1953-04-08

Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is (a) the value; (b) the quantity of (i) bacon; (ii) cheese; (iii) eggs; (iv) other farm products, which have been respectively purchased from, or secured from the British European supply lines and the American supply lines for the 27th Canadian infantry brigade and the Royal Canadian Air Force air division, during the last six months?


Mr. Blanchette:: Cost of rations obtained from British and American European supply lines are based on an agreed rate for each man per day. Consequently, Department of National Defence records do not show the value of total quantities of foodstuffs received. The following information has been supplied by the appropriate British and American authorities.
(a) Issued to 27 CIB in Europe from British supply installations during the period July 1952-January 1953 inclusive;
Value
Bacon, mild cured	$46,162.09
Bacon, tinned ....	1,506.28
Cheese, crated ...	8,598.06
Cheese, tinned . ..	948.42
Eggs	 42,288.69
(b) Issued to the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe from U.S. supply installations during the period July 1952-January 1953, inclusive:
Value	Qty.
Bacon	
$2,654.18	6,169 lbs.Cheese	
517.00	1,150 lbs.Eggs	
6,924.63	174,168	units


NATIONAL DEFENCE, RECRUITING  ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES
Mr. Argue:: How much did the Department of National Defence in 1952 pay for advertising in connection with recruiting campaigns to each of the following: Ronalds Advertising Agency, Ltd., Montreal, Mac-Laren Advertising Company, Ltd., Toronto, Walsh Advertising Company, Ltd., Windsor, Ontario, J. J. Gibbons Ltd., Regina, Stewart Lovick, Calgary, MacLaren Advertising Company, Ltd., Vancouver, MacLaren Advertising Company, Ltd., Winnipeg?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: No payments are made by the Department of National Defence to advertising agencies for placing advertising.
The agencies derive their revenue from commissions paid to them by newspapers, magazines, other periodicals, and radio and television stations which publish or broadcast the advertising material. For bookkeeping purposes, payment of funds owing to periodicals and to radio stations is in most cases made through the advertising agency concerned, which then remits the amount concerned to the publication or the broadcasting company.
Following is a summary of payments made through advertising agencies for recruiting advertising during the calendar year 1952:
Qty.
119,300 lbs. 2,892 lbs. 31,867 lbs. 2,838 lbs. 1,032,316 units
Advertising Agency	Amount
Ronalds Advertising Agency Ltd	 $752,917.38
17,568.57
MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd	
Walsh Advertising Co. Ltd. (for advertisements in the French language publications and broadcasts are placed through Yves Bouressa, Montreal
director)	
J. J. Gibbons Ltd	 142.19
6,795.99
1,265.96
7,733.72
7,167.24
James Lovick & Co	 944.33
3,852.28
Total


$ 770,485.95 696,385.46 698,150.83 23,105.10 4,796.61 $2,192,923.95 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	When were the armouries in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, built?
2.	When was the last major addition built to such armouries?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	No information.
2.	No major addition has been made in recent years but the armoury has been kept in good repair and, from time to time, additional facilities have been provided to keep it up to standard. For instance, in 1950 prefabricated storage sheds were added, in 1951 a new heating system was installed and in 1952 the roof was renewed.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How	many	permanent	civil	servants	areemployed in each of the following annual salary brackets: (a) less than $1,860; (b) $1,860 to $2,240; (c)	over $2,240	to	$2,480;	(d)	over	$2,480	to	$2,780;(e)	over $2,780	to	$3,130;	(f)	over	$3,130	to	$3,480;(g)	over $3,480	to	$3,830;	(h)	over	$3,830	to	$4,860;
(i) over $4,860 to $6,860; (j) over $6,860?
2.	How	many	temporary	civil	servants	areemployed in each of the following annual salary brackets: (a) less than $1,860; (b) $1,860 to $2,240; (c)	over $2,240	to	$2,480;	(d)	over	$2,480	to	$2,780;(e)	over $2,780	to	$3,130;	(f)	over	$3,130	to	$3,480;(g)	over $3,480	to	$3,830;	(h)	over	$3,830	to	$4,860;
(i) over $4,860 to $6,860; (j) over $6,860?
3.	How	many	seasonal	civil	servants	areemployed in each of the following salary brackets: (a) less than $1,860; (b) $1,860 to $2,240; (c)	over $2,240	to	$2,480;	(d)	over	$2,480	to	$2,780;(e)	over $2,780	to	$3,130;	(f)	over	$3,130	to	$3,480;(g)	over $3,480	to	$3,830;	(h)	over	$3,830	to	$4,860;
(i) over $4,860 to $6,860; (j) over $6,860?


Mr. Lesage:: 1 and 2.
With the consent of the hon. member, the following salary brackets are substituted for those asked in the question, as the records of the treasury board are maintained in such a manner as to provide these brackets more readily.
Annual	As at February 28,1953
salary	(1)	(2)$ 0-1,799 	. 1,193	14,2691,800-1,899 	. 225	2,6091,900-1,999 	. 98	1,4452,000-2,099 	. 412	3,9082,100-2,199 	. 881	3,9532,200-2,299 	. 1,593	5,9562,300-2,399 	. 520	2,3262,400-2,499 	. 5,004	7,1962,500-2,599 	. 1,549	2,7892,600-2,699 	. 1,895	2,6072,700-2,799 	. 5,671	2,9272,800-2,899 	. 3,954	1,0502,900-2,999 	. 3,346	1,7593,000-3,099 	. 1,438	7553,100-3,199 	. 7,065	1,4173,200-3,299 	. 901	717Annual	As at February 28,1953	salary	(1)	(2)3,300-3,399 	.. 1,971	5083,400-3,499 	.. 3,302	6443,500-3,599 	. . 576	3813,600-3,699 	. . 1,799	4373,700-3,799 	. . 868	3603,800-3,899 	. . 1,119	4123,900-3,999 	. . 585	1474,000-4,099 	. . 740	2124,100-4,199 	. . 721	2294,200-4,299 	. . 931	2814,300-4,399 	. . 567	974,400-4,499 	. . 409	1234,500-4,599 	.. 552	904,600-4,699 	. . 446	1014,700-4,799 	. . 450	304,800-4,899 	. . 687	1494,900-4,999 	. . 164	655,000-5,099 	.. 280	285,100-5,199 	.. 314	615,200-5,299 	. . 599	545,300-5,399 	, . 174	205,400-5,499 	, . 67	235,500-5,599 	, . 344	845,600-5,699 	, . 135	125,700-5,799 	. . 68	45,800-5,899 	. . 89	335,900-5,999 	. 275	506,000-6,099 	.. 38	146,100-6,199 	. 59	146,200-6,299 	. 170	426,300-6,399 	,. 38	126,400-6,499 	. 65	156,500-6,599 	. 173	256,600-6,699 	. 46	136,700-6,799 	. 11	76,800-6,899 	. 49	166,900 and over .	,. 671	170
Note: The offices of the treasury board do not maintain individual records of employment for prevailing rate employees. The needs of the service generally are met by the maintenance of records indicating the rate applicable to each prevailing rate class by location and total numbers employed as well as total earnings by department.
3.	At the present time, federal government seasonal employment is at a low point. Complete records with respect to summer seasonal employment will not be available for several months.


MILITARY COLLEGE, ST. JEAN  SELECTION BOARD
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Has a selection board been established for the military college at St. Jean?
2.	If so, what are the names of its members?
3.	What are their qualifications?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Candidates for admission to the service colleges or the regular officer training plan

this year will each appear before one of six interview boards to be held at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. Members of these boards are appointed each year and consist of an officer from each service and a faculty member from one of the service colleges. Arrangements are made to interview candidates in either French or English.
The recommendations are forwarded to the joint services university Canadian services colleges committee at national defence headquarters for review.
After consideration, the recommendations are passed to the personnel members committee who select the most highly qualified candidates to fill the limited number of available vacancies. The decision of P.M.C. is passed to the Minister of National Defence for final approval.
2 and 3. The members are: A/V/M F. G. Wait (the air member for personnel), Maj.-Gen. W. H. S. Macklin (the adjutant general), Maj.-Gen. P. E. Bernatchez (G.O.C. Quebec command who is added to the committee when it sits to select candidates for the service colleges), Rear Admiral H. Pullen (chief of naval personnel), Mr. J. A. Sharpe (assistant deputy minister for personnel and administration) and Mr. E. B. Armstrong (assistant deputy minister for finance).


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE CARS
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	How many miles are cars supplied to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police generally driven before they are replaced?
2.	Is this policy the same as that which obtains in other departments of government?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	In the past year cars supplied to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been driven an average total of 74,039 miles before being replaced.
2.	Generally speaking, yes. The policy of replacement is that cars are to be driven 100,000 miles, but replacement prior to that mileage is left to the discretion of the government motor vehicles committee as a matter of administration.


BARRISTERS, ETC.  FEES PAID
John George Diefenbaker: What are the names and addresses of the barristers, solicitors and advocates to whom fees in excess of $5,000 have been paid, and the amount paid to each of them respectively, by all departments of government, since the first day of January, 1951?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking to my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre regarding this question and I
Questions
think we can secure the information which will serve his purpose with the expenditure of very much less time and effort if the question is reworded as follows:
What are the names and addresses of barristers, solicitors, and advocates to whom each department of the federal government has paid fees in excess of $1,000, showing the amount paid to each of them by the respective departments?


John George Diefenbaker: I accept that.


Mr. Speaker:: Question 32 will be reworded and will stand.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES   MONTREAL-ST. JOHN'S
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	What was the average number of passengers carried daily by Trans-Canada Air Lines with North Star equipment, since the daily service was inaugurated on April 27, 1952, between Montreal and St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	What has been the average number of passengers carried daily by the two daily DC-3 flights between Montreal and Newfoundland?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to answer this question in its present form. There is a good deal of information available on the subject and I have given that information to the hon. member; but because of the difficulty of getting information in the precise form asked for I would ask that the question be dropped.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
AIRCRAFT APPLIANCES & EQUIPMENT LIMITED


Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Aircraft Appliances & Equipment Limited, 71 Kipling ave., S., West Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 25; (b) 100 per cent.
3.	No.


CANADIAN STEEL IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Canadian Steel Improvements Limited, 41 Horner avenue, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?

Questions


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 350; (b)	100 per
cent.
3.	No.


CANNON ELECTRIC (CANADA) LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Cannon Electric (Canada) Limited, 2451 Danforth avenue, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 130; (b) 100 per cent.
3.	No.


D. R. CLARKE ENGINE CO. LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1- Is D. R. Clarke Engine Company Limited, 2462 Dufferin street, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 40.
(b) Approximately 90 per cent.
3.	No.


CROTHERS ENGINEERING LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Crothers Engineering Limited, 1181 Sheppard avenue, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 148.
(b) Approximately 60 per cent.
3.	No.


DOWTY EQUIPMENT OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Dowty Equipment of Canada Limited, Ajax, engaged in defence work?

2.	H so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 284.
(b) 100 per cent.
3.	Yes.


GRAHAM BELL ENAMELLING LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Graham Bell Enamelling Limited, Streets-ville, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 60.
(b) Approximately 70 per cent.
3.	No.


T. W. HAND FIREWORKS CO. LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is T. W. Hand Fireworks Company Limited, Cooksville, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 140.
(b) Approximately 74 per cent.
3.	No.


INAERCO LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Inaerco Limited, 10 Sword street, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 35.
(b) Approximately 78 per cent.
3.	No.


KENTING AVIATION LIMITED
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Kenting Aviation Limited, 1450 O'Connor drive, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 32.
(b) Approximately 80 per cent.
3.	No.


LAKESHORE PRECISION GAUGE WORKS LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Lakeshore Precision Gauge Works Limited, 100 Niagara street, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 40.
(b) 100 per cent.
3.	No.


PEERLESS ENGINEERING LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Peerless Engineering Limited, 132 Brandon avenue, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 75.
(b) Approximately 88 per cent.
3.	No.


PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CORPORATION LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Photographic Survey Corporation Limited, 1450 O'Connor drive, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this
Questions
plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 100.
(b) Approximately 65 per cent.
3.	No.


PRENCO PROGRESS ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Prenco Progress Engineering Corporation Limited, 72 Stafford street, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 65.
(b) Approximately 80 per cent.
3.	No.


TORONTO ENGINE WORKS LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Toronto Engine Works Limited, 2 Laird drive, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 35.
(b) Approximately 87 per cent.
3.	No.


X-RAY AND RADIUM INDUSTRIES LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is X-Ray and Radium Industries Limited, 261 Davenport road, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 30.
(b) Approximately 60 per cent.
3.	No.

Questions


PHOENIX ENGINEERED PRODUCTS LTD.
Mr. Croll:: 1.	Is Phoenix Engineered Products Limited, 750 Lawrence avenue, Toronto, engaged in defence work?
2.	If so, approximately how many employees are engaged substantially in production for defence and approximately what percentage of the output of this plant is for defence?
3.	Has an application been made to the Minister of Defence Production for certification of this plant, in whole or in part, as a defence plant within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 360.
(b) Approximately 95 per cent.
3.	No.


WHEAT, NO. 6 AND FEED
Mr. Ross (Souris):: What number of bushels of No. 6 wheat and what number of bushels of feed wheat, in each of the crop years 1950-51 and 1951-52, each listed separately, were purchased by all elevator companies in western Canada from the farmers at country elevator points?


George James McIlraith: Grades*	1950-51	1951-52
No. 6 ...	47,305,826-30 31,633,868-05
Feed ...	29,903,290-20	6,951,784-30
* Includes straight grades, toughs, 'damps and all other off grades of No. 6 or feed.


UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	How many Canadians are serving in the various branches of the United Nations Organization?
2.	What are the names of such persons and with what sections and where are they serving?


Mr. Claxion:: 1.	According to the latest information received from the secretariat of the United Nations, there are 155 Canadians serving in the secretariat.
2.	Of the 155 Canadians serving with the United Nations secretariat there are 51 professional staff and 102 classified as general service serving in New York. In addition, there is one Canadian with United Nations headquarters at Geneva and one with economic commission for Latin America. Further information as to the names and sections in which personnel are serving has been published in United Nations document ST/ AFS/R.5 of October 7, 1952. Information as to the numbers of Canadians serving in the specialized agencies and other bodies related to the United Nations is being sought.


ARMY APPRENTICE BRANCH ENLISTMENTS
Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many applications for enlistment have been received since January 1, 1953 to date, from youths wishing to enlist in the apprentice branch of the army?
2.	How many applicants, by provinces or military districts, have been accepted?
3.	What was the youngest age of those enlisting?
4.	Was parent's consent given in all cases?
5.	How many of the recruits were attending school at time of enlistment?
6.	What is the wage paid to these recruits?
7.	In what provinces are the training schools located?


Mr. Blancheile:: 1.	The first group of privates apprentice were taken into the army in December, 1952; a total of 423 applications for enlistment were received up to that date. The next intake will be in July, 1953, and 15 applications for enlistment have been received thus far since January 1, 1953.
2.	The first intake by provinces: Newfoundland, nil; Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 17; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 23; Ontario, 57; Manitoba, 4; Saskatchewan, 6; Alberta, 2; British Columbia, 8.
3.	16 years of age.
4.	Regulations require that the written consent of parent or guardian must be given and no case has been brought to attention where this was not done.
5.	Information not available.
6.	The basic pay of a private apprentice is $44 per month in addition to subsistence, board, clothing, medical and dental care, etc. On reaching 17th birthday he draws the basic rate of a private which is $87 and, as he qualifies, he becomes eligible to draw 2nd and 1st class privates' pay which is $91 and $98 respectively, receiving also subsistence, board, clothing, medical and dental care, etc.
7.	Training schools are located in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.


WHEAT PURCHASES BY ELEVATOR COMPANIES
Mr. Argue:: 1.	How much wheat was purchased by each elevator company at country elevator points, during the crop years 1950-51 and 1951-52?
2. How many bushels of each grade of wheat from No. 1 to feed wheat and including tough, damp and rejected grades, were purchased by each company in each of the above years?


George James McIlraith: To give the information requested in this question would disclose the competitive position of each elevator company. It has never been the practice to give that information, and I would therefore ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. Coldwell:: Might I ask that the question be allowed to stand until the hon. member for Assiniboia returns?


George James McIlraith: There is no objection to allowing the question to stand until the hon. member returns.
Question stands.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES, QUEBEC
Mr. Lafonlaine:: What amounts were paid as family allowances in the province of Quebec, during the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?


Mr. Marlin:: Calendar year:	1945,	$38,161,282;	1946,$80,990,109;	1947,	$87,097,709;	1948,	$88,-
831,366.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT INSURANCE
Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: 1.	Is fire insurance carried by the Post Office Department on contents of the post offices at Dorchester, Ontario, Byron, Ontario, and Thorn-dale, Ontario? If so, how much is carried and with what companies is the insurance placed?
2.	Is theft insurance carried by the Post Office Department on the contents of post offices at the above mentioned places? If so, (a) what is the maximum amount of insurance that is carried on each; (b) what is the premium paid on each; (c) to what companies are the premiums paid?
3.	In the case of theft insurance where the loss is greater than the maximum amount of insurance carried, who sustains the loss?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.


GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY, N.S.  RURAL MAIL ROUTE
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	When were last tenders called for rural mail route Aspen and Caledonia via New Town, Guys-borough county, Nova Scotia?
2.	When were tenders received, giving (a) name of tenderers; (b) amount of each tender?
3. Who held the previous contract, stating amount?
4. To whom has contract been let, stating amount?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	February 3, 1953.
2.	February 27, 1953;
(a) and (b) Sterling Manson MacKeen, Aspen, $1,800; Stuart Ellis McKeen, Aspen, $1,950; Sterling Manson MacKeen, Aspen, $1,950; James Everett Kirk, Aspen, $2,080; Frederick McGrath, Aspen, $2,099; Fraser McGrath, Aspen, $2,299; Ross MacDonald Archibald, Glenelg, $2,480.
3.	Fraser McGrath, $2,700.
4.	The contract has not yet been awarded.
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence, in recent years, acquire property on Haultain street, Victoria, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what was the extent of this property?
3.	From whom was it obtained?
4.	If purchased, what was the price paid?
5.	For what purpose was the land acquired?
6.	Is the government, through crown assets corporation, offering this property for sale?
7.	If so, under what terms?
8.	Was it the intention of the Department of National Defence at any time to construct a training centre for auxiliary units of the Royal Canadian Air Force, on this property?
9.	Was there an understanding that this property was to be retained for the Royal Canadian Air Force?
10.	What provision is now being made to accommodate Royal Canadian Air Force units and air cadets in Victoria, British Columbia?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Return tabled.



CRIMINAL CODE, INDICTABLE OFFENCES

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	How many charges have been laid for indictable offences, under the Criminal Code, in each province of Canada, during the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952?
2.	How many convictions were obtained, as a result of the said charges, in each of the said provinces, during each of the above mentioned years?
3.	What was the nature of the offences for which convictions were obtained in each of the said provinces, during each of the above mentioned years?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



HALIFAX


Mr. Balcom:: What cash grants have been given Halifax city in lieu of taxes by the federal government for the fiscal year 1952-53?



MR. D. LAHIRI

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has a Mr. D. Lahiri been employed in the Department of Defence Production?
2.	If so, during what period was he in the employ of the department?
3.	Of what nationality is the said Mr. Lahiri?
4.	Does he, or has he at any time held military rank?
5.	If he is no longer in the employ of the department, for what reasons were his services dispensed with?
6.	Were his passages to and from Canada assisted? If so, to what extent did he receive financial assistance?
7.	What salary did he receive while employed by the department?
8.	Was he screened for communist activities before being given employment?
9.	Is the present whereabouts of Mr. Lahiri known?

Inquiries of the Ministry MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



TELEVISION LICENCE, HAMILTON

Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of a letter or letters sent by the Department of Transport on or about February 16, 1953, to the broadcasting consultants on its approved list, outlining the conditions or limitations to be met in connection with any application for a licence for a television station in the Hamilton area.


Mr. Chevrier:: Tabled herewith.



REPORTS BY AUDITOR GENERAL

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a return showing all observations or references to actions considered irregular in the administration of public funds noted by the Auditor General and/or those acting on his behalf in the execution of the responsibility of the Auditor General to this house since March 1, 1950, and not included in the Auditor General's reports to parliament in that period, covering all branches of: (a) the Department of National Defence; (b) Defence Production Limited; (c) Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
He said: The Minister of Finance was kind enough to show me a memorandum in connection with this motion which he had received from the Auditor General. I have since spoken to the Auditor General, and to get the information I have in mind it would be necessary to reword the motion, so I am asking that it be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is
the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce in a position to make some report on the progress of the international wheat conference and the likelihood of an agreement being arrived at?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the situation is unchanged in that negotiations are proceeding, but I will now answer one question asked earlier by the hon. member and report that I am optimistic about the prospect for a contract being arrived at eventually.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Is
the parliamentary assistant prepared to comment on the statement in the St. John's Daily News, relative to interference with Newfoundland fishermen by foreign trawlers?
[Mr. Pearkes.l


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East was good enough to give me advance notice of his intention to ask this question. The department has been keeping close watch on the operations of foreign trawlers and drag-gers on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. Several French, Portuguese, Spanish and one German fishing vessel have been reported in the area, but from on-the-spot observations there is no evidence that they have operated inside Canadian territorial waters. Over a month ago the department arranged with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to patrol the area with the motor vessel MacBrien. At that time no foreign trawlers or draggers were sighted. Since then the department has kept the area under observation and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police patrol vessel has been instructed to again cruise the area. The department's own vessel, the motor vessel Arctioa, has been dispatched to the southwest coast and within the next week or ten days, following her annual overhaul and refit, the department's large protection vessel, the motor vessel Cygnus, will be assigned to patrol the southwest section of the Newfoundland coast.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday the hon. member for Queens asked the following question:
Has the government or the Minister of Transport refused permission to the Northumberland Ferries Limited to operate a third boat on the Wood island-Caribou route in order to provide an interim service pending replacement by a new boat which is to be constructed by the federal government? If this statement is correct, as reported in the press, we should know why permission was not granted.
The answer to the question is, no, neither the minister nor the government refused permission for the operation of a third boat. As the hon. member knows, these matters are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian maritime commission, and the Canadian maritime commission has suggested to Northumberland Ferries Limited that, pending the construction of the boat, they operate a third ship on a two-year contract basis. Thus far the company has not indicated its intention of accepting that suggestion.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to ask a question arising out of the answer just given. It would still be open to Northumberland Ferries to negotiate with the government, because in the matter

of transportation problems they cannot be passed over to a commission. The government must deal with the Prince Edward Island government.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know if that is
intended as a question, but if it is the answer again is no. The body that is responsible for negotiations in this case is the Canadian maritime commission, and it is with that body that Northumberland Ferries should negotiate.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



EXCISE AND SALES TAXES


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of this opportunity to place before the house a motion which would give hon. members on both sides an opportunity to express their opinion in regard to a subject that has already been before the hon. members of this house at another time, but in regard to which they were denied an opportunity to record their opinion. It will not be necessary to discuss this matter at any length because the views of the members have been put forward on earlier occasions in regard to the particularly onerous effect of excise taxes and sales taxes upon municipal councils and school boards.
On an earlier occasion it was said that this subject has been discussed a number of times. It has. However, the members of this house during the present session have seen, on different occasions, the beneficial results of repeated requests for consideration of subjects which were able to commend themselves to the good judgment of the members of this house. When this subject was before us on an earlier occasion it was indicated that there would be difficulties in the way of working out plans for the exemption of municipal councils and school boards from the impact of these taxes. It does not seem that this objection has any valid foundation. It would be a very simple matter to make the necessary arrangements once a decision was made. As every cent of money spent on the purchase of machinery and other equipment by municipal councils and school boards represents money raised by taxation, this is a form of tax on tax which creates a very severe burden. I would point out that at this very time, in different parts
Excise and Sales Taxes of Canada, educational authorities are emphasizing their difficulty in meeting the increasing cost of education. We are told that it is difficult for school boards to provide the money for teachers because of the amount they are required to spend for the building and equipment of their schools. A considerable part of that expense is made up of excise tax and sales tax imposed by this government on purchases representing taxes already collected from the municipal taxpayers.
The fact that this is an unjust form of taxation has been recognized in the case of the provincial governments. Exemption is provided to the provincial governments with respect to all purchases of this kind. The same principle should apply with equal force to the municipal councils and school boards which are buying equipment, machinery and other things of that kind needed in the daily requirements of the people, either for education or for the ordinary services to the community.
In view of the fact that our position has been clearly stated on another occasion, I leave my remarks there and present the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"whereas the present policies of the government impose a heavy and unjust burden of taxation on municipal taxpayers;
This house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation which will provide for the exemption of all municipal councils and school boards from the payment of excise taxes including the 10 per cent sales tax on all purchases of machinery and other equipment, and which will further provide for taxation of all federal government properties in municipalities on the same basis as that of ordinary municipal taxpayers."


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the amendment this afternoon because we have taken much the same view as that which has been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and others during the course of the budget debate. In discussing agricultural problems yesterday I mentioned some figures which indicated that between 1939 and 1952 the taxes on farm buildings and farm lands had increased by approximately 200 per cent. What is true of the increase in taxation in rural municipalities is equally true in the villages, the towns and the cities across Canada. It seems to me that this government or this parliament-for it is, of course, parliament which imposes the taxes, although the government suggests
3608	HOUSE OF
Excise and Sales Taxes them-should not inflict taxes upon the junior governments knowing, as we all do in this house, the difficulties which the junior governments have in meeting the increased costs of municipal services, and particularly the increased costs of education.
We hear a great deal about the increased costs of education, Mr. Speaker, but may I say that educational costs in the past have been relatively low and our schools and our teaching staffs have been more or less starved financially, with the result that we have in the country many obsolete schools and many overburdened teachers. Indeed, there are shortages of teachers in many parts of Canada. After all, the future of our country depends, to a large extent-particularly in the times in which we live-on the ability of the individual to understand what is going on and to make his own appraisals of situations which may arise. That fact means that we must have a thoroughly competent educational system.
May I also say that in many of our municipalities health conditions are far from satisfactory. In the past, with their limited taxation powers, many municipalities, villages and even urban centres in this country have had a deplorable level of sanitation, a situation which reacts against the health of the people who reside in the towns and the villages of Canada. I think that one gesture we can make is the one outlined in the amendment this afternoon, namely the remission of the right to tax local property in the municipalities and in the provinces. I think also that the amendment might have been accompanied by the suggestion that equipment brought into the country from abroad, for use in the municipalities and so on, should be exempt from any import duties.
But this is only a gesture. We know perfectly well that the taxes on land and real property are today not only oppressive but are preventing the building of suitable homes. I know of young people who have looked around this city, for example, and have chosen what they consider to be a location that would be fairly acceptable to them but who, when they asked what the taxes would be, have decided that they could not afford to carry the costs of building and to look forward to paying not only the taxes that now exist but also the local improvement taxes that would be placed on that property when paving and sewerage are given to the property.


An hon. Member:: And water.


Major James William Coldwell: Usually they have water facilities.


I therefore want to support this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I not only support it on my own behalf but I know I am supporting it on behalf of the C.C.F. party in this house. We have made this suggestion with others. I am not taking credit for suggesting this action. We have suggested it with others in this house from time to time, and I am confident that in all parts of the house hon. members have a great deal of sympathy for the suggestion that has been made. I hope that hon. members who have that sympathy, wherever they may sit, will rise in their places and by their vote this afternoon will show that they support the proposal.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, members of the Social Credit group will support this motion. I think it is fitting to draw attention to the fact that the whole nation is suffering at the present time because of an extensive increase in costs which has been brought on by the very policies of the government at present in power.
The rise in prices began in 1946 with the $5 increase in the price of steel, and the consequent strike of the steel workers for an increase in their wages. The federal government permitted that increase in steel prices and consequently had to assume responsibility for all the increases which have resulted from the increase in the price of steel. While the nation now is suffering from the high costs which are resulting from those very policies, to levy a tax on machinery and other materials required by the individual municipalities-which will make them pay not only the increase in price but a tax on it-is something which I think constitutes an extreme of injustice. It must be borne in mind also that not only have we had an excessive increase in prices, in the cost of living, in the cost of housing, in the cost of rent, as well as taxation on the individual members, but we have also excessive taxation by the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably I should draw to the attention of the house the fact this motion deals with taxation on municipal taxpayers and suggests:
That immediate consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation which will provide for the exemption of all municipal councils and school boards from the payment of excise taxes . . .
I think hon. members should direct their remarks to that feature of the amendment.


John Horne Blackmore: I agree with that entirely, Mr. Speaker, and if you had waited another minute you would have found me right on that particular subject.


Major James William Coldwell: An admission that you were off the subject.


John Horne Blackmore: Right on the subject, only the Speaker could not recognize it because he did not give me time to say what I was going to say. Now, because of the fact that the individual members of the community are already suffering a tremendous burden of taxation levied by the federal government they are in a much less competent position to stand additional taxation in the municipality which results from a 10 per cent levy on all the goods which are required. Let hon. members bear in mind, merely as an instance, the cost of removing snow in the ordinary municipality of Canada, and remember that all the machinery which is required for the removal of the snow is subject to tax. I think that is sufficient.
I do not wish to multiply words, to go into details; I only wish to point out that I believe the point taken by the Leader of the Opposition is very sound. We propose to support it.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Before the parliamentary assistant to the minister speaks I am sure he will not mind if I make a comment in this regard. The very fact that the federal government has seen fit to give this advantage to the provincial governments would seem to indicate to me that the time has now arrived when they should consider extending this same privilege to the municipalities.
In the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition he is asking that the government give consideration to extending this to the municipalities. I feel that I can support that amendment for the reason that I believe that consideration should be given by this government to extending this exemption to the municipalities, and also to reviewing the present exemption which they have been giving to the provinces. I can well appreciate what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has said, namely, that there will be great difficulties of administration in seeing that such concessions are not abused. Perhaps there is some measure of justice in what he says, because I am not entirely convinced that it has not been abused to some extent by certain provinces in this country.
Because I believe that if the government would take this matter under consideration they might offer this extension in some form to the municipalities, I say that the matter is worthy of support, if only for the reason that it might clear up the present situation which I am not altogether satisfied is being properly dealt with.
Excise and Sales Taxes


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition at least on one point, namely, that this question has been discussed at length, especially on March 31, last. On that occasion the Minister of Finance made very clear what the position of the government is on this question. He added that this question had been and still was under consideration by the government.
The hon.	member for Rosetown-Biggar
(Mr. Coldwell) said that hon. members should	
feel free to	vote in accordance with their
personal opinion on this matter. May I point	
out to you,	sir, that as the Minister of
Finance said,	and I repeat, this question has
been constantly under review and consideration by the government, and he did not feel that the exemption suggested could be granted	
at this time.	
The amendment which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition is to a motion to go into supply, and that amounts to a motion of non-confidence in the government. May I end by saying that the two statements of	
the Minister	of Finance on the matter can
be found at	pages 3460 and following and
3486 and following of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?	
Some hon.	Members: Yes.
The house	divided on the amendment (Mr. Drew) which was negatived on the following	
division:	YEAS
	Messrs:
Blackmore	Higgins
Brooks	Jones
Browne (St. John's West) Macdonnell (Greenwood)	
Cardiff	Maclnnis
Casselman	MacLean (Queens)
Charlton	McLure
Churchill	Montgomery
Coldwell	Nose worthy
Diefenbaker	Pearkes
Fair	Poulin
Fleming	Quelch
Fraser	Rowe
Fulton	Starr
Gagnon	Thatcher
Gibson	Thomas
Gillis	Tustin
Graydon	White (Hastings-
Green	Peterborough)
Hees	White (Middlesex
Herridge	East)-38.
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Anderson	Black (Chateauguay-
Applewhaite	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Arsenault	Blanchette
Ashbourne	Boisvert
Balcom	Boivin

Supply-Public Works
Bonnier
Bourget
Bourque
Bradley
Breton
Brisson
Bruneau
Cameron
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Chevrier
Claxton .
Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)
Crestohl
Dechene
Denis
Deslieres
Dickey
Dupuis
Follwell
Fournier (Hull)
Fulford
Garson
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gauthier (Sudbury)
George
Gingras
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Harris
Helme
Henderson
Hosking
Howe
Hunter
James
Jeffery
Jutras
Kent
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Lapointe
Leduc
Lefrancois
Leger
Lesage
Little
MacNaught
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch
McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka)
Mcllraith Mclvor McMillan McWilliam * Major Maltais Martin Masse Monette
Murray (Oxford)
Mutch
Nadon
Nixon
Parent
Pinard
Pouliot
Proudfoot
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robertson
Robinson
Rochefort
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East)
Rousseau
Schneider
Smith (Moose Mountain) Smith (Queens-Shelburne)
Smith (York North)
Stick
Tremblay
Valois
Weir
Winkler
Winters-102.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Calherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Wylie:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Defence services-
241. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not 
exceeding $324,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection 3 of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection 3, and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,994,895,578 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,971,926,275 will come due for payment in future years), $1,960,159,633.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
249. Departmental administration, $1,001,677.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
.	320. Departmental administration, $671,905.
Mr. McLure:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be quite brief, but I had in mind a few things with which I should like to deal at the present time. I was surprised when I looked at the amounts we are being asked to vote for the Department of Public Works as I was under the impression that the total this year would be much less than last year owing to the fact that less building was being done. On several occasions I tried to find out if we were going to have a post office built and I was always told that there were three things that were required before that could be done, namely, steel, cement and lumber. I took it for granted that with all those materials being in short supply the vote for public works would be less than in other years. However, I find that there is an increase of nearly $6 million and I probably should have pushed to have a post office built at Charlottetown out of that extra $6 million.
Sometimes we on this side of the house are accused of asking for too much, but if sometimes we try to have needs of our constituencies fulfilled we always know that unless they feel kindly toward the constituencies, unless the government feels there is a possibility of winning in the constituencies, they do not treat us as well financially as they treat other places where they have better prospects. However, we are still going to continue to make our appeal for something that is essential and necessary in our constituency.
On many occasions the Minister of Public Works has promised definitely that a post office would be built. I think he has been.

making these promises for about ten years. In 1949 it was hung out before the electors in grand style. Plans were prepared for a great building that was to be built down there to handle all the different federal departments. Cuts of this great building appeared in the local newspapers and I am sure had an influence upon the public before the election.
They showed a wonderful building occupying a whole square and we were told we would have back again the Bank of Canada and some of the other things that had been taken away from us because there was not room. We were also to have recognition from the Post Office Department once this building was built and were to be given a zone of our own instead of being tacked on to New Brunswick because of there not being enough space in Charlottetown. I assume that that is one reason why we did not have a post office zone of our own.
After having bought a site for this immense building which they have promised over and over again, the government has gone into the retail renting business. Perhaps we can leave out the word "retail" and say that they have gone into the rental business. We find now that they have fifteen or twenty properties that they are renting. According to the terms of doing business with the federal government those cheques should be made payable to the department direct at Ottawa. I should like to know from the minister who is the collector of rentals and who is in charge of the properties at Charlottetown. I should like to know also the terms of the rentals of those properties.
Perhaps if we had this information we would have some idea when they expect to build this glorious building that they have been promising so long. I know that there may be an election within a year's time and they will want to hang this up again. They will want to act as Santa Claus for the election. However, I think this has been promised for so long that it has lost some of the glamour that it might otherwise have held for the electors of Queens.
There are other questions I want to ask but I shall wait until the proper items are before us. I should like to know from the minister how they are running this rental business down there and I should like to know just what moneys they receive from the rentals. If they are renting the properties according to what they paid for them they must be receiving a good deal in the way of rentals. I should like to know also how much they expended last year on repairs on this vast property that they bought.
Supply-Public Works
I will leave it at that for the time being until I get answers to my questions.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I am always pleased to listen to the hon. member for Queens. He said that I had promised a public building for Charlottetown ten years ago, but I will refresh his memory by telling him that it was only about eight years ago. When the hon. member came here in 1945 we both joined in making a dual promise to the people of the island. I made that in good faith and I am still acting in good faith. Then in 1949 we did promise that building again, but we were not able to put it up. The results were not very good.
I ask my hon. friend not to press it at this time if this is an election year. We do not want to make the people believe that they should vote for us because we are going to put up a building. I can give the hon. member some good news right now. Pending the construction of the building we do rent these properties, some to the provincial government. The architectural plans for this building are 80 per cent completed. The other plans are not quite so advanced, but we are starting to see the light. Along with my hon. friend, I hope that we will be able to get this building for these people. I feel that I have a certain responsibility seeing that I joined with the hon. member in making that promise to the people of Charlottetown. I would not want to let them down. When the plans are completed I shall recommend that there be the necessary item to cover the building. I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied. He can go back to Charlottetown, as I would myself, and say the same thing to the people there. I would hesitate to put in an amount of money right now when I know that I would not be able to expend it during this fiscal year.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Charlottetown has been given an answer in connection with a building promised some ten years ago.


Alphonse Fournier: Eight years.


Major James William Coldwell: I am thinking of a case in my constituency where the site was bought in 1938, which I believe is fifteen years ago.


Mr. Rowe:: It is outlawed now.


Major James William Coldwell: The amount has been in the estimates every year since 1938 but I am happy about it this year because in former years, I will not say in recent years but in former years, there was only $50,000 provided. This year there is $75,000 in the estimates and that gives me great hope. I do not know how far plans are advanced in

Supply-Public Works
connection with that project but, putting all humour aside, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that the premises are badly needed in that town. In places in Saskatchewan with less business than there is in the town of Biggar, which is a divisional point, premises have been erected by the government in recent years. I hope that my hon. friend from Queens will get his building and I am living in hopes, since the estimate has been increased by 50 per cent, that the minister is really determined to get in at least the foundations of this building- shall I put it this way-"before the snow flies".


Alphonse Fournier: We are making progress as you can see-50 per cent within a year. I still hope that we will have those plans completed and they are working on those plans in the department. The need is there, there is no doubt-and it was established in 1938, four years before I became a minister. I have more attachments to projects I undertake myself than to old projects made by other ministers but I am not forgetting that building. Even if I have put up other buildings in that province I do want to put one up in Biggar.
I do not neglect anybody and when we look at the house we see that there are 262 ridings, and I think I have done something for every riding.


Mr. Fleming:: Not for mine.


Alphonse Fournier: I did something not in Eglinton but in Toronto.


An hon. Member:: That is downtown.


Alphonse Fournier: I am perhaps more attentive to the people downtown than to those in uppertown but I am thinking of Toronto in my estimates. There is only one other word I would like to say. I would like to put up all of these buildings which are requested and needed at the same time all over the country, but I have found out that it is an impossibility. Even if my staff worked three shifts a day we could not begin to make up all of the works that are asked for in the country; but members will understand that we are making progress. You should travel around the country as I have every year or every second year; if you do you will see that we have done quite a bit of work since 1945 with the people we have to do the work and with the estimates which the house has so graciously granted to the Department of Public Works.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Public

Works (Mr. Fournier) for having allowed the rebuilding of the wharves at Bagotville and L'Anse St. Jean, as well as certain repairs to the wharves at Petit Saguenay and Grande Baie.
Unfortunately, these repairs are insufficient. So I wish to call these matters once more to the minister's attention and insist upon the urgency of having other repairs made to the wharves at Petit Saguenay, Ste. Rose du Nord and Grande Baie.
I also wish to remind him-as I have done many times already-of the need for a public building at Chicoutimi so that the post office as well as the offices of the different other departments of the government may have adequate accommodation. We find in this year's estimates an amount of $250,000 for this purpose. I hope that construction will start soon and that the people of Chicoutimi will, in the near future, be in a position to benefit from the use of an appropriate public building designed to give the services to which they are entitled.
I have also called the minister's attention to the need for a public building at Ha! Ha! Bay. The minister has received many requests from various chambers of commerce and municipal councils with regard to these projects. I simply wished to remind him of our needs and beg him not to forget us in 1953.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I take the hon. member's remarks in good part and, as I just said in English, if I could erect in the course of the same year all the buildings required in Canada, I would gladly do so and thus make my task much lighter for the years to come. Unfortunately it is impossible for me to do so. Every project has its importance and I trust that with time and patience we will be able to secure what we want for every part of Canada.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, now that we have reached the details where members are putting questions on specific items, we might carry the general item unless somebody has general remarks to make. We can pass on then and I will answer those questions when I have the proper book before me.


The Chairman:: Shall the first item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister a question and his answer will determine whether or not I make a long speech.


An hon. Member:: You had better be careful.


Clarence Gillis: I know the minister is always very co-operative and I know too that I like to accommodate him.
I would like to ask him if any recent representations have been made to his engineering branch in the matter of extending a wharf that exists in the city of Sydney and harbour, adjacent to the Dominion Atlantic Springs Company plant. I know that a request was made to me which I passed on to the minister's office,' and I think the engineering branch had a visit from the owner and operator of the Dominion Atlantic Springs Company. I do not see anything in the estimates although I have looked for something on this, but if the minister can tell me he is giving consideration to the matter and that he might bring in a supplementary estimate later I will be quite satisfied to remain in my seat.


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed that we did receive representations. The gentlemen interested in that company paid a visit to the office of the chief engineer and the deputy minister. The answer we gave was that we would instruct our engineers to look into the matter and consider it. With respect to committing the department to recommend an estimate this year, I must say that 1 have not enough information before me. My hon. friend knows that I take all of these requests very seriously-meaning that if he has a good case then he can expect a good decision. If the case is not strong enough then I will have to see him and explain to him personally what we think of it.


Clarence Gillis: I am quite satisfied. No speech.


Mr. Cardiff:: Was any report received by the department with regard to a wharf at Port Albert in the county of Huron?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told by my deputy minister that he cannot recall that we have had any request for a wharf at Port Albert. What is the population?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The population is not significant but has there been any consideration-


Alphonse Fournier: I can hardly discuss it at the moment.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It would be an exceptionally-


Alphonse Fournier: Now, listen; if you want some results give me the information you have and I will ask about the matter.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: One of your engineers was up there and investigated the thing and I wondered whether he had put in a report to the department.
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: I will ask my engineers, but my deputy, who is a very learned man, does not know of it.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I should like to ask a general question which applies to every branch of the minister's department. I should like to have an explanation of the reason for so many revotes, particularly in connection with the purchase and construction of public buildings. I have not had an opportunity of checking each province, but I have noticed that eight out of nine items listed under Newfoundland are revotes and amount to over $500,000; nine out of fourteen items for Nova Scotia are revotes and amount to $780,000; ten out of fifteen items for New Brunswick are revotes and amount to well over $1 million. I noticed that for Quebec there is a total of thirty-one revotes amounting to close to $5 million. What is the explanation for so many revotes? Was this money voted before the department was prepared to use the money or was more money voted than the department could make use of during the year? Is the minister asking for another $5 million for Quebec this year more than he is going to be able to spend or is the minister going to spend all these revotes this year? It is an appropriate year for spending on public works.


Alphonse Fournier: Everything the hon. gentleman has said has some weight except the last remark. I am not impressed by that. To my knowledge revotes have existed in the Department of Public Works since that department was created. If you know about the construction business, even building your own home or putting buildings on your farm, you fix a date to complete your project. About 90 per cent of the time you do not complete the job on that date which you have fixed, and that is my experience in public works. When we start off, we get requests for wharves, buildings and so forth. These requests originate with the member, the mayor, boards of trade and so forth. These requests are studied by our officials and we make a decision. Then, we try to make an estimate of the cost and the time it will take to construct this work. We prepare our estimates in November and they are tabled in January. Generally they are voted in June. This year is an exception because we did start the session in November.
Now, in general, the vote is passed in the last days of the session and receives royal assent. Then, the staff in the office starts the plans for these buildings or wharves, and plans take time. Perhaps we have an amount of $100,000 for that fiscal year and we spend perhaps $60,000 or perhaps $70,000. The

Supply-Public Works
whole construction will call for an expenditure of say $200,000, and we plan to expend the balance of $140,000 in the next fiscal year. We come before parliament and say, now this year we want $140,000. There is a revote in that of $40,000, and that means the work is under way. We have started to expend money, and we except to complete that construction in the following year.
We have construction projects under way for two, three and four years. Do not be surprised if you see these revotes continuing in these items because that is generally the case during the construction of these projects. No one in my department, or even in the house, has devised a way by which you would not have any revotes. I am not affected because even on my side of the house they say, "You bring up an estimate and you do not do the work." If you look up the estimates for Vietoria-Carleton you will see an item for a customs building in Andover, and that has been in the estimates for quite a while. We have purchased the site and prepared the plans, but I would have to look it up to see if the contract has been let. There will be a vote and a revote on that item until the construction is completed. What is wrong with that procedure? We do not spend the whole of the amount requested, but we need more for the next year. There is nothing irregular about that procedure for construction work.


Mr. McCann:: The votes lapse at the end of the fiscal year.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, that is why I am coming back here. At the end of the fiscal year any money not expended lapses, and I come back and say, I did not spend this $40,000, will you revote it. That is why I am interested in Charlottetown. We have been revoting the amount so often that I am sure now everybody agrees with the hon. gentleman.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister's explanation does not quite satisfy me. If you turn to page 396 of these estimates you will see that listed under New Brunswick there are eight items on the page which are revotes.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not like to interrupt, but would the hon. member mind asking his question when we get to the vote for that province. I shall have the book then and I can give him an answer on each item.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I shall ask the minister about each province.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I want to say one word about my part of the city of Ottawa. As everyone knows, at one time there were

a great many public buildings in that part of the city but now I am left with the doubtful honour of having the Department of National Revenue, the mint and the archives, none of which are new buildings. The remainder of the Sussex street area has been expropriated for parks. I think there has been too much concentration of building in one 'area, Mr. Chairman. This side of Wellington street is being loaded with buildings. At one time I thought there was some suggestion that we should spread buildings around the city.
I hope the minister will see my point. In addition to parks in the lower town area, we should dress it up with one or two public buildings just as we are dressing up the other parts of the city. The area is close to the centre of the city and close to the House of Commons, as well as other public buildings. It is not because there is any problem of distance involved, and I suggest to the minister that he might look into the possibility of locating future public buildings in that area.


Alphonse Fournier: I should like to say a word in answer to the hon. member. If my memory serves me right, about ^ 1947 parliament amended the Federal District Commission Act. I cannot recall if it is section 7 or section 8 which empowers the federal district commission, advised by the national planning board, to choose sites upon which public buildings will be erected. It is true that, after they make their report to council, council can turn down the recommendation. However, there are experts in these matters on these boards and commissions, so we generally follow their advice. The new buildings being erected in the capital are erected on sites recommended by these bodies which are advising the government. Perhaps as time goes on we can impress upon them that these buildings may be spread out in Ottawa East. I would favour having some buildings over on the other side-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The printing bureau.


Alphonse Fournier: That is one, but it is not completed yet. I am in the same situation as the hon. member for Queens. I do not know who is delaying my building, but it is far from being completed.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: How far is it from being completed?


Alphonse Fournier: That is a way of
expressing myself. Unless I give you the number of storeys that have been started-


William Joseph Browne: Give me the number of millions that you have spent on it.


Alphonse Fournier: I am going to give you all that and a lot more. I have all the information in the books here, and I will give it to you. You will see that it is not so many millions for the building we are putting up there. But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, may I ask if we should go into these details. They are most interesting, and this general discussion has lasted quite a long time.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I will not prolong the discussion for more than a minute. I just want to ask one question. But before I do so I want to make a comment because I was greatly interested in hearing the minister this afternoon refer to his good intentions. So far as I can make out, when we see these things in the estimates, they really express good intentions and not much more. May I remind the minister of the remark once made by a gifted colleague of mine, the late Arthur Smith, who said that the road to Hull was paved with good intentions.
I come back to what I asked the minister last night about the duplication of technical services, particularly architects. The minister last night gave me some instruction which I have since been following up. I realize, for example, why there are architects now in the Department of Justice because I have looked up the Penitentiary Act and I see that the Department of Justice have control of penitentiaries and so on. What I want to ask the minister is this. Let us take for example, Kingston, where there is a penitentiary; I have often walked past it but so far have always escaped. I presume that the minister will have representatives in Kingston either continuously or from time to time; and no doubt the Minister of Justice will also have representatives there from time to time. What I want to know is this. Is there any liaison between them? Do they know each other? Have they offices there that they would use or are they in splendid isolation? Does the man from the Department of Justice go down and carry on his business and does the man from the Department of Public Works go down and carry on his business? Do we have the pleasure of having these men going to and coming from Kingston and each working separately?
Although this is a difficult question to ask the minister to answer because we cannot alter the legislation even if we spend until six o'clock tonight on the matter, I should like to ask the minister whether he feels like expressing an opinion as to whether he thinks it is good common sense. He cannot answer that last question directly, but the minister has ways of answering questions
68108-229J
Supply-Public Works
by what I will call indirection which I always find interesting and which often are extremely illuminating.


Alphonse Fournier: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I should like to ask with regard to the general policy as to construction of buildings and the like. They arise out of the record made in the province of Saskatchewan by the Lunam Construction
361S

Supply-Public Works
Company. This company was more or less a fly-by-night proposition which established itself and received many hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of contracts.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to intervene, but may I say that I have a file on this matter. Would the hon. member wait until we reach that item?


John George Diefenbaker: I want to ask some
questions about it.


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly; when we get to the item.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a general subject for discussion now.


Alphonse Fournier: I will answer when we get to the item for the construction of the building in question.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister tell me when we get to Lunam Construction Company?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly I will.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister tell me which item it is?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. It is Qu'Appelle. Look under Saskatchewan, Qu'Appelle, and you will find an item. When we get to that item I will answer questions. I have a whole file here.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course Qu'Appelle is just one of many. This company had a number of contracts. Some of them have been completed. I want to find out one thing about this company. Who are the officials of the company and is there any system in effect in the Department of Public Works whereby contractors are bonded? Certainly the situation in regard to this company is one that is inexcusable. Merchants in various parts of Saskatchewan, suppliers of materials, on the assumption that they would be paid, advanced tens of thousands of dollars of credit to the Lunam Construction Company for materials. It is not only the Qu'Appelle business that is in question; there is the building in Regina and there are various other buildings that were built by this company as well.
In one or two cases-I have not the figures before me and I am speaking from memory, but my memory will not belie me on this matter-$40,000 or $50,000 worth of materials are not paid for, and these amounts are owing to suppliers in three or four cases. Yet when these merchants get in touch with the department the answer is, "The account has been paid". I want to know whether, in order to protect suppliers and the like, there is in 
effect in the Department of Public Works a bond; and if so, what bonds there are in connection with Lunam Construction Company. In the second place, I want to know what justification there is for departmental engineers or architects or the like to permit payments far in advance of the work actually done. In the case of the Lunam Construction Company, if the various contracts which this company had are completed, the Canadian people will have to expend at least $175,000 more than the contract price that was to be paid for the completion of these buildings by the company. That is aside altogether from labour costs.
Certainly what took place in connection with the buildings constructed by the Lunam Construction Company does not indicate that careful husbandry of public funds that one would expect. Why should a company be in a position to receive payment in advance of work sheets showing the work to have been done? To individuals who supply materials that go into the construction of these buildings why should protection not be afforded before payment is made to the contractor? This company, after receiving contracts for about a year and a half, went into insolvency. It objects to anyone's saying it went into bankruptcy for it did not commit any act of bankruptcy. It just failed to pay its creditors. Today there are in Saskatchewan merchants who, having contributed on the basis of credit which should be extended under government contracts, are in a position where they are going to lose unless something is done.
The minister says he will deal with Qu'Appelle in particular when we come to it, but I want to know now the total amount of the various contracts the Lunam Construction Company received from the Department of Public Works. What was the amount that the company undertook to do the work for? Was the work done as the result of tenders, and who are the responsible officials who in their carelessness advanced moneys to that company, defunct in fact, whether bankrupt in law, at a time when suppliers had a large amount of money coming to them? I should like to know the general principle upon which that was done.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman speaks of general principles. During this session he put two series of questions to the department. He received the answers.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Alphonse Fournier: He has them right in front of him.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I have not got them; I said that.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, I shall have to tell my officials to send you copies. They are all in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Alphonse Fournier: I was ready to discuss the item. This is the general item. All I am asking is to have the general item passed.


John George Diefenbaker: I will come right over and get the copies, because I have not got them.


Alphonse Fournier: Take a look at
Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: When you have them, send them over. I thought you had them.


Alphonse Fournier: I am ready to spend all the time you wish on that question when we pass this general item, which is the administration item. Right after that, if you wish, we will call the architectural branch, and I have all the explanations. It is not as sorry a story as the hon. gentleman paints. Could I have the general agreement of the committee to pass this item?


John George Diefenbaker: I want an answer to this simple question, Mr. Chairman. Did you have bonds?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Were there bonds?


Alphonse Fournier: I will give you all the information-


John George Diefenbaker: I want an answer to that.


Alphonse Fournier: In all these projects the hon. gentleman has mentioned public tenders were called for. In the eight cases that came to my attention public tenders were called for. They were competent tenderers. This company was not the only one. They were the lowest tenderers in every one of these cases, Prince Albert, Regina, Tisdale, Fort Qu'Appelle and so on. At Fort Qu'Appelle there was a new Indian hospital; at Regina a building for the unemployment insurance commission and at Fort Qu'Appelle a new public building. They were all tendered for. They had the lowest tender. Attached to the tenders was a ten per cent cash deposit by the tenderer, which is the guarantee from all these tenderers. We keep that 10 per cent as security. We sign a contract with the lowest tenderer. He proceeds with the work. Our officials in the field make progress reports. We make payments on those progress reports but keep a drawback of 10 per cent. Our guarantee as the work goes on is 20 per cent, and that is what the law and the regulations call for. What else does the hon. gentleman want to ask me on the general principle of contracts?
Supply-Public Works	.


John George Diefenbaker: So that 10 per cent of these contracts amounted to how much?


Alphonse Fournier: If you wait until we get to the item I shall be able to tell you. You want general principles now?


John George Diefenbaker: That information was not given.


Alphonse Fournier: Because it is not under this item. I cannot understand why hon. gentlemen do not want this item to go through so I may discuss the details of the other items. We are now on the general item, and I am going to give you general information. If you want the details let us get to the items.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister need not worry about our not wanting it to come up. I want it to come up, and the people of Saskatchewan want it to come up.


Alphonse Fournier: I am anxious to have it explained.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall deal with it when we come to the item, but at the moment I am trying to find the general principles. Where is the efficiency in a department that permits the payment to the Lunam Construction Company of an amount so large and so much in advance of the progress of the work that before these works can be completed it will cost over $170,000 extra. I have sent for the documents. The minister said he had them, and I shall be very glad to go over them.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman put the questions to us and we answered them. They are in Hansard. I have my own copies here which were prepared by the department. When the hon. gentleman comes here to discuss a case he should have the questions and answers that he received in the house. I do not think I should be called upon to do that for the hon. gentleman. I have my own file here, but I am not going to do his work at the same time. That is up to him. The general principle is to obtain tenders and to obtain the security I have given. Progress payments are made on the affidavit of the contractor and on the reports from our officials in the field, and we keep 10 per cent of the amount certified.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you also have bonds in order to protect you?


Alphonse Fournier: Ten per cent cash deposit. That is done under every contract.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; the 10 per cent cash deposit does not begin to cover the amount owing to material suppliers. My contention is that if the government in the building-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I understood the hon. member for Lake Centre was

Supply-Public Works
directing his remarks to the general item. He asked a question of the minister as to the principle followed by the department with regard to bonds. That question appears to have been answered. If there are other general remarks which the hon. member wishes to make they are perfectly in order but, as the minister has pointed out, there are items under which particular questions might more properly be asked.


John George Diefenbaker: The technical question, as far as I am concerned, arises out of the editorial the minister read yesterday with such glee and happiness, and I can understand that. It was not synthetic happiness; it was real joy on being commended. I am just trying to find out the basis upon which the editorial was written, and whether or not if the one example that I mentioned, the Lunam Construction Company of Saskatchewan, had been brought to the attention of the editorial writer he would have been quite as fulsome as he was. What I am trying to ascertain in general is the extent to which the Department of Public Works protects the suppliers of materials that go into the construction of buildings and projects. In other words, if a supplier of cement, bricks or fixtures were to supply them to a private contractor, provision would be made for a certain amount to be held back, as you know, Mr. Speaker. It is not paid immediately in order to protect honest, decent suppliers who have supplied materials.
In the case of the Lunam Construction Company various companies furnished supplies, and the amount still owing for those supplies runs to about $170,000. The Department of Public Works received the advantage of those materials that went into those buildings and projects, being part of the Department of Public Works. The minister has said that contracts were let by tender. I can understand the Lunam Construction Company getting the contracts, because if you tender so low that you are the lowest and then do not finish the work, no great harm has been done to your company.
The minister says that on the contracts which are let by tender 10 per cent is held back. My next question is: Are contractors required to produce receipts showing that the materials supplied have actually been paid for before, as the result of progress reports, progress payments are made? If not, the government of Canada and the Department of Public Works are in an advantageous position not enjoyed by the ordinary house builder or factory builder who, before he can make payments to the contractor, must hold back a reasonable amount.
My question is simply this. Is there no regular and accepted practice whereby no
[The Deputy Chairman.]
contractor is required to produce receipted bills from his suppliers of materials such as lumber, cement, bricks and all the other things that go into a building? That, I should think, would be an ordinary precaution, and one that should be adhered to. Otherwise people dealing with contractors would do so at their own risk; and that should not be the case in connection with contracts of the government of Canada. It is not the case when one deals with a private person, and surely the government should not be in a better or higher position than the individual in that regard. I would ask the minister to explain the situation with regard to requiring receipted bills before payments are made in advance.


Alphonse Fournier: I suppose, if I am to be quite polite, even in the discussion of the general item, I should follow up all these different points, although I think they refer to a specific project.
Every month, on special dates, a contractor makes progress reports as to the work done and the materials employed, and gives us a list of those who have sold him materials. That list is part of the progress report, and it is accompanied by an affidavit of the contractor. On that we send out our cheque, less a 10 per cent drawback. We have a 10 per cent security.
In this special instance I will tell the hon. member right now that we had eight contracts with this firm as the lowest bidder, on which it made its regular deposit, and progress was made with the works. He completed five jobs out of the eight. He stopped work in 1952. I understand that as the result of an automobile accident both his legs were broken. We never had received from anyone a claim against the contractor, up to that date.


John George Diefenbaker: No; you had paid the money out.


Alphonse Fournier: People sent in their bills to the contractor who, in his affidavit, swore that they were paid. Up to that time there was no difficulty at all, and no claim from anyone. We had five out of eight buildings completed. The man suffered this accident and was laid up in hospital for months. At that time we had information that he could not continue, because he was the principal owner of the firm. He acted as contractor, superintendent of works, and everything else. We were left with three uncompleted buildings; and from then on we told him we would keep the deposit, keep the drawback and continue the work on those three jobs.

On the Fort Qu'Appelle Indian hospital the contract amount was $336,264.79. The security deposit held was $31,831.80. The balance unpaid to the contractor was-


John George Diefenbaker: What was the security deposit?


Alphonse Fournier: It was $31,831.80. The payments to the contractor that had not been made amounted to $40,202.01. On that contract we have on hand, with the exception of the amounts we may have paid since, the sum of $72,033.81.
On the Regina, Saskatchewan, unemployment building the contract was $215,597. The security deposit was $21,222. The amount still held by the department on that contract, and unpaid, is $42,420.61, making a total of security deposit and amounts still held of $63,642.61.
On the Fort Qu'Appelle public building the contract was for $132,787.25. The security deposit was $12,900. The amount held by the department on the balance of the contract was $29,033.25, making a total amount of $41,933.25.
On those three contracts that were not completed by the Lunam company we held a total of $177,609.65. To complete those three jobs will cost $174,051.43-


John George Diefenbaker: How much is owing to-


Alphonse Fournier: -leaving a balance of about $3,560. That is the situation in our department. The hon. gentleman says-


John George Diefenbaker: How much is owing to the contractor?


Alphonse Fournier: Have you had your say? If so, would you just allow me to continue? Up to the date of this accident to Lunam we had never received a claim from anyone. After it was known that the man was in hospital and that he was not continuing on the job, we did receive some claims. I do not know their exact total, nor do I know whether they are justifiable claims. I do not know if they are claims that could be brought against Lunam himself, or could be proved in court. But what we undertook to do, with security which the hon. member says is not sufficient, was to complete those three buildings at the amount contracted for.
Now, I suppose in Saskatchewan, as in Quebec, you must have some statutory liens.


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot put mechanics' liens against government property.


Alphonse Fournier: Why?


John George Diefenbaker: Because you cannot.


Alphonse Fournier: Can you not notify the department, as you would in connection with
Supply-Public Works
an ordinary man making a contract, that this contractor owes you money? Is that not the ordinary way you would do it? As I say, up to the time of that accident there were no claims at all.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the total amount claimed since?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not dare give the amount because they are not substantiated. We have no evidence as to what the claims are. Why did not some of those creditors put this man into bankruptcy? I am surprised that they did not even try to put the company into bankruptcy. I cannot put the man into bankruptcy. I have the amount necessary to complete the jobs.
I am protecting the government. The hon. member says, "You should be protecting everybody who is selling material to contractors". I wonder if under the statute I am administering that is one of the duties of the Department of Public Works. My duty is to see that we get value for the money we spend. We follow a system of calling for tenders. If you wish to find fault with the amounts I have given you, I suppose you can try, but I do not know how you can prove it.
Suppose there are claims against the man. Does the hon. gentleman know that he is insolvent? Does he know whether he has made a petition to go into bankruptcy? Does he know what his assets are? I do not need to do that; I have the money. How are you going to blame my officials or me? Once I have given a contract, once it is signed and I have the security deposit and the drawback, the buildings are completed and delivered to us. Where is the fault to be found with that? What fault can you place on my architects and officials because some claimant in that district did not put in a claim in proper time? That would not stand up in any court under the statute under which we operate. I do not know of all these projects myself and must rely on my officials, but I do defend what we have been doing.


Mr. Green:: I think in his argument the minister has overlooked two important points. In the first place, he says in effect that if these people who supplied the materials and I suppose also those who worked for wages had wanted to protect themselves they should have notified the Department of Public Works. Let us follow that a little further. Suppose they had done so, and suppose the amount of the claims which had not been paid totalled $100,000 and the minister had only $5,000 left of these drawbacks on the projects which were not completed. He knows just as well as the rest of us that he would not pay anything to those creditors except perhaps the $5,000. They would not have been any further

Supply-Public Works
ahead by having notified the department that they had not been paid.
The second basis on which his argument is quite wrong is that he intimated that all the department gets from the general contractor is a record of the work, and I think he went so far as to say a statement of the people who had supplied the materials. He did not say that they looked at the receipts in the hands of that general contractor. I say that is the great weakness. I do not know why the department should be willing to make these payments without checking the receipts.
There is an inspector on the job. In connection with each contract there is a representative of the Department of Public Works checking the job from day to day. It should be part of the duties of that representative to see the receipts in the hands of the general contractor. When a person is building a house or a plant and has an architect in charge it is the duty of that architect, at least in British Columbia, to see that the bills are paid before he gives a certificate on which the general contractor receives his pay.
Apparently the Department of Public Works does not do that, and I think that is a serious defect in its procedure. If in the case of these contracts the Department of Public Works had insisted on checking the receipts for the materials supplied and for the work done on a wages basis this difficulty would not have arisen. The whole situation seems to boil down to the fact that the government of Canada is benefiting at the expense of the people who supplied materials and who actually did the work.


Alphonse Fournier: You do not want my departmental officials to follow the contractor when he goes in to buy a keg of nails. We cannot do that. If we had to follow this contractor in connection with every transaction he made with people who were selling materials it would be completely out of the ordinary and beyond any practice followed in the construction business.


Howard Charles Green: That is what the architect does.


Alphonse Fournier: Are we to follow him when he goes to a corner store to buy a handful of screws or nails? Oh, no. That is not what is done. Let me tell my hon. friend that I have had a little more experience than that. I cannot tell a contractor that he must buy here or there and pay so much. What we get from the contractor in order to protect the public is a sworn affidavit when he asks for a progress payment. He signs an affidavit that the amount asked for is necessary in order to pay the bills. His affidavit is appended to the progress report. This developed rather oddly. There was an article in the Regina Leader-Post which indicates

that this man seems to be angry at somebody. The article states that the bankruptcy report was denied by D. Harvey Lunam, proprietor of Lunam Construction Company. He denied that his company is bankrupt and that it owes $167,481 to the public as alleged in a government return which had been tabled the previous Monday in the House of Commons. Does the hon. gentleman want me to get into the fight between the contractor and these people? This man says he is not bankrupt and does not owe these amounts.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the Regina
Leader-Post?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, some time in January, 1953. Why bring poor me into this controversy? The man says he is not bankrupt and the other fellow says "Pay me what you owe me for materials". What I am here for is to get money from parliament to be used on different contracts according to the law. I am here to see that the contracts are executed and the work completed with the money voted by parliament. I am dealing with hundreds of contracts all over the country.
If I were living out there and some of these chaps who have claims against Lunam came to my law office after I had seen this report where he claimed he was not bankrupt, I would tell them to get after him and try to put him into bankruptcy. But that should not be done on the floor of the house.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is taking the position that all his department needs to do in the case of a contract such as this is get an affidavit from the contractor; and if that affidavit stating that he has paid his bills is not correct, it is just too bad for the man who has supplied materials. Is that the position the minister is taking?


Alphonse Fournier: When we make a progress payment it is to enable him to pay these bills, and he swears he has paid them.


Howard Charles Green: In effect you pay the contractor before he pays.


Alphonse Fournier: Who am I going to pay? I cannot go out and pay these chaps, because I do not even know them.


Howard Charles Green: You pay the contractor before he pays his bills. That is what the minister has just said.


Alphonse Fournier: He says on the
affidavit, "Here are the bills I have now paid, and I want to be paid by the government".


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean that the Department of Public Works pays the contractor before he pays his debts? I think that is a most improper procedure.


Alphonse Fournier: We do not.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister ended his remarks by saying that if the buildings are completed the department would still have $3,500, but after all the government has received in the way of materials that went into these buildings well over $150,000. I am going to give the exact figures. The government has accepted the materials and the minister now says, "We accepted the affidavit of Mr. Lunam who was injured in some accident". In order to establish his case, instead of producing correspondence from the Lunam Construction Company that it was not bankrupt, he reads from the Regina Leader-Post to the effect that Mr. Lunam objected to an article in that newspaper written by Mr. MacKay to the effect that the Lunam Construction Company was bankrupt. Mr. Lunam said: "We are not bankrupt. We still have money coming from the dominion government".
I am going to place figures on the record and ask this committee whether or not it can absolve the Department of Public Works of failure to protect honest suppliers of material. The minister says, "Why don't you use the mechanics' lien act?" Well, if I know anything about the law of Saskatchewan, mechanics' liens are inoperative against the crown in any particular. That has been held to be so on more than one occasion.
The minister says, "We had no complaints from those suppliers up to February, 1951" -or 1952; I am not sure which year. Certainly they had no claims at that time; there was much work to be completed on those buildings, and the suppliers of materials naturally expected that before payment would be made to any contracting company they would be protected. The minister says: "We took the affidavit of Mr. Lunam. Do you think we should have gone beyond that?"
All I can say is that Mr. Lunam, having defrauded Saskatchewan suppliers to the extent of over $150,000, cannot be proceeded against by the suppliers. No offence was committed in any declaration he made in so far as they are concerned. The declaration he made that was false, if it was false, was made to the Department of Public Works in order to secure payments. There was where the false pretence was perpetrated on the Department of Public Works. On the other hand, where were those architects and engineers? They saw this material being supplied. They were present. They signed reports from time to time. They were either watching what was going on, in which case they should not have signed those reports and approved them; or they were not watching and did not discharge their responsibilities.
Supply-Public Works
Here is the record. The company contracted to build the new Indian hospital at Qu'Appelle for $336,000. It received $296,000 on account and there is still some $61,000 owing to lumber yards, merchants, supplier firms and the like.


David Arnold Croll: Have you got judgments?


John George Diefenbaker: And in order to complete that building, if the government were to pay for the materials it secured it would still cost $80,000.
The public building at Fort Qu'Appelle was to cost $132,000, the minister says, and that is correct. The company was paid $103,000 and there is still some $40,000 owing to suppliers of materials that went into that building. In order to complete the building an amount of $37,700 would be required. The minister says, "Well, we gave the contract to Lunam Construction Company because it had the lowest tender." Why would it not have? It did not pay the suppliers. It pocketed the value of the supplies that went into the building. Why would the company not be able to tender low?
I move to the next one. It is the unemployment insurance commission office in Regina. The contract was let for $245,000. The sum of $180,000 was paid on account and there is still $58,000 owing to the suppliers. That does not cover wages paid by the government, wages paid to men who worked and were properly protected. But hear what the attitude of the minister is: "Do you expect us to pay for something we did not get?" The point is that the government did get those materials, and the point is that it allowed Lunam Construction Company to receive payments that were not justified, thereby excluding the possibility of recovery by those suppliers who furnished materials because it was the Department of Public Works or some other government department for whom construction was being proceeded with.
As far as the unemployment insurance commission office in Regina is concerned, payments on the contract were made to within $35,000 of the full amount, and it would take $90,000 more to complete that building if the suppliers were paid. The minister says, "Well, you would not expect me to waste the people's money." No, I do not; and I do not know one of these suppliers personally.


An hon. Member:: No?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may laugh, but I do not know any of them. No; and I do not mix my parliamentary duties with my responsibilities as a lawyer in any way; let that be clear to him. However, I do make a plea on

Supply-Public Works
behalf of those merchants who believed that the government would be as efficient as one would expect a private contractor or builder to be, and that they would be protected.
The minister has taken the stand that for them to be protected would be wasting the taxpayers' money; but they having been defrauded and lost what was rightfully theirs, there is a moral obligation upon the government of Canada to pay them. They are defrauded because of the fact that some people in the Department of Public Works did not do their job-some officials, architects and engineers

and goodness knows we have enough architects. I think there are 80 in the various departments of government, and in addition hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent for architects outside the government service. There are enough architects and there are enough engineers. The expenditure last year for special services was approximately $7 million in addition to the cost of those architects and engineers in the government service. There are enough of them to assure that ordinary business practices are applied.
The Lunam Construction Company, without assets, has been a great favourite of the government for the last several years. The story of the company in the province of Saskatchewan is no tribute to the Department of Public Works in so far as its officials in Regina or the western provinces are concerned, nor in so far as those in authority in Ottawa are concerned. One would think that they would not pay a contractor so far in advance of the work performed. It should have been apparent that the work had not been completed to the extent that the progress reports showed. Nevertheless the payments were made, and I will say no more at this time. I repeat, however, that one expects a higher degree of responsibility on the part of officials in the minister's department. One could be an amateur and see that the work had not been completed to the extent of the progress payments.
This work for the Department of Public Works was just a segment of the building activities of this company, because it was a favourite of some other departments as well. To complete these projects the following amounts would have to be spent:	For
one job, $99,000; for the second, $37,000; and for the third, $80,000. Those are the figures if the materials that went into the buildings were in fact paid for. I am not going outside the minister's department but this company also built for the Indian affairs branch.


Alphonse Fournier: Would you wait until that department is called?


John George Diefenbaker: This has nothing to do with the minister, but in the Indian affairs branch this company had the same magnificent record of waste in so far as the rights of the individuals to be paid are concerned.
The excuse given by one member of the company, that Mr. Lunam was injured, has little reference to the responsibilities of a limited company that had available to it, and always had available, a group of servants and officials to carry out the work that Mr. Lunam was not carrying out even before he suffered the accident referred to. I think the minister should give consideration to the issuing of orders to his department that payment should not be made to contractors until every assurance has been provided by the contractor that the suppliers who honestly supplied the materials have been paid. Only then should the contractor be permitted to get his hands on the money. In reality the money should be held in trust by the department for the benefit of the suppliers. With that, I have nothing more to say.


Alphonse Fournier: Even if I am anxious to see this item go through, there was one sentence I would not allow to go by without challenge. It was that we are wasting the people's money.


John George Diefenbaker: I never said that at any time. I said the result is waste to the individual who supplied the material.


Alphonse Fournier: Now, the way you
would act as Minister of Public Works would be that on every project you would have men follow this contractor when he purchased materials for the building, then follow up and ask the merchants or suppliers if they had received their money. You would do that, but we do not do that. I will admit it. I have not the staff to do that with all our contractors. I ask parliament for an amount of money, and I follow the statute to the letter; that is my responsibility. If it is not followed, then it is done without my knowledge and as yet I have not found instances of that.
In this case I was advised some months ago that three jobs were uncompleted. I said, "Have you got the security deposits? Have you got the 10 per cent drawback? Have you got enough money to complete the job?" The report I made this afternoon was the one that came to me. Now, am I going to go around changing the system, and saying that it should be the way the hon. gentleman suggests? What I find peculiar is this. If there are so many claims against this contractor, and he says he is solvent, then why come to me? He has the money. He says he has. He is not broke. He is not

bankrupt. You have a claim against him, so why come to me? I am using the money parliament voted to build this building, and I am going to build it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask one other question on this point?


Mr. Hosking:: I should like to take part in this debate. I do not think it is right for a lawyer to stand up in this house and criticize the architects and engineers for the part they played in the building of this structure. There has been no word of criticism in regard to the design. There has been no word of criticism in regard to the safety of the construction. Those are the responsibilities of the engineers and architects. For a lawyer to stand up in this house and suggest it is an evil thing, is not proper.
I hope the hon. member takes the position that the government should let the contract to the lowest tender. The minister says that was done.
Then the hon. member made one very startling statement which did not balance up with the rest of his statements. He said the suppliers were placed in the position of dealing with a company without assets. Certainly it is the suppliers' responsibility to see they get paid. I have every sympathy with the local people who supplied the materials, but they are the only persons who are able to keep a check on the person with whom they are dealing. At the first sign of anything wrong they should inform the department that they have not been paid. If this had been done right away the necessary precautions could have been taken to prevent them losing any money.
It is all very well for any member who has not the responsibility of government to stand up and say the government should do all these things because of someone else's mistake, but this government is trying to keep costs down. They cannot do that if people do not accept their own responsibilities. It is not economically sound for any member of the opposition to stand up and say the government should pay this money because the local suppliers, who could check on the contractor with whom they are dealing, were not paid. These local people should know better than anyone else whether or not the contractor is going to pay his bills.


Howard Charles Green: There is one other question I should like to ask the minister in connection with the practice followed by his department. He has said that the department does not require the general contractor to show receipts before payments are made. Apparently all that is required is an affidavit from the contractor, and on that affidavit payment 68108-230i
Supply-Public Works
is made. I pointed out a few moments ago that I thought that was a poor procedure to follow. It is not the procedure followed in ordinary civilian life by a person having a building constructed. In that case the architect makes the general contractor produce his receipts before it is possible for the contractor to get payment. At any rate that is the practice followed in British Columbia. The architect does not have to rush around to the hardware store to follow up each item. The contractor produces his receipts, and the architect can tell pretty well whether or not the goods that have gone into that building have been duly paid for.
Now, I think the department is wrong in not making the general contractor produce receipts. Let us go on from that point, however, and for the purpose of argument let us say the practice the department is following is correct. I do not think it is, but let us go one step further and say that the practice is correct. When the department does get this affidavit payment is made to the general contractor, who is supposed to pay off the subcontractors. Does the Department of Public Works make any attempt to follow that money in order to see that these subcontractors are paid out of the money which has been put up by the department, or does the Department of Public Works wash its hands of any further responsibility?


Alphonse Fournier: Let me put this question to my hon. friend. I buy an overcoat or anything else, and I pay for it. I get the overcoat. Do I follow up the payment to see if the storekeeper has paid the wholesaler for that overcoat? I put it on and pay for it. In public works when contracts are given, am I going to follow up the contractor in his private business? You cannot ask that of the department, nor of the officials. Bankruptcies- occur in normal business, and this is in the normal course of business. If someone has any claim against the contractor, why bring in the government? We got the building and the contractor received the goods and supplies. If I were to follow these suggestions I would turn the department into a collection agency, an accountant's agency and an inspection agency.
This man may have contracts outside of the government, with private enterprise. Are we to follow him in the purchase of all his materials? Really, I want to be fair to the argument of the hon. gentleman, but if you try to put that into practice you will not be asking me to run the Department of Public Works, you will be asking me to run all these branches of a collection agency for every man who sells material. Then I would have to follow it up and see if this material
3624	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
was really supplied for this job or a different job. I know the suggestion was made by my hon. friends with the best of intentions, but the job would be overwhelming for my department with the staff I have.


Howard Charles Green: It is quite clear from the minister's answer that his department accepts no responsibility for seeing that these payments which are made to the general contractor are used to pay off the subcontractors.


Alphonse Fournier: I did not say that. Suppose we had received claims from people before the man went out of business or stopped work. The officials of the department would have taken notice of that, but not of a claim made two months or three months after the man is out of business. People come along and say, "He owes me money". This poor man says he does not owe him. Am I going to be the judge? No, not now.


Howard Charles Green: I will tell the minister what his department could do and what they should do in all fairness to everyone concerned. Let him have his inspectors require the general contractor to produce a receipt for payment in connection with the materials. Then when that receipt has been obtained, let the department pay the general contractor. If that is done no one will have any further complaints. This is particularly necessary in the case of a government contract, because the people who supply the materials and earn the wages are not entitled to a mechanic's lien which is their great protection in the case of a contract by a private firm. In the second place, it is particularly important with a government contract because a person, in supplying materials to a man who has a contract with the government, would naturally believe that everything would be done in a businesslike way. I suggest to the minister that he instruct his departmental officials that from now on they make payment only after receipts have been produced for the materials supplied.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to take the suggestion made by the hon. member and study it. If I had a copy of the contracts we sign with these contractors-I have not a copy here-or of the form of our contract covering nearly 60 different sections-I would show it to the hon. gentleman and say, "Here is what the law provides for, not only the general law but the law between the parties, and we follow that law to the letter." I think I am fulfilling my responsibility and duty when I follow up the contract we have signed, that has been approved and that has been maintained by all the courts of the land for years.


I sympathize with the poor man who sold some material and was not paid for it. But I cannot sympathize with him much more than I would with the storekeeper who sells to another contractor on a private contract and loses. I would not have time to do my work if I were sympathizing with everybody who loses money in the contracting business. When you look up the list of bankruptcies in the country you see that a good many of them are contractors. Although they think they are going to make money when they sign a contract, they lose money. I am ready to continue this discussion on my estimates, on the first item and in the general discussion; but I do not think at this stage I would change my mind as to our contracts. I may suggest to my officials if they have the staff to run around-


John George Diefenbaker: You have staff enough.


Alphonse Fournier: What does the hon. member know about it? How many have we of staff? Has he any idea?


John George Diefenbaker: In Regina there is staff enough so that if they had been efficient, they could have protected people.


Alphonse Fournier: How many architects, draftsmen and superintendents are there? How many have we? The hon. gentleman is a good lawyer. Why should he assert things like that? I told him to read the blue book before.


John George Diefenbaker: You are the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly; and I know far more about it than does the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: We would hope so.


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member wants to go into these details, let him prepare his case better, because I think I would need more staff to do the work hon. gentlemen opposite are asking to have done. I may ask treasury board for more staff, and then I will ask for an increase in my estimates to pay that staff and the estimates of the country will be increased; and if I pay these amounts to the people who sold these materials, I am going to ask for more money in our supplementary estimates and we will bring up our estimates to a higher figure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question?


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister explain why it would require an increase in his staff if he required the contractor to produce a receipt? It seems to me that the suggestion which has been made does not impose any greater duty or burden on the minister's staff. It merely

imposes perhaps a greater burden on the contractor, namely that of producing a receipt before he gets paid. Will the minister tell us how that would impose an extra burden on his staff?


Alphonse Fournier: The answer to that question is an easy one. If I am doing business with an honest man-and I am not speaking of this case, I am speaking of anybody; it is a general comment-and he signs his affidavit that he has paid these bills, even if he gives his word we do not take that in public works; we need the signature. Don't be afraid; if you are dealing with somebody who is not honest, then you can ask for receipts and you can ask for this, that and the other thing, and if he does not find a way of fooling you, I lack experience in human nature.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That does not answer the question.


Howard Charles Green: But the loan companies-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has not answered my question.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, I told the hon. member that I would take that suggestion into consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but the minister has answered the suggestion by making another suggestion, namely that it would impose an increased burden on his staff. I asked him to explain in what way it would impose that burden because he has just now said that they ask for an affidavit before they make payment. How would it increase the burden on the minister's staff if he asked for receipts to be attached to that affidavit? There would be no extra burden on his staff.


Alphonse Fournier: I will just give the hon. member one instance. This receipt is only a receipt. I would have to have officials to go around to verify the receipt. You can push this argument to the point of absurdity. Do you think it is the time right now to argue the matter? I should like to take a case on these matters in court, but I do not think I can in parliament; I have no judge here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When I ask the minister if he really thinks it would impose an extra burden on his staff-


Alphonse Fournier: I do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has not given us any evidence or any reason to show that it would impose that burden. He answered my question by making another supposition. I asked a simple question. Would the requirement that, in addition to an affidavit, there should
Supply-Public Works
be the production of a receipt impose any extra burden on the minister's staff?


Mr. Casselman:: The answer is no.


Alphonse Fournier: I am going to tell my officials to consider that matter, but there is a remark made by an experienced man. He says that every two weeks, when you had progress payments, you would have these fellows' receipts and you would have to check up on those receipts and with the one who signed the receipt, to see whether everything really is aboveboard. As I say, we take human nature as we find it, and assume that these are honest people. That is the way I deal with the matter. We take their oath, their signature. I take their lists. I get no complaints. I pay. If the man breaks his leg and two months later I get a complaint, I say, "Do not pay any more money; keep that security deposited; keep the drawback, and we will complete the job and show the country that we have a building for the money they have voted."


Howard Charles Green: I would point out that the loan companies always require the production of receipts in addition to an affidavit.


Alphonse Fournier: Do they ever lose money?


Howard Charles Green: Occasionally, yes. But I think the Department of Public Works should at least follow that same practice of calling for receipts. Another suggestion I make to the minister is that he have a look at his contract form and have inserted in it a provision that the payments will be made only upon production of receipts. It may be that he already has that provision in his contract form. I should be greatly surprised if it is not there now. But from what the minister has said, it is obvious that if that provision is in the form the practice of the department is such that the provision is not being followed. I would suggest that the minister have his contract form checked.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if there is in his contract any provision that it shall be the obligation of the contractor to see that the subcontractors are paid, and also the wage earners and suppliers of materials? Is there any provision of that kind in the contract?


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just a minute. I am waiting for an answer.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand from the officers that there is a clause in which he undertakes to pay those who sell him materials. That is his obligation.

Supply-Public Works


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite so. He has an obligation to them, of course. But by making that provision in the contract it becomes an obligation on his part to the Minister of Public Works. That is the point I was getting at. Apparently the contract so provides.
There has been no reference to this, but I think it is implicit in what the minister said earlier this afternoon, that it is not the practice of the department to require on the part of the contractor a performance bond.


Alphonse Fournier: It is a cash deposit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The minister spoke of the 10 per cent cash deposit and also the 10 per cent holdback against current payments. I think what would help to meet the situation here, and would be very useful for the department, as well as of great assistance in cases of this kind in protecting materialmen who are denied the ordinary protection of the mechanics' lien acts of the provinces, would be the requirement that the contractor file a performance bond. If you have a bonding company standing behind a contractor and you have that provision in the contract which would require that the contractor bind himself to the Minister of Public Works to pay the materialmen and the wage earners and his subcontractors, then you have assurance on behalf of your materialmen and your wage earners that they are going to be able to collect. In that way your subcontractors are going to be paid.
It seems to me there is a great gap in the present practice when the department does not require the filing by the contractor of a performance bond by some surety company. That is very general practice in private life with large construction contracts. I think it would be of very great value to the department itself as well as to those who are subcontractors of those who are contractors of the department.


Alphonse Fournier: There is something in that argument of the performance bond. I understand that it was studied by those in this line of business, but in the past those bonds have always been refused. We do not accept them; we ask for a cash deposit of 10 per cent of the amount of the contract or tender from the companies that tender.
I understand that this question of a bond is being studied. I would not see any serious objection, but I do not think the protection would be greater for the government than the cash security deposit. Take this instance where unfortunately the man did not complete the contract. We had the money to go ahead, and we did if. In the contract in question, if we did lack some money to complete it we would have our recourse against

the contractor for the balance. That would be all right if he were solvent. If he were bankrupt we would lose, probably, but we do not lose very much money in our contracts. I may tell the hon. member that there are not many cases where we lose money.


David Arnold Croll: Will the hon. member for Eglin-ton tell us how a performance bond would be helpful to the Lunam contractors under these circumstances?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the term in the contract about which I asked the minister a question when I rose to my feet. If it were not a provision in the contract the department has with the contractor that the contractor engages to pay his subcontractors and thereby incurs an obligation to the minister to pay them, then the performance bond would be of doubtful value as far as subcontractors are concerned. Even then it would be of value to the department, but in view of the fact that there is a provision in the contract that the contractor undertakes as an obligation to the minister to pay his subcontractors, then the performance bond would be of very definite value. That prompts me to ask another question of the minister.


David Arnold Croll: Would you get a performance bond under these conditions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I think you would; and I think this, and I speak from some experience in such matters. I think it would be of very definite value also in eliminating people who are tendering who are not potentially solvent. You would not find surety companies agreeing to give performance bonds to people who are not solvent, and I think it would represent another measure of guarantee against a situation of this kind arising in the future.
There is one other aspect to this subject that I should like to raise. I think the minister can see that the materialman who is supplying material to a contractor with his department is not in the same position as a materialman who is supplying material to a contractor on private property. He is denied the normal benefits that flow to the subcontractor, the materialman and the wage earner under the mechanics' lien act. In these circumstances it seems to me that in all fairness something more is required on the part of the department than just to say, "We will take no responsibility. We will just treat this as we would if the structure were being built on private property".
It may be all very well for the owner in a case of that kind, where the land is privately owned, to say, "Well, you materialmen, you must protect yourselves. You have the mechanics' lien act." This is a different situa-

tion and, Mr. Chairman, it is quite evident that whatever may be said for the 10 per cent deposit or the 10 per cent holdback as a measure of guarantee to the department, we have abundant evidence in this case that it has left a great gap in the security extended to those who ought to have some consideration from the department by reason of the fact that they are denied the normal protection of the mechanics' lien act of the province.
There is one further matter about which I should like to question the minister. In view of the terms of the contract which he mentioned in reply to my first question, it is evident that, even though there was sufficient in the deposit and the holdback to enable the department to complete the building in this case, there still has been a breach of contract on the part of the contractor if he has broken that provision of his contract under which he obligated himself to pay to the materialmen and the wage earners the money due them. What action, if any, has the Department of Public Works taken with reference to that breach of contract?


Alphonse Fournier: We are trying to complete these three buildings. That is the first thing I had in mind, to see if we had enough money. We probably will not be through with this gentleman when we have completed the job. We will know exactly where we stand then. We shall assure ourselves whether or not he is really solvent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did I understand the minister to say that the buildings were not completed?


Alphonse Fournier: Two out of the three are completed and the other is being completed, and I have given the hon. member for Lake Centre the amount necessary to complete it. This is the way this case strikes me as a lawyer. Here is a man who stopped doing the work some time ago, sometime in January, as I explained.


David Arnold Croll: In what year?


Alphonse Fournier: In 1952. We received no claim from anybody before that. He had stopped doing the work for I do not know how long, two or three or four months, and then we started getting claims. Now, even if these people were entitled to collect under the mechanics' lien statute the time for registering "their liens would have expired by that time.


John George Diefenbaker: They cannot file a mechanic's lien against the crown.


Alphonse Fournier: I know, but even if they had the right against the government the time had expired. The man stops work, and they wait for two or three months before we hear of a claim. Even if they were entitled
Supply-Public Works
to all the benefits under that statute, their delay in putting in their claims would have barred them.


Howard Charles Green: Not if the building was not completed.


Alphonse Fournier: If the delivery had been made before.


Howard Charles Green: No, not in British Columbia, at any rate. It may be that way in Ontario.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not going to go into that, although it is interesting as a legal point. All this discussion should prove one thing. Even if you can blame my officials in certain instances, they try to get the work done according to the contract and the amount of money we have asked from parliament. I think I have to give them credit for that. They are not perfect; they may have defects, but they are quite loyal and frank with me, and I think I know almost everything-well, I would not say everything-that goes on in my department. When they have difficulties they bring them to my attention. Here is one of the difficulties they had. I was acquainted with it, and that was the procedure we followed.


Mr. Graydon:: It occurs to me that something depends upon what was said in that affidavit. Has the minister gone carefully into the affidavit that was taken? If so, is there anything wrong with it, or is it exactly in accordance with the facts?


Alphonse Fournier: My deputy tells me it is the ordinary form of affidavit that is mentioned in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. Personally I do not see them, but that is the information I have.


Gordon Graydon: I seems to me there is a real problem involved here, if the affidavit is contrary to the facts which obtained at the time it was taken. Some responsibility rests with the government as to what steps it will take.


William Joseph Browne: One further question-


Gordon Graydon: No, I should like to have the minister give me that information, because it is important.


Alphonse Fournier: I have not looked
into that aspect of the matter. What I had in mind when this matter was brought to my attention was to have completion of the buildings with the money we had on hand. At the time I did not even know there were claims coming in. I said, "Now, get the estimate, and see what we can do with that money." The report came back that we could complete the three buildings with the money we had from the security deposit and

Supply-Public Works
the holdback from payments. That was the practical thing I had in mind. This afternoon I have given the result. As to the other point, well, I must confess ignorance. I have not given much thought to it.


Gordon Graydon: At some other stage will the minister give the information I have asked for? I think it is of much more importance than appears on the surface.


Alphonse Fournier: I will; but at this stage I would not know the decision of the department as to what proceedings we would take against the man. I would not go that far. I would have to consult the Department of Justice. We would bring it to their attention and they would advise us as to the procedure to be followed, if any.


Gordon Graydon: The minister does not have any objection to giving us a copy of the affidavit sworn by the contractor, has he?


Alphonse Fournier: I shall look into it.


David Arnold Croll: I have been listening to the discussion, and I wonder if I am right in my belief that during that discussion someone said there were no judgments against this man as a result of the debts owing. Am I correct in that understanding? When he was discussing the matter the hon. member for Lake Centre did not indicate that there were any judgments, and from what the minister said I gathered there were no judgments. Am I correct?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot answer for the minister, but my information is that the only asset this company had was a house owned by Lunam at the time he ceased work, and that he transferred that house to his wife. So I think the assets were pretty well cleared away. But that does raise a question I should like to ask the minister. He was able to advise the house, on the basis of an article in a Regina newspaper, that Mr. Lunam was not bankrupt. In that article Mr. Lunam said he was not bankrupt.
In view of the fact that claims from suppliers approximating $170,000 have been sent to the department-and the information I have as to the amount still owing suppliers *came in an answer furnished by the minister in the house-has the minister been in touch with the Lunam Construction Company to find out what assets they have, and whether they will make payments? That would appear to be a most salutary course to follow, rather than to ascertain through the medium of a press interview that Mr. Lunam was not bankrupt. And if the minister has been in communication with the Lunam Construction Company, will he place before the committee balance sheets showing, among other

things, the indebtedness of the Lunam Construction Company, and to whom. If the minister has that statement we would like to have it.


Alphonse Fournier: Replying to the first
question, the hon. member has said that the only asset Lunam had was a house. He will understand that Lunam tendered on contracts amounting to $1,200,000. One sure thing is that we held back 10 per cent, which would have amounted to $100,000. We must have had that much from him. I do not know where he got it, but he must have had some assets or he would not have got those contracts just by attaching his cheque to the tender. We never ask more than a 10 per cent deposit from any people tendering on these contracts. He met that requirement. Since he has been out of the hospital I am told he cannot be found. If the hon. member could help me find him I would be very glad indeed. I do not know where he is, but we have inquired.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think he could have been looked for very thoroughly, because he was in Regina six weeks ago.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, I did not go
personally to Regina to look for him, but I did ask some in the department, and they tried to locate him. We went to a hotel where he had been living at one time, but he had moved out of that hotel and gone to another one. We tried to locate him there. The first news I got was this clipping from the newspaper. I do not know where he is.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, he gave that
interview in Regina.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, but it may have been given on the street corner, and when I would get out there he would be on the next corner. We are still trying to find him.


John George Diefenbaker: So is it a fact that since February, 1952, the Department of Public Works has not been in communication with Mr. Lunam, or secured from him a balance sheet showing his assets and liabilities? Has he just disappeared, faded away, only to be found by a reporter of the Regina Leader-Post for an interview?


Alphonse Fournier: Here is the information my officials give me on this case, that since February 1952 we have tried to locate the man and have not succeeded. So we have had no contact with him, no balance sheet or anything else. And as we wanted to complete the buildings, we got to work on them.


William Joseph Browne: Are all
these contracts by the Department of Public Works on an outright basis? Are they all

outright contracts, or does the department on some occasions pay a fixed fee, or cost plus? Does the department make contracts on a cost-plus basis? I remember that the Auditor General told the public accounts committee that on some occasions a person will have a contract with the government on which further work to be done is carried out on a cost-plus basis.


Alphonse Fournier: If my hon. friend
wishes to have that information I would advise him to read section 36 of the Public Works Act. If he will read it carefully he will see how these contracts are given. It is all written down in black and white.


William Joseph Browne: If the
minister knows what is in section 36, would he be good enough to tell me now?


Alphonse Fournier: There is one section
which authorizes me, when it is in the public interest, to give contracts in amounts up to $15,000 without asking for tenders. Over and above the amount, in urgent cases, where damage would occur to the public interest if I were to fail to take action, I can make contracts without tenders. Outside of that we must ask for tenders.


William Joseph Browne: When you come to make payments on those contracts, do you not have affidavits covering materials used? Those would have been paid for before you pay for the contract.


Alphonse Fournier: I have been arguing that for two hours.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am anxious to see this item pass, but I think it would be wrong to allow the impression to continue which has been created on the minister this afternoon without endeavouring to set out both sides of the picture. I think we should analyse just how this situation arose. Anyone familiar with the conditions surrounding a contract of this kind knows that the local firms who are supplying goods to the general contractor are not anxious to have payments made at the end of the month for fear they might lose some future business. In other words they deliberately get themselves into the position where the general contractor owes them large sums of money. They partly finance his contract so they will continue to get his business.' That is a position into which they get of their own volition.
Having explained how the situation arose and why they are in that position, I would not want the minister to gum up the procedure with red tape by putting into effect any of the suggestions that have been made by the opposition lawyers. If you are going to require the inspector to have receipts for
Supply-Public Works
all bills that are paid, you will also need to have an engineer, an auditor and a chartered accountant. Then if the department happened to pay one of these bills and through fraud were asked to pay it a second time you would immediately be held responsible for having made that mistake.
I hope that you will not start to further gum up with red tape these contracts that have been discussed today by following the procedure that has been suggested by the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister at any time secure from the Lunam Construction Company a statement of assets and liabilities? Did he ever ask for such a statement before or after February, 1952.


Alphonse Fournier: To which contracts would that question apply?


John George Diefenbaker: Just the ones under public works.


Alphonse Fournier: Those that were completed and paid for. We have those buildings. Should I get a statement on those? In the case of those that are not completed, I have the money to complete them.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not answer anything. I do not know why the minister has not done something regarding this matter. He has the mounted police available.


Alphonse Fournier: I object to that, and I want my hon. friend to withdraw his statement. I have been talking here this afternoon for nearly two hours telling what I have been doing. I do not think it is fair that the hon. member should say I have not been doing anything. I would not say that to the hon. gentleman, although I do not believe he is doing very much.


John George Diefenbaker: To say that the minister has not been doing anything is possibly an understatement, because what I had in mind was this. This man disappeared in Regina.


Alphonse Fournier: How do you know he is in Regina?


John George Diefenbaker: Everybody knew, including the staff reporter of the Regina Leader-Post who interviewed this man on several occasions.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: How
did he know him?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to answer that. Presumably his identity was made known to him. On the statement that was secured I cannot understand why the Department of Public Works, having actually benefited to the extent of approximately $170,000

Supply-Public Works
worth of materials that went into the buildings so they could be completed within the contract price, did not do anything. In other words, if the suppliers had not been taken in to the extent of $170,000 in materials that were supplied, as far as the government is concerned the projects would have cost much more to complete over and above the contract price.
Has the minister's department written to the Lunam company? If they have, I should like to have the correspondence produced' when we come to the proper item. This man's elusiveness was such that it aroused great interest. Lunam and his company took these people in to the extent they did as the result of a false affidavit, and only the Department of Public Works can prosecute because the false pretence was perpetrated against that department. This man swore a false affidavit which caused the Department of Public Works to advance moneys to which he was not entitled, and I cannot understand why he should not have been prosecuted or why the mounted police were not used to ascertain whether a fraud such as this should be committed against the Department of Public Works.
That is the reason I said the minister had not done anything. I meant that he had not used the agencies that were available in order to punish a man who according to the statement of the minister is a wrongdoer in that he defrauded the government of Canada by falsely swearing to an affidavit in order to secure payment. I am wondering whether the matter was ever placed in the hands of the mounted police, or whether there were communications with Lunam or the company?


Alphonse Fournier: After this accident
had happened and he was in the hospital, and we found out he could not proceed with the construction, we had served on him a notice according to the contract that we would hold as security the balance of the contract and would proceed with the work. I understand that we have a copy of that contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-[DOT]
322.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $13,588,361.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister tell the committee to what extent commitments are authorized against future years? Apparently each year there is a provision of this type in this vote.


Alphonse Fournier: This $500,000 for
future commitments covers orders which are given during the fiscal year but which are not expected to be delivered. Suppose we ordered a diesel engine which takes many months to deliver, we would be committed to the company but would not receive delivery during the fiscal year. We have to have this amount for future commitments.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that this
year we are committed to the extent of about $300,000. These goods will be delivered in the future, but not under this vote. If we did not have this item we would have no legal power to give an order.


Howard Charles Green: These commitments were made in the last fiscal year and are for the present fiscal year; is that the idea?


Alphonse Fournier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Why is there a provision of
this kind in this and the following item, and not in any other item?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that in the
last months of the fiscal year we continue placing orders although we know they will not be delivered. We are authorized to commit up to $500,000 under this item for the next year, but these amounts will be revoted as deliveries are made in the next year. It is only authority to commit; it is not an expenditure of money. We cannot go over and above our commitments for $500,000. I understand that in the administration, when the last months of the year come we have to continue to give notice of what we need. We say well, let us place the order and in the next estimates we will ask for the amount. If we did not have that authority we would have to stop ordering for delivery in the new fiscal year.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it necessary for these items and not for any other items?


Alphonse Fournier: These are the two
maintenance items in my department. The other items are specific items for contractual purposes; but these are the two items which cover maintenance of all buildings in the country.


Howard Charles Green: There is quite a large increase in some of the amounts under this item. I am looking at page 393. There, for example, we find a big increase in furniture and furnishings for government departments. The increase there is about $60,000, and it was also increased last year over the year 1951-52. Rents also are increased by $550,000. Light, power, water, etc. are increased by about $70,000. These are all expenditures

to be made in Ottawa. Why is there that large increase for the present fiscal year?


Alphonse Fournier: There is an increase this year of $725,622.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking about item 322 and the minister has given the wrong figure. He has given the figure for outside Ottawa.


Alphonse Fournier: There is an increase in salaries from $4,250,715 to $4,566,083. That would comprise increases in salaries that have been granted during the year plus the addition probably of a few salaries and wages, due principally to increases in prevailing rates of pay, statutory increases, and an increase of 90 in the char staff to take care of the new buildings. There is $315,000 in that.
There is an increase of $62,500 in the allotment for furniture and furnishings for government departments, due mainly to special provision being made in the vote for the first time for upholstering and repairs to furniture, and acquisition of Venetian blinds. There is an increase in rents because we have taken over four more buildings in Ottawa, the Ogilvy building, the Metcalfe building, 245 Sparks street, and the seminary building. There is an increase of $75,640 for light, power and water covering new buildings and rented premises, provision for unemployment insurance contributions and so forth. There is a decrease in the allotments for travelling expenses, materials and supplies, moving government departments, and taxes on diplomatic properties, in the amount of $208,000. That leaves a net increase of $830,943.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister whether it is under this item that provision is made for maintenance and upkeep of the Prime Minister's residence?


Alphonse Fournier: A total of $10,950 was provided in the summary for the Prime Minister's residence. The vote for 1953-54 for the Prime Minister's residence is as follows:	Payment to steward as representative of this department in the household, $1,000; furnishing, $4,000; fuel for residence and coach house, $1,750; repairs, painting, etc., $3,400; electric power, $800.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that include all the expenses, operating expenses as well as upkeep of the building? I understand that the operating expenses also fall within this department.


Alphonse Fournier: This is certainly what it costs my department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where are the operating expenses charged?
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: Do hon. gentlemen not think I have enough? I am giving what it costs me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What department is responsible?


Alphonse Fournier: What department
spends more money? I do not know if there are any other departments, and I do not know which one if any. I know what I spend, and this is the amount.


Donald Methuen Fleming: According to the statute that was passed several years ago, the maintenance of this property as well as the operating expenses of the residence all come under this department.


Alphonse Fournier: Read the section again. You will see that is not correct. Maintenance is what I am paying here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are we to understand that operating expenses of the residence do not fall within the Department of Public Works?


Alphonse Fournier: If that is so I have
not been operating it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the five items given by
the minister, totalling some $10,000, there is an amount of $3,400 indicated for repairs this year.


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What justifies such a high figure for repairs on a building that was completed only two years ago?


Alphonse Fournier: This is only an
estimate and it has not been spent. You have not given it to me yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I quite realize that, but
what repairs are contemplated which would justify the minister asking for $3,400 for repairs to a building that was completed only about two years ago?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told there will be some repainting outside the building and some work inside the building. With respect to the details of how many windows and how many doors need repair I have not the information. You want us to maintain the residence in a good state so a man was sent down to look over the building, and he reported we would need about $3,400 in the year to do that work.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How much was expended on repairs in the fiscal year just ended?


Alphonse Fournier: I have not that
information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I think that information should be available. I quite understand that the minister might not have it for the full twelve months-

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: I will get it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -but he should have it complete for eleven months and might perhaps estimate for the twelfth month.


Alphonse Fournier: I have not the figures here, but I will get them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When can we have them?


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as I have a moment.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item
carry?


Howard Charles Green: No. The minister explained
that there had been several new buildings rented in Ottawa during the year. I did not hear what they were, and I wonder if he would give them again and tell us in each case what the rent is and what the building is used for.


Alphonse Fournier: The main new buildings rented are the Ogilvy building, the Metcalfe building, 245 Sparks street, and the seminary building. Those are the four that were rented in this last fiscal year and account for increasing the amount.


Howard Charles Green: What are the rents in each
case, and for what purposes are those buildings used?


Alphonse Fournier: Do you want me to
read the list of all the rents for the buildings in Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: No, just those four.


Alphonse Fournier: The total is $550,000
per year. I have a list of all the buildings we occupy.


Howard Charles Green: I only want the rentals for those four buildings, and the purposes for which the buildings are used.


Alphonse Fournier: The Metcalfe building is used for national defence and the rental is $76,610; the Ogilvy building, national defence, and the rental is $61,922; the seminary rental is $370,000; 245 Sparks street is for defence production and labour, rented from the Bank of Canada, $48,000.


Howard Charles Green: For what purpose is the
seminary used?


Alphonse Fournier: The whole of the
mounted police organization has been transferred to that building from the justice building and the six or seven other buildings in which they occupied space.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
323.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $800,000, $18,998,865.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Does this item include the
maintenance of Canada House in St. John's, Newfoundland?


Alphonse Fournier: No, we do not maintain it. I understand we receive a rental from the province of $1,500 per year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You say you do not maintain it?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I read an answer to a question which appears in Hansard for March 16, page 2958. The question was:
What is the annual cost of maintenance of this property?
The answer was:
Fiscal year 1949-50; $281.76; fiscal year 1950-51, $34.80; fiscal year 1951-52, $118.17.
I do not know who is paying it. Is that your department?


Alphonse Fournier: When I said no, I
asked my officials whether we maintained the place. We cannot do much maintenance for $34.80 in a year. The answer must have been prepared by somebody in the department who had more knowledge than I have or the gentlemen I have here with me. My impression is that we have no maintenance costs, but we do get a rental from the province of Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, those figures were just in error, I take it. May I ask another question to which the minister may be able to give a reply now that he has his senior officials with him. On that same page of Hansard I asked whether the property was owned by Canada, and the answer was yes. Then I asked:
If so, when was it purchased?
The answer was:
It was taken over when Newfoundland entered confederation.
That does not mean anything to me. Will the minister explain what that means?


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member
reads the terms of union he will find that part of the buildings that were serving government purposes in Newfoundland were transferred to the central government. Probably this would be one of the buildings that fell to our lot. I may say that public works has taken over more than one building. That is to the best of my recollection. The hon. member has on the order paper another question concerning that matter. I was told today that external affairs were handling that answer, so I just forgot about it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is this not the position? The property known as Canada House had been

bought by Canada before Newfoundland came into confederation and was owned by Canada at that time?


Alphonse Fournier: My officials say you are probably right.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am probably right? The minister knows I am right. What is the meaning of this phrase, then, that it was taken over?


Alphonse Fournier: To make it clear, I am told that before union, external affairs had purchased that building from the commission of government, and since-


Gordon Francis Higgins: No, no.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, you know the story.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Let me give you the facts. The property was purchased from a private individual. I do not know what department purchased it but I am assuming it was your department. The building was used to house the high commissioner, and at the time of the consummation of union it was rented to the government of Newfoundland. I want to find out the purchase price of the building when it was originally bought.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not have that information. It was purchased by external affairs to house the high commissioner for Canada in Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You mean there is no chance of finding out at all?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, when the external affairs officials are before the committee. You have that committee on external affairs, and you can find out there.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is this not the proper place to ask about it?


Alphonse Fournier: No, it was transferred to public works. I did not make an inspection to find out if it was paid for by cash or with a note. We took it over, and we rented it to the province later on.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall not plague the minister, then, because he has been plagued enough today. Would he be prepared to give a full answer on this tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that you could see in the public accounts for 1946-47, when it was purchased.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The other matter the minister is going to look up is how I got these figures for maintenance.


Alphonse Fournier: I will get that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and ^ sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within^ the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
324.	Newfoundland, $550,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: This is the place where the minister asked me to raise the question about revotes. For instance, on page 396 I find that out of nine items listed for item 324 amounting to $550,000, actually there are revotes totalling more than $550,000. There is an allowance of some $67,000 made for overestimates or amounts that will not be spent. I just cannot understand how a government of experts last year asked for $575,000 of which they did not spend one cent. There are seven items for _ which money was voted a year ago, of which not a dollar was spent. It would appear that seven of those items are entire revotes. The minister explained that you get a certain amount of money and you are not able to finish a building so you have a revote, but here is a case where the whole amount is revoted. I would like some explanation of that, because I am going to bring up the matter in connection with the other provinces.


Alphonse Fournier: Let us take the first item, Bishop's Falls public building. To complete this there will be a revote of $45,000. You understand that in this case the work is under contract and it is proceeding. We expect to complete the work and we need a further amount of $62,000 for this fiscal year, which comprises an amount of $45,000 which was voted to us last year and which I am asking the house to revote this year.
Now take the second case, in which there is a revote for the Clarenville public building. This amount is to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building to accommodate the post office and customs at Clarenville. The proposed building is strongly requested by the customs division, who state they are now located in a very dilapidated building which is entirely unsuitable. The Post Office Department has also requested space in the proposed building. Pending preparation of preliminary plans the total cost is tentatively estimated at $75,000. This was voted last year. I do not think we have succeeded as yet in purchasing the site. We hope to purchase a site. When we get the site we will have the officials in the department prepare plans. We expect that during this fiscal year we may be able to spend part of that $75,000.

Supply-Public Works


Joseph William Noseworthy: What about the other items? They are all the same.


Alphonse Fournier: I could read the
whole book and you would get about the same explanation as this. Here is one. It is at Corner Brook. A site satisfactory to the Post Office Department as to location and to the chief architect as to size has been selected. This site located on Main street is owned by Bowater's (Newfoundland) Pulp and Paper Mills and has been offered for sale at a price of $18,000. This area involves approximately 36,000 square feet. As the asking price is considered fair and reasonable, negotiations are being undertaken to acquire the site. If we purchase that site during this year, we will have plans prepared; and if they are ready during the fiscal year we will ask for tenders and give out the contract. What we will be able to spend on this I cannot tell.
Mr. Nose worthy: What is the explanation of the fact that each year your experts estimate how much of that estimated expenditure will remain unspent In the case of Newfoundland last year they estimated that they would probably ask for $137,000 more than would be spent. Actually they asked for $575,000 more than was spent. That situation applies all the way through the architectural branch of this department. In Nova Scotia you find four items which were not touched at all. Nova Scotia had a fairly good record there.


Alphonse Fournier: Shall we pass this
first item? Then when we reach Nova Scotia I will give more information.


Joseph William Noseworthy: All right; take them one at a time.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the minister whether anything has been done about the two buildings there for which provision is made, namely the public building
and the customs building?


Gordon Francis Higgins: In St. John's.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, in St. J ohn's.


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is required' to purchase a site and for preparation of plans and specifications for a proposed building at St. John's, Newfoundland, to provide improved accommodation for the customs services. It is now proposed to erect the new building on the site of the existing building which will be enlarged by the acquisition of property between the site and the war memorial square. The additional property to be acquired consists of four parcels of land, and there are three owners 
involved. Valuations of the property were prepared for the department by H. J. Thomas and Son, St. John's, and by Willett Engineering and Surveying Company, St. John's. I do not know whether I should give these figures. I would rather keep these valuations undisclosed until we negotiate. But I have valuations for the whole of the property and we are negotiating with these people for the purchase of the properties. I think hon. members should not insist that I give those amounts.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
insist on the disclosure of that information.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the building supposed to be for? What is the general idea?


Alphonse Fournier: That is for the
customs.


Gordon Francis Higgins: To what size do you propose to enlarge it?


Alphonse Fournier: I know that the estimated cost will be in the neighbourhood of $550,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is not very big. Is
that the cost of the building alone?


Alphonse Fournier: That is the estimated cost.


William Joseph Browne: The total
cost?


Alphonse Fournier: We will know more
about it when the plans are prepared and when we are owners of the site.


William Joseph Browne: I suppose the plans are prepared now before you have bought that land?


Alphonse Fournier: It is rather difficult, before we become owners of the site, to prepare final plans. We have to make those plans conform to the site on which the building will be erected.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it proposed to begin construction shortly?


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as I can purchase the site we will start working on it. The other case I would say we will let stand. I have not purchased the site and, judging by the clippings that were read in the house, it seems that I am having difficulty in getting the proper site for that building.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it fair to assume that you are not going to put it on government house ground?


Alphonse Fournier: Do not ask me that.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why not?


Alphonse Fournier: Because I could not give you an answer.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The last time you were talking to me here in the chamber you told me that all that remained was the purchase price to be negotiated between you and the premier of Newfoundland?


Alphonse Fournier: We have not reached that stage.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Have you changed your mind since?


Alphonse Fournier: I have not reached that stage yet.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Of changing your mind?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not answer that question.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the minister whether any progress has been made in respect of the other two, St. Lawrence and Stephenville. They are revotes here of the full amounts.


Alphonse Fournier: We have not got the sites. Here is the estimated cost of $55,000. For the site we expect to pay about $5,000, for the building, $45,000; for supervision and contingencies, $5,000. The other one is for Stephenville. The site selected for this building adjoins the existing post office building and measures 100 feet along the highway to Kippens and 100 feet along the highway to Stephenville Crossing. The owner has offered to sell the property for the sum of $2,500.


William Joseph Browne: The only question I really want to ask is this. Is there a good chance of the work going ahead this year?


Alphonse Fournier: That is why we have the estimate. We live in hope that during the fiscal year it will be possible.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I revert to the public building in St. John's for one moment. Is it correct that nothing will be done on the public building without recourse to the town planning commission? Would that be definite?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know what progress has been made. Oh, yes; every representation that was made will be taken into account. But it is far more complicated than the hon. gentleman thinks to get this site in St. John's. Most of my troubles in public works have been in deciding on a site and in getting the local people to agree that
Supply-Public Works
it is the proper site. You two hon. members from St. John's do not, I think, agree.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We agree on the site; we agree where it should not be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of
public buildings-
325.	Nova Scotia, $1,200,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: It is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and then take up the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. On Friday we shall take up the Income Tax Act. We hope to have that concluded early enough tb deal with the resolution concerning the superannuation act. That resolution is the basis of a bill to amend the superannuatioh act. The bill will be referred to a committee, and we should like to see it sent to the committee as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
The following items were passed in committee of supply:

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
320.	Departmental administration, $671,905.
321.	Branch administration, $514,539.
322.	Ottawa-^maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $13,588,361.
323.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $800,000, $18,998,865.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
324.	Newfoundland, $550,000.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 9, 1953