen born in Canada; no matter what he does in Canada, if he goes abroad and fights against our own country he is a man practically without a state. He is in that category. He would have to be returned to somewhere,
and the only place to which he could come naturally would be to the place of his birth, which is Canada. He could be deported from that country .to Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The way the law reads now he could not be deported here.


James Allison Glen: It is giving to that national what I think is his inalienable right to return to the country of his birth, for he has no other place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He can come in now with the minister's permission.


James Allison Glen: The provision of the former subsections 3 and 4 read as follows:
. . . shall not be allowed to land except with the permission of the minister.
There is that discretion. It is intended only to give the right .to a Canadian-born. That was the intention of the act, but all other persons were excluded from the act. The act was to remain as it was formerly. The deletion of section 6 would mean that we would come back to what has been the law of the country, and I am not going to make any objection to it. We are willing to accept the amendment of the hon. gentleman and drop section 6 from the bill and number the remaining sections accordingly.


Gordon Graydon: I do not desire to prolong the discussion on this bill, but a. question was raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon City to which there is a proper answer which has not been given to the committee, namely, that if one of our own citizens fights in the army of another country opposed to us it is not a question of his not having a nationality or no rights as a citizen, because when he fights in that army against us he takes the oath of allegiance of the country with which he was fighting, and that is the country to which he must belong. I think that answers the whole question. He does not belong to us; he belongs to them.


William Henry Golding: With reference to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South may I say that a ruling was made yesterday on a similar amendment. At that time it was held that the amendment was out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We can refuse to carry the section.


Howard Charles Green: That is the same thing; that satisfies me.


William Henry Golding: We want to have it right.
Deletion of section 6 agreed to.
Supply-Public Works

Sections 6 and 7 as renumbered agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Chief engineer's branch-
296. Branch administration, $245,100.
Thomas Reid: We have been doing very well to-day, and I think we had better take a breather for a minute or two to discuss some of these estimates. I have one or two .other matters that I wish to discuss on this item because it is the only item on which I think I can discuss what I have in mind. What are the intentions of the department in regard to Ripple Rock? I know that this is a troublesome matter. It is a matter on which a great deal of money has been spent, but I wish to draw the minister's attention to one striking feature in regard to the carrying out of this work which I think has not so far been brought to his attention. Ripple Rock has been the bane of navigators for many long years. When the war commenced it is my information that the United States offered to take out this rock, but for reasons which are commendable we intimated that we would take it out ourselves. We did not say it in those words, but we had that national pride in ourselves which is commendable. Steps were then taken to take out the rock. A model was built at the university of Seattle to test out the tides and the effect of water and the best procedure to be followed in the removal of the rock. Alongside the model was a model constructed for the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. Since I was down there doing work in regard to the commission I naturally visited the model of Ripple Rock. I said to the man in charge: "Your model of Ripple Rock did not turn out very satisfactorily." I was astounded when he said to me: "Mr. Reid, the trouble was that either the department or the contractor paid no attention whatsoever to the results of our findings." I said: "Why would they have doubts of your findings?" He said: "They have not had much experience in models," and owing to the fact that in the model they had been using small thread the contractor and I think some of our engineers were of the opinion that, because it was thread it did not give a proper recording of what the actual work would be or the dangers of the work when they undertook it.

I should be glad if the minister would make a statement, because I am particularly interested in this matter from several points of view. I think of the United States wanting to take it out, and of Canada refusing. I know great sums of money have been expended there, but surely we are not going tacitly to say to the United States, "Well, you would have taken it out. We thought we could, but we did not." I am going to urge upon the minister that the whole matter be looked into again, in the light of the work done on the model in Seattle. If he investigates I believe he will find that the reports concerning that work were ignored to a large extent. According to the information I have been given, they simply refused to believe that the work on the model would have any bearing on the actual work when it was undertaken. That is my first question. I have one or two to ask, and I should like the indulgence of the committee to allow me to conclude with my questions.


Alphonse Fournier: In my estimates this year there is no item concerning any work on Ripple Rock. The moneys expended were voted in previous years, and I have not with me the complete file concerning the matter, so that to a certain extent I shall have to rely upon my memory in giving the .facts to the committee.
In 1941 naval ships of the United States and Canada were travelling in Seymour Narrows, and there was some discussion as to the possibility of taking out Ripple Rock. The Canadian government did make a war appropriation in the amount of $250,000, as I recall it, to commence this work. We called for tenders, and had a tender from one company who commenced the work; but after expending the $250,000 they had absolutely no success beyond building the scow which was used to try to drill into the rock. They had adopted the method of anchoring the scow in order to drill from it; but the currents and tides were such that they could not do any drilling, so at the end of that season they had to cease work. The next year we again asked who would undertake this work, but could find no one to make a firm bid. We came to an arrangement with one company, I believe it was the British Columbia Bridge and Dredging company, to undertake the work for a fee of $35,000, with this government paying the expenses. This was during the war. They changed the method of dealing with the scow. They put up cables over the straits and tied the scow down in order that the drilling could be carried out. They did drill about 122 holes

Supply-Public Works
from five to six feet deep, and of that number I believe they blew up something around 80 holes. That was only the first layer they were trying to take off. But when it came to dredging this rock which had been blown off. they could not devise any means of clearing it away, and up to the present time no one else has been able to devise any method of dredging even that part which was blown off.
Then we turned around and made an offer to the same company, asking them to give us a definite estimate as to what it would cost to bring the channel down to about thirty-one feet. By that time I may say we had expended $802,825.47, and, if I remember correctly, that company did give us an estimate. They started at $1,200,000, and then it went up to $1,800,000 to complete the work; but they would not give us a guarantee that they could do it even on the firm price they gave us by correspondence. We were prepared to guarantee that over and above that firm price we would be- ready to pay fifty per cent of any additional cost if they could find some insurance company that would guarantee payment of the other fifty per cent. I believe they did look around, not only in this country but all over the world, for some company that would guarantee this payment, but they could not find one.
At last the most rabid proponents of taking away Ripple Rock had to throw up their hands. We are trying to devise some way to help navigation there. On one side of the rock there is a channel of about 1,300 feet and on the other side a channel of five or six hundred feet, and we have had contradictory opinions as to the navigability of those two streams. Actually if the government could have found somebody to undertake the work at an exact or even approximate cost, so that we would know where we were going, we would have had the work done. The best engineers were consulted. My own deputy minister was in Washington and New York to meet their experts, but as yet no method has been found which would promise success. Perhaps if we stayed on the job for another five or six years and spent a million or so a year we might find a way of doing it. but right now the government hesitates to start this work unless we ran find some means which will offer a reasonable hope of success. Speaking from memory, I recall attending meetings where this matter was discussed, and the general opinion seemed to be that the cable system was the best method of stabilizing the scow in order to drill the holes, but that did not succeed.


Howard Charles Green: They did get eighty holes
drilled.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, but to a
depth of only five or six feet; and to get down to thirty-one would mean they would have to repeat that process four or five times. But we could not blow up any more of that rock before clearing out what had been blown up early in the work, and up to the present no one has found a way of doing that. I am told that the cable system was successful at that level, but that they did not have much hope of being able to drill to the required depth. I must say that if my department had succeeded in removing Ripple Rock it would have been extremely proud of the feat; it would have been known all over the world, and the engineers doing that work would have become outstanding men, not only in Canada but elsewhere. Within the last six or seven months I have not received any further requests concerning this work, because it seems to be agreed that unless we can find the proper method we should not be simply spending money. We have put nearly a million dollars into this work to show our good faith. We went all over the place consulting people, trying to get advice and help. No responsible firm seems to wish to undertake this project unless we keep them working without knowing exactly what results we shall get and what will be the cost to the people of Canada. On the other hand, the engineers of my department are still studying the matter to see if they cannot find some way of proceeding. The first method, of simply anchoring the scow, was not a success. The second method, using cables, did bring certain results. Other scientists are studying the rock to see whether by the tunnel process we could not get under the rock and blow it up. The last time I heard any discussion about this matter, someone said the rock was not of the proper formation in order to tunnel under it and blow it up. It has been suggested that cement caissons be used to take the water out. But nobody has said we can get the caissons on this rock to proceed with the work. My advisers have not any method which will assure the government that we would not be spending this money uselessly.


Thomas Reid: I take it that it is not the minister's intention to drop this project.


Alphonse Fournier: No; it has been discussed for years.


Thomas Reid: Mav I say to him and to his engineers that I have received some information ; out Seymour Narrows. I doubt if it reach tne department, but it should reach the department and I will place it on record now. One of the contractors interested in
Supply-Public Works

obtaining the work spent considerable of his own time in a rowboat on Seymour Narrows making tests of the tides, for his own information. looking to the day the contract would be given him He informed me that he was more than astounded to learn from practical experience that there were at least from eight to ten days when slack tides lasted for twelve hours, anr! his suggestion was that the work be carried on only on those days when the tides are slack, and that the work be left when the tides are racing through, the condition when the work was attempted by the British Columbia Bridge and Dredging company.
Anyone who has ever seen them at work knows that a contractor could hardly get men to stay on a dredge, so great were the noise and tension of those cables holding the work scow in place.
I am suggesting to the minister that, principally in view of the fact that this is a menace and will ever remain so to navigation, and again owing to the fact that we refused the United States the right to take it out-


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Thomas Reid: The information was that the United States wanted to take it out, as a war project.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And that is correct, too.


Thomas Reid: The United States said, "We will take it out if you will leave it," and we said no. We took considerable pride at that time and told the United States that we would look after our own affairs-perhaps not in those words, but that was what they meant. Are we now going to say, "You could have taken it out, but we cannot do it. Just forget about it." I say we should have more pride than that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Thomas Reid: I do not know who said it, but whoever carried on the negotiations between the two governments said it.


Alphonse Fournier: I can tell my hon. friend that I have studied the files from the first page to the last, and there is not a single document stating that the United States government would undertake this work. There was a discussion about it, as to whether it was advisable whether it be done for the protection of naval vessels, warships, during war time.


Thomas Reid: I do not think that would come before the Department of Public Works.


Alphonse Fournier: It came before the war committee of the cabinet.


Thomas Reid: Probably the minister is quite correct when he says his files do not have that entry. But we had it definitely stated to us from Ottawa that that suggestion had) been made by the United States government. Certain ministers made the statement that the offer had been made by the United States government to Canada to take out that rock, because military vessels had to go up through Seymour Narrows on their way to Alaska, and they were afraid of it.
We said no to the United States government, and we were probably right in having said that. But I think pride in our country should make us put forth a great effort to take out that rock, after further survey has been made along the lines I have suggested.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt that this :s a difficult engineering problem, but I am afraid that the department has more or less giver, up hope. The minister spoke this afternoon to the effect that if someone could find a way to remove the rock the government would be glad to step in and do it.
But the position is that the government must find the way. We cannot expect a private individual to find a way to remove that rock; it is up to the government to do it; because the situation is so very serious. It has been discussed at considerable length in editorials; this is from an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of February 27 of this year:
Ottawa has been crowding its luck ever since its own royal commission reported in 1931 that the existence of Ripple Rock in the main channel of coastwise shipping through Seymour Narrows constitutes "an ever present possibility of a major accident involving great loss of human life."
It would just take one good wreck to lose probably a good deal more than a million dollars.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One was lost last year.


Howard Charles Green: One of the government's own ships was wrecked.


Alphonse Fournier: We lost men there doing that work.


Howard Charles Green: One of your own ships was lost.


Alphonse Fournier: It was a government ship.


Howard Charles Green: A government survey ship wrhich was used last year.


Thomas Reid: Why not use a small atomic bomb?


Clarence Gillis: It would kill the fish.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said that the plan being used was not practical. However, again I quote from the Vancouver Sun this time the issue of May 2 of this year which states, as a heading, "Ripple Rock plan proved practical." This is a dispatch dated at Victoria, stating:
Removal of Ripple Rock, dangerous hazard to navigation in Seymour Narrows, has been proved feasible from an engineering standpoint-


Alphonse Fournier: Who says that?


Howard Charles Green: -K. W. Morton, district engineer for the Department of Public Works, told the second annual conference of the Pacific Northwest Trade Association here to-day.


Alphonse Fournier: What date was that?


Howard Charles Green: May 2 of this year, and this is a statement by one of your own men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And one of his best men, too.


Howard Charles Green: The dispatch goes on to say:
Discussion of the Ripple Rock problem was the initial subject on the agenda after the conference was opened this morning by Lieut-Governor W. C. Woodward.
It goes on to say:
Mr. Morton estimated it would take 34 months' work to remove the top of the rock under the system used by the B.C. Bridge & Dredging Co. This is the company which did all the experimental work that was finally stopped by dominion order when funds ran out.
"The method has proved workable," Mr. Morton said, "most of the problems connected with it have been ironed out. Any of the other more complicated schemes would require a great deal more experimentation and loss of time."
He was referring to the method of anchoring the drill barge over the rock with overhead cables attached to the two shores of the channel.
Cost of the work is estimated at $1,900,000. It is expensive because of the overtime involved for crews and the fact that actual drilling can only be done at ebb tide.
Summarizing the work done, he said 139 holes were drilled, a total of 717 feet. Of these 93 were blasted.
This is the minister's own engineer.
The other 46 were not blasted because of broken drills or other causes. Deepest hole drilled was 15 feet-
Not eight, as the minister said.
-and the average 5-7 feet.
There was complete control over the barge and the experiments definitely showed Ripple Rock can be blasted by this method, he said.
There is the evidence from within the minister's own department. I suggest to him that this scheme should not be dropped.


Mr MACKENZIE:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: H there were a rock like that in the St. Lawrence it would have been moved decades ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: But it is out on the Pacific coast, a long way from Ottawa. People out there cannot keep pressing for something to be done about it all the time. This is of vital importance, not only to Canada but to the United States, because the bulk of their shipping to Alaska goes up past that rock. I submit it is a tragedy that this plan should be dropped by the federal government at the present time. There will be a real disaster out there one of these days; possibly a passenger ship will 'be lost, with several hundred lives. Then there will be greater responsibility on the government, if the .work is not proceeded with.
That rock must be moved. The departmental officials cannot just sit here, fold their hands and say, "It's too bad, but we cannot get anything done."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, twice in one day I find myself in strange company-


Howard Charles Green: Good company.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -agreeing with the
hon. member for Vancouver South. If I might be permitted to divest myself of the mantle of ministerial responsibility, I must say that I agree with every single point he has made. We have there a definite and positive menace to navigation and to the safety of the lives of the people who go up north and come down south. I have quarrelled with the department, and my correspondence will so prove, over its lack of attention to this problem, and speaking for the moment as a private member from Vancouver Centre I can join with the hon. member for Vancouver South and say that British Columbia insists and will insist upon the removal of this menace to safe navigation. We are far away in British Columbia, and very often we are the forgotten people. But if the members from British Columbia will join, together-


Thomas Reid: Do not forget I started this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know you did. If
the members from British Columbia will join together we can compel a solution of this problem. We are not going to allow the effete policy of any department to thwart what is a necessary improvement in our province in regard to the removal of Ripple Rock. If the engineers are not able to find a solution, we should find other engineers. If the public works department is not able to

Supply-Public Works

solve the problem, we should find another department or an independent commission or committee which will solve it and remove this menace to the security of our people. Last year we lost a ship there costing a million dollars. The security and the safety of the lives of the people of British Columbia are menaced every day and every night by this navigation menace. The problem is being tackled only in an anaemic and effete way. Support has not been given to the contractors, and I know why. There is a definite responsibility on the officials of the Department of Public Works to try in every single possible way to solve this problem and to start in to do it. I know it to be practical. The members from British Columbia, regardless of politics and party, are united in this thing; we are determined in this thing, and we shall see it through.


Mr. PEAREES:: Since this rock is only a few miles outside of my constituency I should) like to add my comments to what has already been said and my endorsation of the appeal that has been made to have this menace to navigation removed. Only last week I sent to 'the minister's department a suggestion that I received from a practical engineer and master marine on the Pacific coast as to a new method by which perhaps this rock may be destroyed. I hope that ithe minister will have his engineers investigate that method and see whether it can provide a practical solution through removing this dangerous obstacle.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: A few moments ago the bon. member for Vancouver South made a reference which I think is not quite in accordance with the facts. He was talking about local complaints in British Columbia, and that can be very easily understood, but he added that if this obstacle to navigation were present in the St. Lawrence river it would be removed. I have the honour to represent one of the constituencies along the lower St. Lawrence, and I want to tell the hon. member for Vancouver South that we do not get all we want by any means.


Howard Charles Green: Well, you should.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: We should, and you should, too. But I want to make this point. If the members from British Columbia or any other province want something and do not get it, they should not blame any other province for that.


Howard Charles Green: I was not blaming any other province.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Before this committee considers the items of the chief engineer's branch, I wish to make a few remarks of a general nature on these items.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the committee to some items of the engineer's branch which are of particular concern to my constituency. If I have waited until the committee had reached this stage of the discussion on the public works estimates to make my remarks, it is because in my constituency we are not, for the moment at least, specially interested in public buildings which we consider as a luxury. We are primarily interested in the kind of public works that are absolutely essential to our economic development and to the expansion of the two important industries of our district. I shall therefore deal only with the improvement work that has to do with our fishing harbours and with the construction of commercial wharves.
First, as regards the fishing harbours, the sea fisheries of the province of Quebec are mostly concentrated in the constituency of Gaspe, where they form an industry which comes immediately after lumbering. The Gaspe coast being quite precipitous and exposed to the winds which so frequently rage in the gulf of St. Lawrence, it affords no shelter for our fishermen's boats. That is why, if we wish to maintain that industry, we must give special attention to the improvement and construction of easily accessible fishing harbours.
I need not emphasize the important part which our sea fisheries play to-day in the food programme this country has launched with a view to helping the nations devastated by war. To realize that, we merely have to consider the fish exports made through UNRRA. I may add that the Gaspe district has already suffered from the great international crisis which has come to an end with the cessation of hostilities, on account of the participation of this country with the allied nations in efforts to maintain peace, before the last war. The members of this committee no doubt remember the economic sanctions that were imposed against Italy at the time of the Ethiopian war and which entailed for our Gaspe fishermen the loss of the important market they then had in Italy for their dried fish. Moreover, we must recognize the merit of our fishermen who, during the war, did not hesitate to face the ordinary perils of the sea besides the dangers resulting from the incursions of the enemy in the St. Lawrence.

Supply-Public Works
I must add here, better to emphasize the importance of that industry from a national standpoint that the Department of Veterans Affairs is now reestablishing in commercial fisheries the numerous veterans of my district. As every one knows, through legislation introduced in this parliament during the present session, the government is spending huge amounts in order to finance the establishment of our veterans as farmers or fishermen. When we settle a veteran on a farm, the land and buildings he acquires are not so exposed to loss as if the same funds were advanced to him for investment in the fishing boat with which he must earn a living. Besides, in the case of a farm, the veteran may cover any risks by taking out fire or some such insurance. This is however quite impossible to the- veteran engaged in salt water fishing because maritime risks on fishing boats and equipment cannot be covered by any form of insurance now extant. Unless therefore provision is made for the setting up of fishing harbours or safe shelters for our fishermen's boats, I am very much afraid that we shall soon have to cope with the problem of veterans who, having borrowed money from the government to invest in boats, have lost them in the storm before they have had the chance to pay for them. What the government proposes to do in such cases I don't know, but I must point out that so far they have not been provided for by legislation. As an instance of the very real hazards involved, I merely have to mention the case of the small town of Cap des Rosiers, in my constituency, where in a single storm last summer fifteen fishing boats were lost. Each year we sustain similar losses which, unfortunately, are too often coupled with loss of human lives.
The fisherman's task is a hard one; but my Gaspesian fishermen are not seeking wage increases, are not holding out nor ever did hold out the threat of strikes which have brought local economy to a standstill and often threaten the whole national economy. All they ask our government is to give them at least the means to carry on and extend their work.
The fishermen I represent and myself find it hard to understand, that in the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy, when we are spending huge sums on reconversion, we cannot find the money required, not to reconvert an operating industry, but merely to ensure its survival and expansion. My constituents' claims in this connection I have on many occasions made known to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and to the officials of his department. And I must here give credit to the minister for 63260-29,14
having heard my representations with unfailing kindness and sympathy. I repeat those requests, without detailing them, in the hope that the minister and the members of the treasury board will give them the consideration they deserve. To the latter, that is the members of the treasury board, I wish to point out that our share of public works in the Gaspe area is inadequate to our needs and inferior to the allotments granted elsewhere. If only Gaspe were given what other parts receive in the way of subsidies for the construction of railways, of public buildings, which we lack; for the erection and maintenance of radio stations, and the like, we would be content. If the members of the treasury board require a further argument to justify the development of our fishing harbours, which should be carried out at once, I shall refer for a few minutes to order in council P.C. 360, approved on February 13, 1922, at the request of the Quebec legislature and amended by P.C. 1890, on March 15, 1943. As a result of this order in council the dominion agreed to hand back to Quebec the whole administration of commercial fisheries, thus creating the only exception of this kind in the country.
Some time ago I asked the Department of Fisheries for the amounts paid to the various provinces for the administration of fisheries at the date on which the first order in council was passed, and similar figures for 1944-45. I secured the following data:
Province
192(1-1922	1944-1945
Nova Scotia	
$250,329	40Prince Edward Island	34,757	27New Brunswick ....	446,059	75Ontario	
80,403	37Manitoba	
71,934	46Alberta	
22,430	25Saskatchewan	
21,487	53British Columbia ...	496,631	69

If we compute the average amounts granted to other provinces we find that the fishing industry in Quebec is losing some $500,000 yearly. This money is paid to other provinces out of the national income to which the province of Quebec contributes to the extent of almost one third, if not more.
If, for political reasons, certain autonomists of the province of Quebec do not want our fishermen to benefit by this money I believe the government must find some other way of enabling them to benefit therefrom, as they are just as much entitled to those sums as the fishermen of other provinces.
I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the fishermen of my constituency upon the cost to them of the policy of autonomy advocated by their Quebec leadens. A summary
4(524
Supply-Public Works

computation shows that our Gaspe fishermen have thus lost since 1922 over ten million dollars, as the result of the autonomy policy advocated by the so-called Quebec nationalists. I, therefore, ask the minister and the treasury advisers to take this into consideration when they plan a programme of public works for the province of Quebec, and I appeal to them, on behalf of the Gaspe fishermen, to make good this sum by immediately launching a programme for the construction of modern fishing harbours, out of the funds which they have thus lost and which they will lose in future as long as this policy is maintained. They are entitled to this money and I do not see why they Should be deprived of it.
Second, our commercial wharves to which my previous remarks about the importance of our fishing harbours also apply. There again, I submitted to the minister and Department of Public Works a list of urgent projects and I hope that by next year, they will begin to carry out this programme.
We have very important sea ports to which, every year, we ship huge quantities of lumber and pulpwood. As I said earlier, we are almost without rail service; only a fourth rate railroad barely 60 miles in length and a belt road in even worse shape; therefore, as I said on the address in reply to the speech from the throne when parliament was convened, the maritime route is the only means of communication available to our people.
The lumber industry is our main activity and I refer the hom. minister as well as the government to a report on the inventory of the natural resources of the Gaspe area carried out in 1937 by the Quebec government.
I will therefore take the liberty of submitting to the hon. minister a suggestion which I have already put to the officers of his department. Considering the scarcity of lumber resulting from the British Columbia strikes as well as from the house-building programme, I suggest once again that the Minister of Public Works determine alt once the approximate quantity and dimensions of the lumber required for the projects he intends to carry out during the summer of 1947 and immediately place contracts so that he may count on having his order filled by next spring. I might add that if such contracts are handed out this fall, we will be able to secure locally in the Gaspe area a good deal of the lumber needed for these projects and thus reduce the quantities we will require from British Columbia.
I have one more suggestion for the hon. minister; it deals with the dredging near the fishing harbours and commercial docks of my riding. This summer, we experienced a great deal of trouble in having urgent work carried

out due to the fact that the Department of Public Works has placed its dredge at the disposal of two constituencies, Bonaventure and Gaspe, and also because this machinery is so ancient that it is falling apart. As a result, we had to hire outside dredging contractors to do part of the dredging in my constituency; this was done after we had experienced much difficulty and after several of our fishing harbours had been paralysed for a good part of the season owing to the delay in carrying out the necessary dredging operations.
It is therefore necessary and urgent that the Department of Public Works build a dredge for use in Gaspe county and I hope that it will do so shortly.
My third and last suggestion pertains to the lack of personnel at the district engineer's office, at Rimouski. That office is shorthanded in view of the volume of work and of the vast territory it has to cover. As a result, work in our district is delayed, sometimes to a point that it is not carried out during the fiscal year for which the funds have been appropriated. I therefore urge the minister to take the necessary steps in order to increase the staff of that office without further delay.
(Text) :


Alphonse Fournier: I wish to say a few words, reverting to the Ripple Rock question. I was surprised to hear British Columbia members this afternoon saying that they had been insisting on this work for the last three years. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that every week in my office I have heard representations and have received letters, and I have consulted the best men around me in regard to the work. This afternoon some members made a few remarks which I do not think I should allow to pass without indicating exactly how the government came to its decision.
In my department we had an oustanding engineer, the chief engineer of the department, Mr. Kenneth Cameron, who had been a past president of the Canadian institute of engineers. He is one of the outstanding engineers in the country, has headed that branch of my department for many years, after rising from resident engineer to the top rank, and has now been superannuated. This gentleman had absolutely no interest in giving his minister any advice in which he did not believe. He was honest in the way in which he conducted his work, and I am looking at the hon. member for Carleton when I make that statement, because he knew Mr. Cameron. I am sure the hon. member will agree that Mr. Cameron is one of the outstanding citizens of the country.

Supply-Public Works
He made an investigation in conjunction with my deputy minister. He spent three weeks on the coast and made his final report on the Ripple Rock works. He has now been superannuated, but after his return from that trip he came back to the office for a week or so. Does anyone think I would set aside the report made to me by my chief engineer and accept reports given to me by any outsider who did not know one-tenth as much about the situation as my chief engineer?


Howard Charles Green: What about your own engineer, Mr. Morton, who is right on the coast?


Alphonse Fournier: Though I have a great deal of respect for the engineer on the coast, I must point out that he was unoer the direction of Mr. Cameron. Mr. Cameron met him there and they travelled together. That two engineers would not agree on a subject of this kind is not surprising. You can find two engineers, one of whom will have one opinion and the other a different view. But would anyone advise the Minister of Public Works to disregard the advice of his deputy, who is also a civil engineer and an outstanding one, and the advice given by the chief engineer of the department, and say to them, "No, gentlemen; Mr. Morton is out there. He is one of our engineers; he advises otherwise, and we will take his advice."
What the hon. member read in the clipping from the Vancouver Sun is part of what I said at the outset of my remarks. We did get this report giving the figure SI,900,000, but we asked whether that was their firm price, and we said, "Will you give a guarantee that you will do the work for that price?" No answer came. No one would undertake it.


Howard Charles Green: Would you expect the firm to give a set price?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly; we asked for tenders. They had the specifications and, if they know so much about the work, they ought to be able to put a price on it. Will anyone tell me that contractors would come to Ottawa and see the public works department and say they would do the work, and then spend $802,000, without producing results? And these same people said that they could do it for $300,000. Now they say they will do it for $1,900,000. Judging by past performances, am I to set aside the report of my chief engineer and say to these gentlemen, "Of course we will give you that contract"; and after spending $1,900,000 without results world you expect me to come back to the hru.e and ask for another $2,000,000? What wiufi oeople say?


Howard Charles Green: You have already got some results.


Alphonse Fournier: I think I am being logical in the argument. We decided at the time that if we could get a firm price we would undertake the work. We went farther and said to them, "Though we do not believe in that estimate, if you will find an insurance company who will guarantee fifty per cent of the excess over $1,900,000 we will undertake to pay fifty per cent and your insurance company can give us a guarantee to pay the other fifty per cent." Nobody came forward, however; nobody would undertake it.
Does anyone think we would be justified in spending the people's money at that rate, when I am convinced myself, on the best advice which I could obtain, that they have not found the right method by which to get rid of Ripple Rock? That is our position.
I respect the opinions of those who come from the coast, and hon. members have a right to press their point; but it is not fair to my department to urge me to undertake expenditures of public money when I am not satisfied that we can have the work done. That is the position with regard to Ripple Rock.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois). He is probably the hon. member whose constituency is, to the highest degree, dependent on the Department of Public Works for the improvement of the fishing harbours of the Gaspe coast. During the war years, we have been unable to do as much as usual. This year, I believe the amounts spent for the improvement of wharves, breakwaters and ports have been increased. He has but to present a request which he does regurlarly-and the Department of Public Works gets busy improving every part of his constituency as soon as the money is granted by parliament. I feel bound to give him the. testimony that, of all the members from Quebec, he probably gives me more work than any other in the interests of his constituents. A single day hardly goes by, but I receive from him some request for the betterment of his fishermen's lot. He may be sure that my officials and myself will do our utmost to help his fisherfolk.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Thank you.
Supply-Public Works

(Text):


John Bracken: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and with the permission of the committee I should like to raise another matter. When the Acting Prime Minister moved that we sit on Saturdays he indicated that he would leave it to the wishes of the house as to whether it would sit on Saturday night as well as Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon. Last night the leader of the house indicated that he would expect us to sit to-night. Intimations have been made to me by some hon. members that they would prefer to sit until seven o'clock to-day and then adjourn until Monday morning if that were satisfactory. I raise that suggestion for the consideration of hon. members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course this motion should be properly made with the Speaker in the chair. With the consent of the committee I would say that the government is entirely in the hands of the committee and of the house in regard to this matter. I have had representations made to me from various quarters that we continue to sit until seven o'clock this evening and then adjourn until Monday morning at eleven o'clock. If that is the desire I would have to make the motion.


William Irvine: Why not make it six o'clock? Why run to seven? What difference will an hour make?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If we sit until seven o'clock my hon. friend will find out. If this meets with the consent of the committee- [ am not pressing it, mark you-I would move:
That standing order 6 be suspended and that :he committee continue sitting after 6 p.m.
With unanimous consent that would mean mtil seven o'clock. I think that seems to be the general wish of the committee. If that is not agreeable we shall sit as usual in the evening until eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
That standing order 6 be suspended and that the house continue sitting after 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Reid: Does that mean that the house sits until eleven o'clock?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Until after six; until the house is adjourned.


Thomas Reid: I was going to move that the house sit from nine o'clock in the morning to one o'clock the following morning.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPAETMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Engineer's branch-
296. Branch administration, $245,100.
Mr. MATTHEWTS (Kootenay East):: Now that we can come back again for a few minutes to Ripple Rock, because it is still there, may I say that this afternoon I listened with a great degree of interest to the remarks of the hon. members for New Westminster, Vancouver South and Vancouver Centre. I wish to associate myself with all that they have said and, if there is any way of making it stronger, I do so. I think I can say this afternoon that I have probably sailed through Seymour Narrows more often than any other member in the committee, because during the past few years I have sailed through them on a good many occasions. I have seen some' cf the largest steamers which ply on the Pacific coast in these northern waters timing their sailings and their movements to arrive at Seymour Narrows at either high slack or low slack tide. With all the power that they are able to develop, if they should arrive too soon they never attempt to sail through; they anchor. Why? Because, although we have heard this afternoon of many hundreds of feet on this side or on the other side of the rock, a vessel trying to go through these dangerous waters and these tremendous currents runs the danger of being swept irresistibly upon that rock. I know something of how mariners of the north Pacific coast feel every time that they approach Ripple Rock. They approach that rock with a degree of fear and wholesome respect.
I am glad to know that so much money has been spent by the government so far in an attempt to remove Ripple Rock, but I cannot quite understand some of the remarks which the minister made this afternoon. One of the difficulties which seem to baffle them at the present moment is how to clear the top of the rock after blasting operations have taken place. I can hardly visualize that difficulty when I know something of the force of the explosives used. If it does not blow the rock completely away from the surface I can tell the minister that if there are chunks of rock on the top as big as this desk the tides and currents will sweep them off.


Alphonse Fournier: They are probably bigger than that.


James Herbert Matthews: If
they are bigger than that I do not think their

Supply-Public Works
methods of handling the matter have been as useless or as ineffective as the minister tries to make out.
This is still a live issue on the Pacific coast and it is going to be until Ripple Rock is removed.


Alphonse Fournier: You need not tell me.


James Herbert Matthews: To show that it is so, the Vancouver Sun runs every week or so a quiz programme in which they ask the people to express their point of view on certain questions. Possibly two or three months ago this question was asked on the programme: "Are you in favour of asking the United States now to remove Ripple Rock, seeing that we cannot do it ourselves?"


Thomas Reid: They offered to.


James Herbert Matthews: Yes. And eighty-six per cent expressed their conviction that we should ask the United States to remove it.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Can the hon. member
give me. the percentage of those who said "yes" or "no"?


James Herbert Matthews: Eighty-six out of one hundred, eighty-six per
cent, said yes.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Eighty-six per cent of
what?


James Herbert Matthews: Of the total population of the Vancouver area.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Of those who were questioned?


James Herbert Matthews: I was not at this particular meeting where this question was put. I am merely quoting from
the paper.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The hon. gentleman gave a figure of eighty-six per cent; eighty-six per cent of what?


James Herbert Matthews: It was eighty-six per cent of those who were Questioned.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the number?


James Herbert Matthews: I could not tell you that. I was not there, and I cannot state that number.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say that
generally these polls are accurate.


James Herbert Matthews: The point is that we have spent a great amount of money so far, and I do not for one moment
think we are justified now in throwing up our hands and saying that, because our engineers cannot find a satisfactory way to remove the rock, it will have to stay there. I know how 'the minister feels, that if he goes ahead and spends so many millions of dollars and 'fails, his department will be censured, but I can assure the minister that his department will be censured far more if we lose a large vessel on that rock, with heavy loss of life; and that is likely to happen any moment, even while I am speaking. It may happen at any time.


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly; and it could have happened in the past hundred and fifty years.


James Herbert Matthews: It was stated here this afternoon that the last vessel to suffer damage on the rock was a government vessel, and that the delicate instruments on that vessel, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, were absolutely ruined. So my contention is that if our Canadian engineers have failed we should call in the engineers of some other country.


Alphonse Fournier: We did. My deputy spent a good deal of time consulting the best engineers in New York and Washington, the best engineers on that kind of work in the United States, and their report agreed with the report I received from my own officials. We are not all engineers, you know.


James Herbert Matthews: The last method adopted was to string a cable, at tremendous expense to the country.


Alphonse Fournier: What about the other methods? Did you study them? Did you study the tunneling method?


James Herbert Matthews: Yes; I know the methods they have been trying to follow. The overhead cable method was the most successful so far. Why was the cable taken down?


Alphonse Fournier: I gave that
answer a moment ago. Ten feet of water flows continually over this rock. In addition to that, we were to drill another twenty-one or twenty-two feet. We did start drilling so many holes at the first level of five feet. That was the average; perhaps it may have been six feet, and they drilled as many holes as they could. Then they filled the holes with dynamite or some explosive, and tried to explode it. Two-thirds were blown up, say eighty holes out of 120. Ripple Rock is not just a peak of rock coming up in the middle of the water. It spreads around, and the rock that was blown off spread over the
Supply-Public Works

rest of it. The contractors tried to remove the loose rock but had no success, and they could not go on and drill a second level of five or six or seven feet without removing the first rock. Then the deeper they went, to drill the harder it became to keep the barge and scow sufficiently stable that the drills would not be broken. That was the second method. The first was to anchor the scow and barge, but that did not succeed at all.


James Herbert Matthews: I know.


Alphonse Fournier: The first project cost us around $350,000, and the second one, nearly $500,000, and we have had no success.


Howard Charles Green: Some success.


Alphonse Fournier: A third method was suggested, that of tunneling,-but we were advised against it. I am no expert; I am only repeating what I have heard when this matter has been discussed. We were told that ;he rock formation would, not permit of :unneling and having the rock blown up. A fourth method suggested, which would be a costly one .and in one connection with which no one could assure us of success, would be by dropping cement caissons on the rock, taking out the water and then trying to drill. All these ideas came from engineers; they did not come from laymen, and in each case the objections were such that, after spending $800,000, I did not feel I could recommend to the government that we proceed farther unless I could be convinced by the experts that it was feasible. We have consulted engineers in the United States. Hon. members have said the government of the United States told us they would do the work, but I have been dealing with this question for nearly four years and it has not come to my knowledge yet that the United States government asked to be allowed to proceed with the work. There is a lot of talk about doing this and doing that, but when you Come down to the facts there is nothing on the file that would show that any other government would undertake this work, or that they had better engineers than we have in our own country.


James Herbert Matthews: From all I can gather, the last method adopted, using the overhead cable, did bring a certain amount of success. The minister himself admits that a certain number of holes were dtrilled and blasted. What I cannot understand is why, after all that expenditure and all the risk of life and limb in stringing that overhead cable, it was not left there. Why take it down?
fMr. A. Fournier.]


Alphonse Fournier: Because we could not get a price from anybody to complete the work by the cable method. As I said, I have dealt with this matter for nearly four years. It was the most important thing I had in my mind in connection with the department, because we were anxious to make a success of it. Just imagine; if our department could have succeeded in that work-I am repeating what I have said previously- our engineers would have become great men amongst the engineers on this continent. When we tried last fall to get a firm price for the work, no firm prices were given to us. We had one estimate of $1,800,000 or $1,900,000, but there was no guarantee that they would do the work for that amount, any more than they did the work for the $250,000 or $300,000 we paid in. the first place, and we asked for a guarantee. They could not find anybody even .to guarantee fifty per cent of the excess over the estimate of about $1,900,000.


James Herbert Matthews: Even yet the minister does not answer my question. We had a cable strung across a given area at tremendous expense. It would not have hurt the department to leave that cable there even yet, until you finally decided whether or not you were going to use the cable method again. It may be that you will have to come back to the cable.


Alphonse Fournier: I can give you the reason in a minute if you want it.


James Herbert Matthews: Pardon me; the minister has spoken enough. You may have to go back to the cable method) yet, and all I want to know is, why did you take down the cable before you were absolutely sure that method could not be used?


Alphonse Fournier: When we put up the cables we had reports that they were dangerous to navigation. Opinion was divided even in connection with stringing up those cables across the rock. When we were convinced that we could not proceed by the cable method we did not think we should hinder navigation by allowing those cables to remain over the straits.


James Herbert Matthews: I am not satisfied that navigation was hindered. Navigation went on all the time. The minister can wave his hand; but, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre said, Ripple Rock is too far from Ottawa; that is the whole trouble. I would repeat what the hon. member for Vancouver South said, that if it had been, in the St. Lawrence river they would have made greater attempts to remove it than have so far been made. Let the govern-

Supply-Public Works
ment go ahead and spend money without asking for too many guarantees that this will be done or that will succeed.


Alphonse Fournier: Would you suggest that in dealing with public works I should go ahead and give out work without getting firm prices; that I should spend the money of the taxpaying public of Canada without any guarantee that the work will be completed for the money we pay out? Do you think that would be the proper way to administer the Department of Public Works? Do you think I could rise in this house and defend that policy; that I could say, "All right; you want work out in British 'Columbia. We don't care what the cost is. We don't care if you can do the work. We are just going to spend the money of the people." Do you think that sort of policy would be upheld in this house? Do you think I could rise in my place and defend a policy of that kind? If that sort of policy were to be adopted I probably would not be long in this government, because I do not believe it would be good government.


James Herbert Matthews: That is exactly what the minister has been doing up to now.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: May I ask a question?


James Herbert Matthews: I have the floor.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You are afraid to answer a question?


James Herbert Matthews: The minister has expended a good many hundred thousand dollars on a worth-while experiment, and we are asking that the experimentation proceed. I think that is fair. The minister has been prosecuting this work, and there has been no criticism of his department from any source for having done so. His department is worthy of commendation, because he has tried to do something. But we maintain that this is not the time to fold up and say, "We give up, because Ripple Rock is too large for us." I still feel there are engineers in this country-and if Canadian engineers cannot do it, others can-


Alphonse Fournier: (Name them.


James Herbert Matthews: That is not my place. It is not for hon. members to find a solution; it is for the government to find one. The warning still holds good that some day there will be a disaster at Ripple Rock, and it will reflect upon the government, if this work is not carried out.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Speaking in French a short time ago, I asked the minister to increase the number of personnel in the engineering branch office at Rimouski. I think at this time I should withdraw my request, because it would seem that there are many good engineers right in the house.
I wish to reply to the hon. member who just took his seat, when he said-and I am afraid I am not quoting his words exactly- that if this condition were in Quebec it would be cured right away. My reply to him is that he should come down to my constituency and-


Mr. MacINNIS:: The hon. member for Kootenay East did not refer to the province of Quebec. .
Mr. 'LANGLOIS: I have the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: Let the hon. member proceed.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I referred to the St. Lawrence.


Angus MacInnis: Say "St. Lawrence", then.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Let him come down to my constituency, and he will see-


William Henry Golding: Is the hon. member rising to a point of order?


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kootenay East did not say "province of Quebec". Some may be willing to think they can use that for the purpose of raising prejudice. But the hon. member for Kootenay East-


An hon. MEMBER:: The same as British Columbia.


Angus MacInnis: It is not in the province of Quebec, either.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: May I have the floor?


Mr. BELZILE:: The river St. Lawrence runs from Montreal to Rimouski.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member who made this reference. Can he tell me how much his province has contributed toward the total revenue of this country, as compared with Quebec? I am ready to place the figures before him. Yet we are not getting any more than his province is getting, if we take into consideration the amount of revenue that Quebec contributes.


William Henry Golding: I think we had better get down to the item.


Angus MacInnis: I was not in the chamber when the discussion on this item began, but-

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: There is no item for Ripple Rock, you know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the trouble.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to tell the minister that it appears that Ripple Rock is a considerable item. I was not in the chamber when the discussion began, so that to that extent I am under a handicap because I do not know what other members have said.
I am not an engineer and I know nothing about Ripple Rock, except that I have heard it is there and is dangerous. I also know it is a live question in British Columbia. I listened to what the minister said about what had already been done in attempting to remove this obstruction to navigation. I believe there was considerable merit in the stand he took, provided that the matter is not allowed to drop because of the difficulties now being met. If the Department of Public Works will give a guarantee to put an. item in the estimates to keep on with this work-and I am not suggesting that the minister should keep on with a method that has not proved successful-but if he will give the assurance that attempts will be made to remove the danger, that is all we are entitled to ask. He has said that he would be criticized if he spent money on this without obtaining results. He would be criticized, and criticized from this side of the house.
That has been the practice in parliament, and we should not press him to undertake work where he is satisfied that he will not succeed. But no matter how difficult it is, the removal of Ripple Rock is of great importance. In the light of the engineering feats which have been accomplished in the world in the last few years, surely we are not going to allow ourselves to be baffled by this situation. The minister should give the committee an undertaking that every effort will be continued for. the removal of Ripple Rock. The minister has said that engineers had been consulted in New York, but I suggest that they could be brought on the scene, and their opinions obtained. When that is done I am sure some means will be found for removing the rock. If large expenditures are undertaken, but without success, I will assure the minister that so far as I am concerned I shall support him if the question is brought dp in the house.


Mr. RICHARD (Gloucester):: I should like to take a few minutes to make a few general remarks on the subject now being discussed, because it relates to the fishing industry, an industry which I am sure-


William Henry Golding: Order. We are discussing the item for the chief engineer's branch.


Clovis-Thomas Richard: I wish to speak about wharves and dredging, which would come under this item. The hon. member for Gaspe touched upon these two subjects, and since they are related to the fishing industry I believe I am entitled to speak. I would not speak at all at this time if I had thought all hon. members had understood what was said by the hon. member for Gaspe. He has expressed facts which I would urge in connection with the fishing population, and the problems he has set out are, I believe, identical with those of the fishing population in -my constituency in New Brunswick, and in the maritime provinces generally.
All hon. members realize that during the war many projects had to be abandoned. However, now that we are about to enter the period of reconstruction, let me point out to the Minister of Public Works that we are in need of many improvements and many facilities to promote the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. I should hope that when he considers the problems pointed out by the hon. member for Gaspe, and the promise he made to the hon. member, he would also keep my section of New Brunswick in mind, because we have similar problems. There is a certain attitude which I do not approve in the Department of Public Works with reference to new undertakings. I do not blame the officials. But on occasions when I have approached them respecting the construction of new projects I have always been told that it was impossible because the revenue at the point in question was not sufficient to warrant the expenditure. I do not blame the officials because they are following a policy. But I think the policy is wrong. I do not think the necessity for a certain public work should be gauged by the actual revenue at that point. That should not be the criterion. I think what should also be considered is the potential revenue that might be derived if proper fac-ities were provided.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Clovis-Thomas Richard: The hon.
member says "hear, hear" and I presume that members from the west would say the same. The maritime provinces, during the last thirty or forty years when great developments were taking place in other parts of the country in the matter of railways and canals, did not suggest that the actual revenue to be derived from the- start of such construction should be considered, but the potential revenue if the great open spaces were opened up and developed, and we hope that the same policy will be applied to the maritimes.

Supply-Public Works
Our most important industry in the mari-times is the fishing industry, and I want to emphasize that public works are linked with the success of our most important industry. We admit that in the maritimes we do not possess great wealth. As I look toward the west I see the great forest resources of British Columbia, that great wheat basket in the western plains, the rich forest and mining resources of Quebec and Ontario. But in the maritimes we do not possess great natural resources. Therefore our most important industry, the fishing industry, should be developed to the hilt. This cannot be done unless the fisherman has adequate facilities and the protection which he needs. I have heard in this house many a recital of the hardships of the farmers of the west and other parts of this dominion. I am not acquainted,
I regret to say, although I hope to be some day, with conditions in1'the west. I know, however, that the farmer has a hard life. But it is nothing compared with that of the fisherman. There is no comparison whatever between the two. The fisherman starts out for two or three weeks fishing in the treacherous waters of the north Atlantic, never knowing whether he will return to his family. When he does return he has not the facilities, the wharves and breakwaters, to approach the shore and protect his boat and gear. The farmer's hardships are nothing compared with those of the fisherman.
Let us look forward to what the fishing industry might be if proper facilities were provided. We must remember also that the youth of to-day will not stand for the hardships of the pioneers of yesterday. He wants something better than his forefathers had and which he knows he should get. If we really want our young men to take up fishing as a vocation we have to give them the facilities which they should have. Study the figures of the returns which the fisherman gets in normal times, not the higher prices they are getting now, and the damages sometimes running into hundreds of dollars, wiping out the earnings of a whole year's work or two years which he sometimes suffers when his boat is smashed against the shore because of lack of proper protection. I know communities which have been in existence for over a hundred years in the northern part of New Brunswick and where fishing has been the mainstay of the people, which still lack these facilities. I do not blame the minister and his officials. It is the policy which has been followed for years that is to blame.
The other day I asked for a little improvement on a wharf. The capital expenditure to improve it would be about $800, and the 63260-292J
annual maintenance, $200. The officials of this department pointed out to me that the revenue was not sufficient. I admitted it. But that wharf was not built for revenue purposes. It was built to accommodate the fishermen who go out into the ocean and produce wealth for this country running into thousands of dollars-untold wealth if they were only provided with proper facilities. I also pointed out that over this same wharf $350,000 worth of sea products was handled, all of which went as a contribution to the country's wealth. It helped to support a number of people; it provided revenue for our railways. Therefore I say that the actual revenue of the wharf should not be the criterion as to whether an expenditure should be made for improvements. We should rather look forward and consider how such improvements might develop the fishing industry.
I am told, and I have it for a certainty, that a number of firms are willing to come and establish themselves in our fishing communities if they can be assured that the fishermen will have proper landing facilities so that these firms can be guaranteed a steady supply. Remember that the fishing industry has changed considerably in the last few years, and therefore we must change our policy to meet those changing conditions.
I hope the Minister of Public Works will be as generous in dealing with these problems in the maritimes as his predecessor in office was, even to other parts of the dominion. We are only asking for the maritimes what we are entitled to. We do not ask for works to be constructed just for the sake of spending money. If I ever looked upon a wharf and thought I had asked for money to be spent on it just for the sake of spending money I would be ashamed and think that wharf was a monument to false judgment on my part. We are asking only what we are entitled to. I know it has been impossible for the department to undertake certain public works during the past five or six years, but from now on let it study our problems in the mari-times so that we will get our just share of assistance.


Douglas King Hazen: I would point out to the Minister of Public Works and to the members from British Columbia, as the hon. member for Gaspe has already done, that all menaces to navigation are not confined to British Columbia. In my constituency there is a reef known as Hilliard's reef that has proved itself a menace to navigation. The board of trade of the city from which I come have on more than one occasion called the attention of the government to the dangers of that reef, but nothing was ever done about it. As a consequence a ship went aground
Su-p-ply-Public Works

there a year or two ago through the fault of somebody, resulting in a loss of over
34,000,000. The minister said, while Ripple Rock was being discussed so vigorously a few minutes ago, that if the members here could vonvince him of a feasible way of removing ;he obstacle he would undertake the work. I wonder if the minister could give assurance to the people in my constituency that he will remove the rock there if they can convince him that it is feasible to do so.


Alphonse Fournier: I know more
about Ripple Rock than I do about the one in my hon. friend's constituency. _


Douglas King Hazen: If we could convince you that there is a feasible way of removing that rock would you give your best consideration to having it removed?


Alphonse Fournier: You would not want me to make a commitment without looking into the whole matter. Otherwise I would have to make commitments for every rock in every harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-Dredging-
299. Maritime provinces, $769,020.
Douglas King Hazen: What dredging is it planned to do in New Brunswick and will any dredging be done at Dipper Harbour?


Alphonse Fournier: I could give a list of the proposed dredging in the maritime provinces. Dredge No. 4 will operate at Bathurst, to remove 55,000 scow measure yards at a cost of $38,500. Dredge No. 5 will operate at Yarmouth to dredge 1,000,000 cubic yards at a cost of $34,000. Dredge No. 9 will operate at Charlottetown, Wood Island, Georgetown and Summerside at a cost of $46,900. Dredge No. 13 will operate at Cariboo and Pictou at a cost of $48,000. Dredge No. 14 at Summerside, Wood Island, Little Sands, Georgetown, Graham's Pond and Rocky Point, $7,000. Dredge No. 15, LeHave Islands, Vogler's Cover and Hunts Point, $7,500. Dredge No. 16, Shag Harbour, The Hawk, West Baccro, $7,500. Dredge No. 17, Red Head, Naufrage, Souris, Poplar Point, South Cardigan, Lower Montague, and Beach Point, $8,000. Dredge No. 18, Carey's Passage, Pond-ville, Petit de Grat, West Arichat, Troy Pond, Skinners Cove, Little Harbour and Ogden's Pond, $5,700. Dredge No. 19, Murphy's Pond, McKay's Point, Walker's Cove, Little Judique Harbour and Port Hood Island, $5,700. Dredge Pownal No. 2, Cheticamp Point, Margaree Harbour, Cheticamp Beach, Victoria and Charlottetown, $27,200. Dredge No. 115, Ding-

wall, $136,000. Those are the places where our dredges will operate.


Douglas King Hazen: I notice in the details on page 198 of the estimates there is an item covering maintenance and operation, one covering new plant and another covering contract and day labour works. Under which item would that work come?


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member will notice there is one item covering temporary assistance and wages, which would cover the wages of the crews. Then farther down on the page there is maintenance and operation, $276,825.


Douglas King Hazen: It would be included in that?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Mr. McLURE:: While a certain amount of dredging has been provided for Prince Edward Island, I should like to mention one item which I drew to the minister's attention last year and again this fall, at Rustico harbour. This dredging is needed by the fishermen. It has been a number of years since any dredging has been done and the bay has filled up. This makes it inconvenient for the fishermen because, after they enter the harbour, they have to go the length of the bay up to the creek. It would not be an expensive job and it would be of great help to the fishermen. If this dredging were done the fishermen could bring their boats in at low tide and land at their own wharves. While no provision has been made in the estimates for doing this work this year, I want to impress, on behalf of the fishermen of Rustico, that the minister must give consideration to this dredging.


Mr. WINTERS:: I notice in the particulars there is an item of $158,900 for new plant, and I was wondering if any new dredging equipment for Nova Scotia is to be purchased under that item.


Alphonse Fournier: This increase is to replace worn-out scows attending our various dredges and to purchase six tugs from War Assets Corporation. There will be one tug for dredge No. 4; to complete two steel scows under contract with the Saint John Dry Dock Company to replace two scows sold. For dredge No. 5, one steel coal scow to replace scow lost when on tow by navy from Sydney to Yarmouth. For dredge No. 16, one wooden scow to replace scow in very bad condition; contract with M. C. McKay and Son. $3,500. For dredge No. 16, new hull under contract, M. C. McKay and Son; old hull bad condition, $8,000. For dredge No. 17, one wooden scow urgently required as only one at present

Supply-Public Works
with this dredge, S3,500. For dredge No. 18, one wooden scow under contract, R. A. Douglas, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, replacing worn-out scow, $4,100. To purchase of six tugs from War Assets Corporation under negotiation at present, $80,000.


Robert Henry Winters: Is the department considering the purchase of new dredges?


Alphonse Fournier: Not under these estimates.


Douglas King Hazen: Would it be possible to have
a breakdown of contract and day labour works?


Alphonse Fournier: The list is quite a long one:
Bay St. Lawrence	 $4,050
Belfrey Gut	 300
Broad Cove	No	estimateBurke's Head	
^	10,650Cherry Hill	No	estimateFalls Point	
5,584L'Acheveque	
20,179McCreadyville	
12,250Paul's Point	
45Petit de Grat (Landry's)	
989Petit de Grat (Martells)	
6,000Smithville	
9,832Trenton	
15,414Troy Pond	
450Upper Port Latour	
1,444Upper Port Latour	No	estimateWallace	
21,800Dipper Harbour	
13,500St. Andrews	
10,600Cape Bald	
47,420Bottsford	
6,700Campbellton	No	estimateCocagne Bar	
18,800Dalhousie	
10,500Little Shemogue	
6,000Kichibucto	No	estimateShippigan	
3,600


Mr. STANFIELD:: I did not hear the minister say anything about Parrsboro, Nova Scotia. Has the department any request for dredging that harbour?


Alphonse Fournier: It is not in the estimates and I do not recall having received any request. I will look into the matter.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was interested in the discussion that took place this afternoon in connection with Ripple Rock. I am not going to transgress the rules by discussing that question, but it was a matter of interest to me to note the manner in which the members from the Pacific coast advanced their claim for expenditures.
There is one item in which I am particularly interested and which I believe will come under this vote. It is a- problem for the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works, and the matter is one that I have brought to the attention of the department and of the minister on more than one
occasion. I refer to the situation that exists at Devil's Island. This is a lonely spot about seven miles by sea from the docks of Halifax city and half a mile from the shores of eastern passage, a small fishing and farming hamlet on, the east mainland, where a tiny wedge of slate rock forced its way above the swelling tides and rolling breakers of the Atlantic. In the past, I admit, a considerable amount of money has been spent in connection with breakwaters, but unfortunately it has not provided the protection which is required to enable the fishermen to carry on their pursuits as such.
I cannot do better, in attempting to describe this locality, than to quote the words of Miss May C. O'Regan. She says:
Remote, grim and desolate, devoid of trees, swept by winds which carry off the sparse soil, the tiny dot just outside the entrance to Halifax harbour, to-day merits the name of Devil's Island even more than it did four generations ago when a little colony of fishermen and pilots settled there to be near the sources of their living.
I emphasize those words, "swept by winds." I am asking the Minister of Public Works to be good enough to go into this matter more fully than apparently he has done in the past. It is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to get medical help to this island. The district can be serviced) by planes, but at certain times it is impossible to land) either from a boat or from a plane, and we would be pleased if the minister would give us some assurance that this matter will be looked into.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps a bridge.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If the minister would give us the assurance of a bridge we would be satisfied, but I am not asking for unreasonable things. I am simply asking him to go into the question of providing a breakwater which will serve the purpose. I believe I have given him in the past practically all the information that would be helpful in dealing with this problem, but if he feels that it would cost too much money to erect and maintain a breakwater on the island so as to afford) the protection which the people who live there desire, then I would ask him to present to the government, for their consideration, a scheme whereby there might be provided some place on the mainland where these people can be properly housed and given the attention which we expect human beings to receive in these modem days.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No, it is not carried. It is a human need I am talking about. I do not know how closely the minister has followed the doings of the lightkeepers and those who
Supply-Public Works

dwell in these remote places along our Atlantic coast, but if he has not been in touch with the situation there, I suggest to him that he read an interesting book written by E. M. Robertson, wife of the lightkeeper at one of the lighthouses on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia. If he will do this he will realize something of the hardships with which these people have to put up day in and day out, particularly during stormy seasons. I could dwell at great length in describing their hardships, but I will not make myself unpopular at this late hour by taking up more of the time of the committee, though it is an important question and I am making a plea for the satisfaction of a crying human need. I hope the Minister of Public Works will give this matter the attention which I believe it deserves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No, it is not carried. May I have an assurance from the minister?


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member may rest assured that the moment the house closes, I will read the book and give attention to the request that has been made. I say that seriously.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That sounds all right, but I am in the position of members of the opposition when they rise in their places and present a case. I expect a little more consideration than simply to have the minister say that when the house closes he will read the book. It is not the book that I am talking about; I am talking about the plight of the people on Devil's Island. I am asking whether favourable consideration could not be given to the construction of a suitable breakwater which would meet the requirements of these people, or, if not that their problem be taken into consideration and a decision made as to the best scheme to follow. If it is not possible to build or repair the breakwater, then some scheme should be devised to bring these people to the mainland so that they may enijoy the privilege which the minister and the rest of us enjoy in these modern times.


Alphonse Fournier: I wish to apologize if the hon. member thinks I was treating his suggestions lightly. I listened most attentively to what the hon. gentleman said, and I was trying to recall the numerous cases which were brought to my attention in my office by other hon. members. I am giving attention to the particular case he has mentioned and I shall continue to do so. I am sorry if I offended him.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wish to thauK the minister
for adopting a more serious tone with respect to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Chief engineer's branch-Dredging-
800. Ontario and Quebec, $583,840.
Mr. HENDERSON:: Since I am one of the few members present from Ontario and since I have not the problem of rocks and harbours I should like to say a few words on a drainage scheme, known as Running creek. This Running creek is a small offshoot from the St. Clair river. It leaves the river in an unusual way. Most creeks run into the river, but this particular creek near the town of Wallaceburg leaves the river, goes across the country, meets with another creek at the town of Wallaceburg and then finds its way down to lake St. Clair.
In 1965 the Department of Public Works did dredge running creeks. They did it in those days to help out the sugar beet industry. At that time they inaugurated the sugar beet industry in that section of the country and a factory was built at Wallaceburg. That was before the advent of good roads, and in order to assist the farmers who lived six or eight miles out to get their sugar beets into the factory the department dredged that creek. The creek is now filled up. If it were dredged it would serve two purposes. In the first place, that section of the country consists of low-lying land; we call it Little Holland. You pretty nearly have to wear your wooden shoes when you go there, particularly after a rainstorm. There are two or three pumping works there where they have to pump water off the land into this particular creek. Of course they have to pay a municipal tax for that purpose. It was under a municipal scheme.
If the dredging were done it would provide better health services for Wallaceburg, because the little creek water runs for a good many miles before it comes to that town. It runs through several little towns and the sewage disposal is not very well taken care of. In the summer time, around Wallaceburg the water becomes quite stagnant in Running creek. When it was dredged out a number of years ago the blue water left the St. Clair river and came down to the Skey river. You could trace it all the way into the town of Wallaceburg, and the other water was washed away and the town kept healthy. At the present time it is filled up. Wallaceburg is one of the most progressive little towns in western Ontario. Its citizens are all cooperatively-minded, they all work together for the good of their town. They are very much interested in this matter at the present time and hope that we can get the Department of Public Works interested in carrying out that dredging scheme. I believe last fall the engineers got their own local engineer and

Supply-Public Works
he made a survey of it. I believe there will be two or three townships interested in it.
I notice in the estimates that there are $200,000 more allocated to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec than was the case last year. That would be about $100,000 each.
I was wondering whether it would be possible for the Department of Public Works to assist municipal councils in a drainage scheme of this kind, particularly when the department is not taking care of their own local waters, but is taking care of international waters which leave the river and go across the country.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall have my engineers report on the case the hon. member has just submitted. The hon. member understands that if it is completely a drainage project we do not contribute to that, but I shall see what we can do about it.


Robert James Henderson: It is drainage, but the water is international water which leaves the river. I thought we would have to take care of international waters.


Alphonse Fournier: We have no estimates at all for drainage purposes; I am sorry. We are discussing item 300. We have no money for drainage purposes under this item, nor under any item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-Dredging-
SOI. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $269,550.
Mr. BRYCE:: I had intended telling the minister about some of the hazards of shipping on lake Winnipeg and the Red river, up to the harbour of Winnipeg, but since the hour is late I shall refrain from doing so. I want the minister to know that I am going to take these matters up with him, and I hope he will give me an attentive ear. Are the dredges on lake Winnipeg in full operation now, or are they still operating on the war schedule?


Alphonse Fournier: My information is that we are operating at full time in Manitoba.


William Scottie Bryce: Can the minister tell me what they are doing at Warren's Landing to straighten the channel there? The department made a survey there last year and put in new range lines. If the minister has not the information now, perhaps he could let me have it later.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall send it over to the hon. member.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I do not know just how big a field dredging takes in. We do not have a great deal of that work in Saskatchewan, although I believe there is some work along that line that could be done. I was absent this afternoon in the industrial relations committee when the bill to beautify Ottawa was passed, which I would have opposed. Could the minister possibly find an appropriation somewhere to do a little dredging in the Swift Current river. We need a swimming-pool there which would help us out quite a bit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-Dredging
[Stage Direction]
S02. British Columbia and Yukon, $386,080.
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: There is just one point I should like to bring up. I do not wish to criticize or to raise the devil too much with the minister because I see he has an item in here for Hazelton; therefore I shall go fairly easily.


Alphonse Fournier: That has been voted.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I am not going to speak on that. I should like to deal with dredging at Dalketla slough. I received a letter from the district engineer, Mr. K. W. Morton, of New Westminster, with an outline of the projects contemplated for the Pacific coast, and in that was $301,950 for a breakwater at Wiah Point. I do not see that included in the estimates here. Has it been dropped?


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed that the estimates which were given to the hon. member were probably a post-war and timing project. They are not in these estimates. I shall look up the item mentioned by the hon. member and see what can be done about it, but not at this session.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Under these contemplated post-war projects, I should like to bring in this matter; along with Wiah Point, dredging should be done at the village of Massett, so that the fishermen can go over and live in that district. It is important to the fishermen who go out on long-line trawling in that area. It would build up the Queen Charlotte islands. It is a marvellous harbour if it was improved.


George Randolph Pearkes: I hesitate to rise and urge a complaint against another British Columbia constituency, particularly since that constituency is represented by an hon. member on the other side of the house; but all the filth from the Fraser valley is brought down and deposited in my constituency. I want it removed. The silt from the Fraser river comes down and is filling up the harbours of Nanaimo, Ladysmith and Chemainus;
Supply-Public Works

the harbours in the Gulf islands; Sidney; the great harbour of Victoria-about which I shall have something to say in a moment- and the entrance of the San Juan river.
First. I want to deal with the entrance of the San Juan river. That is the very centre of an extensive logging country. Every year hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of logs are exported through that harbour. The entrance of the harbour leading to Port Renfrew is silting up to such an extent that the tugs of the Malahat Logging Company and the Hemmingsen-Cameron Logging Company are having the greatest difficulty in getting their logs over that bar. I suggest that one thing we need in this country at the present time is lumber; and if from the heart of the lumber country we cannot export our logs to the mills on the mainland because of a lack of dredges, then this department must make a strenuous effort to provide the necessary dredges so that these logs can be exported.
That condition exists not only on the southern coast of Vancouver island but also on the eastern coast, at those other harbours I mentioned:	Nanaimo, Ladysmith and
Chemainus, where the big mills of the Arictoria Lumber Company are situated, and at the harbour of Sidney, where we have ferries running not only from the mainland of British Columbia but also from the United States. All those harbours are silting up. All those harbours demand immediately the dredging operations they were denied during the war years, and one can understand why they were denied that work. A great deal of work is now needed, not only to make up for what should have been done during the war years, but in order to get the lumber from Vancouver island out to the mills, and to the reconstruction projects all over Canada.
I want to say one word about the harbour of Victoria, which is also silting up. As the minister no doubt knows, recommendations have been made as to the purchase of Riffett docks and the development of what is known as fishermen's harbour in Victoria. I believe the minister has this question under consideration. I should like to ask the minister what is being done and how far the negotiations have proceeded in connection with those two projects in the harbour of Victoria. I should like also to have the minister to tell us how many dredges we have on the Pacific coast. I listened with amazement a few minutes ago to references to dredge No. 11, No. 12, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, No. 16 and No. 17 being employed on the Atlantic coast. I

do not believe we have anything like that number on the Pacific coast.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before the minister replies, may I tell my hon. friend that the committee will note with great appreciation this "war of the Georges."


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like an answer to my question.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry, but under item 302 my hon. friend is discussing matters which come under item 321, where he will see:
Victoria-toward dredging, $100,000.
Victoria-fishing harbourage, $67,000.
The contract for the fishing harbour has not yet been given out, but I understand that we are calling for tenders in the very near future.
The other question was as to how many dredges we have on the Pacific coast. We have four dredges, two tugs, six scows, two motor boats, sixty-four pontoons and one pile-driver barge.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid the motor boats will not do much dredging, will they?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know. I am no expert, but they might help.


George Randolph Pearkes: What about Riffett wharf at Victoria? What is the position of those negotiations?


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry I
have not the information here, but I shall let my hon. friend know. I shall send a request to the official to prepare a report and shall give my hon. friend the information.


George Randolph Pearkes: Negotiations have been
under way for some time, and that is all linked up with the development of the harbour at Victoria and the dredging necessary there.


Alphonse Fournier: We have two
items covering what the hon. gentleman has asked. We are now calling for tenders as to the first item, and we are negotiating in regard to the fishing harbour. That is about all the information I have now, unless I look over the file.


George Randolph Pearkes: Surely the minister can
tell me how far those negotiations have gone. We have been talking about this matter for the past three years; it has been actively discussed in all the newspapers month after month.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman will find those two items concerning Victoria on page 46 of the estimates under

Supply-Public Works
item 321. I can read what notes I have here and give him the information they contain as to this item of fishing harbourage. This item is to provide for dredging and the construction of an approach landing pier, gangway and floats. Proposed work is urgently required to accommodate an additional 220 fishing boats which have no permanent place to moor at present. The proposed work includes the removal of approximately 22,000 cubic yards of gravel, silt and so on; constructing main float sixteen feet by 1,770 feet; constructing eight floats ten feet by 200 feet with moorings, constructing approach landing pier and gangway. The estimated cost for the removal of 22,000 cubic yards of gravel at eighty cents per cubic yard is $17,600; for floats, gangway and pier, $48,958; for inspection, advertising and contingencies, $442, making a total of $67,000 for that one item. We are not on the right item. I wonder if the hon. member would let this item pass and when we get to item 321-


Thomas Reid: No, it is not carried at the
present time. We cannot get away without saying something about what the hon. member for Nanaimo said about the Fraser river. It was nice that he said it with a smile, but that smile will not appear on Hansard. It was a kind of slur about what the Fraser river brings down. From what I know about his riding-and I lived there for many years- it is just what his riding needs.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I suggest that the Nanaimo riding needs little free silt.


Thomas Reid: Of course Nanaimo has deteriorated since I left there-because I did happen to live there for a certain number of years. But to keep the record clear, he knows very well that what the Fraser river brings down does not go farther than the middle of the gulf. You can see the line of demarcation. But it is just too bad it does not go any farther.
Having disposed of that, 1 should like to speak about something more practical in connection with dredges. We have operating on the Fraser river two dredges. It was news to me that there were four of them, when the minister said so a minute ago. But the two dredges operating on the Fraser river-and I think sometimes in Nanaimo and sometimes at Victoria-are not sufficient at all for the work in British Columbia.
Those dredges are forty-five or fifty years old, and they are inadequate. I should like the minister seriously to tell hon. members from
British Columbia-not myself particularly, because we are all interested in the matter- when we are to have modern dredges, fit and able to keep up with the work required. I know he was presented with a large brief by the New Westminster board of trade, and they set out just what industry's position was in regard to water transportation and dredging requirements. I am not going to read into the record what these firms have said, because it will take too much time. But if the minister has read it-and I hope he has-he .will realize that there is great need for modern dredges for the Fraser river.
During the period of the war a great deal of work was done by these dredges, with the result that siltation took place on the river. In many places industries were entirely blocked because, as is well known, thousands of tons of fine silt or sand come down the Fraser river every year, and are deposited at various places along the bank. If this is not taken out this year, twice as much will have to be taken out next year. Many places have become almost impassable for boats, so far as reaching the wharves is concerned.
We are years behind the time, and I would ask the minister to give some assurance that the matter of new dredges will be looked into and considered seriously-not just by saying, "Oh, well, after the session is over we will give the matter some consideration." Appeals have been made to him for the last three or four years, and we were told that the war was on. But, as the hon. member for Nanaimo has said, the war is now over, and we want to cash in by getting some results.
I would appreciate it if the minister would give us some assurance as to what will be done in the matter of dredges. I would refer, too, to the railway bridge across the Fraser river at New Westminster. Siltation has been taking place until it has become an expensive item to keep that part of the river dredged. This year it was suggested that a model be set up by the national research council, with a view to finding out what steps could or should be taken to keep that portion of the river free from silting up. It has become so serious that it would be necessary to keep a dredge working continuously at that one spot, if satisfactory results were to be obtained.
I do not know whether the minister has seen the model, but one of his engineers took me to see it in operation. I suggest that that model is in the wrong place. No man who has seen the Fraser river only once, and then has returned to Ottawa and attempts to carry out his experiments three thousand miles away,
Supply-Public Works

can operate successfully. 1 suggest 'that if the minister has any say at all, so far as ithe national research council is concerned, he should ask that this model and the experimentation be taken out to British Columbia, so that the work could be carried on more effectively than it can be done here, so fax from the coast.
Mr. CRU1CKSHANK: It being so close to seven o'clock, may I call it seven o'clock?


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish-


Thomas Reid: I should have an answer in connection with this matter of dredging. Monday morning it will be forgotten.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will bring it up again.


Alphonse Fournier: I have hadl a discussion about, not four new dredges, but one new dredge on the coast. I thought that would be a good start. We are looking into the matter and, without giving a definite assurance, I may tell the hon. member 'that we will consider most seriously the construction of a new dredge.
As to the silt near the bridge, and the model mentioned, I must admit I have not seen the model.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: It does not mean anything, anyway.


Alphonse Fournier: I might ask the national research council if they would send the model to British Columbia.
Mr. GIBS'ON (Comox-Alberni): It is made out of plasticine.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not very well acquainted with the model, or the condition of silt under the bridge. But I shall have my engineer, who showed the hon. member the model, see if it can be sent out, to help work out there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the committee rise, and report the resolution.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 7.00 p.m.
[Mr. Reid.3
Monday, August 12, 1946