1954-04-29

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the Unemployment Insurance Act been studied, since January 1, 1954, by the government or by any officials thereof, to determine whether provision should be made for a person who has qualified for unemployment insurance benefits to continue receiving such benefits until such person is re-employed?
2.	If so, by whom have such studies been made?
3.	Have such studies resulted in any decisions or recommendations to the Minister of Labour?
4.	If so, what are the terms of any such decisions or recommendations?
5.	Will legislation based thereon be introduced at this session?


Mr. Gregg:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. Studies in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Act are being carried on by the unemployment insurance commission in conjunction with representatives of interested departments. The studies do not relate to provision for the payment of benefits to any person for an indeterminate period of time falling outside the scope of an unemployment insurance scheme.
5. No.
DENTIFRICE ADVERTISEMENTS Mr. Knowles:
1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare made any investigation or examination of tooth pastes, tooth powders or other dentifrices being sold in Canada, to determine whether or not such products measure up to the claims made for them in advertisements appearing on their behalf?
2.	If so, what are the results of such investigation or examination?
3.	Have any dentifrice advertisements been found to be misleading? If so, in what way?
4.	Have any dentifrice advertisements been found to offend against the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, as assented to on May 14, 1953? If so, in what way?
5.	Have any protests been received from dentists or dental associations concerning dentifrice advertisements?
6.	If so, what action has the government taken in connection with such protests?
7.	Is the government aware of any public protests concerning dentifrice advertisements made by the American Dental Association?
8.	If so, what study has the government given to such protests, or what action has the government taken on the basis thereof?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes. Tooth pastes and tooth powders have been analysed in the laboratories of the food and drug divisions during the past few years. Manufacturers have also been requested to submit data in support of claims made or proposed for advertising purposes.
2.	The results of the analysis revealed no violation of the Food and Drugs Act or regulations. Some of the data submitted was not considered adequate to support the advertised claims and manufacturers have withdrawn such claims voluntarily.
3.	Yes. Some dentifrice advertisements have been found misleading in that statements were made that could not be supported by adequate evidence.
4.	The Food and Drugs Act, as assented to on May 14, 1953, has not yet been proclaimed; therefore no offence can be committed at this time in contravention of the revised act.
5.	One dental association asked for the department's views on anti-enzymes as related to dental health and the advertising of such products.
6.	The dental association was informed that manufacturers were requested to submit clinical evidence in support of their claims and where such evidence was not scientifically acceptable, they were asked to withdraw such claims.
7.	The Department of National Health and Welfare is not aware that the American Dental Association has ever advertised a dentifrice.
8.	See answer to No. 7 above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


FEDERAL SUBSIDIES


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Do any firms in British Columbia receive a subsidy from the federal government?
2.	If so, what are the names of such companies, and to what extent are they subsidized?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a word with the hon. member for New Westminster and he has consented to having the words "engaged in mining, metallurgy or agriculture" inserted in the first part of the question after the word "firms". If that amendment is agreeable, this question could be made an order for return.

inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: As modified, this question is made an order for return.



VETERANS INSURANCE

Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	How many world war I veterans are at present carrying veterans insurance?
2.	How many of these are still paying premiums and maintaining policies at their full face values?
3.	How many have taken paid up insurance and discontinued paying premiums?
4.	How many in the past ten years have taken the cash surrender value of their policies?
5.	How does the cost of world war I veterans insurance compare with that of veterans of world war II and that of Korean veterans?
6.	How do paid up insurance values compare with those of world war II veterans for comparative age groups?
7.	How does veterans insurance for veterans of world war I, world war II and Korea each compare with ordinary company life insurance in relation to premiums, paid up insurance values and cash surrender values?
8.	Is veterans insurance sold on a strict actuarial and self-sustaining basis?
9.	If not, to what extent is it subsidized and what was the cost to the government of this subsidy for the fiscal year 1953-54?
10.	What is the premium on a policy of $1,000, face value taken out by a world war I veteran at age 55?
11.	At what age would said veteran be entitled to a paid up policy for a full $1,000?
12.	What would be the paid up insurance value on said policy after 25 annual payments had been made and the veteran had reached the age of 80?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house if it is on the instructions of the government that the Canadian representatives at Geneva are not attending the discussions on Indo-China?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not on instructions of the government. It is no doubt as a consequence of the discussions [DOT]we had about the matter before the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) left for that conference. As I stated the other day, our position was that we were not committed to the actions that are proceeding in Indo-China and had no standing to ask to participate in the decisions that might be arrived at in respect of that situation; we wanted to be careful and not depart in any way from the attitude we have maintained in the house that our commitments with respect to action in the East were limited to those that were under the aegis of the United Nations, and that if it became

advisable for us to go beyond that the government would give very careful consideration to the facts and would come to the house and make full disclosure of the facts upon which any recommendation might be made or any other commitment might be undertaken.


George Alexander Drew: Would it not be an advantage to have the information which could be obtained at such a meeting without in any way committing us to the outcome of what may take place?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I am convinced that we are getting just as full information about what is taking place as if we were really a participant in the discussions.


TAXATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have two questions to ask the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. The first is this: Was the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) expressing government policy when he said in Edmonton on April 28, as reported in a Canadian Press dispatch in the Globe and Mail of April 29, that "there will be little, if any, change in taxes for years to come."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I assume that the hon. member is referring to the report in the Globe and Mail of April 29 as the basis for this question. I have secured the report and I find that nowhere in it is the minister reported as having said the words used in the hon. gentleman's question. As a matter of fact, the report states:
He told the Canadian Club that despite existence of the hydrogen and atomic bombs, the need for conventional weapons is just as great.
Then there are some words that are indicated as a quotation which are as follows:
The H-bomb has not lessened the magnitude of the defence operation. There is still a need for a navy, army and air force of about the present size as the minimum force necessary to enable us to do our job.
Then the reporter goes on to say:
Observers said this was a clear indication that defence budgets will remain at the present level for years-around $2 billion annually. Defence forms at least 40 per cent of the national budget. Thus tax reductions, if any, would necessarily have to be small.
It seems to have been the impression made upon those who heard the speech that there

was not likely to be a change in taxes for years to come. There seems to have been no such statement made by the minister, and it may or may not be an accurate conclusion to draw from the statement of the minister that the situation seemed to require the maintenance of as large forces as we have at the present time. In any event there has been no government policy determined with respect to taxes for future years, and there will be no determination until we know just exactly what is the situation we have to budget for in those future years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I think my question indicated, I was quoting from the dispatch. I should like to read the words again and ask the Prime Minister if he thinks what he has said indicates any inaccuracy in the sense of this dispatch. 1 read the words:
Defence Minister Claxton indicated today that there will be little change in taxes, if any, for years to come.
As I understood the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) he said nothing to differ substantially from that.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The reporter says that
the minister indicated that there would be no change in taxes for years to come. Then he goes on to explain how that indication was made. It was made by the statement that under present conditions it appeared necessary to maintain the strength of the forces now in existence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not like to be inaccurate, so again I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks there is any inaccuracy in the statement which I have read?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: There is only this inaccuracy. The statement appears to have been a conclusion drawn by the reporter. From the statement that the forces will have to remain at their present strength he draws a conclusion about the taxes, and whether or not that is an accurate conclusion to draw from the statement is a matter of opinion.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
James MacKerras Macdonnell: My
second question is this. Will the Prime Minister comment on the statement made by the Minister of National Defence as reported in a Canadian Press dispatch of April 29 on the subject of NATO. I hope these words are correct.
Inquiries of the Ministry
If the defence build-up had been continued as originally planned, the economies of NATO members would have been wrecked.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Again, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the reporter does not state that as being a direct quotation of what the minister said. As to what the minister said, I do not know; I was not there. I had inquiries made at his office as to whether or not there were notes that he was to use for his speech in Edmonton. I was told that there were no such notes. I received notice of the hon. member's question just a few minutes before I came into the house. There has been no opportunity to communicate with the Minister of National Defence.
Whether or not he is under the impression that had the original forecast that it was necessary to build up an active force for an attack in July, 1954 been carried out, it would have involved such extensive expenditures by members of the NATO organization as to wreck their economies, I have no personal opinion. The minister has attended several of the meetings of the council of the NATO organization. What impression he got from the discussions at those meetings, I do not know and I would not like to attempt to offer any comment upon material that is not available to me at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will reserve any further questions until we see the text of the minister's speech.


Mr. Abbott:: A splendid idea.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare clarify the situation in regard to civil defence in the light of a statement made by the responsible minister in Ontario that there are, in fact, no agreements with Ontario and Quebec as had previously been stated in this house.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): As the hon. member has said, Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of civil defence in Ontario did make a comment which I understand appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. I do not always have the opportunity of reading the Globe and Mail until the evening, so I am not in a position to accurately and completely answer my hon, friend's question.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I understand that he said I was in error in saying there had been general agreement on the matter of civil defence and the matter of financing in connection therewith. I wish only to say that I believe the record will indicate that what I said represented the situation correctly at that time. It is true that the province of Quebec did not agree with the general proposal, and that Ontario took the position it wished to proceed with its program of standardization of hose couplings. After that heavy expenditure had been made consideration would be given to whether or not the proposed new formula would be one which the province would support. I may say that the other provinces expressed general agreement with the proposition as stated.
If there has been any error, I am sure it is an error in good faith on both sides, because for the minister for civil defence in Ontario I have nothing but the highest respect. I am sure if there has been any misunderstanding he and I will be able to settle it in a satisfactory manner.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to make a statement concerning disarmament. In its resolution on disarmament of November 28 last, the United Nations general assembly suggested that the disarmament commission study the desirability of establishing a subcommittee which should seek in private an acceptable solution of the disarmament problem and report to the commission as soon as possible. The commission has now set up a subcommittee on which Canada is represented together with France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union.
The establishment of the subcommittee is considered by the Canadian government as an important step towards the settlement of a vital problem, the importance of which has been underlined by recent developments in the field of atomic and hydrogen weapons. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will be the Canadian representative on the subcommittee which will begin private talks on or about May 13 in London. Mr. N. A. Robertson, Canadian High Commissioner in the United Kingdom and Mr. David M. Johnson, Canadian permanent


representative to the United Nations, will be alternate representatives in London and in New York respectively.
The disarmament commission has recommended that the subcommittee submit a report of its discussions not later than July 15 next. The commission itself is called upon to report to the general assembly and the security council not later than September 1, 1954. The Canadian government earnestly hopes that these renewed efforts on the part of the United Nations will result in substantial progress being achieved in finding a solution to the problem of disarmament.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH AT MOOSE JAW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and I regret that I have not had an opportunity of giving him notice. If he is not prepared to answer it now, perhaps he would be kind enough to take the question as notice. Was any spokesman for the Canadian air lines pilots association invited to appear as a witness before the body appointed by the Department of Transport to investigate the recent air crash at Moose Jaw?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Subject to looking at the record, Mr. Speaker, my answer would be no.


John Angus MacLean: Did this association express a desire to have a representative appear before the investigating body with regard to that accident?


Lionel Chevrier: The investigation is carried on under a statute, the Aeronautics Act, and, as I indicated to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) yesterday, I have now received a copy of the report. I should think it is somewhat late for representations to be made at this time.


John Angus MacLean: No, I believe I have been misunderstood. My question was, were representations made at the time the board was sitting to allow a witness to appear?


Lionel Chevrier: My answer to the first question was that so far as I can recollect no representations had been made. I may be wrong in that, and I would have to look at the file. Certainly none have been brought to my attention.

Supply-Public Works
LABOUR CONDITIONS	EMERGENCY POWERS ACT



SEASONAL UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the speech the Minister of Labour is reported to have made yesterday at a meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, can he tell the house what steps the government proposes to take to implement the recommendations made to the minister for minimizing or eliminating seasonal unemployment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to send the hon. member a copy of the speech I made to the Canadian Manufacturers Association yesterday, and I believe that will give him the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that at some stage the minister will give that information to the house.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, notice of which I sent to his office this morning. Has the minister or his department given any consideration to the advisability of sending representatives to the annual meeting of the national fisheries institute to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, starting on Sunday next, at which important problems affecting the Canadian fishing industry will be discussed?
Kon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):
The Minister of Fisheries, the deputy minister of fisheries and the director of fish inspection will all attend that meeting.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of National Revenue if it continues to be the policy of the government not to permit more than one television broadcasting station in any area?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1953 I made an announcement with respect to the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation having to do with the granting of licences for television stations. Since that time there has been no change, nor is there any change contemplated at the present time.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Prime Minister if the government has now decided whether it is going to ask parliament to extend the Emergency Powers Act at this session.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I propose to make a statement tomorrow about the further legislation to be introduced. However I can assure my hon. friend at the present time we have come to the conclusion we will not at this session ask parliament to extend the Emergency Powers Act. We felt it was a grave decision to make because there is still a pretty explosive situation existing in the world. I hope the situation will not require the exercise of any but normal powers by the governor in council. But should it develop that there would have to be, in the interests of the safety of the nation, powers exercised that are not normally conferred upon the governor in council by existing legislation, we would have to resort to the War Measures Act. I sincerely hope that will never be necessary while I am a member of the government.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

The Chairman:: The last time the committee sat we were discussing resolution 374 as it is found at page 51 of the estimates, the details appearing at page 447.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
374. British Columbia, $4,450,000.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee last considered these estimates on April 9 the question was raised as to whether or not the government would take any part in the construction of a new bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river, commonly known as the Marpole bridge. At that time the Minister of Public Works gave the undertaking that he would look into the situation, and if he found there had been any commitment by any member of the government, such commitment would be honoured. I refer in particular to page 3943 of Hansard where the minister is reported to have said:
I simply wish to assure the committee that if my predecessor here or any of my other colleagues in good faith have committed the federal government to participation in that bridge, they may be assured that that commitment will be honoured.

Supply-Public Works
And farther down on the same page he is reported as follows:
I do not want to hedge on these words. If my predecessor, or any of my colleagues, speaking on their responsibilities as members of the cabinet, have said that we will participate in the cost of building the Marpole bridge, then we will honour the commitment.
Then during the Easter recess I made further inquiries into the situation on the coast, and found that on Vancouver island the government paid a portion-half, I believe-of the cost of the road from Patricia Bay airport to Victoria, on the basis that it was a road from an air station of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
As the minister is doubtless aware, the main R.C.A.F. station in British Columbia at the present time is based at the Vancouver airport. If the existence of an air force station was sufficient for the government to contribute to the cost of the road from Patricia Bay to Victoria, then the same argument applies with regard to the Marpole bridge which, to all intents and purposes, is the only connection with the airport from the city of Vancouver.
I have also found further corroboration of the fact that commitments were made. For example, on April 15 of this year, during the Easter recess, the minister of public works in British Columbia was quoted as follows in the Vancouver Province:
Mr. Gaglardi insisted the Right Hon. C. D. Howe had made a commitment to help B.C., and said, "I still believe the government will stick by its previous promises. I still refuse to accept anything but a positive answer."
And then he added this paragraph:
"Mr. Winters is a very fine man and I'm sure he'll help."
Whether that was just a little bit of honey, or not, I cannot say.


Mr. Siuari (Charlotte):: It is a statement
of fact.


Howard Charles Green: Then on June 15, 1953 I find
reference to a statement made in the B.C. legislature by Mr. Gaglardi. The article says:
Before the last legislative session Mr. Gaglardi visited Ottawa and reported he had a pledge of help from Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe.
Then I would refer to a press dispatch appearing in the Vancouver Sun of December 17, 1951, reporting upon a statement by the then premier of British Columbia, the Hon. Byron Johnson, concerning talks in Ottawa. The article states:
He had discussions with Transport Minister Lionel Chevrier concerning the financing of a new bridge at Marpole-


And there is an article referring to a statement by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) appearing in the Vancouver Province of November 13, 1951 as follows:
He said-
And this is Mr. Goode.
-Defence Production Minister C. D. Howe had told him in writing that the federal government was "not interested at this time in any more than a payment of $400,000 toward the Marpole crossing."
And I have a further quotation going back to 1947 reporting an interview with the minister of public works in British Columbia at that time, the late Mr. Carson. This article is dated November 21, 1947 and states, in the last paragraph:
Mr. Carson said he is not going to Ottawa with specific plans but wishes to sound out Mr. Howe on the federal government's attitude. Last year, Mr. Howe, when on the coast, said federal support would be forthcoming.
When I spoke on April 9 I quoted press statements reporting the Minister of Trade and Commerce as promising help in 1946. In addition, I quoted at that time statements by Mr. Arthur Laing, who is now the Liberal leader in British Columbia, to the effect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had promised help and also press reports of 1950 and November 1951 in the latter of which the Hon. Mr. Mayhew, then the British Columbia minister in this government, was quoted as follows:
Because the airport Is served by the bridge, Mr. Howe offered them some aid-I think it was $400,000 -but that is all. The money is still available if and when the city and province decide to build.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the provincial government has taken a lead and is going ahead to build this bridge. Is the federal government going to honour the commitments which were made at that time, as reported in the press, or, in any event, commitments which were understood by the people of British Columbia to have been made by this government?


Mr. Winters:: I wonder whether my hon. friend would clarify that last statement? Did I understand him to say that the provincial government had now taken the lead and is going to build the bridge? Is that the statement he made?


Mr. MacDougall:: He made the statement; it is not right.


Howard Charles Green: The report of Mr. Gaglardi's statement is given in this way:
Premier Bennett has said that although he still expects federal help, British Columbia will go ahead to build the bridge with or without it.

It has been intimated the provincial government will pay its promised one-third share and then impose tolls to collect the rest if Vancouver and Ottawa don't participate.
If that action is followed, then in my humble judgment it will mean that the people who use that bridge will have to pay tolls because Ottawa has broken its promise. I hope the government here will not allow itself to be put in that position.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: May I say a word, since my past remarks have been quoted by my hon. friend? This discussion of a bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river has been continuing for a good many years. In the beginning it was a fairly simple proposal of replacing the present swing bridge by a lift bridge at or near the same location. Conditions were different at that time in that we were operating the Sea Island airport. Discussions were held, but never with any agreement between the city and the province. I had said that if the city and the province were able to come forward with a scheme in which they both agreed, the federal government might be expected to contribute something up to one-third of the cost. Remember this was an indication given a good many years ago. Well, the city and the province never did agree, and they have not agreed to this date. But the province went up into the stratosphere and talked about a $7 million or $8 million bridge, which incidentally might give a better access to the airport but was really intended as another artery to the international border. At that time I indicated that we were not interested in a bridge for that purpose, that there is no federal responsibility for such a structure built wholly within a province. I still say, and I have repeated more recently, that if the bridge is confined to replacing the present bridge and serves no other purpose, and if the city and the province agreed on such a proposal, and agreed on their participation, the federal government would consider assistance.
That is the extent of my undertaking at any time. If the $400,000 figure was mentioned it then represented about one-third of the total expenditure that we were discussing; but I may say that much water has gone over the dam since then, and I consider that the present Minister of Public Works is not bound in any way by discussions about a totally different project which took place seven or eight years ago.


Howard Charles Green: I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the government is prepared now to make a contribution to a bridge over the north arm of the Fraser. There is no doubt at all-and I am sure he
Supply-Public Works
will agree with me-that there has to be some change made either in the present bridge or there has to be a new bridge built. Frankly I think it would be foolish simply to build up the old bridge. It is an old wooden structure, over fifty years old. This airport is certainly one of the two leading airports in Canada. The air force base on Sea island, which is part of the airport, is vital to the defence of the west coast, and it would be poor business not to build a proper bridge when a bridge is being built. Is the government prepared to pay one-third of the cost of such bridge? If it is not prepared to pay the one-third, approximately what contribution would it make? The provincial government has gone ahead and prepared plans.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of what?


Howard Charles Green: Of a bridge which is to be known as the Oak street bridge. It is a short distance-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a high level bridge leading to the international boundary.


Howard Charles Green: It is a high level bridge, yes; that is right. But a bridge to the airport should be a high level bridge; it should not be opened for every little scow that comes down with a load of sawdust. That is what is happening now. It is being opened hundreds of times a year. A businesslike approach to the question would be for the dominion to come off its high horse of not being willing to make any payment at all and agree to pay one-third of the cost of the plan, provided that plan is approved by the Department of Public Works. I think Vancouver is unanimous on this question. I would be surprised if any of the hon. members from greater Vancouver differed from the stand that I have taken. Of course they will have to speak for themselves, but this is a very serious matter. Any change in the bridge has been held up for many years.
As I said on April 9, such a condition would not have been allowed to exist in central Canada for six months simply because the seat of government is here in central Canada. Because we are 2,400 miles or 2,500 miles away it seems to be easy for the powers that be to shrug their shoulders and find someone else to blame. As a result nothing has been done. I hope that that position is not going to be taken on this question today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I be permitted to finish my remarks in the light of what has been said? I would point out that the government has received no proposal for
4232	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
a bridge leading to the airport only. That is all we are interested in. The city and the province have never at any time in my experience, in my nineteen years in this house, agreed on any proposal to build a bridge to serve the airport. My hon. friend is talking of a hypothetical bridge. There are bridges and bridges. Some we might be inclined to help out and others we would not help out. There is no obligation whatever on the federal government to assist in financing any bridge. It is a bridge within a province and a bridge within two municipalities.
A great many access roads have been built to airports without any federal help. I cannot think at the moment where we have helped access to any airport except in the case of Victoria. In that instance, there was an insistent demand that we build a civilian airport closer to town, and after a good deal of discussion and negotiation it was decided by the province and by ourselves that we could both save money by improving the access to the existing military airport, which was done. I cannot think of another case in the whole history of airports where the government has made a substantial contribution to providing access from a town to an airport. That is the position. I think the position today is that if the city and the province were to agree on a bridge solely for the purpose of giving access to the Sea Island airport and wanted to bring it along and sit down with us I do not think that contribution is barred, but certainly there is no definite commitment for a contribution as far as my discussions are concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean that the dominion government will make no contribution whatever unless this bridge is to be one solely to serve the airport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, so far as I am concerned.


Howard Charles Green: May I say that that is a ridiculous stand to take. If it is good business to ouild a high-level bridge a few hundred yards further up the river, even though that oridge serves a further purpose and will help with regard to traffic to the airport, surely a contribution should be made to that bridge. Why should the government take the position that it will not contribute one cent unless a bridge is built which serves only the airport? The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a good businessman, one of the best in Canada. I am amazed that he would take a position of that kind. I think that on reflection he will not stand by that statement. He will realize, just as must everyone in this house, that if it is more practical to build in


another spot a bridge which can serve more than the one purpose-that is, more than the airport-then that is what should be done and the dominion contribution should go into that bridge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, we were talking about past commitments. The Minister of Public Works will speak about what we will do today or tomorrow. I am talking about past commitments. I made clear to Mr. Carson the stand I have taken. I made it clear to all concerned. I have been referring to past commitments that had been made by myself. My hon. friend was referring to commitments made by myself. What the government will do under present-day conditions is something that the Minister of Public Works will deal with.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and Commerce admits that he did make commitments at least to the extent of $400,000 for help in the construction of the bridge?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount of $400,000 was not mentioned but a certain definite proposal had been put forward by the province and a somewhat similar one by the city. I said that if they would build the bridge as planned, which was a lift bridge, providing reasonable freedom from interruption to the traffic to the airport, I thought the government might contribute up to one-third.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that is quite definite in all this discussion and that is that a bridge is needed across the north arm of the Fraser river. I drove a milk wagon over that bridge forty-five years ago and at that time there was a sign there which said not to trot your horses. It has not improved a great deal during the intervening time. It seems to me that the initiative for the building of the bridge rests with the provincial government. When the provincial government has decided on building a bridge, I believe that this government has a responsibility in connection with a contribution, although I cannot agree with the minister that a bridge would be built there solely .for the airport. You cannot build a bridge there just solely for the airport. But a bridge built there as a bridge for general traffic would undoubtedly help traffic to and from the airport.
I think it was the Vancouver Sun which put on a little demonstration the last time the Prime Minister was in Vancouver just to show how easy it was to hold up traffic going to the airport on that bridge. But at any time that definite plans are made for building a bridge-and I say again that matter rests with the provincial government and not with the city of Vancouver or the federal

government-and when those plans are there, I will be ready to urge the federal government to make a contribution.
I believe that the contribution will have to be more than $400,000. The most recent figure that I saw-I would not be too definite now as to what it was-was, I think, several million dollars. A $400,000 contribution is neither here nor there. As the minister was heard to say one other time "What's a million dollars anyway?" I say again that I shall be glad to add my words and efforts to those of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to get a bridge that is badly needed there; but I believe that the initiative should come from the provincial government.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I might just state what the position is since we last discussed the matter on April 9 here in committee. Since that time I have been reviewing the files to see what has been the nature of these alleged commitments. From the files I have found that they are mostly newspaper reports. Just what more there is to it, I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said today that there was a commitment.


Robert Henry Winters: I was going to add that when my hon. friend interrupted. In the meantime the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said before the committee that he promised some time ago that the federal government would participate in building a low-level bridge whose primary purpose was to provide access to the airport. I might state also that Hon. P. A. Gaglardi was here this week and saw me on Tuesday, at which time we discussed the bridge. He then talked in terms of a high-level bridge costing in excess of what he estimated to be $10 million. I told him I was surprised at this high-level bridge proposal. He said it had been before the department for some time, but in fact I was not aware of it. I still thought our discussion related to a low-level bridge which was estimated to cost about $1,200,000, and that is how the $400,000 figure arose. I told Mr. Gaglardi that in the light of all these developments I was perfectly prepared to review the whole subject, to discuss it further with my colleagues and then to let him know what the decision would be.


John Lorne MacDougall: As a Vancouver member I have an interest in the construction of bridges which is equal to that of my friends the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I do not think that this is the time that we should muddy the waters in connection with this discussion. It seems to me that in the
Supply-Public Works
minds of different people we are putting the cart before the horse. My good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has spoken of a crossing over the north arm of the Fraser river. I think that what we must realize first and foremost is that a crossing might mean a crossing at Marpole or a crossing at the southern end of Oak street. There is no doubt that what has been said by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is quite true, namely that 45 years ago the Marpole bridge was then fairly new and that at that time it was necessary not to exceed the speed limit by trotting your horses. Since that time there has been no improvement in the Marpole situation but rather a great deterioration by virtue of age.
I think we have to look upon this thing in the light of the traffic conditions today. First of all, if we start talking about Marpole high suspension, we are running into a deadend street for the simple reason that it would be a detriment to navigation by virtue of its close location to the airport. I am not trying to bring up a question between the bascule bridge that is a possibility or a high-level suspension bridge, but the Marpole bridge as now located is very close to the landing field of the international airport in Vancouver. Consequently I think it would be poor business to consider in that particular area a high-level suspension bridge. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra spoke about a crossing over the north arm of the Fraser river. A crossing might mean a crossing at Marpole or it might mean a crossing at the end of Oak street. When you get into the question of $8 million or $10 million bridge construction, you are certainly going to have a high-level suspension bridge.
Whether a crossing is to be decided upon at this time I am not prepared to say for the simple reason that it is my considered opinion that before any definite and specific action can be taken, either by the municipal or provincial government of British Columbia, or the federal government here, the first thing to be done is to ascertain who is going to own the international airport. When we have that question settled it is quite possible that one or other of the potential crossings over the north arm of the Fraser river will have automatically eliminated itself.
Last summer and fall there was an editorial in the Vancouver Sun with respect to the Marpole bridge based upon the possibility of handling the project in three ways. The municipality of Richmond would construct the southern approach, the city of Vancouver construct the northern approach, with the provincial government possibly sharing the construction of the central span.

Supply-Public Works
That, to me, is very sound; but just the same is the potential crossing of the Fraser going to be at Marpole, or is it going to be the southern extension of the Oak street bridge? I do not think I can quite go along with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra on this question at this time because on the basis of his approach I think we are going to make confusion all the more confounded, and heaven knows we have enough of that now.
It seems to me that the logical thing to do now is to ascertain at the earliest possible moment whether the federal government and the municipalities can come to an agreement on the sale of the international airport. When we have done that we will then be in a much better position to judge whether the crossing to be established is going to be at Marpole or at the southern end of Oak street.
In this whole question, Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that we have more to consider than simply the problem of traffic in a city which is growing at the terrific rate at which Vancouver is now growing. There is much more to this problem than that of a mere traffic bottleneck. In the event of our having to evacuate the city of Vancouver we are in a positively untenable position at the present time. We do not know, nor can anyone in this house know, regardless of how well informed they may be with respect to foreign affairs, when some trigger-happy character may pull the string, and if that should occur the city of Vancouver, as I have said, is in a very bad position. I believe the aspect of possible evacuation should be considered in connection with bridge outlets from the metropolitan area of Vancouver.
I am no authority on this aspect but it seems to me that we would be well advised to discuss a crossing over the Fraser when we have first decided what is going to happen to the international airport. When that is decided then one or other of the crossings now in people's minds will automatically eliminate itself and the various governments concerned, municipal, provincial, and federal, will be in a much sounder position to come to an agreement if for no other reason than that the expediency of potential evacuation might bring about an agreement satisfactory to all concerned.
I am just as anxious as the two hon. members from Vancouver who have already spoken on this question that we have an adequate crossing over the Fraser river, but I believe that before we come to any final decision as to where that crossing is going to be it is essential that the government of British Columbia, and the municipalities of

Vancouver and Richmond, know exactly what the score is with respect to the ownership of the international airport. In this instance, Mr. Chairman, I believe we could possibly hasten the construction of adequate crossings over the Fraser river if we do not now rush into it until such time as we know where that crossing is actually going to be located.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, earlier this week I spoke on this question in this house and today my name has been brought into the discussion in regard to certain correspondence between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and I think this was in 1951-made his suggestion of financial assistance being conditional upon the city of Vancouver and the provincial government becoming interested in this bridge. Whether a mistaken report was issued in that regard is not my responsibility but in numerous speeches I mentioned the amount of $400,000. I also mentioned the fact that this was a provisional amount.
We are talking about a bridge which is 65 years old and which during October 1953 opened no less than 664 times. I represent people who are deeply concerned with this matter and I can say that my people in Richmond believe that the federal government have a responsibility if the airport is purchased by the federal government. I said that earlier this week and I say it again.
In regard to a southern highway from Vancouver to the United States, there is confirmation of that in the brief which the provincial government of British Columbia brought to Ottawa some time last year. If hon. members read that brief they will find no mention of a Marpole bridge. There is mention of a highway to the United States. If it is the opinion of the provincial government of British Columbia that this bridge is being built only to supplement a highway to the United States then I would doubt that the federal government had any financial responsibility. But in my speech on Tuesday I outlined certain specifications in regard to my support of one-third of the financial cost, and if I remember correctly this is what I said: that plans and specifications be made and offered by the provincial government of my province to the Minister of Public Works so he may then know what these plans are. It has been stated in the Vancouver press that these plans are already here, but I do not believe that is true. I believe I can place the responsibility for that statement upon a provincial cabinet minister who gave it to the Vancouver press. I understand the final

plans have yet to be decided upon and I have some doubt they have been drawn at this moment.
However, when we start talking about federal responsibility then I cannot but agree with my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. If we do purchase the airport at a cost of $1,100,000-I think that is the amount suggested-then I hope the Minister of Public Works will take a look at this plan in regard to the Oak street bridge. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard made some suggestion that an offer had been made to Richmond to build the southern approach to the bridge, but I think he was in error. The municipality of Richmond has not the money and the suggestion has not been made to them that they build that southern approach. What was suggested some time ago was that the city of Vancouver would build the northern end of the bridge, the federal government the southern end of the bridge and the provincial government the main span. I do not think that the suggestion was offered very seriously but it was offered late last year.
There is no doubt in my mind that the municipality of Richmond needs a crossing. It is quite clear to me that the crossing is going to be at Oak street because the provincial government has already bought large quantities of land in my municipality- title to which I understand has been given to either the province or one of their officials. I happen to know the people who sold the property to them, and I think you can take it that, as I said on Tuesday, the intentions of the provincial government of British Columbia are sincere. The engineers have told the provincial government that a high-level bridge at Oak street is quite permissible having regard to the act that governs the control of airways. The engineers in British Columbia seem to be of the opinion that this would be no detriment to the landing of aircraft.
I said last year at several meetings on the coast that it was my opinion that at this time the present Marpole span should be done away with and that a new span should be built 30 feet above high water level which would allow every vessel using the north arm, except one, to go under the bridge without any suspension of traffic. I understand that one dredge that goes to New Westminster once a week would have to have the bridge raised for it, but that is all. As I said last Tuesday, the bridge was opened 664 times in a month. This is a disgrace for which responsibility should not be attributed to the federal government but to
Supply-Public Works
the provincial government of British Columbia because there is no doubt that at this time there is a contract signed by the municipality of Richmond and the provincial government whereby the provincial government accepts full responsibility for that bridge. I have seen the document. It is in the hands of the municipality of Richmond, and I am quite sure if the Minister of Public Works wishes it I can get him a copy.
I think every member from British Columbia is sincere about this matter, and I hope the people at home are not being kidded too much with respect to this bridge. On any street in Vancouver, Burnaby or Richmond you will find a different rumour regarding what the federal government proposes to do. The truth should be put on the record, and as one who is vitally interested I may say that as far as I know I do not think the federal government have moved on this matter. I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works, as I did on Tuesday, that they do not move until plans and specifications are in their hands showing a sincere intention on the part of the provincial government to build the bridge.


Mr. Philpoii:: I want to say a word about the bridge, one end of which happens to be in my own constituency. I will assure the committee now that it is going to be just a word because it seems to me it is quite superfluous for us to talk at too great length about the details of who is going to pay for how much until we have some exact, hard and concrete proposition in front of us. I for one was very glad to hear the assurances of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Public Works that when the authorities primarily responsible for building the bridge, the provincial government of British Columbia, come to the federal government with a hard and fast proposition this government will be prepared to give it fair consideration. As far as I am concerned, at this moment that is good enough for me.
I want to make one or two observations on the question of principle. It would be very presumptuous for me, as a new member of the house, to say to what degree the national authority should step in so far as the question of bridges is concerned, but as I read the constitution of Canada I see no obligation whatever upon the government of Canada to pay for any bridges except on three different scores, if bridges are interprovincial, if they are international or if they are, for some peculiar reason, required for primarily national purposes.
There are three national purposes which might be involved with respect to the Marpole bridge. In the first place, if the federal
423S

Supply-Public Works authority does acquire the airport at Vancouver, which I certainly hope comes to pass because I believe the offer now made is a fair one, then it seems to me only common sense that the government of Canada will require access to their airport because it is no good unless you have access to it and access away from it. Just before coming here for this session I made a speech at the air force base on Sea island and my audience literally galloped out on me at about a quarter to five because they wanted to get to the Marpole bridge to beat the traffic. Otherwise they would be held up for about two hours. There, of course, is a very practical reason why we need a proper bridge to get to one of the most vital airports in the whole Dominion of Canada.
The second consideration about which I would remind the committee is of course the question of navigation in its relation to traffic. Just the other day we heard the Minister of Public Works tell how fairly the government has dealt with the province of Ontario with respect to the bridge over the canal at Burlington, Ontario. I am not saying this is the case, but if the same considerations apply in respect of traffic over the Fraser river as apply in respect of traffic over the canal at Burlington, namely, that it is an advantageous thing to build a certain type of bridge in order to facilitate navigation, a federal responsibility, then it seems to me that the federal authority would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any hard and concrete proposition that is made. I may have a bit more to say if a hard and concrete proposition is ever placed before the federal authority, but all I want to say now is that I am delighted with the assurances we have received this afternoon from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Public Works that when the federal government have something real to go on they will give it proper consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Before we drop this subject I should like to have the minister make perfectly clear exactly what the position of the government is to be on this bridge. On April 9, as found at page 3940 of Hansard, he said:
We have, to date, told the government of British Columbia that there is no federal government responsibility with respect to the bridge, and that we cannot participate in the cost.
Today there has been some change in the attitude of the government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has admitted that he at least made a commitment several years ago, and the Minister of Public Works has said he will have another look at the question. That does not go very far. I should like to know exactly what the government stand is
[Mr. Philpott.l

to be. Is the government now prepared to participate in the cost of a bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river and, if so, under what conditions and to what extent?


Robert Henry Winters: My position is exactly the same as it was. As we have just heard, a bridge of this type is not normally a federal government responsibility. It was for that reason we told the government of British Columbia that under normal circumstances this was not our responsibility and we did not see that we could participate. Then hon. members brought to my attention the fact that certain of my colleagues were alleged to have made commitments with respect to the bridge. My hon. friend heard today the extent to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he had told the government of British Columbia the federal government was prepared to participate. In the light of that, only this week I told the minister of public works of British Columbia that I was quite prepared to review the whole case having regard to all these considerations. I was thinking in terms of a low level bridge. He apparently is thinking in terms of a high level bridge.
As other hon. members have said here today, I want to see his clear-cut proposals. I should like to know something about the extent to which the city is prepared to participate. The minister from British Columbia told me this week he was not able to inform me of the extent to which the city would share. He had no agreement with them. There are details to be worked out, and I am not in a position to tell the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, much as I should like to oblige him, specifically on what basis and to what extent the federal government is prepared to participate. That is a matter that must be studied fully in the light of the facts that are still to be placed before us.


Howard Charles Green: Can we take it from the minister's statement that the dominion government is prepared to participate in the construction of the new bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: I must have the facts before I can give any such assurance.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not making any commitment whatever today that the government will participate in the construction of the new bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: I am making no commitment beyond an undertaking to restudy this whole matter. While I say that, I have in mind the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce today, and -hon. members may be assured that will not be overlooked.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to deal with the item for a public building in Vernon, B.C. I was rather surprised to see that the amount had been dropped from $100,000 to $25,000 and so far as I am aware no reason has been given to the city of Vernon, the board of trade or any of the interested parties. I was rather surprised because it indicates a change of policy on the part of the new minister.
The history of this public building goes back four or five years. Some years ago a new site was acquired by the government for this building and about three years ago the government informed the city of Vernon that plans were started for this building. It was hoped tenders would be called that fall. Two years ago the present Minister of Fisheries was in Vernon, was taken over the site, and definitely promised on his return he would see that something was done to speed up this work. A previous minister, Mr. Mayhew, also promised the same thing to the city of Vernon.
The previous minister of public works made a definite promise that this building had a high priority and would be started and completed last year, 1953. I have a whole file of letters if the minister wishes to see them to corroborate what I am saying. The last one is dated February 4, 1953. The assistant district architect for the Department of Public Works in Vancouver told the city of Vernon that it was the federal government's intention to commence construction of the new post office in Vernon immediately. The city wrote saying they were naturally very pleased and were looking forward to the completion of the public building before the year was out.
The Minister of Fisheries stated, after inspecting the site of the new federal building and thoroughly examining the plans, the present inadequate post office and the plans for its use as a city hall, that upon his return to Ottawa he would take up the matter with the Minister of Public Works in an effort to have construction expedited. That was January 20, 1952. I have a letter from-


Robert Henry Winters: I think I can save considerable time for the committee if the hon. member will let me state what the position is. We propose to construct a building in Vernon. We are waiting now for certain other departments of government to decide whether or not they wish space in that building. We expect those decisions will be finalized later this year and we aim at having the plans ready next year.


Owen Lewis Jones: I thank the minister for his reply, but I had the same reply nearly two years ago. A form was sent around to each
Supply-Public Works
department asking what space they required in the new building, and it was a question of having those forms completed about a year and a half ago.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I do not really see that this is getting us anywhere. I just told the hon. member what the position is. It seems to me the practice is growing of quoting everybody except the minister responsible for the department. I have told the hon. member what the position is. I hope he will take my word for that.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to give the minister a change by conveying to him the appreciation of my constituents at the announcement that a new post office is to be built in Nanaimo. I should like also to question him as to the policy of his department in releasing such news. At Easter, before I left for my constituency, the minister was kind enough to send me a letter informing me the department was not going to build a breakwater at Cowichan bay. This sad news I had to convey to my constituents. The first thing that confronted me when I landed in Nanaimo was a report in the local paper that the president of the local Liberal association announced that a contract had been let for a new post office in Nanaimo.
I am given to understand that the Minister of Public Works is not responsible for such disclosures but it is the work, shall we say, of one of his colleagues who is delegated to take a paternal interest in the province from which he comes. I should like to say this is really a very bad policy. I am quite sure the minister does not need any information from me to know just what little pile of hay I made out of that particular situation at the three meetings I addressed at Nanaimo during the Easter recess.


Mr. Hahn:: I wish to convey my appreciation to the minister and to his department for the proposed erection of a new post office in the town of Cloverdale. I understand tenders have been called for the demolition of the city hall building in the city of New Westminster. So far as we can gather, this is supposed to be the site of a new federal building in the city of New Westminster. I have just a few pertinent questions with reference to both the Cloverdale area and New Westminster. What branches of the various departments are going to be housed in the particular buildings, and can any information be given as to the size of the proposed building in New Westminster? Is it contemplated that it shall be erected later this year?


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member said, we have called for tenders for the demolition of the present buildings on the site acquired.

Supply-Public Works
We are in the process now of preparing plans for a building to house the post office, customs, unemployment insurance commission and soldier settlement, as well as perhaps some other departments of government. We have not assembled all the information, and the plans are only now in the state of preparation by the department.


Frederick George Hahn: What is it intended to house in the Cloverdale federal building?


Robert Henry Winters: So far as I can determine, from information at hand, that building is for postal purposes. The contract was awarded to the Allan and Viner Construction Company, in the amount of $135,290.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
375.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $670,000.
Mr. Simmons:: When does the minister
expect work will be completed on the new federal building in Whitehorse, and when will it be ready for occupancy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: See the president of your local Liberal association.


Robert Henry Winters: If the hon. member for
Yukon outsmarts the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on one or two occasions he should not take it too badly. As of March-and that is the latest figure I have-the building at Whitehorse was 85 per cent completed. It should be finished this fall.


James Aubrey Simmons: What provision has been made for water and sewer services?


Robert Henry Winters: For water there will be a well; for sewage there will be septic tanks until the water system in Whitehorse is completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
376.	Unforeseen improvements, $1,200,000.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Does this item include any specific amounts, or is it in the nature of a reserve fund to cover emergency situations?


Robert Henry Winters: It is to cover items now
unforeseen, and is in the nature of a reserve fund.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would draw to the minister's attention the post office building at Woodstock, Ontario. A few years ago some satisfactory alterations were made to this building, which had the effect of improving the facilities offered. However the entrance and exit leave much to be desired. To get into the building one has to climb two or three steps, and immediately he is confronted with an extremely heavy door. Indeed, the door is so heavy that small children and older people have difficulty opening it. On several

occasions I have had to open it for older people because they have been unable to pull it back.
After getting through the original difficulty presented by the door one reaches a very dark vestibule having a stone floor. During the winter months, and with the winter conditions we have in southern Ontario, a great deal of ice and snow accumulates with the result that the floor becomes slippery. Last winter I believe one lady broke her hip after sliding and falling on that floor. After crossing the vestibule, if one is fortunate enough to do so without accident, he reaches a small step leading to two swinging doors, only one of which opens inward. I believe both open out. This irregularity is the cause of many bumped noses. To get out one must pass back through either of these two swinging doors and down a step. From the stone step one reaches the vestibule which, as I have said, in winter time is covered with ice and snow and is often slippery. It was at this point that the accident occurred. From the vestibule one passes to the outside.
I would also refer to the mail box placed outside for the posting of letters. Naturally one would expect that a mail box outside a post office, to receive letters and parcels after mailing hours, would be at street level. But we find nothing of the kind in this instance. In this particular post office the box is about floor level above the street. A set of steps has been erected outside the post office so people may reach this slot on the side of the building. These steps were built a few years ago, and have crumbled away to a great extent. They are so narrow, particularly when they are covered with ice and snow in the winter months, that they would accommodate only the feet of a small child. They are exceedingly dangerous; so much so that numerous complaints have been made and people have stated they refuse to go up the steps. The result is that an old fashioned red box has been placed outside to facilitate people wishing to post letters and parcels after hours. However this box is around at the side of the building, and most people do not know it is there.
I bring these matters to the attention of the minister because, while they are small, they are very important to the people who use the post office every day. And, in addition, during the winter months the condition found there could become exceedingly dangerous and hazardous, and already has occasioned one accident. I would recommend that the situation be corrected, and I bring it to the minister's attention.


Robert Henry Winters: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: This would appear to be a sort of safety valve for the department. As the minister has said it is a reserve. I notice the amount is $1,200,000, the same as last year.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: However, as indicated at page 448 of the estimates book, the estimated expenditures for 1953-54 are set at $900,000, and the actual expenditures in 1952-53 were $936,015. With a new broom in the Department of Public Works-a nice, new minister and a nice, new deputy-it seems that with all these nice, new heads, and with the promise that we are to have a far more efficient Department of Public Works than we had before, this would have been a good place to begin making a change. If he needed this amount at all, why could he not cut the figure to $1 million. That would have been a saving of at least $200,000, and every $200,000 helps.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is not aware of how many items were cut out of the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: That may be so; but here is another that could have been cut-and I hope it will be cut next year. Would the minister explain why this item is necessary at this time, when we have new and efficient management in the department?


Robert Henry Winters: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it necessary to have this big reserve? I can understand it might have been necessary in the old days when the Department of Public Works was run as a patronage department; but why should these reserves be necessary now? What I say applies not only to item 376 which covers unforeseen improvements but also to item 402, which sets aside another $400,000 for this purpose:
To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works.
Obviously that is just another amount held in reserve. And, then, item 403-


Robert Henry Winters: That is under the engineering branch.


Howard Charles Green: Item 403 is as follows:
To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1954-55, $400,000.
It seems to me that an efficient department could plan with sufficient care that it would not be necessary to have large reserves of this kind set aside every year in the estimates. I would ask the minister to comment on this situation.
Supply-Public Works
Then I would ask the minister to explain to the committee the responsibility of his department with regard to buildings beyond Canada. When the estimates were first under consideration we raised the argument that, as its name implies, the Department of Public Works should be the department of government responsible for public works in Canada. In recent years this country has been spending more and more money on buildings abroad. For example, we have-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that we are discussing item 376, and I am afraid a discussion of public buildings outside Canada does not come within it.


Howard Charles Green: This item is a building item for unforeseen improvements.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Howard Charles Green: If I may finish-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I point out to the hon. member the terms of the resolution? The resolution reads:
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates.
In other words, the discussion under this item is limited to projects which are listed in the details.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding of this vote of $1,200,000 is that it is not restricted to the buildings that are outlined in the details, but it is a reserve to cover any other buildings that may be necessary. The minister can correct me if I am wrong.


William Alfred Robinson: That is not the way in which the resolution reads, but perhaps the minister can help us on that point.


Howard Charles Green: In fact, the minister has already said that such is the case; that this is a reserve of money that may be required to be expended on any buildings. Obviously there would be no point in confining it to the buildings that are actually mentioned because amounts are set out for these particular buildings.


Mr. Mclvor:: In Canada?


Howard Charles Green: No, buildings anywhere; if it happens to be a building outside Canada then it would come under that vote, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I should be glad to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member's observation was a perfectly valid one. I stated in the house and elsewhere that it is not our intention to put in the estimates amounts of money that we are not likely to

Supply-Public Works spend during the year in question. It is true that last year we did not spend $1,200,000, although that amount was voted.


Howard Charles Green: You did not spend that.


Robert Henry Winters: No, I said we did not spend it. This year the officials were able to convince me that we are likely to require $1,200,000. I can assure my hon. friend that if I find we are not spending all of this vote, it will be cut down next year. It is not our intention to ask for votes that we will not be able to spend.
As to the responsibility of the Department of Public Works for buildings abroad, so far the department has had no responsibility for those buildings. At the present time we are engaged in discussions with the Department of External Affairs and it may be that we shall assume some responsibility.


Howard Charles Green: I think that point is of great importance, Mr. Chairman, because as I said earlier more and more money is being spent on buildings abroad.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: There is to be a new building at The Hague, a new building in Rome and either a new building or an expansion of a building in Paris. A building is being completed in Washington which last year was supposed, to cost $1 million, and we are now told it is going to cost $2 million. I hold in my hand a dispatch of April 26 of this year headed: "Costly Canadian military headquarters biggest foreign army job in Washington." A swank building is being erected by the Canadian government at a cost of $2 million. The article says:
It is a $2 million stone and steel structure complete with bronze door automatic elevators and a big bomb shelter.
Resting on 900 concrete pegs, each driven 40 feet deep into the soft ground of stately tree-lined Massachusetts avenue, the massive structure was started last fall. It is about one-third completed.
The dispatch goes on to say:
The building will be the largest in Washington designed by a foreign embassy purely for its military components.
Then last October we had the Canadian consul general in New York, Mr. Ray Lawson, getting big ideas about a building for Canada in New York. I am quoting from a dispatch of October 31, 1953:
Canada House in United States to cost $5 million
A $5 million Canada House which would serve as New York headquarters for all major Canadian enterprises-business and governmental-is proposed by Ray Lawson, Canadian consul general here.
It is about time that the Department of Public Works stepped into this picture. They are, or should be, the best qualified to decide


on the kinds of buildings that are going to be erected all over the world by Canada. I suspect quite a few million dollars could be saved for the taxpayers of this country if the Department of Public Works handled all these buildings rather than let the Department of External Affairs put up these swell buildings for their embassies.
Has government policy been changed at all? Has the Department of Public Works been put in charge of the construction of these buildings? I notice from the annual report of the department for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1953, which we now have, and therefore, can no longer complain about not getting the report, that at page 107 the Department of Public Works gets into the picture of those public buildings beyond Canada only for buying the floor wax and things like that. We have here nothing for buildings beyond Canada for construction, but for repairs and maintenance there is $14,000 odd; rent, $72,000. Apparently the Department of External Affairs lets the Department of Public Works pay rents on the buildings that are rented, but does not let it have anything to do with construction. For salaries and wages the amount is about $500; furniture and fittings, $5,200; fuel, about $1,500; light and power, $6,800; water, $2,000; caretakers' supplies and sundries-this is where the floor wax comes in, I suppose-$12,200; total, $115,400 odd. That is the sum and substance of the contribution of the Department of Public Works to Canadian buildings abroad.
Can the minister assure us that his department is to be given a place in this picture and that it will become the authority which constructs the buildings for Canada abroad?


Robert Henry Winters: I think I outlined before when the estimates of the department were up earlier in April the general policy regarding the role of the Department of Public Works. I said just a moment ago that we are now engaged in conversations with the Department of External Affairs as to public works' participation in their building programs. What we in the Department of Public Works would like to do is to have the department in that degree of good shape that would make other departments feel we can carry out their construction work to better advantage for them than they can themselves. I would personally hope that would be the case, and it is the goal toward which we are working.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Gagnon:: May I be permitted to ask a question on item 368 which was passed a few weeks ago?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not mind, if there is unanimous consent, so long as it is not a discussion. If it is a question, I do not mind.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: This question has to do with construction of a public building in Chicoutimi?


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to revert to item 368?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: An item of $250,000 was approved by parliament last year for that project but nothing has been done up till now. Would the minister care to comment on the project?


Robert Henry Winters: The situation there, Mr. Chairman, as I recall it, is that although there was that amount in the estimates last year we found this year when compiling the estimates that we were not ready to go ahead with the building. The plans had not been prepared. At the same time the Postmaster General indicated to me that he would like to study the whole matter of postal services in the area, and until such time as that is done we shall not be able to proceed with the building.
Engineering branch-
377.	Branch administration, $633,824.


Colin Cameron: I am not quite sure whether I should bring up here what I want to deal with or under item 395. Perhaps the minister can help me. I want to deal with the item that was in last year's estimates for the Vesuvius bay and Crofton ferry and which is out this year. I do not know whether I should discuss it here or whether I should wait until we come to item 395. If the minister does not object to my dealing with it under this item, I will do so now.


Robert Henry Winters: I should be glad to have it dealt with under this item. If my hon. friend would like me to do so, I can tell him quickly what the situation is.


Colin Cameron: Yes; if the minister will.


Robert Henry Winters: Last year in the estimates- I think it was in the supplementary estimates -there was an amount to cover ferry landings at both Crofton and Vesuvius bay to accommodate a ferry which was to be purchased privately, I believe, and operated under a subsidy provided by the provincial government. When I considered these estimates it seemed to me that that was appropriately a matter for the provincial government because the ferry service is really
Supply-Public Works
an extension of the highway service of the provincial government. We therefore dropped the item pending further consideration. I have now had an opportunity of considering the projects in detail and also of discussing them with the minister of public works of British Columbia. I believe there are grounds now for considering them as joint projects. I believe the ferry landings can be regarded in the nature of public wharfs with structures built to them to accommodate a ferry. I told the minister of public works of British Columbia that I thought it was a matter with regard to which we could appropriately co-operate to the advantage of the citizens who wished to use the service. With that in mind, I propose to ask treasury board to include in the supplementary estimates amounts for ferry landings both at Crofton and at Vesuvius bay.


Colin Cameron: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: As this is the first item under the engineering branch, can the minister tell us the present position with regard to work on Ripple rock? Some weeks ago we had a report that there had been a core taken of the rock underneath the narrows and up under Ripple rock to see whether or not the water would break into a tunnel if one were constructed. Can the minister tell us whether a report has yet been received on the results?


Robert Henry Winters: I am sorry that I am not in
a position to do so. My hon. friend will recall that when this recent approach to the removal of Ripple rock was brought forward the responsibility was transferred from the Minister of Public Works to the national research council which is under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am aware in a general way of the work that has been done but I assume that my friend will wish to get the details from my colleague. I have not them in my possession.


Howard Charles Green: If it is decided to bore the tunnel out under the narrows and up so that the rock can be blown up, will that work be done by the research council or by the Department of Public Works?


Robert Henry Winters: I would think it would be done by the Department of Public Works but as yet there has been no determination of that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
380. Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,674,565.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Under this item I notice an appropriation or estimate of $3,674,565
4242	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
tor maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works for dredging. Out of this total I am pleased to note that a sum of $1,291,552 will be spent for dredging in the maritime provinces.
May I be permitted to describe briefly the situation which exists in my county where the fishing industry is of major importance. The one thousand or more fishermen of Gloucester county land commercially twenty-four different varieties of fish and shellfish. Unfortunately ice conditions from December to May prevent fishing operations during these months, with the exception of smelt fishing which is carried on through the ice. It is therefore most important that these hard-working fishermen be provided with facilities allowing them to take full advantage of the short period of six months where they have to earn a full year's living for themselves and their large families.
Harbours and channels with sufficient depth of water are required to permit those deep-sea fishermen, equipped with modern craft, to reach the fishing grounds and to return to port with their catches. If the fishing industry is to survive it is essential that these fishermen be provided with facilities to navigate freely at all tides, under all kinds of weather conditions at least during the summer months.
The entire Gloucester county deep-sea fishing fleet, including over 50 modern draggers, valued at over $lf million, uses the entrance of Shippigan gully between the mainland and Shippigan island, on their way to and returning from the fishing grounds. Day in and day out, at all hours of the day or night, under most favourable weather conditions as well as during heavy gales, storms or fog, these sturdy fishermen have to feel their way through a winding and twisting channel to reach their ultimate destination.
I want to take advantage of this opportunity to impress upon the Minister of Public Works the urgent need for immediate action on this particular project. Unless the dredging of the main channel at the entrance of Shippigan harbour is proceeded with without delay, a proportion of the fishing fleet will be most seriously handicapped during the coming fishing season. A total catch involving approximately 40 million pounds of fish deserves the utmost attention of the department.
This request, Mr. Chairman, also applies to a number of harbours along the Gloucester county coast line. How can we expect those brave fishermen to exploit to the best of their ability the rich resources of the sea if they have to wait for long hours, and sometimes for days, for the tide to rise so as to enable them to refloat their grounded fishing vessels? I would appreciate it, as would
[Mr. Robichaud.1

my friends the fishermen, if the minister could assure the committee that he will give this request the attention it deserves and would ask his department to recognize its urgency.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall certainly be glad to give to that request the attention that I am glad to give to all hon. members' requests.


Howard Charles Green: At page 453 we find the details of this vote. There is an increase in redredging by contract or day labour of $100,000 and there is an increase in repairs and upkeep of equipment of approximately $130,000. Why is it necessary to have these big increases in these items?


Robert Henry Winters: Redredging by contract or day labour amounting to $675,000 provides for maintenance dredging by companies when the work cannot be carried out by departmental plant due to the fact that departmental dredges are unable to perform all of the dredging operations; in other cases, when redredging is needed in areas some distance from the department's dredging fleet and includes particular cases where annual redredging is required. It also covers small day labour redredging jobs by scraper, bulldozer, drag lines, hand dredging and so on. The reason for the increase here is that the amount voted last year was not enough to cover the work we were required to do. We ran short of funds. This year we want to make sure we have enough.


Howard Charles Green: How much was spent last year?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not that figure before me. I am told the amount was fully encumbered but we have not been able to spend the amount of money we expected would be required to be spent during the year.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it going to cost $120,000 more to repair equipment this year than it did last year?


Robert Henry Winters: These are increases for the maintenance of new plants to be put into operation in 1954-55, $33,000.


Howard Charles Green: But that is capital expenditure and surely would not come under the heading of repair?


Robert Henry Winters: It is for the maintenance of new plants being put into operation. The second item deals with the replacement of boilers for dredge No. 9 and tug Fredericton, $60,000; replacement of five pontoons for dredge No. 21, $38,600; replacement of pontoons for dredge No. 305, $20,000, which makes a total of $151,600 less decreases in other plants which amount to $19,757 leaving a net increase of $131,843.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain which department does this dredging? I believe this is another case where work has been taken away from the Department of Public Works and is being done by other departments. For example, a great deal of dredging is being done by the Department of Transport. Can the minister explain why it is necessary to have any department, other than his own department, do dredging work in Canada, and to what extent other departments are doing dredging work, and what the basis is for this division? It does seem to me it would be more efficient if the Department of Public Works could handle this type of work.


Robert Henry Winters: I might say at the outset that the work is all done by the Department of Public Works with the exception of the St. Lawrence ship channel and the canals such as the Rideau canal, the Lachine canal and others which are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: But why cannot your department dredge the Rideau canal?


Robert Henry Winters: There is no reason why we cannot do this. It is just a division of responsibility and I would not care to comment on whether it is more efficient.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any real reason why this dredging cannot be done by the Department of Public Works?


Robert Henry Winters: It is simply that the ship channels and canals come under their jurisdiction and I suppose it has been a matter of practice for them to carry out the work.


Howard Charles Green: But the Fraser river carries a great deal of shipping.
Mr. 'Winters: I know.


Howard Charles Green: And the dredging there is done by the Department of Public Works.


Robert Henry Winters: I would not wish to argue the merits of this with my hon. friend. It is a matter of practice.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister really feel that this dredging should be done by his own department?


Robert Henry Winters: I would not wish to comment on that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
384.	Maintenance and operation, $423,449.
Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Chairman, this item concerns the Burlington channel bridge and there is an item in the details concerning that bridge amounting to $85,920 concerning maintenance and operation. Which bridge does that cover?
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: That is the highway bascule bridge.


Frank Exton Lennard: Has there been any progress made in connection with the proposed new bridge over the last few weeks?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I can best answer that by reading a letter which I dispatched to the minister of highways for the province of Ontario on April 5, 1954. That is the last communication I have on the matter. I had a brief discussion with the minister of highways, Mr. Doucett, one day last week though it added nothing to the matter and was merely a passing conversation. This is the letter:
Dear Mr. Doucett:
This is with reference to your letter dated February 15, 1954, in which you requested federal financial participation in the building of a high level four-lane vehicular bridge over the Burlington canal.
Although engineering plans have not yet been submitted to us, and, as a result, there is no detailed estimate of costs, we understand that your preliminary estimate of that part of the bridge toward which you feel the federal government might participate is $13,300,000. This, of course, is subject to change when the detailed plans are available, but I understand you feel it may nevertheless be regarded as a good preliminary estimate.
This whole matter has received careful consideration by this department and by the government. I believe it is generally recognized that the problem is primarily one of facilitating the flow of highway traffic which has increased substantially in the past few years and which is likely to grow further in the future. If we were mutually concerned only with local vehicular traffic, then a much less expensive bridge than the one you are now contemplating would be satisfactory. In fact, the double bascule bridge built and operated by the federal government would serve the purpose.
However, the federal government is appreciative of your desire to provide facilities for an increased flow of vehicular traffic, and since part of the cost at any rate is due to the requirements of navigation which make a high level bridge necessary, the federal government feels there is some justification for its financial participation.
Having regard to the fact that this problem is primarily one of handling highway traffic within the province, it follows that it falls within the scope of provincial jurisdiction. However, because of the factors mentioned above, the federal government has authorized me to inform you that it is prepared to contribute up to one-third of the cost of a high level bridge.
I understand from our previous conversation that your government will assume full responsibility for highway traffic over the canal and that once the high level bridge is completed it will no longer be necessary for the federal government to maintain and operate the bascule bridge which we would then remove. At the same time, as a matter of convenience to pedestrian traffic, we propose to add to the present railway bridge a sidewalk or sidewalks to enable pedestrians to pass from one side of the canal to the other.
You may wish to inform me if the foregoing terms on which the federal government is prepared to participate are satisfactory to you.
(Signed) Robert H. Winters

Supply-Public Works


Frank Exton Lennard: You have not received anything from the provincial government since?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: Well, I think it is about time you did because, as the hon. member for Niagara Falls pointed out a few days ago, this is the biggest bottleneck in Canada and possibly the biggest on the North American continent. I do not believe there should be any great delay in starting this bridge because at the present time there is considerable delay every time a pleasure cruiser wishes to go from the lake to Hamilton harbour. Traffic is held up and it is a very great nuisance. If the provincial government is at fault then I think it is about time they started doing something about this situation.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this item mentions the Burlington channel bridge, the Kingston, LaSalle causeway and the New Westminster bridge. Can the minister tell us the basis on which the dominion accepts responsibility for the Kingston, LaSalle causeway and the New Westminster bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of that. This matter has not risen before and I have not had an opportunity of looking into the background or the basis on which we are participants. I am therefore not in a position to say. However, if my hon. friend would like me to look into the matter and discuss it with him I would be glad to do so.


Howard Charles Green: I shall be grateful if the minister will do that.
Item carried.
Roads and bridges-
385.	Towards international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Calais, Maine, the state of Maine to pay a like amount, $125,000.


Mr. Brooks:: Can the minister tell us when he expects this work on the international bridge to be completed?


Robert Henry Winters: That is thinking in the future. We have not even arrived at a final decision with the state of Maine as to its start, let alone its completion. But we are making progress. We have seen preliminary designs of the bridge. We have agreed now that it should be a two-lane bridge. There was quite a responsible body of opinion locally which felt it should be a four-lane bridge. We explored the matter with the United States authorities to find out whether or not they were interested in a four-lane bridge and would participate in the cost of it, but we concluded that faster action would result if we stuck to a two-lane bridge. Plans are now in the process of being prepared. I hope they will be ready before too long.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think the minister should press for a four-lane bridge and not give up too easily.


Robert Henry Winters: We were quite prepared to press. As a matter of fact, we did press, but when there is a partnership it takes more than the pressure of one partner to bring about a satisfactory conclusion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is true in more cases than bridges.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
386.	Towards construction of spans of bridge over the interprovincial channel of the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec, $200,000.
Howard Charles Green: This is a contribution towards a bridge to be built across the Ottawa river?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the basis on which the dominion accepts responsibility for helping to build that bridge, and also the division of cost?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I would be very glad to do that. The basis on which we accept some responsibility is that it is an interprovincial river. It is the Ottawa river and any bridge crossing it would reach from the province of Ontario to the province of Quebec. Under the British North America Act the federal government has some responsibility for interprovincial bridges where such bridges are required to be built. As to the sharing of the cost, that is still a matter for decision. We have had discussions with the appropriate officials of Ontario and Quebec. We are prepared to be quite flexible and have already said that we would participate on two bases of costs which were submitted by the other partners.
One of them was that there should be a straight split of one-third. We said we would agree to that. One of the other partners suggested that Quebec do a portion of the work, Ontario do a portion of the work and we do the balance of the work, roughly the centre section. We said we were prepared to agree if that was the basis on which it was finally to be worked out. The three partners have not yet come to a final decision whether the bridge should be built or on what basis the costs of the structure should be shared. I am hopeful that we will reach agreement. I feel that the other two partners are interested in getting on with the job. It was only this week that I exchanged letters with the premier of Quebec on this important matter in the hope that we can come to some early decision.


Howard Charles Green: What is the estimated cost of the bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it is of the order of $1,200,000 or $1,300,000.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a high level bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it is not a high level bridge.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister stated that the responsibility of the federal government was defined under the British North America Act. My understanding, for which my authority is the former premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McNair, is that the federal government is responsible for the whole cost of building interprovincial bridges. I brought the matter up here a few years ago. I asked for an opinion from the Department of Justice but I never received one. It was in connection with the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge between New Brunswick and Quebec. I also understand that the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Quebec still feel that the responsibility is that of the federal government and that it is set out in the British North America Act along those lines. I wonder whether the minister has any comments to make on that or whether he is definitely of the opinion that the responsibility of each government is limited to one-third?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I have no strong views on the subject. I think these are matters which require negotiation. It is all right to say that a certain bridge should be a federal responsibility but if that does not produce a bridge it does not do anybody any good.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the matter clearly defined in the British North America Act?


Robert Henry Winters: I am no expert on the British North America Act. I understand there is some federal responsibility where a bridge is international or interprovincial. I understand too that there is also the question of how much of an interprovincial bridge is actually interprovincial because up to the boundary it is within one province and on the other side of the boundary it is within the other province. It is a very difficult problem and I do not profess to be able to offer a solution to it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Just another argument for a federal-provincial conference.


Robert Henry Winters: An argument for federal-provincial co-operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of
harbour and river works-
388.	Nova Scotia, $4,923,000.
Mr. Gillis:: There is a question I want to ask the minister. The details of this item are on page 460 and there is an amount for
Supply-Public Works
dredging for Sydney, Nova Scotia. I am wondering whether that is dredging of the harbour or a sandbar outside the harbour. The amount that the federal government is spending is $37,000 and I am wondering who is paying the rest and just what kind of dredging project it is.


Robert Henry Winters: This $37,000 is 50 per cent of the estimated cost of the dredging. The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation will pay the other 50 per cent of the cost. The dredging of berthing areas is necessary to provide sufficient depth for large ocean-going cargo boats chartered by the Dominion Iron and Steel corporation and the Dominion Coal Company for import and export shipments of steel, coal and iron ore. The proposed work is:	(a) dredging berth west side of coal
loading pier No. 2; (b) dredging berths east and west side coal loading pier No. 3; (c) dredging berths east and west side steel loading pier No. 1; and (d) dredging berths east and west side ore loading pier No. 2. The above dredging involves the removal of 48,000 cubic yards, scow measurement, of sand, silt, clay and gravel.


Clarence Gillis: Is the work to be done by the department's dredging apparatus or by a private firm?


Robert Henry Winters: The work is to be done by contract.


Clarence Gillis: By your own dredges?


Robert Henry Winters: No, we will invite tenders and let a contract. That is the intention.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to make a general comment on these items. Looking at the general items for the engineering branch, it is obvious that there is a great saving in this particular work. In 1953-54 $34,612,500 was spent, and the amount for 1954-55 is $25,820,600, a saving of $8,791,900. We are always very pleased indeed to note savings of this kind, but it does seem rather peculiar that last year there was an expenditure of over $8 million more than it is intended to spend this year. I mention this because, speaking particularly of my own province- and I know that the same conditions prevail in other provinces-we are in a recession. The provincial government of New Brunswick is endeavouring to find provincial works in order to relieve the unemployment situation there. When I was home at Easter I met people practically at every turn wanting to know what the provincial government was going to do on this road, that road and the other road in order to give employment to the people.
Now, as I said a moment ago, it is an anomalous situation that the federal government, when there is a recession in this
4246	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
country and when there are over half a million people unemployed, should reduce the amount of the expenditure for public works of this kind in which employment could be given. I am going to be blunt about it. In the election year there was some $34 million expended when the employment situation was not nearly as bad as it is today, when there is a decrease of over $9 million.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, this is something that requires some explanation from the government. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Gloucester mention his constituency a few minutes ago. We know what the situation has been in Gloucester county because the former member for Gloucester was a strong advocate of public works in his constituency.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He was not better than this one.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not making any invidious comparison, I am only stating the facts.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am afraid the time has come when I must interrupt the hon. member on the ground that a discussion as to whether or not the policies of the Department of Public Works should be directed towards relieving unemployment was, I think, properly held under the general administration item. We are now dealing with specific items which deal with specific dredging in various places. I am not trying to curtail discussion any more than is absolutely necessary for the efficient carrying out of the business of the committee.
I am going to ask hon. members now that we have passed the general item to try to confine their discussions to the items that we have before us. I know that the initial items on this dredging were called rather quickly and perhaps the hon. member who now has the floor did not have an opportunity to get up on the original dredging item. I am going to say at this stage that it is my opinion that a general debate on the question of whether or not public works should be used as a means of relieving unemployment is not in order on the item now before us.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have to bow, of course, to your ruling. I still cannot help noticing the great difference there is in the amount voted in this item this year as compared to last year. I do not believe it is out of place to comment on the necessity for this work this year as compared with last year. Take my own province, for instance, and we find that in 1953-54 under item 390 there was $2,880,000 voted for work that year, whereas this year the amount is $1,334,500, a difference of $1,545,000.


While I am not going to discuss the matter any farther, I am sure it is obvious to every member in this house, and it is certainly obvious to the people concerned, that there is an anomalous situation. Take Prince Edward Island, for instance. We find under item 389 the vote this year is $847,800, whereas last year it was $1,930,000, a difference of $1,082,200 for that small province. I do feel that the house and the country are entitled to some explanation as to why there is such a large difference in the vote this year as compared with last year.


Robert Henry Winters: I should be very glad to say a few words. I am always interested in the way my hon. friend sees political significance in everything we do.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is so obvious.


Robert Henry Winters: He looks for a political reason behind every bush. I often have to disappoint him. This is not the first time I have had to disappoint him this year by asserting that there is no political significance in the point he has raised. I hate to have to do it again, but that is the fact. I must say that my friend is one of those who, in an election campaign, speak most vigorously about the high level of government spending, but the moment it drops he says, "Let it drop somewhere else, but not here."


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You have never heard me say that.


Robert Henry Winters: I read some of your reported speeches last year. Of the total amount voted, which my hon. friend says correctly was $34,612,500, the total amount spent was about $21-5 million. Now, as I told my hon. friend before, it is our policy to try to include in the estimates only the amounts we expect to be able to spend. If we can spend this $25,820,000 it will actually represent an increase rather than a decrease. I hope that will help to allay the haunting fears of my good friend.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I hope it will give some employment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
389.	Prince Edward Island, $847,800.
John Angus MacLean: I have a question or two to ask on this item. I notice in connection with the vote for harbour investigation and development at Rustico, last year the amount was $100,000 and there is an indication in the note that of the $150,000 in the estimates this year $90,000 is a revote. I take it that only $10,000 was actually spent out of the $100,000 voted last year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


John Angus MacLean: I trust the minister will be able to assure us that this year the course of events will be different and a real attempt will be made to carry on this project so that the $150,000 will be spent for improvements.


Robert Henry Winters: That is our aim, Mr. Chairman.


John Angus MacLean: I have one other question. Can the minister indicate whether any request has reached him with regard to a wharf at Point Prim for use of the rather large number of fishermen who fish from that point? I did not see any item in the estimates, and I was wondering if it might be covered in the supplementaries?


Robert Henry Winters: The item was requested, and I know it has been requested several times by the junior member for Queens, but we were not in a position to go forward with it because we had not completed our investigations and have not been able to do any planning.


Mr. Matheson:: I wonder whether the
minister could give the details of that $150,000 expenditure at Rustico?


Robert Henry Winters: This amount of $150,000
includes a $90,000 revote, and is required to continue the investigation for the development of the harbour and to provide funds for actual construction as indicated by the investigation to be necessary. An amount of $36,000 is included in this item for the construction of a boat shelter now under contract with Messrs. Noye, Raynor and Noye. Improvement and development of Rustico harbour in the interests of the fishing industry is an immediate necessity.
A survey of the tides, currents and sea bed movements in the area was carried out in 1953 by the Nova Scotia technical science service under the direction of Dr. S. J. Mazur at a cost of about $20,000. Rustico harbour is one of the most important fishing stations in the province, activity being carried on continuously from the opening of the lobster season, May 1, up to the close of cod and mackerel season in the late fall. The proposed work, as I indicated, is for a boat shelter, now under contract, and the building of a dam to shut off Little harbour at the east end of Robinson's island; and possible further surveys, as well as to carry out any other recommended improvements based on the findings of the investigations carried out in the past two years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
83276-2G8£
Supply-Public Works
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
390.	New Brunswick, $1,334,500.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I see an item of $17,500 for a wharf at Little Pokemouche gully. Can the minister tell us when the department intends to call tenders for this project?


Robert Henry Winters: We are still awaiting the results of borings for that project.


Mr. Bell:: I have a few questions to ask about breakwaters in the bay of Fundy, Saint John county. I believe I have already indicated to the minister the concern of the people of Lorneville about their breakwater. It is spring in that area now, and work has not yet begun. They are wondering what the plans are for the breakwater at Lorneville.


Robert Henry Winters: I have asked the department to engage the services of a consulting engineer to carry out an inspection and make a report. For this purpose we have retained Mr. O. J. McCulloch, who is a consultant in the marine field. I understand he has visited the breakwater but I have not yet received his report.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would remind the minister that the breakwater in its present condition is of no use to the fishermen down there. They have been very patient about the matter and would like to see some action taken this spring.


Robert Henry Winters: That is why I thought I should get a report on it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would also inquire about the situation at Dipper Harbour. I am given to understand-and I have seen for myself-that the old retaining wall, which has been used partly as a breakwater, is now giving way. The residents indicate that a few dollars spent now would serve the purpose, but that if it is left until a later time it would require the expenditure of a large amount of money. Is there any report on this breakwater?


Robert Henry Winters: I have no report before me, but I shall consider my hon. friend's comments.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wish the minister would do so, because promises were made two or three years ago that something would be done, and a small expenditure now would probably save considerable expense in the future.
Then, what is the plan for Maces Bay, for which there is an amount this year?


Robert Henry Winters: We expect to have the plans ready for the breakwater extension at Maces Bay within the next few days.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then, I would ask about dredging at Courtenay bay in Saint John harbour. I am bringing the matter up at this time,

Supply-Public Works
because amounts have been spent for this purpose in other years. There is a story around Saint John that the new oil tankers cannot enter Courtenay bay because dredging has been slowed up. What are the intentions for the future at that point?


Robert Henry Winters: At the request of the Irving Oil Company, and certain other citizens in Saint John, including my hon. friend's predecessor in the house, we have been studying the situation. We have not yet made any final decision, and we have no funds in the estimates for work at Courtenay bay.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would ask the minister to keep in mind the fact that we have always had these oil companies located at Saint John, but that recently moves have been made to Halifax to accommodate part of their facility. We do not know for sure if it is the policy of the companies or merely because the facilities at Saint John are not extensive enough to provide proper docking and harbour facilities to service a modern tanker fleet. I hope we will not lose out in this connection merely because of a few dollars in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
392. Ontario, $6,573,400.
Mr. Noseworthy:: This item refers to the work of the engineering branch in Ontario. I would ask the minister whether his department has any administrative control over or any interest in the water level of lake Nipissing. I have before me correspondence from individuals and recommendations from chambers of commerce and city councils regarding the low level of water in that lake. Has this matter been discussed, and what can be done?


Robert Henry Winters: There is a control dam at the outlet of the French river into lake Nipissing, which is owned by the Department of Public Works; and we exercise control over the level of water. A deputation was received recently from North Bay in connection with this problem and we are keeping active supervision of control measures. We receive water levels reports twice daily, and are endeavouring to see that the situation is controlled to the best advantage.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, in the riding of Bruce there is a shore line of about 150 miles. There can be no doubt that on many occasions the requirements along the shore line could become a headache for the Department of Public Works. However, I would ask the minister for some

information concerning the proposed construction of a dock at Tobermory. I understand that in years gone by there was an estimate for part of this work. This year it is dropped completely. I would point out that there are many people in that locality who depend on fishing for a livelihood. Then, I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is familiar with the area, and will know about the beautiful scenery in that part of Ontario.
To complete the work some 900 feet would have to be constructed. My suggestion is that, when the minister's department reaches the point of building the dock, it should not be done piecemeal. I ask the minister not to do it piecemeal. When you take into consideration the amount of money that will be spent, it will be more economical to do it all at once. Eleven fishing boats worked out of the harbour of Tobermory and last year they sold $212,448 worth of fish. I am sure the minister is familiar with marine slips, and if he will visit that area he will agree with what I am saying. Can the minister tell us whether at the present time they have plans in view for future construction?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand my hon. friend is talking about the proposed dock at Tobermory. There was an item of $50,000 in the estimates last year. We have not been able to decide upon a proper site because of differences of opinion locally, nor have we obtained the water lot, but we do hope to be able to proceed with the project there. It is still in the planning stage, and that is all I can tell my hon. friend at this time.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Once more I would ask the minister not to consider doing it piecemeal, but all at once. Is the department contemplating doing any permanent work at Southampton in connection with the river mouth? It is a bone of contention every year, and it costs a lot of money for dredging.


Robert Henry Winters: In the details of the estimates there is an item on page 466 which reads: "Saugeen river (Southampton)-reconstruction of pier." The amount is $110,000.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: In connection with that, I understand a deputation will be coming down to have an interview with the minister which I am sure they will obtain. Their suggestions will be worth taking into consideration in regard to permanently improving the river mouth. It may entail some cooperation between the municipality and the province, I do not know; but I would suggest that it be looked into from that view to make something permanent.


Mr. Enfield:: 
Mr. Small:: Since my riding of Danforth is adjacent to York-Scarborough, similar conditions exist on its shore line. Erosion is taking place from the currents of water going both east and west under certain adverse weather conditions. May we have the details of how the money is to be allotted?


Robert Henry Winters: The amount of $1,768,000 is broken down as follows:
(a)	To complete the contract with Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons (Canada)
Limited for construction of harbour headwall	 $1,266,000
(b)	Towards dredging adjacent to harbour
headwall	 400,000
(c)	Reconstruction of outer end of east
pier	 82,000
Supply-Public Works
(d)	Repairs to east pier (circulating
channel)	 20,000
Total	 $1,768,000
As to Scarborough bluffs, except for what the hon. member has told me, we have had no deputations or any requests for any action there. I understand it is the general problem of erosion in areas of the great lakes.


Robert Hardy Small: Erosion is caused by the current, as pointed out by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and it has been taking place for a good number of years. About twenty years ago they did take care of the south end of the riding toward the westerly part. It was suffering from the same kind of erosion at that time, and they did a fairly good job. But at the east end of the riding and also in York-Scarborough, which includes the Scarborough bluffs, there is a serious problem that will have to be attended to. Only a limited amount of money will be available. The money that the minister has reference to goes to harbour improvements within the Toronto bay proper. It has to do with channels leading to the bay and so forth. This condition is outside of the bay altogether. No provision has been made this year for taking care of the erosion on lake Ontario. Is it possible to get an appropriation for that?


Robert Henry Winters: This problem of erosion comes up every year, and every year the government states its position. The general policy is that unless the erosion is attributable to navigation, or is likely to endanger navigation, or is caused by some federal government structure, then it is not a federal government responsibility.


Robert Hardy Small: I realize that. The last time assistance was given, I believe, on a joint proposition between the province, the municipality and the federal authorities, and it was done through the hon. member for Danforth at that time. Probably the same arrangement could be made at this time.


Robert Henry Winters: I presume that was one of those unemployment relief measures in the early 1930's.


Robert Hardy Small: If we have the same condition now it would apply again.


Donald MacInnis: The erosion or the unemployment relief measure?


Robert Hardy Small: What I am anxious about is something to take care of the erosion condition that exists, and if it cannot be done this year I should like to have something earmarked for this problem next year.

Supply-Public Works
Mr. Pallet!: Can the minister tell me what work he expects to have completed on the Port Credit harbour this year? In the estimates $400,000 is earmarked for that work. I wonder just what it entails.


Robert Henry Winters: I have read some of my hon. friend's advertisements in his election campaign. I presume it is related to them. It is a revote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister sees politics behind every bush.


Robert Henry Winters: I did not see it first. It is a revote of $400,000 to provide towards harbour improvements to give deep-water facilities to serve the growing industrial area between Toronto and Hamilton. This is a breakdown of it. The entire proposal includes the construction of a breakwater, several wharves, a slip and approach, and dredging to give deep draught harbourage.


Mr. Stanton:: In the details there is a revote of $20,000 for Blockhouse island at Brock-ville. Can the minister give me information as to what the department has in mind with regard to the work at Blockhouse island?


Robert Henry Winters: The proposed work is demolition of the existing cribwork structure down to low-water level; the building up of the east bank of the island with stone fill; the laying of an 18-inch concrete mat over this fill; the construction of a masonry wall with a one to one slope up to elevation 248-3; the laying of a 10-inch pavement slab.
Mr. Pallet!: The original question I asked the minister was as to the work which it was expected would be completed this year. I may have misunderstood the minister but I do not quite feel the answer was given to that question. I refer to Port Credit harbour.


Robert Henry Winters: We expect to start with one wharf this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
393. Manitoba, $103,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This includes a revote for the extension of Alexander avenue wharf at Winnipeg. As the minister knows, the government has agreed to this extension which was requested by the Winnipeg and St. Boniface board of harbour commissioners. Can he tell us what progress is being made and how soon it is expected that the work will be completed?


Robert Henry Winters: The proposed work is the construction of a round timber pile bent extension 147 feet long by 42 feet wide on the downstream end of the existing Alexander wharf. I understand there is some hold-up
(Mr. Small.!

with regard to the property and that we have not been able to acquire it. The matter is now before the Department of Justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one other question under the general heading of work in the province of Manitoba. I ask this question because of the discussion a moment ago in which the two members from the Toronto area took part. I refer to the discussion as to federal responsibility or denial of responsibility where there is erosion.
As the minister probably knows, a few years ago when his predecessor was minister of public works, some work was finally done at the town of Gimli on the west shore of lake Manitoba. Erosion was taking place there to a considerable extent and it was having an extremely serious effect on the town of Gimli. It was finally admitted by the government that navigation had something to do with it and some valuable work was done. A substantial wall has been built from the centre to the south end of the town. I know that the minister feels that, when something has been done, we in the opposition always say that the government should have done a little bit more. I hope the fact that I seem to be speaking in this vein will not be held against the validity of the claim of the people in that area.
The fact is that the people who have property just south of where that wall was built feel that the further erosion that is taking place with respect to their property is in part due to the currents that are set up by that wall. I know that the minister might say that if the wall were extended a little bit further, those still further south would have a claim. I know something of the geography of that area. I think it is clear that there is a further point to which that wall could be built beyond which it would not be necessary to go further. I hope that the request these people are making for an extension of that wall will be given favourable consideration.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to look into that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
395.	British Columbia and Yukon, $4,998,500.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks under this item. I do not rise by any means in a complaining spirit. I am going to try to make some constructive suggestions, and comments. I know the department is preparing to undertake a good deal of necessary construction and a number of necessary repairs to wharves and structures of that type in my constituency. I want to say that those communities which

will be affected by those new structures or by those improvements appreciate greatly the works proposed by the department.
Before passing on I should like to bring to the minister's attention the fact-and I think 1 am correct in my statement-that I represent a riding that has the highest per capita wealth production in Canada. I think that statement will be found to be correct, if you take the total production of Kootenay West and relate it to the population. This means an extremely large income tax collection from the area. Hence there is great justification for the investment of government funds in public works and facilities of that sort.
I want to bring to the minister's attention the necessity for the reconstruction of a wharf at Robson. I am not expecting that it will be undertaken this year, but I have been asked by the West Kootenay and central farmers' institute, various fruit growers' organizations and the Castlegar chamber of commerce and local residents to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the old wharf at East Robson is getting extremely shaky. It has been there for a good many years. In fact, it is so shaky now that when the bus goes down to meet the steamer or when the fruit trucks go down to take fruit away from a barge or boat the drivers are told to proceed only part way down because it is not safe to go down the full length. It is certainly not safe for heavy loads at the present time. It is an important wharf because it is the one at East Robson which is at the south end of the Arrow lakes and there is a great deal of tonnage that goes over that wharf throughout the year. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and his officials in the hope that consideration will be given to the necessity for the reconstruction of this wharf in the near future. I am of the opinion that when the question of reconstruction comes up it will possibly be to the advantage of the public generally to slightly alter the site and possibly construct a somewhat different type of wharf. That is all I am going to say about that. As a matter of fact, the minister knows I ask for very little. I am one of those who bother him very little indeed.
But I want to mention a very important matter in relation to the Duncan river. For some years the department tried to move a large log jam on the Duncan river, as it flows from Howser lake into the north arm of Kootenay lake, but without much success. This meant it was impossible to float booms of logs down the river and impossible for small craft to proceed up river. But finally the department decided to make a new channel after going over the whole question
Supply-Public Works
very thoroughly with one of the minister's engineers who came from New Westminster to discuss and plan what should be done to remedy the situation and the work was finally got under way. I wish to compliment those men who have undertaken the building of that new channel from Howser lake to north Kootenay lake. I believe the cost has been on the average some $4,000 or $5,000 per year. It has been of great convenience to the lumber companies in that area and for small craft proceeding up the river to Howser lake.
However, I wish to make one suggestion relating to this new channel on the Duncan river. In 1896 there was a race between Jim Hill of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. in regard to the building of a railway into the Lardeau. The C.P.R. got through first, though the railway has since disappeared. However, Jim Hill's engineers built a trestle across Howser lake towards Howser. The grade was built, trestles erected, but the entire project was abandoned when the C.P.R. won the race. Over the years logs and brush, the stumps of trees and debris have floated down from the north Duncan river into Howser lake. That debris has piled up against the piles driven across the south end of Howser lake and there is now a considerable quantity of sand lying against these piles so that the level of Howser lake is being artificially raised more and more each year. That sand has piled up and is causing inconvenience to lumber operators and the few residents living around the lake. I have looked over the whole jam myself with some of the local residents. The current is strong at this point and I would suggest that half a dozen cases of dynamite could be used to blow a hole in this sandbank created by debris accumulated around the pile that would open up a narrow channel but the natural erosion would clear away the rest. I bring this to the minister's attention because I believe that this work could be done with the expenditure of very little money and be a great improvement.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, there is one item in this vote on which I would like to question the minister and that is in relation to the fishing harbour at Vancouver. I notice that in the estimates it is referred to as a "fishing harbour". I know it by the more modest name of a wharf. This project has been under request for some considerable time, but I understand there has been difficulty in obtaining control of the property on which to build a wharf. I would like to know what progress has been made during last year. I understand a site has to be
4252	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
bought from the Indian reservation. I would like the minister to tell us what progress has been made in getting this wharf or harbour completed.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, we have
acquired the property on which to build this wharf but as yet we have reached no agreement with the harbour commission as to its management. When that is completed we will be able to proceed with the work for which this money is voted.


Donald MacInnis: Have the plans for the construction of the wharf been completed, and what will be the total cost? Is the total cost included in this estimate? While the minister is dealing with that point he might give us an estimate of when the work might be finished. There is great demand for this harbour on the part of fishermen and fishing vessel owners who come into Vancouver.


Robert Henry Winters: The estimated total cost of the fishing harbour is broken down as follows: purchase of land, $90,000; access road, $10,000; dredging, $355,000; bulkhead, shed, roads, parking area, services, platforms, Wharf, etc., $355,500; floats, mooring piles and gangways, $103,750, or a total cost of $914,250. The plans have been prepared and we will be ready to go ahead as soon as the matter of management can be worked out satisfactorily.


Howard Charles Green: On that point the minister said the total cost would be about $914,000.


Robert Henry Winters: The total estimated cost, yes.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that includes the $100,000 vote made last year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: And the vote for this year of $365,000?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: So it is quite apparent that the wharf will not be completed this year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: When does the minister expect it will be finished?


Robert Henry Winters: It is difficult to say. We have not yet got the management agreement worked out but as soon as that is arranged we will be ready to get on with the job. I believe if we get on with it reasonably early this year we can complete it in the next fiscal year.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister believes it will be completed some time in 1955?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I put that question because I have here a publication called "Soundings" which is issued by the fishing vessel owners association of British Columbia. The issue for August, 1953, carries the heading "Complete in '54" and the subheading "Funds Assured for Wharf." The article reads: Vancouver's new fisherman's wharf, to be constructed on the south shore of False creek, will be completed and in operation by the fall of 1954.
This is the post-election assurance given by Fisheries Minister James Sinclair.
He said that the additional $625,000 required to complete the development, definitely will be appropriated at the next session of parliament.
Apparently that statement by the minister is incorrect?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not spoken to the minister and I do not know under what condition he made that statement. Of course, that is merely a report of what he said. The circumstances are as I have outlined them here today.


Howard Charles Green: The actual fact is that the wharf cannot be completed until 1955?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that is correct.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question regarding dredging in the Fraser river. Earlier this week in a private discussion with him I drew to his attention the problem now being encountered in the Ladner channel in permitting boats in and out of that particular region. At that time I did not have the facts available to substantiate what I was then telling the minister, but I have now obtained the facts and figures from the board of trade of that town and it appears that something like $735,000 worth of shipping passes through. There are four marine gas stations also located there. It is very difficult for a boat to get in and out of the port in order to load and unload its wares. I wonder whether the minister is prepared at this time to state whether they intend to carry on the dredging operations before the spring shipping pressure hits the port?


Robert Henry Winters: I take it my hon. friend is speaking of Ladner. No, I am not prepared to state that. I have not the final report.


Mr. Patterson:: I have been watching for a place to make inquiries about a certain matter and it would seem to me that it would come under this particular section. It has to do with rock work on West Nicomen island. I have just received a telegram today and perhaps the best thing I could do would be to read it. It reads as follows:
Letter last year from Minister of Public Works advised that a request for rock work on West Nicomen Island cost to be shared equally by federal and provincial and Nicomen district would be

favourably received. This March request made district agreed to raise one-third of cost and the provincial government also agreed to one-third. No reply has been received from federal public works. Due to urgency and the fact that work must be completed before river rises operations have been started but will have to be shut down if immediate reply not received from dominion public works. Could you contact the minister and impress the Importance of a reply being sent in answer to wire to him from provincial diking commission also from deputy minister of lands?


Robert Henry Winters: Would the hon. member say who signed the wire?


Alexander Bell Patterson: J. A. Worth, secretary of the West Nicomen ratepayers association at Deroche.


Robert Henry Winters: What is the date of it?


Alexander Bell Patterson: April 29. I was wondering whether this project was included in the estimates or whether any action is being taken on the matter.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not included in the estimates. We are still studying it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: In view of the urgency of the matter, will the minister be able to give a reply in the very near future?


Robert Henry Winters: We will reply very soon.


Howard Charles Green: There is included in this vote an item of $1,080,000 for dredging the first narrows in Vancouver harbour, and that includes a revote of $750,000 which was the total amount of the vote for the preceding fiscal year. I know that considerable work has been done there during the last fiscal year. How was that paid for if it is all to be revoted now, and what progress is being made?


Robert Henry Winters: The position is that a contract has been awarded to the B.C. Bridge and Dredge Company Limited and Northwestern Dredge Company Limited in the amount of $1,042,800. The date of completion for the dredging is set at August 7, 1955.


Howard Charles Green: Has anything been paid yet for the work?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told now that the indication that the whole amount is a revote is in error, and that something has been paid for the work that has been done.


Howard Charles Green: I wondered about that. It was also suggested that there should be a model of the whole harbour set up for the purpose of studying further changes in the first narrows. I should like to know whether or not that has been done and, if so, what progress has been made and when steps will be taken to do this additional work over and above the actual dredging of the first narrows which is now under way.
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that the project is under the same committee which is studying Ripple rock and which reports through the national research council to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us what progress has been made?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I cannot.


Mr. Barnett:: I find myself somewhat in the same position as I imagine a good many members do, that I am tempted to discuss some of the things that are not included in these estimates more than the ones which are. However, I do not propose to yield to that temptation except to draw to the attention of the minister another instance in which it would appear to me at least that it is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I wish to refer to the West Coast Advocate, which is published in the city of Port Alberni. The issue of April 15 contains the following:
Also addressing the meeting-
Incidentally, the meeting was addressed by Mr. Arthur Laing, leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia.
-was . . . Irving Wilson, candidate in the 1953 federal contest. Mr. Wilson reviewed his recent trip to eastern Canada, and assured the meeting of the federal government's intentions on such local matters as the Alberni boat basin, west coast fishermen's floats . . .
The thing that struck me as being a bit strange was that at about the same time Mr. Wilson was solemnly assuring the people of the Alberni valley that the project on Kitsucksus creek, which is known as the Alberni boat basin, was going to be proceeded with. I received a letter which the minister may recall informed me that it had been decided not to proceed with that particular project. I thought the minister might be interested in knowing about that situation because it is a project in which the people of the city of Alberni particularly are quite interested.
Naturally they were rather disturbed at having been informed on the one hand by someone that the project was going to go ahead-at least, I understand so from the reports that were given to me-and on the other hand being regretfully informed by me, when I discussed the matter with the president and secretary of the board of trade, of the information I had from the minister. It did not create a particularly good situation.
However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister about items that are included in this vote. The details are on page 468. There is one item, partly new and partly a revote, in connection with

Supply-Public Works
the project at French creek. The item reads, "Qualicum beach (French creek)-improvements". The people of that area are very much interested in that project. When I visited it while I was at home during the recess I was pleased to note that some considerable work had been done in the construction of the breakwaters since I had last seen it. However, as I understand the situation, the portion of the work which is included in this year's vote has not been completed and I would be very interested if the minister would give me details as to what further work is contemplated on that project.


Robert Henry Winters: In reply to my hon. friend's first statement about Alberni, the reason we have not been able to go ahead with the fishermen's floats is a dispute as to the adjoining property. That is the reason there was the change in contemplated action. I know my hon. friend will understand that things like that are bound to occur. The intention was to proceed, and had it not been for this dispute we would have done so.
At French creek, which is shown as Qualicum beach, the proposed improvements include enlarging the boat basin, extending the floats, constructing a diversion dam and rock breakwater. The construction of the breakwater is under contract with Ed Welsh and Company Limited at $32,130.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: From the description the
minister has just given me, I take it that there is no provision for any deepening of the channel entrance leading into the basin itself. One of the reasons 1 asked that question is that I happened to see it for the first time at extreme low water on a recent visit.


Robert Henry Winters: There is no provision here for that, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: No provision for that? I should like to point out to the minister that before that project can be considered to be completed, in my opinion that is a necessary consideration. It does mean that a low water access to the basin is not available.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall certainly bear that in mind. I am glad to have these comments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-
396.	Repairs and upkeep for the maintenance of services, including reconstruction and replacements, and to authorize commitments against future years in the total amount of $420,000, no new works to be undertaken, $3,535,000.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item, and in particular why it is necessary to have a vote of this size? In 1953-54 there was only $2,830,000 expended and in the

previous year $2,502,000 approximately, and yet we have a vote this year of $3,535,000.


Robert Henry Winters: As my hon. friend knows, this is the amount for repairs and upkeep of harbours and rivers generally, including reconstruction and replacement, but does not provide for any new work. Although it is estimated that the actual expenditure this year will be $2,830,000, the authorization under the vote included considerably more moneys than that. In fact, so far the funds for the last fiscal year authorized were $3,133,667.26. This is an estimate and the same remarks that I made earlier will apply here. If it is found we do not need this much money, we will certainly not carry it next year. It is one of those votes with respect to which I shall have to learn by experience.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain the purpose of this vote?


Robert Henry Winters: It is largely to provide for storm damage, which has been quite considerable in the fall of the year around my own part of the country, and I know that any seacoast is exposed to the same hazards.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trans-Canada highway division-
397.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $487,484.
Mr. Hodgson:: I understand that this item is for administration and covers the salaries of your own department for trans-Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that is right.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Has the minister ever
thought of paying anything towards the maintenance of the highway after it is built? I know that is not contained in the agreement with the provinces, but something has to be done to encourage them to build more of these roads if we are going to complete the project in the seven-year period. Would the department consider something along that line?


Robert Henry Winters: My hon. friend knows I am limited by the provisions of the act. The act does not provide for maintenance but only for participation in the cost of construction, and I cannot go beyond that. I might add that when the provinces entered into the agreement to construct the highway by December 9, 1956, they did so knowing full well it provided only for the cost of construction and not for maintenance.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That was more or less a sort of horsetrading deal that was initiated. Probably you are a better horse trader than some of the provinces, so you got the best

of the deal. I think you have to do something to encourage the provinces to build more of this road or else take over the maintenance.


Robert Henry Winters: My friend is getting into a field that presents great difficulties. I am sure he knows there is still one province in Canada that has not signed the agreement because of stated fears of the invasion of a field of provincial jurisdiction. Maintenance of highways is a field that the provinces have always regarded as their own, and it would bring up a whole new series of problems which I believe are beyond the scope of anything that was contemplated when this act was being considered and finally approved.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Since the minister has mentioned that one province, is there any hope of getting that last province to sign the agreement within any reasonable time?


Robert Henry Winters: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that we are available.


Mr. Churchill:: In the details shown on page 470, there is an amount of $13,380 for film displays, broadcasting, advertising and other informational material other than publications; is that in connection with the trans-Canada highway and what purpose is served by that?


Robert Henry Winters: In the film board, we undertook some time ago to present a picture of Canada generally and at that time we used the vehicle of the royal visit, which was rather successful. I believe it was the most successful picture we ever made in the film board to interpret Canada to Canadians in a broad sense. We discussed another vehicle to try to develop that same sense of showing Canada as a whole to Canadians, and it occurred to us that the trans-Canada highway might be an appropriate means. We undertook, with the national film board, to share the costs of a film based upon the trans-Canada highway, but really designed for the purpose of showing Canada to Canadians in a manner that might appeal to them. That is the reason for that vote.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I see that item is down $10,000 this year. Does that mean you are not going to take another picture this year?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it is the same film.


Howard Charles Green: 
Robert Henry Winters: There are two gaps that have not yet been constructed to a point where a vehicle can drive over them. One covers a distance of about 180 miles in Ontario and the other covers some 80 miles in Newfoundland. When these gaps will be closed is a matter for the provincial governments. We have been urging them, as I said before, but they have their own highway programs and their own highway problems. They are in the best position to judge how much of their total highway effort should be devoted to trans-Canada.
I said at that time the provinces did undertake by agreement to build their part of the highway by December 9, 1956. Now, it remains to be seen whether that is going to be achieved. We hope it will. I have written to all the provincial governments on several occasions-the last time was in December of last year-reminding them that the authority given to the government under the Trans-Canada Highway Act extends only to December 1956, and that we have no authority beyond that date.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any idea of when these two gaps are to be closed?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose it will be some years earlier than completion of the system?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot add to what I have said. The agreements provide for a termination date, and the provinces undertook to complete the highway by that date. I recognize the problems just as they do; but I do express the hope that they will be able to complete the highway on time. Some of the provinces will. The minister of highways of Alberta was in to see me this morning and indicated that he thought Alberta would finish on time. I believe Saskatchewan will, too; and there are others as well. Whether or not they all will is a matter for their own decision.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister be showing the gaps in the film of the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Yuill:: Is there anything to come up in the near future by way of plans for a Yellowhead route?


Robert Henry Winters: The Yellowhead route is not part of the trans-Canada highway.


Charles Yuill: I believe it is designed as such.


Robert Henry Winters: But it is not designated as such, and that is the determining factor. The hon. member may have his own opinions
425S

Supply-Public Works
in the matter, but the fact of the matter is that the Yellowhead route has not been designated by the provinces concerned as the trans-Canada highway. That was their responsibility, and they chose another route.


Charles Yuill: And it was a very unhappy choice; I would like to say that. Would the government and the minister take kindly to considering the feasibility and possibility of building, as the most important part of the trans-Canada highway, the Yellowhead route, both from the point of view of economy and of service to the people. I realize, of course, that the Minister of National Defence placed no importance on this phase of the matter from a military standpoint, but I suggest it is worthy of consideration. I would ask if, after the Big Bend highway is completed, the government would take kindly to building the Yellowhead route.


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot add anything to what I have said. The hon. member is talking about something for the future. The problem at hand is to complete the present trans-Canada highway; and that is the only authority that has. been given by parliament. We are in the hands of parliament in these matters.


Mr. Knight:: The minister has answered in part as to the rate of progress made by the various provinces. I take it from what he has said that Alberta and Saskatchewan are reasonably well ahead of the others?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Then, which of the provinces are not so far ahead?


Robert Henry Winters: What is it my hon. friend wants?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to have the comparative rate of progress in the building of the trans-Canada highway in the various provinces. In other words, I should like to know about the nearness of completion of the program. The mileage completed would be a good criterion.


Robert Henry Winters: It is easy to answer in the case of Quebec, because they have not started. With respect to Nova Scotia, to date two contracts have been awarded for bridges, but no work has been done on highway construction. I have here figures showing the number of miles approved and the number of miles completed. I shall have before me in a moment the total mileage in each province, and give the hon. member the information he wants.
In Newfoundland the total mileage of highways is 610 miles. There have been contracts of one kind or another approved for 236 miles, and the equivalent mileage completed is 139

miles. In Prince Edward Island the total mileage is 74; miles approved, 43-88; equivalent mileage completed 38-58. For Nova Scotia, as I said, contracts have been let for two bridges, and the total mileage to be completed is 310. Those two bridges are in Pictou county.


Clarence Gillis: No work has been done on the highway.


Robert Henry Winters: No. Then, in New Brunswick the total mileage is 388; miles approved, 45-60; equivalent mileage completed 45-60. In other words, they have completed the only part of the road for which contracts were awarded. In Ontario the total mileage is 1,412. Contracts have been approved for 374-40 miles, and the equivalent mileage completed is 309. In Manitoba the mileage is 305; miles approved, 127-40; equivalent mileage completed, 114-90. In Saskatchewan the mileage is 414; mileage approved, 292-40; equivalent mileage completed, 270. In Alberta the mileage is 292; mileage approved, 196-41; equivalent mileage completed, 196-41. In Banff and Yoho parks, which are the responsibility of the federal government, the total mileage is 83. We have approved work on 14-80 miles, and considerably more will be done this year. The equivalent mileage completed is 12-20. In British Columbia the total mileage is 692. Assuming that they will follow the route of the Big Bend, the mileage approved is 150-29; the equivalent mileage completed is 124-76.


Mr. Hansell:: I wonder if we might call it six o'clock because I have several questions to ask.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: Order. When the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing item 397. Shall the item carry?


Mr. Holowach:: I would appreciate learning one or two things on this item, from the minister. I am sure that many hon. members, particularly those from British Columbia and Alberta, are concerned with certain problems that have arisen in connection with the construction of the trans-Canada highway in their portions of Canada. With respect to the Big Bend route of the trans-Canada highway, can the minister give us some clarification as to what in his opinion is the proper solution of the problem created by the proposed construction of the Mica creek dam, which, I understand, will affect the area for about 126 miles from

north to south and flood a portion of the highway construction? In view of the federal government's participation in the financing of the road, as well as the concern of the people of western Canada that there be no misconstruction, or waste of public funds, can the minister tell us whether any alternative route has been suggested? Surely the people of Canada would not want to see a highway built at the bottom of a lake.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the route designated for the trans-Canada highway is along the Big Bend of the Columbia river. That is quite a long route. It is, I think, 195 miles from Revelstoke to Golden; whereas the direct distance is only about 95 miles, some 100 miles shorter. The problem is made more complicated by the location of a very good potential dam site at a place called Mica creek, at the north end of the Big Bend which, if built, would flood out a part of the route of the trans-Canada highway. We have been engaged with the government of British Columbia in trying to find an alternative route. Only last year we explored a pass called Rogers pass, which seems to have quite good possibilities. I am not at all sure the government of British Columbia shares our optimism as to the possibilities of building the road through the Rogers pass. In any event, the matter must soon be resolved one way or the other. We have also assured the government of British Columbia that if a trans-Canada highway were built around the route of the Big Bend and was subsequently flooded out they would be completely indemnified, as we would be, by the interests responsible for the building of the dam. In the meantime, this week, I had a discussion on that point with the minister of highways and public works of British Columbia, the Hon. Mr. Gaglardi, who told me it was his intention to start work this year on that part of the Big Bend which, under present planning, would be part of the trans-Canada but which, if that route were abandoned in favour of some other, would still be a necessary road, and the investment would not be lost as a result. The part of the road he has in mind is north from Revelstoke, and I understand it is his intention to start on it this year.


Ambrose A. Holowach: May I take this opportunity to ask another question of the minister? Has the government considered the advisability of building, in addition to the presently contemplated program of the trans-Canada highway, an additional trans-Canada highway from Winnipeg to Saskatoon, Edmonton, Edson and Jasper via the Yellowhead route to the west coast? In view of the unprecedented industrial development taking place in
Supply-Public Works
the central and northern part of Canada, it seems to me that such a road is very necessary. There is also the precarious position in which the north finds itself. From the standpoint of military necessity such a highway is also of primary importance. Further, has the government considered accepting the request of Premier Manning, acting on behalf of western provinces, which was made last spring, to discuss the matter of additional defence highways?


Robert Henry Winters: The discussion was held, Mr. Chairman, but the federal government took the view that the only commitment we have in mind at the present time relates to the building of the trans-Canada highway.


Howard Charles Green: The minister mentioned Rogers pass. I believe that is the pass through which the Canadian Pacific Railway ran originally. When they built the long tunnel at Glacier they abandoned the road through Rogers pass. As I remember it, there was great trouble there with snow slides, and there were some very serious accidents on the railway as a result of those slides. Have the minister's engineers reported that as a favourable route for the highway?


Robert Henry Winters: The report we have is just based on a walking survey.


Howard Charles Green: In the summertime?


Robert Henry Winters: Two of our engineers went through there. It is true it is a heavy snowfall area, and it is true that if the road should be built there would have to be considerable distances of snowsheds and other precautions; but even so, if it were feasible to build it through there the indications are that it would in any event be considerably cheaper than to build the extra 100 miles involved in the Big Bend highway, which in itself presents some very difficult construction problems.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister have a check made of the route from Golden south and then through the mountains to the head of Kootenay lake and from there up to Arrowhead and Revelstoke? Some suggestion has been made that that would be an easier way to get across the Selkirk mountains. It might be worth while to have that route checked.


Robert Henry Winters: The position is of course that the designation of the route is the responsibility of the provincial government; but we would certainly be happy to examine with them any possible route through the mountains between Revelstoke and Golden.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4258	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
398.	To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks, $2,000,000.
Mr. Harkness:: I presume that the major portion of the $2 million which is to be voted for this year's expenditure will be on the trans-Canada highway through Banff park, with the remainder on the adjoining park in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us how many miles of the trans-Canada highway through the park are still to be completed, and not only through the Banff park but through the other parks which may lie on the route? I think there is only one.


Robert Henry Winters: There are still 67 miles to be completed, and this vote will be used largely for 12 miles of construction in the Yoho park. We intend to start on the west end of the Yoho park this year and work east.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And it is the construction from Golden eastward by and large that this $2 million is intended for; is that right?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When is it intended to complete the trans-Canada highway, of which practically none is completed through Banff national park?


Robert Henry Winters: As my hon. friend knows, we have been doing a considerable amount of work from the east gate into the town of Banff and into Lake Louise. Just when we shall complete that portion of the work in Banff park, I am not prepared to say; but we intend to push on with the construction of the road in both parks, which is our sole responsibility.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask whether it is the intention to have this work completed through the national parks by the time that the agreement which I believe is to end in 1957, is it not, or in 1956-


Robert Henry Winters: 1956.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -runs out with the provinces for the completion of the trans-Canada highway?


Robert Henry Winters: I would hope we would be able to do that. It will be a big task because construction there is difficult. There are still long distances to be built. Subject to our being able to have funds voted by parliament and to overcome physical difficulties in the way of doing it, we hope to be able to complete it on time. But I do not want to minimize the difficulties of doing it.


Robert Hardy Small: On page 470 where details are given of item 398, we find an item of $24,300 required for increases in rates of pay. May I ask the minister for an explanation of that item? The reason why I ask for it is
[Mr. Winters.!

this. Last year there was no provision for the increase. Did these people not get an increase when the rest of the civil servants received one last year?


Robert Henry Winters: These people are not civil servants.


Robert Hardy Small: Did they not get an increase last year? There is no provision made for them.


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that this is a matter of the form of bookkeeping; that there was an increase last year but that it is incorporated in the other figures.


Robert Hardy Small: The reason why I asked the question was this. This increased pay is for the number of 86 employees spread over a year. If they did receive an increase last year, it was not very much. It means only about $5 a week. If they were not treated favourably last year, I do not think they have had enough.


Robert Henry Winters: There was a general increase last year and again this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering branch-
399.	To provide for remedial works where damages are caused by. or endanger, navigation or federal government structures and to complete protection works already under way, $500,000.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item and give us examples of what projects this money is used for?


Robert Henry Winters: This money is spent largely on rivers where there is river bank erosion resulting from navigation or which is likely to endanger navigation or which is attributable to some government structure, such as some breakwater or wharf which sets up the kind of currents which contribute towards erosion. There are many examples along the St. Lawrence river where there is erosion resulting from the passage of ships and the wakes they throw up. We have spent a considerable amount of money on them. One good example is that at Longueuil on the south side of the St. Lawrence river east of St. Lambert, I think it is, across from Montreal. A considerable amount of money has been spent there. There are many similar examples where it has been necessary to protect the river banks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
401.	To provide for advance planning of projects Including acquisition of sites, $500,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a question or two on this item. It apparently is to provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $500,000. This afternoon the chairman ruled that we could

not ask about unemployment. However, I presume it will be quite in order to talk about those who are on an enforced holiday without remuneration. I want to ask the minister this question. Is this item in the estimates with a view to the planning of projects that can utilize the services of persons who are unemployed in the future? Is that the particular purpose of this item?


Robert Henry Winters: No. It is not the primary purpose of the item.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What projects are being
considered? What I mean is this. Is the planning itself to cost $500,000? It must be quite extensive.


Robert Henry Winters: No. It is not really very extensive at all. As a matter of fact, it is a very small vote for the purpose. As I have indicated previously, we hope that in the future we shall be able to bring items to a sufficient stage of planning that, when we carry an amount in the estimates, we shall be able to get on with the work. Heretofore, in some instances votes have been put in the estimates before sites were acquired and before planning was undertaken. The result was that they had to be voted year after year and I think a good many members became tired of seeing revotes in the estimates with no construction taking place. This is a means for doing something about that matter. We propose to do some planning so that when we put an item in the estimates we shall be able to get on with the work. That is the intention behind it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are all for that procedure.


Howard Charles Green: This vote is to be used for two purposes, apparently?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: One is for planning?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: For preparing plans?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And the other is for acquiring sites?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: How is the amount to be
divided between those two objectives?


Robert Henry Winters: There is no attempt here to divide it between them. It is just to be used as required for the acquisition of sites and for some planning. We have not endeavoured to break it down. It is just
Supply-Public Works
a lump sum being carried for the first time. Here again we shall have to gain experience with it.


Howard Charles Green: Is it intended that the sum will be $500,000 each year?


Robert Henry Winters: I could not say that.


Howard Charles Green: Or are there likely to be big increases?


Robert Henry Winters: I will say this. It will be varied as conditions require, either upward pr downward; I do not know which it will be. This is just a rough guess, a method to try to make for a little bit more orderly presentation of the estimates.


Mr. Shaw:: Possibly it would be appropriate for me to express at this time the hope that part of this $500,000 may be used to acquire sites and to make plans for those five projects which I brought to the attention of the minister prior to this time, namely the five projects which were approved by parliament last May. I trust that the minister will not overlook the crying necessity for progress with respect to those projects. We trust that we shall learn soon that at least the sites have been acquired for those five projects, including the one in my own home town, and that the preparation of plans is going forward without delay. I have just returned from my home town and I may say to the minister that that is the hope expressed by all of the citizens of that community.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
402.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $400,000.
Howard Charles Green: Why is it necessary to have this item in the estimates in view of the changes being made in the administration ot the department? We have just passed a vote of half a million dollars for planning and acquiring sites. The minister has told us that all his estimates have been gone over carefully, that work is to be put on a current basis and that all the estimates he has asked for are to be used for actual construction during the current fiscal year. Yet here we have this old item of $400,000 which is evidently used to supplement any one or more of the other votes which we have already passed. That does not seem to me to be very good planning. If this department is to be run so efficiently, why does it require a lump sum of $400,000 which can be drawn against to increase any or all of the other items being voted for the department?
4260	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: This is not to supplement the votes in the estimates, but to pay overages on contracts that have been awarded and cost more in some cases than the amounts voted lor the particular project. It is a vote which is required for completing payments in cases where the amount of the contract exceeds the amount carried in the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: In other words the figures in the preceding votes are based on estimates for the work done.


Robert Henry Winters: For the work to be done.


Howard Charles Green: And this $400,000 is the difference between the estimate and the actual cost in cases in which the cost is higher than the estimate?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: That is the reason for the vote?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
403.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1954-55, $400,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is another item, Mr. Chairman, which seems to be a vote designed to provide a margin, or what might be called leeway. I notice that in the fiscal year 195253 the amount voted was very largely used, and in the year 1953-54 it was estimated that the entire $400,000 would be used. Could the minister give us a few examples of the sort of cases in which this money was used during the fiscal year 1953-54?


Robert Henry Winters: This is to provide for items which were not in the estimates and which we thought would be finished during the preceding fiscal year but for which completion has been carried over into this fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may interrupt, is it in the nature of a revote or is it additional money?


Robert Henry Winters: It is more a revote than additional money. It could be additional money. We thought a project could be completed out of last year's estimates but it carried into this year and we have to get the approval of parliament by this means to pay the amount that is carried over into this fiscal year. I do not know, though, which examples would serve the point my hon. friend has in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister might just pick out the two largest items he sees before him.


Robert Henry Winters: Here is one; Fogo harbour in Newfoundland, $11,625.55. Here is another for Richelieu river in Quebec for dredging


amounting to $13,543.13. There are quite a list of examples here and I could give many more. For example, in British Columbia there are a number of places under $5,000 amounting to a total of $4,422.58. These overrun into the succeeding fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
404.	Statue of the late Sir Robert L. Borden, $50,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will $50,000 be the total cost of this statue?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand it will be the total cost of the statue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has it been decided at what spot on parliament hill the statue will be located?


Robert Henry Winters: It is intended to locate the statue on the west side of the west block. The exact location has not been chosen but we are making soil tests to determine the exact nature of the foundation, though it will be somewhere on the lawn on the west side of the west block. That is the present intention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if the monument will be of the same type and general appearance as those now standing in the grounds of the parliament buildings?


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, a competition has been held and as I recall it three of the principal persons who have entered designs have been asked to submit further designs with a little more, shall I say, traditional background. But the government has not laid down the type. Rather did they leave it to those sculptors who entered the competition to submit preliminary designs, and there is a committee supervising the choice of design at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I know that ideas may differ once we enter the realm of art and sculpture, but I should like to express the opinion here that it would be a mistake, in view of the fact that we already have a number of statues of rather uniform type around these buildings, to depart from that type. They are all bronze, full length figures on a granite base, and I believe it would be a mistake to depart from that general type of figure in any statue that may now be erected.


Walter Edward Harris: Without entirely agreeing that the statue will be a replica of those now on parliament hill, may I say that the committee has much the same reaction as my hon. friend and we are thinking along much the same lines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

405.	Emergency shelter administration (formerly under department of resources and development), $25,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I believe this item is the first of three relating to housing, the others being items 406 and 535. I do not propose this evening, Mr. Chairman, to precipitate any general discussion on housing. There have been some sessions since the war when there have been altogether too few opportunities for the discussion of housing policy in general. But this session is not of that nature. I suppose housing has had more ample discussion at this session than in any session during the post-war period. We had an extended discussion of the new National Housing Act on second reading; we had it before the banking and commerce committee for some weeks, where it was submitted to what I believe may be called very intensive study; we had a further discussion at some length in committee of the whole when the bill was reported back to the house for third reading. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is no occasion now for any extended debate on housing policy in general.
However, Mr. Chairman, I have a question in regard to this item in particular, which covers an amount of $25,000 for emergency shelter administration. This has been a dwindling item for some years. The amount appropriated last year, I see, was $35,000, but if we have regard to the details on page 473 we will find that in the previous fiscal year expenditure reached a total of $454, and that in the fiscal year just closed there had not been any money spent at all up to December 31. The estimate of the amount required for the remaining three months of the fiscal year was also nil Therefore I am led to ask why there should be anything in the estimates under this item this year. What need can now remain?


Robert Henry Winters: The need remains, Mr. Chairman, to keep these properties we still have in good shape and fit as living accommodation. This is not an item on which the taxpayers are required to carry any burden. The operation carries itself, but it is necessary to come to parliament to get a vote each year for the necessary expenditures on capital additions or changes to the accommodation. That is something one cannot predict accurately. We thought $25,000 little enough, but whether that will be spent I do not know. If it requires to be spent in order to keep the accommodation in shape then we shall have to have it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are all aware of the relationship of which the minister speaks between appropriations under this item and net cost to the public
Supply-Public Works
treasury, but he will have to make out a better case for an appropriation under this item than he has yet made out. Will he tell us exactly how much was spent on this item in the fiscal year ended March 31?


Robert Henry Winters: We spent no money this year on them, but under the terms of agreement for these projects Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a contingent liability to restore the sites in the event that the projects are vacated. They have been gradually abandoning these areas and in those cases it has been necessary to restore the sites. It is entirely possible there may be some site restoration this year, and in that event this money will be required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think that is a very satisfactory or convincing case. Not a cent of money was required last year, not a copper! There was $35,000 appropriated by parliament for the purpose indicated by the minister and not one cent was required. Now we are asked to provide $25,000 for a purpose which did not require a cent of expenditure last year. Surely the minister is not seriously going to ask the house to appropriate $25,000 when not a copper was required. This is an item that has been dwindling year by year. The need has shrunk rather than increased, and I suggest there is no reason to expect that anything more is going to be required during this new fiscal year than was actually required during the fiscal year just closed. I suggest to the minister that if he is thinking of some unforeseeable needs he would be well provided if he had $5,000 in his estimates for that purpose. I suggest that to him seriously.


Robert Henry Winters: I am pleased to have that serious suggestion, but we have projects at Edmonton, Regina, Brantford, Saint John, Sydney, Halifax and Long Branch, and I do not think it would be entirely prudent, with all these tenants, to assume, for example, that just because a water main did not break last year one will not break this year. I am very glad to have the serious suggestion of the hon. member for Eglinton, but I would not want to take the responsibility of having something happen this year that we could not cope with for lack of this amount of money which I am sure my hon. friend will agree is quite a modest sum in relation to the projects we have to handle.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was just about to ask the minister where these emergency shelters were located, but he has answered that. How many people are now housed in emergency shelters across Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Approximately 1,000 people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
406.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence (formerly under department of resources and development), $700,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he can tell us how much of the money spent last year under this item was spent on schools? I have in mind the schools that are constructed where extra facilities are needed because of the concentration of defence personnel.


Robert Henry Winters: I would estimate that there has been about $100,000. Schools are about 15 per cent of the total program that Central Mortgage has been supervising, and on that basis there has been about $105,000 spent under this vote on schools.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister anticipate that about the same percentage of this year's vote will be spent in that way?


Robert Henry Winters: I would think so, about the same percentage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us where this money will be spent this year, or in what cities or communities these schools will be located?


Robert Henry Winters: There will be schools at Tufts Cove, Cornwallis, and Shearwater, all in Nova Scotia, at Chatham in New Brunswick, Portage in Manitoba, and Penhold, Wain-wright, and Suffield in Alberta.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for giving that list. As he knows, last year or the year before a fairly substantial sum out of this vote came to Winnipeg to assist in the building of a school near Fort Osborne barracks. The amount was a help to us, and I can say that in Winnipeg we appreciate this form of federal aid to education. May there be more.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation responsible for all married quarters, schools, etc., required by the Department of National Defence, or just for those areas for which the department asks assistance?


Robert Henry Winters: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is responsible for the entire program of married quarters for the armed services. The quarters are built with funds voted through the Department of National Defence for that purpose, and Central Mortgage is responsible for their construction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: An interesting question arises from an examination of the details of this item on page 473. The book of estimates indicates that the amount appropriated last year for this purpose was $700,000, the same
[Mr. Winters.l
amount that the minister is asking us to vote now. On the other hand, the details indicate that the expenditure in the fiscal year just closed exceeded or is likely to exceed $900,000. Was there a supplementary estimate and, if so, how much?


Robert Henry Winters: There was a supplementary estimate and, speaking from memory, it was $450,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would make a total of appropriations last year on this item of $1,150,000, which compares with an expenditure in the fiscal year 1952-53 of $1,025,000, in round figures. What was the amount actually expended under this item in the fiscal year just closed?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that the actual expenditure is very close to the estimate shown here of $902,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I take it that some curtailment of the program is contemplated in this new fiscal year, for $700,000 is now being sought.


Robert Henry Winters: This is another matter of budgeting. This is the amount that treasury board thought should be put in the estimates, but I feel that we will again need to request a supplementary amount.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That leads me to ask about the program of construction that is planned for this year and how it compares with the program that was actually carried out last year.


Robert Henry Winters: The program for this year given to us by the Department of National Defence, as I have it before me now, includes 1,906 units broken down as follows: R.C.A.F., 556; army, 1,318; navy, 18; and defence research board, 14. But I understand the army is now contemplating a further amount of housing which will be in the order of 1,000 additional units.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not believe they have broken their program down in detail, at least they have not detailed it to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister before him, for this year's program, information indicating where those quarters are to be constructed?


Robert Henry Winters: The quarters are to be
located in quite a long list of centres, including Tufts Cove-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps for the sake of
saving time the information could go on the record, that is, if the minister does not wish to take the time to read it?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall have to revise this list I have in my hand, if I do that. Perhaps it would be quicker to read it. There is Tufts Cove; Chatham for radio; Shearwater-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister the amounts in each case?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not a complete list of units. The rest of the list is: Mount Uniacke, Chatham station, Valcartier, St. Hubert, Barriefield, Hagersville, Camp Borden- both for the army and the air force; there are two groups at Camp Borden; Petawawa, London, Clinton, Winnipeg, Dundurn, Wain-wright, Edmonton, Calgary, Claresholm, Moose Jaw, Penhold, Sufifield, Portage, Chilliwack and Rocky Point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I understand the minister has not the amount in each case?


Robert Henry Winters: Not in each case, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is any program for the construction of schools included this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Well, I mentioned the
points-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understood the minister
referred to the construction of schools in last year's program. I am asking now about this year's program.


Robert Henry Winters: I was speaking of this year's program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, thank you. Then,
could the minister indicate the current cost of school construction according to the estimates before him, broken down, let us say, by rooms? We approached the problem that way when reviewing the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on behalf of Defence Construction Limited last year.


Robert Henry Winters: About $25,000 a room.


Mr. Tuslin:: I do not know whether the minister gave the information, but if he did I did not hear him. Was there a housing project in the list for Picton, Ontario?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there is nothing listed for Picton, Ontario.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a note in the
details on this item that says it is to provide for expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction, etc. Is it not solely for supervising construction?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This does not cover any portion of the capital costs?
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct; this is not a portion of the capital cost, it is the supervisory cost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have just been handed a
copy of the further supplementary estimates that the house voted in the last week of March, 1954. The provision in the further supplementary estimates for this purpose was not $450,000, as mentioned by the minister, but $130,000. Is there some further item besides this?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told those are the
further supplementary estimates. There was another item in the supplementary estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is $450,000 the total of both?


Robert Henry Winters: That is my recollection.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with these projects for national defence extend beyond the borders of Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: No, purely domestic.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
535. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection one of section 45 of the National Housing Act in respect of housing projects for veterans, for the acquisition of land for housing projects, and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, for sale or rental, $1,124,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if we could have a statement from the minister on this item? It is true it has been substantially reduced from last year, but it is an item on which there is no detail in the book of estimates. I would ask the minister for an explanatory statement.


Robert Henry Winters: This item, Mr. Chairman, provides for the construction, conversion and improvement of housing projects for veterans; for the financing of the construction of housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, and for the purchase of land at Fredericton, New Brunswick. A summary of the 1954-55 program is (1) a carryover from March 31, 1954; (a) completion of veterans' rental project at Fraserview, Vancouver, B.C. and other sites, $200,000; (b) permanent improvement of war workers houses, Vancouver and other sites, $344,000; (c) completion of houses at Gander, Newfoundland, $250,000, making a total carryover of $794,000.
As to new construction for 1954-55, there is (a) sewer and water services for the Gander town site, Newfoundland, $30,000; (b) purchase of land at Fredericton, New Brunswick, for a housing project, $300,000; that makes a
4264	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
total of $330,000 for the new program or an over-all total of $1,124,000. As to Fredericton, I might say that the decision has been made not to locate the living accommodation for the troops of Gagetown camp in Fredericton, so that amount of $300,000 will not be required for that purpose. This decision was taken after these estimates were compiled.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that mean the sum of $330,000 should be subtracted from this item? We should not be asked to vote it if the proposal has been abandoned.


Robert Henry Winters: We have actually spent about $40,000 of it. Central Mortgage did acquire a small amount of land and did some work on the project; the rest of the vote will not be required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume we can eliminate it now, and that we will not be asked to vote money that will not be required. Perhaps the minister could indicate how much he would require for any commitments, and we could reduce the vote by the balance.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no objection to the reduction of this vote by a quarter of a million dollars.


Walter Edward Harris: I move that the item be reduced by $250,000, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister now if he would indicate how many housing units are involved in the appropriation of $794,000 of a carryover, and in the second place how many units are involved in the project at Gander?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to say how many units are involved in the carryover; that is just a clean-up vote for a large number of projects across Canada of which the largest is the Fraserview project, which has some 1,200 odd units in it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the complete project?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I understand from the Department of National Defence that their plans, initially at any rate, are to build 1,400 units for the Gagetown camp site.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister, I am afraid, has not answered my question. I should like some means of testing the value that the country is to receive from this expenditure of $794,000, the carryover of the various projects mentioned by the minister. I should also like the number of units in the project at Gander. I think he must be in a position to give us more information about the number of units that are to be constructed under the provisions for the carryover, and surely he must be in a position to tell us how many units are involved in the project at Gander.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the first vote, for the completion of the veterans rental project at Fraserview, is to pay the contractor for the completion of the project. Then, in connection with the improvement of war workers houses-there are 344 housing units required to be improved permanently at the rate of $1,000 per unit. Then, with regard to Gander: there are 100 housing units there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is to be the cost of the hundred?


Robert Henry Winters: The total cost is approximately $1,200,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: About $12,000 per unit at Gander?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the total cost per unit at Fraserview, on an average?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not that figure.


Mr. Winch:: I understand there are 1,200 units in the Fraserview project?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the department putting in a central hall for community purposes? If not, is there any truth in the statement that the offices there, on the project, will be given to an association at that point free of charge?


Robert Henry Winters: The temporary offices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been built on land owned by the parks board with the understanding that when the offices are no longer required they will be turned over to the parks board on some arrangement still to be negotiated.


Harold Edward Winch: There is no plan whereby, in a project such as Fraserview with 1,200 units, the department also makes provision for a community centre?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the department take that into consideration, in a project of this nature involving 1,200 families? That would mean a large influx in a brand new area. Who accepts responsibility for community centres?


Robert Henry Winters: I would think there would be some responsibility on the tenants themselves to do something to provide for their own recreation. The experience in Central Mortgage in connection with war workers houses by way of providing community centres has not always been the kind of experience that would lead them to go into a community centre on this project.
I know my hon. friend could make out a good case for it. But the fact of the matter

is that in this particular project, which I believe is the biggest in Canada of its kind, there is no intention now of building a community centre.


Donald MacInnis: Perhaps this matter should have been attended to when the land was being bought and laid out for a residential area. I do not know whether the minister has seen the project-


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, several times.


Donald MacInnis: -but, when it started, part of it was in my constituency. I remember there were a number of headaches getting things straightened out; but I believe finally they were straightened out. Some attempt should be made to assist these people in acquiring land nearby, if it is available, for community centres. We have gone into that sort of thing in Vancouver in most residential areas. This is a large and compact one and, as it is new, the quality of the residences is fairly good. But more than that, the population consists almost entirely of young married couples with families. To have no community centre for recreation is a condition that should be remedied now, if it can be.


Harold Edward Winch: I imagine I might as well speak out plainly now, instead of approaching the matter indirectly. So I shall ask my question in a direct fashion: Let me point out, first, that this project is in part of my old provincial riding. One of the leading Liberals in the area, if not the leading one, who was also at one time a candidate, who lives there and is also a member of the community association, has said that the federal government is going to turn over to the community association free of charge the buildings now occupied by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Is that information correct or incorrect?


Robert Henry Winters: One of the difficulties is that Central Mortgage does not even own the land on which the buildings are erected. However, as I said, we have an arrangement under which we will work out something with the parks board, when Central Mortgage no longer needs office space.


Harold Edward Winch: It will be worked out with the parks board, with the community association or with the ex-Liberal-candidate?


Robert Henry Winters: It will be the parks board.


Harold Edward Winch: And the community association as such?


Robert Henry Winters: The parks board is the only body with which we have undertaken to do anything.
Supply-Public Works


Harold Edward Winch: The point I wish to have cleared up is this, that the defeated candidate, either provincial or federal, is not the representative of the riding, so far as you are concerned?


Robert Henry Winters: Are you saying that, or asking?


Harold Edward Winch: I am asking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was interested in one remark the minister made when he pointed out that an average of $1,000 per unit is being asked for 344 housing units. Where are they located and how long ago were they constructed? How does it happen that these extensive repairs are required, averaging $1,000 per unit?


Robert Henry Winters: These are old wartime war workers houses. They had no basements or foundations, and this is an attempt to improve them by putting permanent foundations under them. I am sure my hon. friend has seen this going on all across the country. It is a quite expensive undertaking, but it does improve the houses substantially. It requires new foundations and often new sills. Quite often dry rot has set in. It is the old vintage of wartime housing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then it is a great deal more than repairs?


Robert Henry Winters: I said it amounted to permanent improvements to war workers houses.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was referring to the minister's last remark when he mentioned 344 units at $1,000 each, and I understood used the word "repair".


Robert Henry Winters: If I used that word, I used it incorrectly, but I do not recall that I used it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand then that it is really the reconstruction of units that were constructed without cellars.


Robert Henry Winters: It is what I said-permanent improvements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask as to the kind of contracts under which new units are being constructed at Gander and elsewhere. What type of contract is being used by Central Mortgage?


Robert Henry Winters: They are all firm bid contracts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Firm price? No cost-plus involved here, at all?


Robert Henry Winters: No, in each instance it is a firm price contract.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Were tenders called in every case?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Mr. Starr:: The minister said that it would cost an average of $1,000 per unit for permanent foundations. It seems to me that with respect to the original wartime housing, where houses were being put up for sale, the allowance made was $600 per unit for the same type of work. Why is the estimate $1,000 per unit now?


Robert Henry Winters: It depends on the vintage of the houses and the degree of repairs they need when foundations are put under them. I am told that at one time Central Mortgage and Housing made such allowance up to $700, but the amount indicated is an estimate of likely present-day costs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
302. Departmental administration, $455,547.
William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will find the vote at page 44 of the blue book and the details at page 373.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like the minister to make a statement on this department. He is a new minister and his estimates are coming up for the first time. I should like to hear from him for a minute or two.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Hon. members will note that the amounts shown in the 1953-54 column of the blue book are the amounts provided by parliament in that year for works and services for which the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources continues to be responsible.
The total shown is $21,647,650, of which $325,731 covers appropriations which will not be required in 1954-55. The remaining $21,321,919 may be compared directly with our requirements for 1954-55, which total $22,031,026, or an over-all increase of $709,107, or about 3-4 per cent.
This increase is the net result of a number of increases and decreases. The major decreases are a reduction of $500,000 in the estimated requirements for the spruce bud-worm program in New Brunswick and a reduction of $550,000 in the provision for the eastern Rockies board capital expenditure program which is now coming to a close.
These decreases are offset by an increase of some $440,000 in the national parks operations vote, and some $587,000 in the national parks construction vote. Further increases of a more minor nature will be noted in various votes, and I will be glad to explain these when the particular votes are reviewed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On this opening item of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources there is a matter that I should like to call to the attention of the minister. It has to do with the subject of an island in lake Erie, Ontario. This island is a very interesting place indeed from many points of view. It is approximately 14 miles long and varies in width from approximately 1 mile to 3 miles and averages approximately 14 miles in width. There are more than 17,000 acres of land on this island. It juts out from the Canadian shore of lake Erie and stretches out toward the middle of lake Erie almost to the international boundary line. The start of the island, which, owing to the filling in of the marshes, makes it in reality a sort of peninsula rather than an island, forms a long bay about 18 miles wide at the mouth and diminishes to only a few hundred yards in width at the narrow end. This particular island to which I refer would probably make a wonderful site for a national park for various reasons, which are as follows:
First of all, this large island is located within 150 miles of probably the most thickly populated part of the Dominion of Canada. It is in southwestern Ontario and is part of the county of Norfolk. If this island were made a national park it would then be available as a playground and a place which could be visited not only by our own people there but by tourists from the United States as well, and we all know that tourist trade from the United States is very valuable indeed. In addition, this island is a veritable paradise for wildlife. I understand there are more snakes on the island per square foot than anywhere else in the world, but none of the snakes are poisonous. There is one particular variety there which I believe is found nowhere else in North America. It is called the "wamper", a large water snake, from six to eight feet long. It is harmless, although it might cause nervous shock or something of that kind if arrived upon unexpectedly.
There are also eagles on this island, and in the waters adjoining the island there is probably the best small-mouth bass fishing in North America. There may be other places which are as good. I say that in deference to other hon. members, but I do not think that any other place is better. In addition to that, this particular island is also one of the very finest duck-shooting places in North America. The reason for that is the large bay that is formed by this island and the mainland of Ontario and the rest of lake Erie. Because of the fact that this island is nothing more or less than a gigantic sandbar, there are a lot of shallow inlets and bays and small islands

adjoining the inshore side of this long island or small peninsula. In these little bays the waters are not more than a few inches to a few feet deep, and there are large quantities of wild rice which attract a great many game birds in the fall, wild ducks, geese and so on. The island also has a very large stand of virgin timber, which is a rarity in that part of Canada. And, particularly, some of the hardwoods grow to a great size, which is also unique. Unfortunately the present owners of the island are cutting down this timber and selling it.
Hon. members may very well ask why these things exist, and I shall come to that in a moment. The island also has great historic value. It stretches right out in lake Erie and has often been called the Sable island of the great lakes. More ships have been wrecked around this island than anywhere else in all the great lakes put together. As I have already pointed out, the whole island for that matter is a shifting sandbar. Right off the end of the island is a very deep hole, I believe the deepest spot in lake Erie, which, compared with the other lakes, is not very deep, not more than 200 feet deep. The end of the island has been shifting with the winds and currents and as a result during the last century and indeed in this century there have been a great many wrecks.
For those who were able to land on the island without being chased off by the gamekeeper it has often been a source of great interest to see the wreckage of some of these old ships poking up through the sand. Many books have been written about this place. Possibly a number of hon. members have read some of them. It is also of interest that in the war of 1812 when General Brock set out from Port Dover in some small boats, to capture Detroit-which he did quite successfully-the party rowed around this island, landed at one point on it and camped there all night.
There are many other points of interest. At the present time the eastern tip of the island is still retained, I believe, by the federal government and a large lighthouse station is maintained there, whose light guides vessels safely through lake Erie and away from the highly dangerous end of this island. For those who are unfamiliar with this particular piece of land may I say this. When there is still all this wildlife on this island and it is still in the virgin state, there may be many who are wondering why people are not allowed to go on it. The reason is extremely interesting indeed. In the year 1866, which even for Ontario is a relatively
Supply-Northern Affairs long while ago-I would remind hon. members it was before confederation-a special act of incorporation was passed by the legislature of Upper Canada. This act incorporated a company called the Long Point Company. The original directors were to be John Brown, George Hamilton Gillespie, Thomas Cockburn Kerr, William Little, David Tisdale, Lauchlin McCallum and Samuel DeVoe Woodruff. It is rather interesting to note that these gentlemen I have just mentioned were all Canadians and that they all came from different parts of what is now the province of Ontario. One came from Hamilton, one came from St. Catharines, another from London, another from Simcoe and so on. It is also interesting to note that two months before this act of incorporation was passed, these same gentlemen had purchased from the crown virtually all the lands which make up this island of Long Point. Some small parts of those lands were acquired later by the company, but most of the lands were acquired by these same gentlemen from the crown at that time. Hon. members may be able to draw their own conclusions-that is the only thing they can do since all these people are, of course, long dead and gone-as to why they came from different parts of Ontario when they acquired these lands from the crown. In due course these same gentlemen, being the directors at the time of the incorporation of the company, sold this whole island to the company.
It is interesting to note what the objects and purposes of this company were. Paragraph 3 of the act of incorporation reads as follows:
The company may carry on the business of pursuing, protecting and granting licences to take game, muskrats, mink, otter, beaver, and fish, upon the said lands and property or in the water covering the same: and generally the doing of such other acts or things with the said land or with any mineral substance or thing, grown, or to be grown, found or being in or upon the same, as may promote the interests of the company,-
Then they very nicely put in this qualification:
-and not being contrary to the laws of this province, or the terms of the patent from the crown.
Then one of the most interesting items of all is paragraph 4 of this act of incorporation which reads as follows:
The capital stock of the company shall be the sum of fifty thousand dollars, divided into one hundred shares of five hundred dollars each, . . .
Then it goes on to say that this amount may be increased from time to time. It is interesting to notice that the purchase price paid for all this land by the new company to these

Supply-Northern Affairs same gentlemen who had originally purchased it from the crown was one hundred shares of the company. For those of you who are familiar with the rudiments of corporation law, the implication is obvious. For those who are not, let me say this. The fact remains that while the shares in the company were to be one hundred shares of five hundred dollars each, the land given in exchange for these shares was fully paid up. In other words, the land was virtually turned over in exchange for these shares. On the face of it there seems to be nothing particularly wrong with any of this procedure. But let us go into the history of this company and this island a little bit further.
It has been a well-known fact-and to everyone in that part of the country it is common knowledge-that the in fact owners of the company have ever since that date been a number of extremely wealthy men from New York city and the surrounding areas. Occasionally there has been a Canadian member. At the present time I believe there are two and possibly three Canadian members of this club. The rest of them are all citizens of the United States. The late J. P. Morgan, of considerable financial fame, was one of the owners, or was one of the members and shareholders of this company. Many other men with prominent names in American business and financial history have been owners and members of this club. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee to go into this matter at any great length, but the information is easily available.
As I understand it this club-and I say this in order to be fair-has kept up the objects and purposes that were set out in the original charter. They have been scrupulously careful about the taking of game. It is my understanding that the members of this club go to the club only during the duck-shooting season in the fall and that they take only a few ducks, something which is extremely admirable indeed. I understand that they seldom if ever attended the place during the bass-fishing season. I may say that there have been some extremely noted visitors to the club. His Majesty King Edward VIII, while Prince of Wales, was a guest at the club, and I understand he did some shooting there at the time of his visit. Of course that was quite a number of years ago.
To get back to the original suggestion, I feel that this island should become a national park and the property of all the people of Canada, not only for the use of our citizens but as a wonderful attraction for tourists as well. It is quite true that the Long Point Company and its shooting and game club have done a very good job of preserving the wildlife there; and I think they should be


commended for what they have done. While it is true that it may not have been all a matter of altruism, because by keeping everybody else off the island they actually protected the game and fish there for themselves, the fact remains that, no matter what was their reason for doing it, this is a wonderful preserve of wildlife and it is one of the few places of its kind anywhere in the settled or populated parts of Canada.
In addition to the Long Point club itself there is one other club known as the Rice Bay club which is situate in the water area near the shore. This club is set up on stilts on the water and is not actually attached to the land. I understand that they always manage to get along very well with the Long Point Company and the residents of this club have never been asked to leave. I would think it would be quite possible, if these lands were obtained for the public benefit, that there would be no necessity to disturb the people who have had possession and who have enjoyed certain rights there but that they could be left alone. However, I am quite sure that the members of the Long Point Company do not need an island nearly fourteen miles long and a mile and a half wide purely for their own purposes. There should be a good road through the island so that the public can come in, as they do in other natural parks, and see nature as it is under unique circumstances.
There is one other thing of interest about this island and that is what I may call the bay side, which is very swampy and full of wildlife such as snakes and so on, and which would be ideal for setting up any type of reserve. The southern or lakeside shore of the island has one of the most beautiful natural beaches in Canada with very fine, hard, white sand stretching for miles and would be suitable for holidayers. Now the far end of the island, that is the end closest to the mainland, which was never acquired by this company, is at the present time leased by the province of Ontario to cottagers on a 99-year lease basis with certain restrictions on the type of cottages that can be put up there. There are many hundreds of cottages, though in fact only a few have the advantage of a lakefront site. Most of them are in plots of sand toward the middle of the island. These cottagers come largely from places such as London, Woodstock, Tillsonburg, Brantford, Simcoe, Toronto, Hamilton and many other places, as well as from the United States. I know that a great many people from my own riding have summer cottages there and a great many people also have small cabins which they use on fishing and shooting expeditions. At the opening of the bass season

anywhere within three miles of this particular island there are not dozens but hundreds of boats out fishing. For those who have been there it is indeed a unique spot. I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think it is necessary to discuss this matter at any further length. I think the main idea has been put across to the minister.
However, I understand that there are other islands and areas in Ontario which could be turned into national parks. The minister was kind enough to give me this information, since I did not have time to look it up myself, but I understand that one of these areas is Pelee island, which is at the opposite end of lake Erie near the city of Windsor. I think it would be a rather suitable thing if some arrangement could be made with the Ontario government so that this island, Long Point, can also be acquired as a national park, as well as Pelee island.
I would like to wind up these remarks by emphasizing that such natural assets showing Canadian wildlife as it is in that part of Ontario, and which have remained unspoiled, should become the property of everyone in Canada and should not remain the property of a few very wealthy people from the United States.


Mr. Lesags:: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to say a word as to the policy of the government as regards the setting up of national parks. As hon. members are aware, the first prerequisite is that the land for a park be offered by a provincial government to us free of all encumbrances, and it is only after such an offer has been made that the various factors which have to be taken into account before we can come to a decision are in fact considered.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations on the first item in these estimates, but before proceeding to do so I must say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. His speech was most interesting and informative.
This is a department which during recent years has frequently changed its name and certain branches have been rearranged from time to time. It is, in my opinion, a very important department indeed and one of those departments which offer tremendous opportunity and scope for a minister with talent and imagination, and also a great opportunity for action in regard to the natural resources of this country. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we are indeed fortunate in having a young minister in charge of this department face to face with some very
Supply-Northern Affairs ancient problems. I hope the combination of the two will distil a very satisfactory result.
I have read the entire report issued by this department because it always makes interesting reading. I think the officials who compiled this report are to be congratulated on issuing a most interesting document. I am, of course, referring to the report tabled on March 31, 1953, while it was still the department of resources and development. I found the report interesting, comprehensive and excellent in every way.
I wish to make again the suggestion I have made on previous occasions when dealing with these estimates, that in my opinion the estimates of this department should be referred to the committee on mines, forests and waters. That committee has not met for quite a number of years and this is a committee that could do a good deal of useful work. I am not suggesting that the estimates should be submitted solely for examination, to ascertain how the money should be spent. I think the estimates should be submitted to the committee so that the committee will have an opportunity to hear from various excellent technical personnel in this department in regard to the amount of work they are doing. There are quite a number of men in this department doing very useful work of which very few Canadians, and indeed I believe a small percentage of the members of this house, are aware, and I think the referring of these estimates to that committee would be well worth while and provide members of this house with an opportunity to learn about the work being done by this very important department.
That is all I am going to say about the estimates at this time. But I do want to say a few words-I see the minister looking at me and I am quite sure he knows what I am about to say-in regard to the recent resources conference held in Ottawa, the first I might say since 1906. This conference was sponsored by the Canadian Forestry Association, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Forestry Institute, the Canadian Institute of Engineers and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I am sure the minister will agree that it was an excellent conference, at which I spent a most enjoyable two days. I must say I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's welcoming speech. It was a very interesting speech and indeed a capable speech which was received very favourably by the delegates present. I hope that as a result of the work of the conference and their findings the minister when he next addresses an
4270	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs organization of that type, or even in addressing this house, will commit the government to some definite action along the lines suggested by the conference.
Two days were spent dealing with the important question of renewable natural resources. There was an excellent discussion on our forest resources and another on soil and water resources, and yet another on wildlife and recreational facilities. Papers were read and discussions were held by people who knew what they were talking about, and some of the most prominent people in Canada working in these spheres made some excellent speeches which were well worth listening to, while the discussion on their papers was interesting indeed.
As the result of these two days of papers, addresses and discussions, the conference summarized its opinions. It did not pass a formal resolution but more or less by general agreement summarized the findings of the conference. I think it is quite fair to say that the opinion was generally expressed that there should be a national policy in the development of our natural resources devised as the result of dominion-provincial cooperation. That question was mentioned again and again in the papers and discussions that followed.
It was also suggested by several speakers that a royal commission should be established to study the whole question of conservation of natural resources in Canada, to gather evidence, hear opinions, and make recommendations and prepare a report. I was also very interested to notice that repeatedly, whether the speaker came from British Columbia, the prairies, central Canada or the maritimes, the opinion was expressed that we must have a national approach to this problem and that there should be greater contributions from the federal government towards a general overall national conservation policy in Canada.
These were not the opinions of people who had not given consideration to the subject. These were the opinions of people who have lived with these various questions, forest resources, soil and water conservation, wildlife and recreational problems, for many years, and that was a summary of their opinions. I hope that as the result of that conference and its findings, as the result of the meeting together of minds of people prominent in these fields from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the government will give some consideration to the findings of the conference. I trust that the immediate result will be an increase in the estimates of this department next year in order to assist the provinces with respect to forest protection,
[Mr. Herridge.l

soil and water conservation, conservation of wildlife and recreational resources.
I do not know whether the minister has received any formal representations from the conference but I would certainly like the minister to give consideration to the opinions expressed there and to inform the house if the government is being moved in the direction of calling a dominion-provincial conference to establish a national policy on conservation as the result of consultation and co-operation.


Jean Lesage: I have received a letter from my good friend, Mr. Van Camp, but I have not yet received the resolutions adopted at that conference. My hon. friend may rest assured that the officers of my department and I will give these resolutions all the consideration that they certainly deserve.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Assuming that we will not conclude consideration of the national parks branch tonight, possibly what I am about to say might be taken as notice by the minister because I am sure that he and his officials will want the opportunity to secure the information which I require. The minister may or may not recall that last December, when we were considering amendments respecting the operation and maintenance of parks, I asked a question to this effect. I wanted to know what rights go with leases when leases are granted in park areas or in areas under the jurisdiction of the parks branch. After I had said that I had certain information with respect to a bad situation in connection with Banff national park, the minister asked me to submit the information to him. I thanked him and said I would, but I must say that it has taken me until this time to get all the information I wanted.
Last week I was asked to meet two different organizations for the purpose of discussing this matter. The area I have in mind is just outside Banff national park and is known as the Ya-Ha-Tinda area. It covers eighteen square miles and consists of portions of township 32, ranges 11 and 12, west of the fifth meridian. According to an order in council passed on the 14th of March, 1950, which I have before me, this area was set apart for the use of the dominion parks branch for grazing purposes. I have heard that a ranch is now established in that area.
But, Mr. Chairman, these are the complaints. Is this still a park area? It is under the jurisdiction of the parks branch, but is it still a park area? If so, do the rules and regulations governing parks apply here? This is what we find. In this area of eighteen square miles some persons are permitted to hunt big game and some are denied the right. Rangers have stopped certain persons

from going in there but when these hunters have challenged the jurisdiction of the ranger no action has been taken.
On the gate leading into the property is a no trespassing sign. Apparently the no trespassing sign applies to some people but does not apply to others because certain persons have been refused entry to this eighteen square mile area while others have been permitted to enter. I do not mind telling the minister that the meetings I had last week were with two branches of the fish and game association. These hunters have gone in there and have seen hunting going on. They have seen game shot and taken out of the area and yet they themselves have been excluded from this eighteen square mile area and have been threatened with prosecution if they enter.
These people say to me that if this area is to be a game preserve, as are the park sections, that is fine, they have no complaint; but if it is to be an area in which some people are allowed to hunt, then all should be allowed to hunt there. They tell me that recently a part of the area has been plowed up and they think that is strange. They say it is a mistake. Part of the area is very similar to the prairies and has a type of grass known as prairie wool. If that is removed it will be an absolute disaster.
In this eighteen square mile area there is some of the finest scenery that you would want to see, and yet according to the sign on the gate and according to the orders given by the rangers it is closed entirely to the public. They think there is something strange about all this. This has been the experience for a number of years now and these men would like to get true information with respect to the situation. If the area is closed, if the public are completely excluded, they want to know it. If those in authority have the right to put up a no trespassing sign on the gate then these people would like to know it. A very good road leads right up to the gate where the no trespassing sign is posted. Cars can move right up to that point. Within a matter of three miles inside a most beautiful waterfall can be seen. Yet, as I say, these people are ordered out of there and are warned what will happen if they go in. On the other hand, others go in there and camp. I was asked if I would look into the matter. I may say that I have just returned today and I had hoped to be able to get the facts together a little better. I trust that this matter can be straightened out so that I can advise these people as to the true situation that exists in that eighteen square mile area.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Jean Lesage: May I ask one question for clarification? Would the hon. member say who has been doing the warning he is talking about?


Frederick Davis Shaw: The rangers.


Jean Lesage: The park employees?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes; they must be park rangers because these men told me it was a federal park ranger. Under the order in council, Mr. Chairman, it says:
Whereas the Minister of the Interior reports that it is proposed to withdraw certain lands including Ya-Ha-Tinda area from the Rocky Mountains park, Alberta, and that the said area is now used and will continue to be required by the dominion parks branch for winter grazing:
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council . . .
As you will note, it was set aside out of the region by the parks branch, presumably for winter grazing. Then down below it states:
. . . also withdrawn from disposal under the said act and set apart for the use of the dominion parks branch for grazing purposes.
These men tell me it is a federal forest ranger who is in there and who orders them off the place. Incidentally, he misses an island, apart from the park proper, but there is provincial land all around him. Here is the order in council. I have seen recent correspondence between certain of these men who have complained to the provincial government. The provincial government has had some correspondence with the federal authority in connection with it. I believe the province recommended that a corridor be cleared into this area in the park. In any event, quite a number of these letters are filed, and it is most disturbing and most confusing. Perhaps the minister would like to look into it.


Jean Lesage: May I ask the hon. member if he would hand me a copy of the order in council that he had in his hand? That would help me clarify the position. Perhaps then I will be able to answer his question.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes. I assumed the minister would want some time to look into this subject and that was my reason for bringing it up now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks branch-
304. Administration, operation and maintenance. $4,397,820.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This item deals with the general administration of all national parks. We have a breakdown in the back of the book which is on the basis of the employees, what is paid for various materials, and so

Supply-Northern Affairs forth. It is a breakdown of that amount involved, $4,397,000. Now, just to get some idea of what is spent on one or two of these parks, would the minister give me a breakdown of the $1,094,431 and of the $1,231,588 which was spent on Banff last year and this year?


Jean Lesage: In Banff national park, the total estimate for 1954-55, so far as repairs and upkeep of buildings and works is concerned, is as follows: administration buildings and camp grounds, $10,216; roads, bridges, streets, sidewalks and trails, $69,909; water and sewer systems, $3,791; recreational facilities, $8,397; other buildings and works, $11,008.
Now, if my friend is interested, as to repairs and upkeep of equipment at Banff national park: repairs and upkeep of cars, trucks and heavy equipment, $87,775; repairs and upkeep of other equipment, $6,284, for a total of $94,059. Those are two of the important items under operation and maintenance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I understand it, then, this item 304 takes in a certain amount of construction work, and all the construction is not under the next item, 305, which is for the construction or acquisition of lands, buildings and works.


Jean Lesage: It is for repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, not new construction. New construction is under item 305.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are two small items I might perhaps mention here. The first one Is the site of Batoche, about which the minister or his assistants are probably well informed. There is a need there for a building of some sort which is a permanent site. I will not go into the history. I understand there is an old building there now which has been offered to the department and I understand from the departmental officials that the price being asked for that building is perhaps too high. I would be inclined perhaps to agree with that. I would urge, though, that this department might consider proceeding with that piece of business. I know there have been negotiations, but I feel the amount the department has offered for this particular building might be considered too low. I just wanted to draw that to the minister's attention, in the hope that perhaps negotiations would be continued so that that permanent place, which has a great connection with Saskatchewan's history, might be preserved.
There is a road there, too, but I do not know whether it will come entirely under the provincial government or whether the dominion department would consider it had some responsibility. It is a historic road up


which certain troops went at the time of the rebellion. It runs along the river bank, and although I do not quite know where it is, it is in the same Batoche district near the historic battleground. I do know the people there would like to get the matter settled so there would be some permanency about it.
The other item, I suggest, might come more nearly under the heading of museums. We of course, in the province of Saskatchewan, unfortunately have not very much history. I feel we should make an effort to preserve what history there is. I should like to pay tribute to a man who has devoted the important part of his life to the preservation of things historical in that province. He is Campbell Innis, who was formerly a school inspector and I think has acted for the department in an official capacity in connection with the historic site of the old town of Battleford. At the town of Battleford there is the old mounted police barracks and a very interesting and well kept museum on the site of the old fort.
After that had been established, and after the dominion government had taken some interest in it, a few various old implements of one sort or another began to be gathered together. Saskatchewan, of course, has been an agricultural province. The things to which I am referring are things like the buffalo carts, the Red river carts, as they called them, and the first machinery that was used in the breaking up of that country for agriculture. A collection finally developed and was gathered together in one or two places in the northern part of the province, I think somewhere around North Battleford or Battleford, and some in my own city of Saskatoon. I would hope that the minister would come out to Saskatoon-and I give him a hearty invitation to do so. As I said the other day, during two weeks of the election campaign we had five cabinet ministers out there. I do not think the minister now before the committee was one of them; but he would foe welcomed if he did come. As I said the other day, I am here to return the visit of those cabinet ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was not a minister then. Perhaps he will come next time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: At any rate, to go back to my story: the point I wish to make is that we have a marvellous collection out there-


Jean Lesage: I will come to see it in a month and a half.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -of instruments of transportation used in the early days, beginning with the Red river cart. Then we go into agricultural implements, and we have ancient buggies, and all sorts of things. We have had

a grant from the provincial government- and I have no doubt the minister will tell me that this is provincial rather than federal business, because cabinet ministers in the dominion departments of government have a habit of saying that.
At any rate, after these things had sat out in the elements for a long time, finally some well-intentioned people got them housed under one roof. They brought them down to my city. On the west side of that city there is a place something in the shape of a hangar in which all these old implements have been gathered. A crew of men was hired. The old building was scraped out and renovated, and put into shape for exhibition. The place is now full of those relics.
The Minister of Agriculture was out in Saskatchewan during the Easter recess, and I believe he was invited to look over these things. However, he was not able to come, because he was on other forms of business. If he had gone he would have been interested to see the buggy that was driven over the Saskatchewan plains for a good many years by his predecessor, the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell, whose name, as a former minister of agriculture, is treated with great respect both in the House of Commons and in the country.
I suggest that the department of the minister to whom I am addressing these remarks might take some interest in the matter, and accept some responsibility for the exhibition of these objects. I do know that the provincial government has given a fair grant, and that the municipality of Saskatoon has done something for them. Finally they got these things in out of the weather, and necessary repairs have been done. I have no doubt thousands of tourists will look over the exhibition this year. While I am not sure, I think a small admission fee is charged. If it is, the revenue will be used for maintenance.
I know, however, that at the moment a cement floor is required in that museum. That would put the finishing touches on it. I am merely suggesting that when the new minister looks over his historic sites, museums, and that sort of thing, he might look at this one. I know that the national museum comes under his department and I see no reason why, if a national library should have branches throughout the country-and I am happy that it has-a national museum should not be treated in the same way. Those of us from Saskatchewan are in favour of that sort of thing. I believe it is important that we preserve our connection with the past.
That is all I wish to say on the matter. I simply draw it to the minister's attention
Supply-Northern Affairs in the hope that he will look into it and give some consideration as to whether or not he would be justified in seeing that this institution receives some support from this department of the federal government.


Jean Lesage: As to the first point raised by the hon. member, I am quite familiar with the question of the old rectory at Batoche. That this is an historic site of great historic value, I would be the first to agree. But of course we cannot buy historic value, because it is impossible to appraise or to evaluate it in money terms. We have to purchase at the appraised value any building or lands we may require. In this instance the price asked was $10,000, while the appraisal made was around $1,500.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think the offer of the dominion government also was $1,500.


Jean Lesage: No, the offer was not $1,500. We said $10,000 was not a reasonable price, and we asked if they would not bring the price down to a reasonable figure-because certainly I was ready to recommend a figure higher than the $1,500, if we could come to a settlement. However, the owners have not seen fit to come down a single cent from the $10,000.
Again, I am very much aware of the historic value of that site, because it is part of the Riel history, which I have known for years. I shall be meeting with members of the historic sites and monuments board on June 7 and 8, when they have their annual meeting here in Ottawa, and I am going to discuss with them some other solution to the problem with a view to satisfying the owners and at the same time maintaining the policy in the department, which we believe is sound and should be followed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in contrast with what was said by the hon. member for Saskatoon, in British Columbia we are very rich in history. On that account I have always been interested in marking historic sites and monuments. For some years I urged that a monument be erected to David Thompson at the Castlegar-Robson crossing of the Columbia. I was informed about a year ago that the board had agreed to the suggestion, and that a monument was going to be erected at a suitable place. What is the reason for the delay? I do not think anything has happened to date.


Jean Lesage: There is a general reason, that we are late in setting up these plaques that have been recommended by the historic sites and monuments board. We have a definite budget, and we try to do as much as we can each year. However, to date, we have

Supply
not been able to keep pace with the recommendations of the board. That is the general answer to the hon. member's question. However, I shall look into the matter in particular and see that there is not too much delay in the case he has mentioned.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to discuss the Waterton Lakes park, and it might take some time. Perhaps the item should be allowed to stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will take agriculture, and national health and welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Both?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


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

[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
374.	British Columbia, $4,450,000.
375.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $670,000.
376.	Unforeseen improvements, $1,200,000.
Engineering branch-
377.	Branch administration, $653,824.
Engineering services-
378.	Salaries, surveys, inspections, etc., $1,918,878.
379.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $74,900.
Dredging-
380.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,674,565.
381.	New plant and equipment, $1,464,600.
Graving docks-
382.	Maintenance and operation, $527,026.
Locks and dams-
383.	Maintenance and operation, $413,673.
Roads and bridges-
384.	Maintenance and operation, $423,449.
385.	Towards international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Calais, Maine, the state of Maine to pay a like amount, $125,000.
386.	Towards construction of spans of bridge over the interprovincial channel of the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec, $200,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for. harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may
increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-
387.	Newfoundland, $2,189,800.
388.	Nova Scotia, $4,923,000.
389.	Prince Edward Island, $847,800.
390.	New Brunswick, $1,334,500.
391.	Quebec, $4,670,100.
392.	Ontario, $6,573,400.
393.	Manitoba, $103,000.
394.	Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $180,500.
395.	British Columbia and Yukon, $4,998,500.
Harbours and rivers generally-
396.	Repairs and upkeep for the maintenance of service, including reconstruction and replacements, and to authorize commitments against future years in the total amount of $420,000, no new works to be undertaken, $3,535,000.
Trans-Canada highway division (formerly under department of resources and development) -
397.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $487,484.
398.	To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks, $2,000,000.
Generally-
399.	To provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures and to complete protection works already under way, $500,000.
General-
400.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $15,000 to be expended upon any one work, $590,000.
401.	To provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $500,000.
402.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $400,000.
403.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1954-55, $400,000.
404.	Statue of the late Sir Robert L. Borden, $50,000.
405.	Emergency shelter administration (formerly under department of resources and development), $25,000.
406.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence (formerly under department of resources and development), $700,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
535. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection one of section 45 of the National Housing Act in respect of housing projects for veterans, for the acquisition of land for housing projects, and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, for sale or rental, $1,124,000. On motion of Mr. Harris item reduced by $250,000.

[Stage Direction]
302.	Departmental administration, $455,547.
303.	Branch administration, $61,420.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 30, 1954