1954-03-12

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I
should like to move:
That the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Wednesday, March 10, 1954, be now concurred in.
Notice of this motion was given in Votes and Proceedings last Wednesday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Secretary of Slate for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 373, to extend diplomatic immunities.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The purpose of this bill is to extend to diplomatic representatives of commonwealth countries the traditional immunities already enjoyed by representatives of foreign states.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish in the consolidated revenue fund an account for the replacement of government property lost, destroyed or damaged through fire and for the said purposes to authorize advances from the account, with the approval of the treasury board, up to a maximum of five million dollars.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balllefords):: 1
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that Canadian Chemical Company of Edmonton has again polluted the North Saskatchewan river, and will the government now consider bringing down legislation which will protect for all time the health and welfare of Canadians against the pollution of interprovincial rivers?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question, Mr. Speaker. No, I am not aware of the facts as alleged. I might state to the hon. gentleman that his statement is incorrect. Undoubtedly what my hon. friend is referring to is the fact that wastes which were diverted to a burning pit contained a gummy substance which blocked up the pipe line and caused a temporary resumption of the discharge of these particular substances into the river. This state of affairs was discovered and was corrected by the government of Alberta within a very short time.
(Translation):



ST. JOHNS ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE QUESTION AS TO STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question of which I have given him notice. The minister-


Mr. Dupuis:: Read in Le Devoir of this morning.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the Minister of
National Defence give me the date of appointment of the five following professors at St. Johns Military College: Messrs. Stallard, Tilley, Thumm, Mendel and Smith?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that this question is so urgent that it should be put at this stage of the proceedings. The hon. member could have his question placed on the order paper and the minister would reply to it.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In my opinion the question should be put on the order paper.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Here is what I was coming to, Mr. Speaker. You undoubtedly recall-


Hector Dupuis: Ah!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I beg the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) to be more charitable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I am listening to the hon. member's explanation.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You will certainly recall that last December I again drew the attention of the Minister of National Defence to the fact that St. Johns Military College seemed to be losing its bilingual character. I simply want to ask whether or not the five persons concerned are bilingual professors.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that if that was the question he intended to ask, he had only to ask it.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the house, I must say to the hon. member for Quebec West that there is no truth in his general statement.
(Text):



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Will the government consider selling to the public the thirty houses on Whytewold road in St. James, Manitoba, which were bought to make room for the extension of the air force base at Stevenson field at Winnipeg? Will something be done about this matter before these houses suffer further deterioration?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to look into the question and answer later.



MUNICIPAL FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Has the government received requests from the Saskatchewan government
(Mr. Speaker.]

for a federal-provincial-municipal conference on problems of municipal finance? If so, when is it proposed to call such a conference?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: So far as I know requests of that nature have not been received. However, I shall make inquiries, and if I am wrong I shall make a statement later.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. With the approach of the Easter recess, is he in a position to say whether or not it is the intention of the government to allow the Emergency Powers Act to lapse, or will legislation be introduced to continue it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, no decision on that point has been taken as yet. It will depend upon events between now and the end of the session.



ESKIMOS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) asked me the following question:
Is it true that Alaskan Eskimos living in the Mackenzie river delta hold registered trap lines, while there are a number of Canadian Eskimos who are without trap lines. If so, is the minister's department giving consideration to the prior right of Canadian Eskimos in this regard?
In answer I would say that the provisions with regard to the registration of trap lines are established by the council of the Northwest Territories and are set forth in the game ordinance, which became effective on June 30, 1949. They are not determined by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The ordinance does not provide for any priority as between Alaskan Eskimos resident in Canada and Canadian Eskimos. However, under its provisions no Alaskan Eskimo who has entered Canada since June 30, 1949, or who may in future enter, can obtain a certificate of registration for a trapping area. No change in the position is contemplated at the present time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Is he in a position to answer the question I asked a week ago?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I was not hoping that my hon. friend would forget the question, but it was perhaps that I was not prepared to give an answer in exactly the way he might expect it.
However, in answer to the question he raised, I would say that the principal activity of the government in assisting workers in the areas referred to by the hon. member to secure alternative employment is the work of the national employment service, which comes under my jurisdiction.
When any worker applies to his nearest employment service office for employment, a full record is taken of his work experience, and this information is available in matching men with jobs not only in the immediate locality, but in Canada as a whole. This means that when employment opportunities develop in other industries and those applying for work have suitable qualifications, the applicants are referred to them. This applies to alternative employment opportunities which develop in their own immediate areas or to those which become available in other areas, if suitable workers are not available locally.
The hon. member will understand that there are many factors involved in the development of alternative employment opportunities in textile centres. I am sure the hon. member and I know some of those difficulties at quite close range. Aside from the work of the national employment service and other activities of the federal government, the government of Ontario has announced its intention to explore the possibilities of attracting new industries to centres in this part of the province. And I might tell my hon. friend that my department has expressed its desire to work in the closest possible co-operation with that project.



DUMPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Has he received word regarding the dumping of potatoes into British Columbia, as he said he would in reply to my question of March 10.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot report at this time that we have received the information we have requested from our officials in western Canada with respect to this matter. I expect however that we will have that information on Monday.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has for the record in Hansard an answer to my question of yesterday, to which he said he would send me an answer by letter.


Brooke Claxton: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question- [Later:!


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question, supplementary to the one I asked yesterday, to put to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister amplify his reply to me in order that the record in Hansard will make sense, or will the minister answer this question in a monosyllable? Are the regiments of the Canadian army active forces, as shown on page 2844 of Hansard, listed in order of precedence?


Brooke Claxton: I have already answered, but I shall be very happy to do so again. The answer is again yes.



SOUND AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question but not of any member of the cabinet in particular, and I am not sure that it can be asked as a question of privilege. Therefore I shall address my question to you, sir. May I say that within the last week it has been most difficult to hear questions and answers in the house. I would ask that this sound amplification system be examined to see whether something can be done to improve it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might offer some comment on the request of the hon. member. It would seem that in order to test the system

Inquiries of the Ministry experts of the corporation in charge of the operation of the system would have to sit in the house while the house is sitting. This involves a matter of privilege. Would hon. members be prepared to assent to having one-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -who is not a member of the house-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -sit in one of the chairs provided for members on the floor of the house, in order to test the system as it now operates, from various corners of the chamber? That has been the question that was before us. And I wish to inform the house that I told officials of the company that in my view it was not possible, and that we would have to arrange for other means. Perhaps, when the house is not in session, some morning we could have some members come to the house and co-operate to the extent of reading documents in order to permit these gentlemen to make tests.
However, we are looking into the matter, and I am glad to have had the general sense of the house as to the view I have just expressed-that we do not want to transgress upon the age-old privileges whereby only members of the House of Commons can sit at their desks when the house is in session.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: May I suggest to the corporation, when they are consulted, that these loudspeakers would be much better if they were at the back of the listener than in his face, as they are now.


Mr. Speaker:: That has also been suggested.
I believe the Minister of Public Works and his officials are looking into the matter.


Mr. Mclvor:: On a question of privilege, there is one thing we do not want, and that is to go back to the old system.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of microphones, perhaps I might deal with a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) having to do with the proposed purchase by two private companies of the government telephone and telegraph facilities in the province of British Columbia.


The target date for the transfer of the British Columbia Telephone Company to the Canadian National Telegraph Company is April 1, 1954. Unless there is some difficulty over which we have no control, I hope it will be possible to conclude the agreement by that date.
On the matter of transfer, there has been thus far satisfactory progress, and the maximum effort is being made by both these companies, the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraph Company, to work out means of absorbing the personnel employed at the present time. I am not in a position now to make a complete statement, but I shall make a full statement when the matter of the transfer is ready.
On the question of the survey that my hon. friend referred to, if he had in mind the appraisal which was made jointly by the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraph Company and the officers of the government, then I have no objection to his seeing it. I may say to him, however, that it is a voluminous and highly technical document. If he insists on seeing it, I shall instruct one of the officers of the department to place the document at his disposal.


Mr. Maclnnis:: May I ask a supplementary question? I was informed by the government employees that their contributions to the unemployment insurance fund were discontinued as from January 1 of this year. Is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not be able to comment on that; I will have to inquire from the officers, and in so far as unemployment insurance is concerned I do not know what the position is; but it would apply only in the case of those employees who are not being absorbed, and so far as the information in my possession is concerned it is my understanding that all those who meet their employment requirements will be taken on by either company. I say that, but it is of course subject to correction when the agreement has been concluded.


Donald MacInnis: May I ask another supplementary question? What struck me as strange was that whether or not they were to be absorbed by the two companies taking over the business, they should be deprived of the protection of unemployment insurance before their employment with the government was terminated.


Mr. Winch:: In view of the minister's answer may I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister inform us when the present

employees of these two services will be taken into the confidence of the government and the companies as to what provision is being made? They do not know now.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I will have to answer that even the minister does not know now because the matter is under negotiation, and until the negotiations are completed it is not possible for me to make any statement, let alone inform the employees.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
360. Departmental administration, $821,732.
The Chairman:: Hon. members will find the item on page 51 and the details on page 430.


Mr. Shaw:: Just prior to the adjournment of the house last night I was commenting upon certain administrative and policy changes in the Department of Public Works which would at this stage seem to suggest that five public works projects for Alberta which were approved by parliament on May 9, 1953, have now been abandoned. These projects were at Claresholm, Coleman, Innis-fail, Lac la Biche and Vermilion. Being a confirmed optimist, and having complete faith in people, I had expressed the hope that under vote No. 401, which provides an appropriation of half a million dollars for advanced planning of projects including acquisition of sites, the aforementioned projects would be proceeded with. Either that, sir, or that provision has already been made to include those five projects in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955. Whether or not I am to continue to be a confirmed optimist will depend entirely upon the information which the minister is able to give to me.
Last night I indicated that one of those proposed projects was in my constituency, in fact in my home town of Innisfail. Last night I indicated the various steps and procedures which had been followed in an effort to secure an appropriation for that public building in the town of Innisfail. I indicated that first the town council and the board of trade took an active part. It was my privilege to accompany them to Calgary to confer with the post office officials in the district office at that point. I have reason to believe, as indicated yesterday, that Calgary must have reported favourably upon this project, because the next information which I received was that the Post Office Department had
Supply-Public Works
placed the project in "A" category and were extremely hopeful that it would be proceeded with.
The Post Office Department obviously convinced public works that this was a desirable and necessary project, and in convincing public works they must have been able to convince the then minister of public works because, as indicated before, these five projects, more specifically the one that I am primarily interested in, were included in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954.
May I just make brief reference to that appropriation because it may be misleading to some hon. members. On page 26 of the supplementary estimates which were tabled in this house one year ago, under "Alberta" reference is made to "Vegreville public building, additions and alterations, $50,000". Then it says:
Acquisition of sites and preparation of plans for public buildings at Claresholm, Coleman, Innisfail, Lac la Biche and Vermilion, $80,000.
Then the total of $130,000 is given. Then it says:
Less estimated amount by which actual expenditure on all projects listed in these supplementary estimates and the main estimates will fall short of the total of amounts that may be required for each, $129,999.
Then there is a line under that and then the figure "$1". Really what this house voted was $1. If we were to leave it at that point the answer to my problem would be completely obvious. However, 1 must take the committee back to last May 9, at page 5053 of Hansard. On that date the hon. member for Macleod was discussing this matter. He and I had previously discussed this appropriation because, as I indicated before, two of these projects were to be located in his constituency. The hon. member for Macleod is reported as having said:
When does the minister expect that the work of acquiring sites and the preparation of plans for these buildings will be started? In asking that question there is one other point I should like to raise. In reality this is a vote of $1, but the items in the details show an expenditure of $50,000 for the building at Vegreville and the acquisition of sites and preparation of plans for several other buildings to the amount of $80,000, making $130,000 in all. Then there is a footnote indicating that this amount is less the estimated amount by which actual expenditure on all projects listed falls short of the total of amounts that may be required for such.
Therefore my understanding is that all we are voting is $1 and that in voting the $1 we are also voting approval of the projects listed to the amount of $130,000. It is also my understanding that the projects will be proceeded with if there is money to spare from other projects or if other projects do not cost the amount of money we have voted for them. Is that correct?

Supply-Public Works
Then the hon. member tor Macleod went on to say that he hoped the inclusion of these items in the estimates was not merely dangling carrots before the people. Then the minister of public works went on to say this:
I can put the hon. member right. First of all, the explanation of the $1 item is that it is to authorize the department to draw on the main estimates for the province of Alberta in the construction of buildings or acquisition of sites. We expect that the main vote will be sufficient to cover some of these projects, if not all of them.
Then further down the hon. member for Macleod in referring to the minister had this to say:
He explained to me on one occasion that he has a whole list of projects and that they go from the top to the bottom. There is a certain formula that they follow and I take it that the time has now come when these projects will be carried out. I do triist that the work of at least acquiring sites and making plans and preparations will go forward this year. Does the minister think they will go forward this year?
The minister of public works replied as follows:
I just wanted to say to the hon. gentleman that it is not the minister who approves of these; it is parliament as a whole which is asked whether we shall go ahead with these projects. Now, parliament has great confidence in the Minister of Public Works and if they give him that authority I will see that my officials, although not perfect, will proceed as hastily as possible with the different projects.
I realize that that was a former minister of public works who was speaking but let me emphasize that what he said was that parliament had approved of these projects when it voted that particular vote in the estimates. Parliament did that, Mr. Chairman. When the minister of public works said that parliament had great confidence in the minister of public works, he was referring to himself maybe, or maybe he was referring to the office. I would say that we have great confidence in the present Minister of Public Works and we trust that he will adopt exactly the same attitude as his predecessor adopted with respect to this matter.
Let me remind the committee again that no matter what has transpired in the interval, parliament did approve of these five projects. I trust that the minister has not considered this whole matter so lightly that he.found it easy to relegate the decision of parliament to the garbage heap. I am not suggesting that that has been done; I certainly hope that it has not been done.
It could be argued that perhaps the board of trade of the town of Innisfail, that perhaps the town council, that perhaps the member of parliament who lives in that town could have erred in assuming that we required a new public building. Perhaps the district post office officials in Calgary erred; perhaps


the Post Office Department here in Ottawa erred; perhaps the minister of public works erred; perhaps parliament erred. But if that is true what a formidable array of errors there were.
I am going to suggest to you that none of them erred. If an error was committed I am afraid we would have to charge the present Minister of Public Works with having committed it, because we would have to conclude that if these projects have been deleted he looks upon the decisions of all those groups that have been mentioned as being wrong, as being unjustified, as being unwarranted, et cetera, et cetera.
Maybe the Minister of Public Works would be interested in something. I had occasion to go back to my home town just about a year ago today. When I arrived there I heard a song being chanted by some people. I never could make out the exact words, but it seemed to go like this:
Shaw, no public building;
No Shaw, a public building.
That little ditty was being chanted by some of my friends who have never wished me evil except that they would like to see me defeated as a candidate. Otherwise they would not want to harm me at all. Nevertheless that is the ditty that was being chanted. Let me tell the minister and the government that I found myself in one of the most peculiar positions that a member of parliament could find himself in just a year ago. Those people who were chanting that ditty-


An hon. Member:: Swan song.


Frederick Davis Shaw: were trying to convince certain people, in fact what they were saying was that as long as Shaw was their member of parliament they would never get a public building in Innisfail. Do you know what I told the people. I said that in the 13 years I had been a member of parliament I had never had cause to believe that the government at Ottawa had discriminated against me or against my constituency because I happened to be a member of the opposition. I said that because I thought it was true.
At that time we had Liberals, by inference at least, actually charging their own government with discrimination while I, facing a Liberal as my most formidable opponent, was defending the government and defying them to produce one iota of evidence to prove their charge. After all, Red Deer constituency has had an opposition member for 32 years. I am not unmindful of the fact that when they needed a public building at Red Deer, $500,000 was spent. I was then, as now, the member.

What is my position today after having defended the Liberals, after having asserted that I was convinced that the Liberals believed in democracy, in the democratic right of people to choose whomsoever they desired to represent them? What am I to say after having stated to these people that the charge of the local Liberals was absolutely false, that the preparations had been made, that the minister had given absolute assurance that the project would be proceeded with and that parliament had passed it. There was not a dissenting voice in this House of Commons. Now I will be going back for the Easter holidays and I trust that the minister will have this in the supplementary estimates before I go home, because then I will not have to say, "I thought I knew them, but I do not."
This is not a matter that I want to drag around in the political sense at all. The members of the board of trade, the members of the town council, do not look upon themselves as being Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters or anything else, when dealing with community problems. They are interested in their community, they built up a case for a building and that case was carried through to this parliament. It was approved by this parliament and I am asking the minister to honour what parliament committed itself to. Otherwise perhaps he can indicate to me an item hidden somewhere in the supplementary estimates covering an appropriation to carry out that commitment by parliament. It is not just a question of a post office, it is a question of adequate quarters sorely needed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and adequate quarters for the V.L.A. in that community.
I shall not take up any more time of the committee, Mr. Chairman. I shall wait for explanations before I come to any final decision so far as my next action is concerned, but I would urge the minister to give me some indication-


Mr. Byrne:: The same old song.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Let me say to the hon. member that no matter what the song might have to be it will not worry me personally. In fact it may enable me to go back later and say, "Well, I guess you were right. I could not properly assess Liberals even after 13 years."
Certainly this is more than a joking matter; it is a very serious matter of principle. I have great confidence in the Minister of Public Works. I feel we can rely on him to honour commitments made by his predecessor in this respect and carry out the unanimous decision of this parliament as far as that project is concerned.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, this is the administration item of the Department of Public Works and as hon. members know it has been customary to deal with the broad problems of the department upon this administration item. That is what I propose to do on behalf of the official opposition. There are several points to which I wish to refer and I would like the minister to take each of them into consideration when he makes his general reply. I hope he will deal with all of these questions I am about to raise.
The first one has to do with the annual report of the department. I do not know whether it is a coincidence, Mr. Chairman, but you will have noticed that earlier in the proceedings today the minister's parliamentary assistant tabled a loose-leaf typed copy of the annual report of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1953. For all practical purposes we are asked to consider the estimates of his department on the basis of a report for the year ended March 31, 1952, almost two years ago. That, of course, is a most inefficient way for the department to do business. It is contrary to the laws of the land and I can only express the hope that this will not happen again.
The statute which governs his department is known as the Public Works Act. Chapter 228 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, section 34, reads as follows under the heading, "Report":
The minister shall make and submit to the Governor General an annual report on all the works under his control, which shall be laid before both houses of parliament, within twenty-one days after the commencement of the session, showing the state of each work and the amounts received and expended in respect thereof, with such further information as is requisite.
All too frequently ministers of the present government have ignored provisions for the tabling of reports which, in effect, means belittling parliament and handicapping hon. members of the house in their work.


Mr. Winters:: Might I just say that that provision, while it is worded as the hon. member has correctly quoted, was put on the statute book at a time when it was contemplated that sessions of parliament would start after the new year rather than in the fall as at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: That may be so, but even if this session had started about the middle of January the report would have been due early in February. This practice of ignoring the provisions for tabling reports is unfair to parliament, unfair to hon. members and unfair to the Canadian people. I realize the minister is new in his department so it would

Supply-Public Works
not be right to place all the blame on his shoulders, but may I repeat in all kindness that I hope it will not happen again.


Robert Henry Winters: So do I.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a pious hope.


Howard Charles Green: The second point to which I wish to refer is that there is no indication whatever in the estimates of the Department of Public Works that it is adopting recommendations which have been put forward for many years to the effect that this department should no longer be by-passed by other departments in the construction of public works. The practice has grown up under this government whereby practically every other department of government constructs public works of various kinds. As I understand it, the intention right down from confederation has been that construction work done by the government should remain under the supervision of the Department of Public Works except under extraordinary conditions. The official opposition, and I believe hon. members of other opposition parties, have pointed out time and time again that this new practice is wrong and have urged that something be done about it. I hope that under the new minister a stop will be put to this practice.
I would like to refer the minister to the report of the Senate committee on finance which sat in 1952 under the chairmanship of my very good friend Hon. Thomas A. Crerar, who served in the House of Commons with great distinction for so many years. With regard to this practice of by-passing the Department of Public Works by other departments, I quote from page 342 of the proceedings of this committee which sat in 1952, two years ago. The proceedings are reported as follows:
We draw attention to the items in the civilian estimates that have to do with the construction or acquisition of buildings and works, their repairs, and their upkeep, and rentals for buildings which different government departments require. The total amount under these three items found in the public works department estimates is slightly in excess of 80 million dollars.
I point out that that is for the fiscal year 1952-53. The report continues:
The total for all departments of government under these items is in excess of 163 millions. Under the Public Works Act, the public works department of Canada has the responsibility of providing and maintaining all the public buildings and works required by the other civilian departments. It is true part II of the Public Works Act makes an exception to the effect that the governor in council "may at any time transfer the management, charge and direction of any public work, or any power, duty or function with respect to any class of works, whether public or private, which is assigned to or vested by statute in any minister or department, to any other minister or department." But surely

this was only intended to meet special circumstances, and was never intended to be used in the broad sense in which it is used today.
Senator Crerar's report continues:
From the figures just quoted, it would appear that other departments of government combined are directly spending more for these purposes than the public works department which is primarily charged with this responsibility. For example, the Post Office Department, which requires public buildings all over Canada, either through building or rental for post office purposes, and requires to have them repaired and maintained, has all this work done by the public works department, as was intended under the act.
That is one good mark at least for the Post Office Department which has been under such heavy fire during the present session. The report continues:
The question naturally arises, why should this not be done for other civilian departments of government? When, for example, the Department of Agriculture, or national revenue, or national health and welfare-
Fortunately all three ministers are in the house at the moment.
*-directly provides for their own needs by building, or rental or both, they have to provide their own architects, their own engineers, and their own servicing establishment generally. It certainly appears that this can have no other effect than duplication and overlapping and the inevitable general increase in costs that is bound to result from this practice.
And the report concludes on this particular matter-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


Howard Charles Green: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare had not been gossiping, he would know what I am reading from.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was gossiping about some extremely important things. The hon. member happened to mention my department, and I am asking him as a matter of courtesy what he is reading from. If he does not want to tell me that is all right.


Howard Charles Green: I am only too glad to do so. I am reading from a report of the Senate committee on finance which sat in 1952.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: The minister may laugh it off but I think this report is fairly sensible. This report concludes as follows:
There are exceptions in the case of departments which have services abroad. The office space and maintenance which they require abroad will be secured more economically by such a department directly. But practically all of these expenditures, to which attention is drawn, are within Canada and, with very few exceptions, as for example the maintenance of buildings and roads in national parks, we do feel that this part of the administration of our public business should be under public works.

That was two years ago. Let us look and see what attention the government has paid to that report. I have here the figures for the fiscal year 1953-54, which was the first year after the report. We also have, of course, the figures for the current fiscal year 1954-55. Both those sets of figures will be found in the "summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories" which is in the little pocket at the back of the book of estimates we are considering.
For the year 1953-54 the Department of Public Works was voted approximately $81,700,000 for the building of public works. By the way, this item is known as "Construction or acquisition of buildings and works, including land". For the other civilian departments-that is excluding the defence departments-the amount was practically as much for buildings and works, $79,300,000, and for the defence department, including defence production, $286,400,000.


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if my hon. friend would allow an interruption. I shall deal with this matter at greater length later but I would say that in many of these instances in which other departments carry the moneys in their estimates, the Department of Public Works actually carries out the project.


Howard Charles Green: I had that view too, Mr. Chairman, but in this latest departmental report which covered the period ending nearly two years ago, we find that the amount of money spent by the public works department for works and buildings but voted for other departments was only $10,500,000. It is a long way from that figure to the figure of $80 million.
Then in the current year, this present year, if hon. members will refer to their estimates they will find that the Department of Public Works is being voted for works and buildings $79,200,000, approximately, and that other civilian departments are being voted for the very same objects $78,500,000. Again practically as much is being voted to the other departments as to the Department of Public Works. The defence departments are getting less than in the preceding year, namely $214 million.
Let us take a look at the departments that are the worst culprits in this regard for this year, the year 1954-55. Here they are. First there is the transport department, $33,700,000; and mind you there is some excuse for much of the amount spent by the Department of Transport for public works. Then the Department of Agriculture, the second worst offender, $10,700,000; national research council, $6,100,000; the fourth culprit, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, $5,100,000;
83276-186J
Supply-Public Works
national harbours board, $5 million; Department of Veterans Affairs, $4,900,000; Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, $3,700,000; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $3,600,000; Department of External Affairs, $1,500,000; Department of National Health and Welfare, also $1,500,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Be careful what you say about us.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the minister would like to have a few suggestions for improving his department?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are always welcome.


Howard Charles Green: Then there is penitentiaries, $1 million. Those are only the worst offenders. Practically every department in this estimates book is spending a great deal of money on works and buildings. I suggest that the time has come to stop this sort of business and for the Department of Public Works to do the building for this country. The result would be a reduction in the number of architects and professional men; in fact I am sure there would be a great saving to the country.
Now I should like to say a word about the works and buildings for defence. The defence departments get away with quite a lot. They can always say, "We are defending the country; leave us alone". They get away with that in the House of Commons as well as outside of it, and I think the time has come to have a look at what they are doing with regard to expenditures for works and buildings.
I find that, according to the public accounts-I cannot get the figures from the report of the Department of Public Works because we have not yet received that report-for the year 1952-53, shown at page 43, the Department of Public Works spent $81 * 8 million on works and buildings. Then going to the report of Defence Construction (1951) Limited, or rather to the report of the Minister of Defence Production, who is the minister responsible for that crown company, I find at page 2 that during the fiscal year 1952-53 payments made by Defence Construction (1951) Limited amounted to $220,120,000 for public works. In other words, they spent about three times as much as the Department of Public Works.
Before the war most of the construction for the Department of National Defence was done by the Department of Public Works. I know it was the Department of Public Works that put up the forts around Vancouver. I suggest that the time has come when the Department of Public Works should

Supply-Public Works
at least do a lot of this construction that is now being done under the Department of Defence Production. In any event this crown company, Defence Construction (1951) Limited, should report to the Minister of Public Works rather than to the Minister of Defence Production so that we would get as much responsibility as possible for works and buildings in Canada where it belongs, that is under the direction of the Department of Public Works.
The third point I wish to place before the minister is this. There appears to be no longer any pretence that his department or any agency of government has a shelf of employment projects. We have been led to believe down through the years that the department had, in a pigeonhole somewhere, a lot of plans for public works that were to be used to give employment. I believe that idea started with the dominion's proposals in August, 1945, known as "Proposals of the Government of Canada", and contained in the green book. On page 26 I find this:
To follow the program proposed, the dominion is making provision that:
(i)	all basic survey and research work on which an expended resources program depends be gone ahead with as rapidly as possible:
I stress this second paragraph.
(ii)	advanced planning of projects be carried out on a sufficiently large scale to have an adequate reserve at all times for the timing purposes of the dominion public investment program.
That was a fairly clear-cut statement of policy, and I think members of the opposition and the Canadian people were entitled to take from it that the department actually had or would set up a shelf of employment projects. Now, with the new minister, we find that is a will-o'-the-wisp. He made a speech in Montreal three days ago, and I am reading from the report appearing in the Gazette on March 10. The heading is, "Public Works aim not to relieve unemployment".
Montreal; works minister Winters last night rejected the idea that public works be used specifically to relieve unemployment.
A public project, to be of real value, should carry with it the prospect of contributing to the long-term growth and development of an area, he said in a speech to the Montreal amateur athletic association.
This dispatch goes on:
Public works themselves did not necessarily provide many jobs. An example was the $23 million Canso causeway linking Cape Breton island and the mainland of Nova Scotia. Less than 200 men were required to keep the project up to schedule.
The minister may be right or wrong in taking that stand, but I believe the Canadian people are entitled to know whether or not it is still the policy of this government to organize a shelf of employment projects or whether that plan has been dropped.

The fourth point has to do with the expenditures for the Department of Public Works contained in these estimates. Hon. members will notice that there has been an increase of about $6 * 5 million over the last fiscal year. In effect, there will be a far greater increase because the department has adopted this new policy of trying to put in the estimates only those projects which are to be constructed, and as I understand, it is only asking for enough money to pay for the portion of the projects that will be done during the fiscal year. In effect, therefore, there is a very large increase in the amount of money being spent by the department during this fiscal year. There are some items which I believe require an explanation from the minister.
Hon. members will note, on looking at this summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories, the main increases under these items. First of all civil salaries and wages show an increase. I do not believe anyone can quarrel with that, because I presume the increase is largely due to the increases in salary which have been given to civil servants generally. I go on to refer to eight other items, and I should like the minister to explain why the increases are necessary in each one of these items.
First of all is professional and special services, which item is going up this year by approximately $100,000. Secondly, freight, express and cartage is going up $70,000. Office stationery, supplies and equipment and furnishings is going up $125,000. Materials and supplies is going up $250,000; repairs and upkeep of buildings is going up by $1,100,000. Hentals of land is going up by $340,000. I am giving the round figures. Repairs and upkeep of equipment is going up $125,000. Municipal or public utilities services is going up $300,000.
Now, these are all substantial increases, and I would ask for an explanation as to why it is necessary to come to parliament and ask for these additional amounts for these particular services.
My fifth point has been well illustrated by the hon. member for Red Deer. It is this. The estimates for the last fiscal year appear to have been padded and, I can only think, were padded for election purposes.
I would refer hon. members, for example, to page 439 of the estimates book, where we find the estimates for the architectural branch of the Department of Public Works for Newfoundland. We find there that the estimate for 1953-54 for Newfoundland was $717,000. From that there was deducted the estimated

amount by which the actual expenditure on all listed projects would fall short of the total amount that might be required for each, $67,000. This left $650,000 which the government said was going to be spent in Newfoundland in 1953-54. We find that what was actually spent was $61,000. Mind you, a portion of that amount for the period, from the end of December 1953 to March 31, is an estimate but the figure there for the estimated total expenditure for Newfoundland is $61,000. This is less than one-tenth of the vote after there had been deducted from that vote an amount which it was calculated might not be spent.
Now, to say the least, that looks suspicious. I may be wrong, but it certainly looks as though that estimate was padded. I do not know why it should have been padded unless it was for election purposes so that government candidates could hold out to the voters in these different constituencies the prospect that public works were to be built. They could say, "There is a vote for a building for so much, and will you please vote for the Liberal candidate.". The Nova Scotia vote will be found on page 440. The figures there are not as bad, with about 50 per cent of the amount estimated being spent. The figures for New Brunswick are bad too, and they will be found on page 441. The figures for Ontario are found on page 445, and there again they are bad, the amount spent being about half of the amount voted.
Next to Newfoundland, Alberta was the worst. Perhaps the government had to promise more there than it did in other parts of the country. The figure for Alberta is found at page 447. The vote was $2,680,000 and the amount deducted that they would not be able to spend was $379,999, leaving a balance of $2,300,001. They spent $460,000, or in other words about a fifth of what they voted. The figures for British Columbia, my home province, are much the same. The vote there, after making allowance for what could not be spent, was $4,050,000, and the amount actually spent was $2,056,000.
Those are the figures only for the architectural branch of the Department of Public Works. The same picture, although perhaps not quite so bad, is found in the engineering branch.
Then the sixth point I shall place before the minister-and he will be glad to hear that I have only nine-has to do with what are known as government contract regulations. These are regulations which were passed under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act. I would ask the minister to explain some of these provisions.
Supply-Public Works
In the first place, when the full regulations were last passed-and this was on December 29, 1953-there was a provision with regard to construction contracts. The provision covered only works to which section 36 of the Public Works Act did not apply. Section 36 of the Public Works Act is the section which requires the calling of tenders. Apparently when these regulations were first drawn up they did not interfere with what was done under the Public Works Act. However, now we find that on February 25, 1954, an order in council was passed deleting from these regulations reference to the Public Works Act. This would appear to be a case of by-passing that act. So that now all construction contracts, including public works contracts, can be let under these government contract regulations instead of under the Public Works Act.
I may be wrong in this, but I suggest it calls for an explanation by the minister. In connection with these government contract regulations we find that "tender" is defined in a peculiar way. Section 1 (i) of the regulations is as follows:
"Tender" means (i) in respect of a construction contract, a tender invited by public advertisement and (ii) in respect of a purchase or service contract, a tender invited by public advertisement or from a representative list or lists of suppliers.
That would seem to be a pretty broad definition of a tender when it can mean purchase merely from a list of suppliers, without any tender being called. Yet it is considered a tender. When the minister explains this I would ask him to tell us how these lists are made up.
For example, in Ottawa how has it been the practice to make up the lists? We hear rumours of certain firms being able to get on the list and of other firms not being able to get on. I think probably that system has existed in a good many other parts of Canada. I would like to know from the minister whether a stop will be put to that sort of business.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps they do not do that sort of thing in Fort William or, if they do, the hon. member does not know about it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I know Fort William.


Howard Charles Green: The seventh point is much the same. Is there to be any change in the method of buying and renting property by the Department of Public Works? On some occasions there seems to be a kind of mental telepathy between the department and some of its good friends around the country, when it comes to buying or renting buildings. We had a case in Vancouver a few years ago of

Supply-Public Works a building called the Alvin building, which was built by friends of the government, under an agreement with the government, then rented by the government and bought by the government at a price far higher than should have been paid. But those friends were sitting there in a position to be able to put up that building. It is true that it was done through a company; but of course they were all members of the company.
Then we have postal stations and letter-carrier depots in Vancouver in respect of which a similar situation prevails. That is, people who are actively engaged in Liberal party work have at least been able to rent buildings to the government-perhaps not personally, but through companies they control. Is there to be any change in that sort of business? We have a new look, supposedly, in the Department of Public Works-a new minister and a new deputy minister. Is there to be any change made in the method by which property is bought or rented?
The eighth point is this. Will the minister explain complaints contained, concerning his department, in the public accounts. These are complaints made by the Auditor General in respect of the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1953, and the particular part to which I refer is found at pages 12 and 13 at the back of the book. I shall not go into them in detail, but I would point out that the first complaint refers to the department's having cancelled an account receivable without obtaining what the Auditor General considered a proper authority. The second complaint has to do with the return of a deposit which had been put up by a contractor. This seems to be the more serious, and the Auditor General has this to say:
During the spring of 1951 a firm was awarded six contracts for the supply of post office lock boxes. Delivery dates were stipulated, but the contractor failed to deliver on time. As a result, two contracts, involving $24,125, were cancelled in May, 1952, and the work awarded to another contractor whose price was $3,796 higher. Nevertheless, the security deposits of $2,412 given for due performance of the two contracts were, with the approval of treasury board, returned to the contractor. Parliament having directed that "good and sufficient security" be given for "due performance of the work within the amount and time specified for its completion", it would appear to follow that, when a contractor defaults in performance, the deposit becomes revenue and any adjustment, as an act of grace, should be recorded as a charge to a vote.
That seems to be a very reasonable complaint by the Auditor General, and I hope the minister will be able to assure us that this sort of short-cut is not now being followed by his department.
Finally, I would ask the minister to explain what is going on in British Columbia about the power development on the big bend of


the Columbia river. I ask that because in the last few days statements have been made, both in the British Columbia press and in the Ottawa press, to the effect that General A. G. L. McNaughton, who is, as hon. members know, Canadian head of the international joint commission, had been in British Columbia interviewing the minister of lands and forests there, Mr. Sommers. As a result of those interviews the people of our province have been told that there is to be a $400 million 600-foot high dam constructed on Mica creek on the big bend of the mighty Columbia river. It is to start within eighteen months, and it is said that it will give British Columbia an estimated one million horsepower and will take seven years to complete and open up vast development possibilities in the interior. There is a similar dispatch in the Ottawa paper.
These dispatches read as though this plan is all set to go. I am not criticizing the plan; I think the development of the Columbia power is a very worth-while project; but what I should like to know from the minister is just what truth is in these reports and what plan is under consideration.
It is of vital importance to him, not only from the angle of construction of public works but because this plan will flood quite a few miles of the trans-Canada highway. When we asked the minister last year whether the route of the trans-Canada highway was going to be changed he said no, it was to be around the big bend of the Columbia river. If his department is involved in it for no other reason, it is because he has charge of the trans-Canada highway development in the dominion. Therefore, when he answers the various questions placed before him this afternoon I hope he will deal with this particular question.
Those are all the points I have to place before the minister. I hope that this new look which the papers have been trying to give to the minister and his department in the last few weeks will turn out to be substance, not just fiction.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Just a brief word; I was one of those who were greatly pleased when the Prime Minister thought it wise to appoint the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg as the Minister of Public Works. I knew he would be quite fit to take care of himself physically or mentally for anything that the opposition had to throw at him, and I have not been disappointed. I can see him kneeling behind the base and catching every baseball that came, and that is what he has been doing. He has been catching everything and delivering it in such a way that the team, which is the people of Canada, can appreciate his

deliveries. It is seen in the way that he handles the housing question. He answered all questions, and he delivered the goods in such a way that it will be a credit to Canada.
I must say that I was greatly pleased when I had a delegation from Fort William come down and interview the minister in connection with projects in Fort William that we think we need and have been trying to get for some time. He received that delegation from the city council and the chamber of commerce courteously, and he answered them intelligently. He sent them away feeling rather comfortable, believing that they would get what they asked for. I would remind him and his officials that those two projects are, first, the breakwater in front of Island No. 2 that we have been after for 16 years. I am going to tell the minister now that I hope that I shall be long enough in this house to see that project carried on, and I do not feel like quitting for a while yet. But the sooner it comes the better.
The other project has to do with a public building. We are paying out over $30,000 a year in rent for dominion offices. We think that we should have those offices in one building which up to now would be tax free. I am just reminding the minister of these things. We do not want to push unduly at Fort William, but when the place is growing and growing and showing rather a progressive spirit but still not very conservative, we think we should get a start on those things, and I am looking for them.
There is just one project that I should place before the minister. Since he is an outstanding athlete himself and knows how to keep his body in shape, he knows he cannot keep his body in shape unless he has the means to do so. Anybody will admit that surplus fat is a deadweight on any individual, and it does tend to mental obscurity and lack of clearness. There should be some place around this House of Commons where one could do physical exercises. I would prefer it to be underground. Since there is lots of rock around here, a place should be blasted out for a gymnasium and swimming pool. In time of war it could be turned into a shelter. I know the minister will consider this favourably. I have been after it for a while. I know that hon. members who have got something on their chests would like to get it off. If they could go and punch a bag for a while instead of punching the opposition or the government it would do them good and it would keep their minds clear.
I should like to congratulate the minister on the way he handled the housing question and the ticklish question of the film board.
Supply-Public Works
I am sure that, before he is through, not only will hon. members from British Columbia, who were doubters, change their minds, but other hon. members will congratulate him.


Robert Henry Winters: Before I start my remarks in reply to several hon. members who spoke, I should like to thank the hon. member for Fort William for his very kind references and to express the hope that I shall be able to measure up in some small respect to the high aims he has set for me.
In reply to the hon. member for Red Deer, who apparently has left the chamber, I would do no more therefore at this stage than remind hon. members that the vote for the architectural branch, which was the branch in question, in the estimates for the coming year, 1954-55, is an amount of $3,600,000; whereas the corresponding vote last year was $2,300,000. There is an increase of $1,299,999 for the province of Alberta alone, thereby indicating that there is no attempt whatever to discriminate on any grounds that might possibly have been in the mind of the hon. member. What we are trying to do is to apportion the money we have in such a way that we shall get projects in a place rather than simply notations in the estimates book that hon. members are dealing with now.


Mr. Low:: Would the minister at this time put on record the reason the change was made in these particular votes to which the hon. member for Red Deer made reference? Why was the change made after the house had voted them? It would be a good thing if that were on the record.


Robert Henry Winters: I dealt with that generally last night. The whole reason is that we are trying to evolve a system of including in the estimates just those projects that we are in a position to go forward with in the fiscal year in question. Some projects were not planned to the stage where we could go forward with them. Rather than put an amount in the estimates that did not mean anything and would just prevent us voting money for some other project that was ready to go forward, we had to consider the whole over-all program and just include this year those projects which we thought there was a good likelihood of doing something about. That does not mean that any project has been abandoned, but it does mean that each one must be considered on its merits and in relation to the relative urgency for having something done about the various projects in particular areas.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is the breakwater at Fort William all right?


Robert Henry Winters: That is another matter that will have to be dealt with on its merits, just as all other projects that are so dear to the hearts of hon. members.
I should like to deal now with the very good speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and compliment him upon the very thorough way in which he has studied the Department of Public Works, its estimates and also the role which he has in mind for this department. I am not in position to disagree with him in his remarks about the annual report except to make the qualification that when the statute placed a limitation as to the date parliament then had in mind that for the most part the sessions would be commencing after the new year rather than in the fall, as we have been doing recently. Therefore, the date pushes everybody pretty hard, but most of all the queen's printer. There has been a bottleneck there. Because of the statistical nature of the department's report it is difficult to assemble all the information. We did think that it might be helpful if we could put the report before hon. members today, even though it was in unbound form and even though it was not available to everybody. I thought it was better to do that than not to have it available at all. The printed bound copies I hope will be available to all in another two weeks. I hope in this respect we will be able to do better next year and we certainly intend to try to meet the requirements imposed on us by parliament.
For some years the hon. member has dealt with what he believes to be the proper role of the Department of Public Works in the general program of government construction. Here again let me hasten to say that I am not one to disagree with him. I think the general attitude of the government is that the time has come for the Department of Public Works to be re-established as the government's agency in the field of public works. The hon. member probably will recall that at the time the Prime Minister made the rearrangement of portfolios recently he transferred to the Minister of Public Works federal responsibility for the trans-Canada highway and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, both of which enter largely into the field of construction, as well as certain other responsibilities formerly carried out by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
We have been discussing with the Department of National Revenue, the Department

of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Transport and other departments the extent to which we can get the Department of Public Works in shape organizationally and administratively to take on a larger volume of public works. As an example, recently the Post Office Department applied for an additional architect and we told them that we thought we could provide the architectural services they required. They agreed not to take on the architect but to leave that work with the Department of Public Works. The Department of Transport is another department that is considering transferring some of its construction operations to the Department of Public Works.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Public Works, I know hon. members would expect me to say that I would not want to take on a volume of work that the department was not capable of coping with. We have had the organization of this department under close scrutiny for the past five months. Hon. members are probably familiar with some of the changes that have been made. In the first place, the former deputy minister, Mr. Emmett Murphy, a very competent engineer, reached retirement age and subsequently took his retirement. He has been replaced by the former deputy minister of the Department of Resources and Development, and previously the vice-president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have worked closely with this gentleman when he was in those two capacities. He was asked to accept the position of deputy minister of public works, which he did. Hon. members know the fine record of accomplishment of Major General H. A. Young in the service of his country, in war and in peace. I am very happy that he has seen fit to come to this department.
Just prior to the rearrangement of portfolios the chief architect, Mr. Gustave Brault, took his retirement and was replaced by Mr. E. A. Gardner, who is the present chief of the architect's branch. Shortly after I came to the department the then chief engineer, Mr. Robert Blais, reached retirement age and retired. We promoted to that position the assistant chief engineer, Mr. A. A. Anderson, who is now doing a very fine job of work. But he also is reaching that inevitable period of life when retirement seems to loom just over the horizon.
We are endeavouring to rearrange both the architect's and engineering branches of the department. We have applied to the civil service commission for and they have approved the establishment of a new position in the architect's branch to be termed director

of property management and maintenance. That position has been established, a competition has been held, and we hope shortly that the successful candidate will be designated. We are endeavouring to set up in the Department of Public Works another position of chief engineer. Having regard to the fact that we have undertaken the trans-Canada highway and additional construction operations we need this new position. We hope in due course to have the organization in shape where we can expand and take on additional public works which we believe are the proper function of the federal government.
When the department is able to assume these additional works, then I have no doubt that other departments of government will be quite prepared to have the Department of Public Works do them. No department wishes to undertake work of a nature, particularly if it duplicates functions being performed by some other department which on the face of it is more appropriately designed to carry out the functions. The hon. member spoke of a shelf of public works.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister goes on, may I point out also that I referred to Defence Construction (1951) Limited and suggested that that corporation should also come under the Department of Public Works and that the department should do some of the work now done by that corporation.


Robert Henry Winters: I think that is a suggestion that must be considered. I am sure that the hon. member knows that Defence Construction Limited has been having its construction contracts handled by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. While that corporation is not part of the Department of Public Works, it does report to the same minister. There is a close-knit arrangement of construction activities under the Department of Public Works and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, the suggestion made by the hon. member is well worth thinking about.
I recall discussing a shelf of public works with the hon. member on previous occasions. There are great difficulties in endeavouring to build up a shelf of public works. I do not think a shelf was too good a concept right from the start. Planning for public works is not something that is static in a country which has been growing and expanding the way this one has. We have been very hard pressed to keep up with current planning, let alone get ahead far enough to put anything in such a dormant state as to have it rest on a shelf.
It does not seem a concept with which one can comply in an expanding economy under
Supply-Public Works
such buoyant conditions as we have been experiencing when considering at the same time the shortage of engineers, architects, and other technical assistants. We believe in the principle of planning ahead, and my hon. friend will see in the estimates that vote 401, to which I referred last night, asks parliament to make available to the Department of Public Works the relatively small sum of $500,000 this year to enable the department to acquire sites in the many small communities where we are obliged to operate from time to time, and to do some planning with respect to these sites without actually committing ourselves at that stage to carrying forward a public work. That is something I hope we can develop as time goes on because I believe it will make for more orderly planning, more orderly budgeting, and more orderly scheduling of work.
My hon. friend asks why expenditure had increased in a number of categories as set forth in this summary of standard objectives and expenditures and special categories of service charges, and more especially with regard to maintenance charges. I am sure if my hon. friend were in the position in which I am he would be struck by the increased costs which follow the construction of every new building. There are increases in maintenance, service charges, cleaning supplies, janitor services, window cleaning, general run of the mill maintenance and in all those other requirements which are a necessary part of our expanding program of public works. To the extent that we are going to be asked by parliament to build new buildings, then we must be prepared to meet increased costs annually for servicing these new buildings. It is true that we save on rentals. But when we acquire a property to be owned by the crown, then the crown must be prepared to pay the charges necessary for servicing it.
My hon. friend dealt with government contract regulations and stated that there were some changes in them with which I must confess I am not entirely familiar because I did not quite get the point he was making. I believe it had to do with the calling of public tenders and I would like to tell him that it is the policy of the department to call for public tenders wherever that is feasible. I am a very strong believer in that myself. I believe it is a fair way in which to do business in almost every instance and it is the best way to do business wherever it is practicable. My hon. friend will find that we do as a general practice call for public tenders for public projects.
2942

Supply-Public Works
He referred to purchases from a representative list of suppliers. There are instances where it is not feasible to call for public tenders for relatively small amounts of supplies, and it has been the practice in the past, and I presume it will continue to be the the practice regardless of what government might happen to be in office, to establish lists of reliable and competent suppliers and to invite tenders from them when it is not feasible to call for public tenders. In my experience that policy has been administered fairly and, I believe, in such a way as to protect the public interest.
My hon. friend asked if there was to be any change in the method of buying and renting property. At the same time he said he knew of many occasions on which properties owned by friends of the government were ultimately bought by the government. I would like to think that all citizens of Canada are friends of the government. If my hon. friend were to occupy the position in which I am, and he heard the comments of his own supporters in the house, I think perhaps he would not attach too much importance to the rumours he hears to the effect that it is only supporters of the government who can sell property to the crown. Hon. members on this side of the house have on many occasions held exactly contrary views, but it is the policy of the department to buy on merit, and my hon. friend well knows that people these days do not get rich by selling property to the crown.


Howard Charles Green: There is to be no change,
then?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know of anything
which would warrant a change in government policy and I am therefore not in a position to tell my hon. friend there will be a change. The policies which have been adopted and implemented by the government have been framed with the public interest in mind. But if my hon. friend knows of any instance where that is not true I would be glad if he would bring it to my attention.
My hon. friend's next point had to do with the Auditor General's report, and the hon. member mentioned two items in particular which evoked comment from the Auditor General. One had to do with the cancellation of a debt as an act of grace. I have quite a long answer in justification of that, but perhaps if I read the last paragraph it might satisfy my hon. friend.
The department took the stand (a) that it had not carried out its agreement; (b) that no service was performed and no value

received by the contractor and that no debt to the crown was incurred by the contractor. For that reason the crown took the action it did.
The other point in the Auditor General's report dealt with by my hon. friend had to do with the return of a security deposit to a contractor in default. In reply to that I would say the officials of the department did not feel that security deposits could be considered as revenue unless and until they had been forfeited. Forfeiture was considered too drastic in this case and the treasury board approved the charges made by the contractor in view of the fact that the practice followed was approved by the treasury board under section 36 (a) of the Public Works Act, as the cost was in respect of calling for tenders. That was an act approved by the treasury board.
The last point dealt with by my hon. friend was the proposed development of a large hydroelectric dam at Mica creek on the northwest corner of the Big Bend highway. That whole project is still under investigation by my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is responsible for the water resources division. My present concern is with the trans-Canada highway; and my hon. friend from Van-couver-Quadra quite rightly stated that if this dam, which I understand will be some 600 feet high, is built, then a substantial portion of the existing Big Bend highway will be flooded. The appropriate minister of the government of British Columbia, for some years before the present government took office and since, has been in communication with me in respect to this possibility. I told him that if he cares to go ahead with the construction of the Big Bend highway, and should it then be flooded out in whole or in part in that section, then his government would be completely indemnified for damages resulting from the flood.
I read with interest the report to which my hon. friend referred to the effect that the construction of this dam is more imminent than we imagined. I was somewhat surprised at the 18-month period mentioned. I would be inclined to think that it would be a little longer. However, studies are still continuing and there is a distinct possibility that a dam will some day be built there.


Mr. Barnett:: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, as a native son of the Red Deer district and a nephew of the man who put Red Deer constituency in the opposition camp some 32 years ago, I should like to say that my soul was somewhat stirred by the plea made

by the hon. member for Red Deer a short time ago and I wish him well in it.
I am glad that we have heard the Minister of Public Works make his statement. From various sources since the appointment of the present minister to the position he now holds we have been hearing that changes were afoot in respect of the Department of Public Works. I was rather disappointed when, at the outset of the debate, he apparently did not see fit to make a statement as to what his thinking was about the future of his department. I am extremely glad to note that he was able to overcome his natural modesty and to give us some outline of what he has in mind. I think I can speak for other members in this group as well as myself and say that, in the organization and the planning of that department, we will welcome any change which makes it a more effective instrument of national development rather than, as at times in the past it appeared to be, something of a chore boy for other departments of government.
In this connection, may I say I was interested to note that in this year's estimates the amount allocated for the trans-Canada highway had been increased from $15 million, as it was in last year's estimates, to $20 million and that the amount to be spent in the national parks had been doubled. To me that was an indication that the kind of development that I should like to see taking place within the public works department has some reality to it. I feel that in many ways that is one of the most important aspects of our national development which now come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. In that connection I came across one or two statements which I found represented very closely my own thinking on the matter. These statements were contained in an address by Mr. William A. Wecker, president of General Motors of Canada, Limited. I should like to quote briefly one or two of his remarks in this connection, partly because I imagine that no hon. member would consider that he is simply a wild-eyed socialist visionary as some people might be inclined to consider me to be. In connection with the project of highway development his remarks in part were as follows:
. . . when confederation came into being ... it was quite properly believed that the railway would be the prime instrument of the country's development. that roads would be of limited local concern and should, therefore, be left entirely to the provinces to build and maintain. The fathers of confederation acted quite properly for their day and age. They were deliberating Just about 35 years prior to the appearance of the first motor car in
Supply-Public Works
Canada. And so roads have been principally the responsibility of small local governments and the provinces.
Then he goes on to say this, and I certainly agree with his sentiments in this regard:
. . . Roads have become a matter of national importance. Most major traffic routes connect cities in different provinces and carry traffic of two or more provinces. Eventually they will be largely interrelated and interconnected in a national pattern of highways.
. . . Roads are more than a provincial or municipal matter. They have become a national problem and must be treated nationally.
. . . We must have a broader area of co-operation and understanding among road building authorities.
He then mentioned what to me was an extremely interesting fact, namely that the tonnage of freight carried annually by motor transport in Canada exceeds the combined total of that carried by rail, water and air. He also mentioned that there are 14,000 communities in this nation which are chiefly dependent upon highway transportation for their very existence. He also pointed out that between 1915 and 1933 the number of motor vehicles in Canada rose from 60,000 to one million, that it took another 15 years for the second million vehicles to be added to the roads, but that in only 4 years prior to the time at which he gave this address-and that was on October 20, 1952-another million motor vehicles had been added. The point of that statement, I believe, is that it indicates the accelerating rate of increase in the number of vehicles, as a result of which highways are becoming of ever greater importance from the national point of view. Then he goes on to say this:
The Hon. Robert H. Winters, Minister of Resources, in a speech not so many weeks ago, probably touched the reason why the road builders are losing ground when he said that the volume of traffic on new highways is always greater than had been estimated.
So rapid has been the increase in Canada's motor vehicle fleet-we have added 50 per cent to it in the last four years, as I explained earlier-that neither Mr. Winters nor any other highway planner could be expected to forecast exactly the physical expansion required.
That may be perfectly true. In addition to that, I was much interested in the remark made by the minister to the effect that they are making provision for a certain amount of advance planning. As a result of their initial venture into this field, I hope they may be able to pursue that particular idea on a larger scale as time goes on. In relation to highway development, particularly in connection with the matter of planning, an example that occurred to me as an indication of how planning, if it was carried on in advance, could be of benefit, exists in my own riding where at the present time we have a great many excellent highways being
83276-187J
2944	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
built by some of the larger logging corporations. As their understanding and knowledge of forest management has increased, they have more and more planned their highway building in advance of their current needs so that they are able to conduct a much more flexible and economic operation, viewed in larger terms. I feel that is one of the major problems facing us today. One of the ways in which a revitalized public works department can be of real national service is if the minister and also parliament can translate into a national concept some of the energy, initiative and imagination that a great many able executives today are able to put into their planning in connection with private corporations. I have long felt that this is going to be the secret of the future growth of Canada, that it is going to be the way we are going to avoid some of the problems we were discussing not long ago in connection with unemployment. If, somehow, the members of this parliament and the citizens of this country can achieve a method of making use of the type of initiative which you find in many great organizations today on a national scale, then we shall be successful. In my opinion that is the crux of the problem with which we are faced. Actually that is why I find myself sitting politically where I do in this parliament.
Perhaps I might have pursued this subject at greater length if the minister had not made the statement he did, which has given us some of his thinking and some indication that he does intend to pursue a policy of expanding and developing the department. Perhaps this will be not altogether along the lines I have suggested but at least some steps in that direction are going to be taken. I shall conclude this part of my remarks simply by saying I wish him well in that aspect of his work.
I believe there is a rather formidable roadblock in the way of developing his department along the lines he has suggested, and along the lines for which we are hoping.
I would illustrate that by saying that in the minds of the citizens of Canada, and I might go so far as to say in the minds of some of the members of this house, there is an unhealthy atmosphere surrounding the Department of Public Works. In my opinion that is one of the biggest problems facing the minister if he is going to carry out the kind of development he envisages for this department.
May I give an illustration of what I mean.
I am going to read from a column which appeared in the Campbell River Courier on Wednesday, August 12, 1953. This column


is written from week to week by the editor of that publication, and on that date he had this to say:
Election of C.C.F.'er Tom Barnett as member of parliament for Comox-Alberni came as no surprise to those who saw the anti-socialist vote split umpteen different ways . . .
I might just point out in passing that even the editors of newspapers in British Columbia who are not of my political persuasion recognize the essential unity between the various non-socialist groups. It is not quite as apparent in other parts of the country as yet.


Mr. Sinclair:: And between the two socialist groups, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is fishing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sorry, but I could not quite catch the interjection the minister made.


James Sinclair: They recognize the same essential unity between the two socialist groups, the socialists and the communist party, as demonstrated by the recent speech of Mr. Rod Young.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not hear the recent speech by Mr. Rod Young to which the minister refers. I might point out to him from my own experience that I have not found any great love was bestowed upon me so far as a certain communist group he mentioned was concerned. Any question of unity, as he well knows, has never been a very prominent aspect of the relationship between those two political organizations in British Columbia.


James Sinclair: Mr. Young told the students of the C.C.F. club at the University of British Columbia that there was no difference between socialism and communism.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sure the minister is acquainted with the gentleman to whom he refers, and I suggest he might discuss the matter with him the next time he is in British Columbia and find out what the gentleman really did say or what his views are on that subject.


James Sinclair: He was a former C.C.F. M.P., and should know what he was talking about.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Getting back to editor
McCusker's article in the Campbell River paper, he goes on to say this:
Thus, In a predominantly Liberal House of Commons, vve of this riding will be represented by a member of an opposition party and, things being the way they are in politics, we can look forward to a four-year drought in the matter of public works expenditures in tills constituency.

Mr. Barnett, we have no doubt, will do a good job of representing us. He will doubtless present our cases (as they come up) with earnestness and eloquence . . . but not persuasion. For he is not on the government side.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the way the Liberals find it in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Check with Austin Cross.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have taken the liberty of using that quotation to demonstrate that in the minds of many people there is what I have already termed an unhealthy attitude in respect of the Department of Public Works. As long as that attitude persists, as long as a lot of people consider that the public works department is supposed to be the Santa Claus of government, then I would suggest the hopes the minister has expressed for the development of his department are not going to come to fruition.
I recognize that he has a big job, and I recognize also it is not a job he can do alone. In fact I would say that the success of the job he might be able to do depends as much on the members of this house as it does upon the minister himself. I believe it will be necessary for members who are sitting on the same side of the house as the minister to exercise a great deal of restraint in making requests of the minister for special consideration for their particular constituencies. On the other hand, I would say that to succeed in changing the public attitude in regard to this department may mean that members on the opposition side will perhaps have to exercise some patience at times when they might be disposed to consider that there was discrimination against their constituencies.
I suppose my remarks expressing the hope that the minister will bring about a change in the atmosphere surrounding the Department of Public Works will be considered by some people as an example of political naivete. All I can say is that I hope I shall be able to retain a certain amount of naivete, and I would be quite happy to discover that the minister also has been able to retain a certain amount.
I do not intend to go into a long discussion of the details of the public works estimates at this time, particularly as they relate to the constituency of Comox-Alberni. I know there are occasions when such matters will be discussed between the minister and myself. However, I have attempted at, I hope, not too great length to set out the attitude and the viewpoints the minister can expect from this corner of the house in relation to the plans he has for his department.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the statement by the minister, and felt he did everything he
Supply-Public Works
could to answer the questions raised. I have a question to raise; it was brought up last year and still remains in the category of uncompleted business. My question has to do with the construction work done by the Lunam Construction Company, operating for the Department of Public Works and other departments of government.
It will be recalled that when this matter was brought up last year there was a very lengthy discussion on the subject and, in particular, as to what could or should be done in order to protect subcontractors and suppliers of materials and commodities to contractors with government contracts. That problem still remains.
I want to ascertain from the minister what changes have taken place in that policy., for I find subcontractors in all parts of Canada who are very much concerned over the fact that, in accepting subcontracts from contractors with government contracts, in reality they assume a risk that is not assumed when they deal with private contractors. When they deal with private contractors they have the right to file mechanics' liens against properties within the limitations of the mechanics' liens acts of the several provinces. In this way they are able to protect themselves to the extent provided by those acts.
It is otherwise, however-and it has been so held on a number of occasions-with subcontractors who supply commodities or supplies of any kind to contractors having government contracts. In connection with the Lunam Construction Company of Regina the total of accounts of creditors of that company, which held a number of contracts with the Department of Public Works as well as with other departments of government, when it ceased operations amounted to $256,652. Comparatively small companies were involved to the extent of amounts such as $12,500, $10,000, $17,000, $6,000 and $14,700. Then there is one for $27,800 for heating supplies, and another of $37,500 for an electrical company.
I am not going over the story of the Lunam Construction Company. We all know what happened in consequence of certain revelations that were made. But I do think the problem still remains, and it is this. How can subcontractors in this country undertake, with a reasonable degree of safety, to make the necessary supplies available to contractors when those contractors have government contracts? In the case of the Lunam Construction Company I think anyone who is frank will admit that that company was allowed by the department to place itself in a position detrimental to the interests of
2946	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
subcontractors who supplied the materials that went into the completion of that contract.
Under the regulations set out by the Department of Public Works this provision is made:
During the prosecution of any contract, as a progress estimate then being rendered shall show a gross total accomplished equal to or in excess of 30 per cent of the whole amount of the work contracted for, the contractor shall be required to furnish to the department a statutory declaration signed by himself, or some one of his employees who has personal knowledge of his business arrangements and accounts by which the department shall be assured that all his liabilities in connection with work under the contract up to and including the last previous progress estimate have been paid by him.
And this further provision:
As soon as the work under the contract shall be shown to have reached the point indicated in section 2-
That is the one I have just referred to.
-the contractor shall obtain from each ot his subcontractors a receipt tor payment of amount due under the terms of the said contract up to a date not more than one month earlier than the date of the then present progress estimate.
A form is provided for this purpose. I find upon examination of the records that this latter precautionary measure was not observed, with the result that subcontractors lost a tremendous amount of money because they dared trust that the government of Canada, in its contractual relationships with subcontractors, would live up to the provisions of its own regulations.
The minister says that changes in personnel have been made in the last year. I hope and trust that changes will be made that will not permit a similar state of affairs to exist again. And this is not a solitary incident; it is happening in other departments of government. It is happening in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In one case in Vancouver creditors find themselves out of pocket to the extent of $225,000, with the hope of recovering only 20 per cent of that amount. And there are cases in other parts of Canada involving lesser amounts where subcontractors-local dealers, merchants, hardware men, lumber dealers, suppliers of pipe, brick, and the like-having trusted that the federal government would carry out its own provisions, have found themselves suffering tremendous losses.
Last year suggestions were made as to some things that might be done in order to remove this danger. It is unfair that the government of Canada should be able to take advantage of the small businessmen of this country by having their supplies used in the buildings that are being erected by contractors for the government, and at the same time failing to protect the suppliers


even within the limitations provided by the present regulations. After the discussion in the house last year in regard to the Lunam Construction Company I had correspondence from subcontractors in every part of the country, asking whether or not something could be done.
One of the suggestions is that a performance bond should be required on federal work in the same way it is required in connection with private industry. What changes have been made to provide protection to the subcontractors for payment of materials supplied on federal jobs, protection in lieu of the mechanics' liens that are available to contractors on other than government contracts? This is a matter that deserves serious attention, as the minister has pointed out, because of the expansion that is taking place in his department and the works that are to be carried out during the coming year. I feel that the subcontractors of our country have a right to know what is going to be done to protect them at least to the extent that protection would be available if they were dealing with private contractors on private business.
In connection with the Lunam Construction Company, was any arrangement entered into with any of those subcontractors whereby they have been given to understand that on any future tenders that they may make on other contracts, consideration will be given to them for part of the losses they suffered?


Robert Henry Winters: Is my hon. friend stating that as a fact?


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking whether it is so, because that is the rumour.


Robert Henry Winters: Can my hon. friend give me any basis for those rumours?


John George Diefenbaker: I say the rumour is quite widespread that something similar to what took place in connection with the Milk river project in Alberta is going to be done.


Robert Henry Winters: I was wondering whether my hon. friend has any substantiation for that.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can say whether there is any foundation for it, whether it is a fact. He is the one with the information.


Robert Henry Winters: I say it is not a fact. I was asking if the hon. member had any substantiation for it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the question I am asking. What is the position of those subcontractors? Are they to be taken for

a ride to the extent of almost $200,000 because they dared trust that the government of Canada would give them the same consideration they would be entitled to were they dealing with a private principal? After what took place last year, and the revelations in connection with the Lunam Construction Company, I ask the minister what changes have been made in his department and what alterations have been made in the regulations? In connection with the Lunam Construction Company, I should like to know why no prosecution of Mr. Lunam was ever instituted for the false declaration in which he swore that the various suppliers had in fact been paid by him? What has taken place during the last year in that regard?
The minister will recall that his predecessor found a great deal of difficulty in finding Lunam. The search went on for two or three months; then a reporter, Miss Judith Robinson, went to Regina and was able to find him on her arrival. What is the present position in that regard? Have any proceedings been taken on the declarations which the minister's predecessor said were false? If not, is any action contemplated at the present time? I ask those questions because in this case, as in the case of the Vancouver Associated Contractors Limited, good citizens, local merchants, suppliers of all kinds, are being placed in a position where they have a perilous future if they dare to trust any contractor who has a contract with the Department of Public Works or with any other department of government, for the supplying of goods, wares and merchandise. This is a matter which I believe requires the utmost consideration by the officials of the department.
The minister has taken over this department. He has brought with him a deputy minister who enjoys the respect of all who know of the work he has done in the past. I feel that this is a most important matter and requires action, because a repetition of the Lunam Construction Company case, though on a smaller scale, has taken place in two or three instances in connection with government contracts.
I ask the minister to give consideration to a provision in contracts after this date so that subcontractors will be protected against unnecessary losses. When they enter into private contracts they all expect some risk, but they at least know what the risk is and they know there is one way in which they can protect themselves, namely by the provisions of the mechanics' liens acts in the several provinces.
Private Bills


William Alfred Robinson: Since it is five o'clock the committee will rise and report progress.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 340, respecting Canadian Nurses' Association.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation?


Leonard T. Stick: In sponsoring this amendment to the Canadian Nurses' Association Act, which was passed by this house in 1947, I should like to say first that the objects of the association as set forth in the act are:
(a)	to dignify the profession of nursing by maintaining and improving the ethical and professional standards of nursing education and service;
(b)	to encourage its members to participate in affairs promoting the public welfare;
(c)	to promote the best interests of the nurses of Canada and to maintain national unity among them;
(d)	to encourage an attitude of mutual understanding with the nurses of other countries; and
(e)	such other lawful acts and things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.
The purpose of the amendment is to include the association of registered nurses of Newfoundland in the Canadian Nurses' Association. There is no change in the act at all except in section 6, which reads:
The following associations or their respective successors and assigns shall be association members;
Then follows a list of the different provincial nursing associations throughout Canada. As I say, the main object of the amendment is to incorporate the association of registered nurses of Newfoundland into the Canadian Nurses' Association, and to do that it is necessary to amend section 6 of the act to include that provincial association.
There is another small change in connection with the association of nurses of Prince Edward Island, whose name has recently been changed from the registered nurses' association of Prince Edward Island. Also the association wishes that the provincial associations which make up the Canadian Nurses' Association be in alphabetical order. That is the only change.
I think the bill is non-controversial. I am sure the house does not want me to make a speech on the work of the Canadian Nurses' Association in alleviating suffering and so on. It is a pleasure for me to sponsor this bill, because it is one more evidence of the desirability of the association in Newfoundland being affiliated with the Canadian Nurses' Association and thereby, perhaps in a small

Private Bills
way, giving evidence of a continuation of the cementing of union which took place in 1949.
I have nothing further to say on the matter. I have endeavoured to explain the purpose of the bill, and I leave it to the sympathetic consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Michele Grignon Ferguson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Emile Groulx.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Doreen Jeannette Yvonne Sarah Mary Dorothy Sibley Cowans.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Muriel Spencer Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Yetta Frumkin Binder.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Vera Mary Drummond Stafford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Alice Beatrice Cutler Murdoch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 348. for the relief of Maartje Stelling McLachlan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Wilfred Roy Fricker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Dorothy Adelaide Jorbahn Rosburg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Joseph Bernard Bertrand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Ann McKinnon Archibald Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Joseph Gerard Arthur Valmore Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hunter for the second reading of Bill No. 325, to authorize Niagara Gas Transmission Limited to construct, own and operate an extraprovincial pipe line.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was last before the house I was making a few observations and pointing out that it was hard for me to understand the unplanned manner in which franchises in connection with the transmission of natural gas were being handled by the government. The bill now before the house would grant permission to pipe natural gas from the Niagara peninsula to Toronto, and in my judgment it would be detrimental

to the best interests of the all-Canadian pipe line for which a franchise has already been granted.
There are main lines already in the embryo stage, and if they are to justify their existence they will have to have markets for the gas to be transmitted. In my opinion the branch line covered by this bill to pipe gas into Toronto will interfere with the function of the main line. In view of the development that has taken place, I look upon a bill such as this as merely a method of blackmail. If this franchise is granted it will place the people who hold it in the position where they can sell stock and then offer to sell out. I cannot see the justification for this bill in view of the fact that a franchise has already been granted for the construction of a main line which will need the market in Toronto if it is going to be a paying proposition and not be a development which will have to be heavily subsidized by the Canadian people.
My main objection to the whole development in the use of natural gas is that it is an advance in the use of fuel which should have been more carefully planned. It is all right to get up in the house, as some hon. members do, and say that you cannot stop progress, that with this technological advance other fuels are going to fall by the wayside. That statement is most unrealistic when you consider that there are sections of this country which are going to be hurt by the development of natural gas.
I pointed that out when the proposal was made to pipe Alberta gas to the cities of Montreal and Quebec. I asked the committee which was considering the bill and the witnesses who were appearing at that time if any survey had been made east of Montreal into the repercussions from the use of natural gas in that area. I was told that no survey had been made. I asked the committee and the witnesses if they were aware of the fact that at least two of the provinces east of Montreal depended to a large extent upon the coal industry, one almost completely.
I do not consider that a national project is in the best interests of this country if certain sections are going to be injured or thrown into complete economic chaos without consideration being given as to what compensations are going to be made in that area for the acceptance of what is loosely termed a technological advance.


An hon. Member:: What about the rest of the country?


Clarence Gillis: The rest of the country is being taken care of-that is what I am objecting to-without any consideration being given to

the parts of the country that will be affected.
I am sure if my hon. friend who has just interjected was living in a part of the country where he had investments in property, in schools, in homes and industry, he would be the first to get up and protest against a development which would wipe out his investments.


An hon. Member:: I have the utmost
sympathy.


Clarence Gillis: I am sure he is capitalist enough to take that attitude, that he is Conservative enough not to consider the rest of the country if it affected his own individual interests. I would remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who is piloting this bill through the house-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Clarence Gillis: I thought he was, because he made a speech on it the other night which indicated that he had forgotten his geography.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are trying to take him on board as pilot.


Clarence Gillis: I would like to remind hon. members that while we are considering the bill, over in the Copeland building in this city the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) is meeting with representatives of the mine workers' union from Nova Scotia and the coal operators from Nova Scotia, in addition to representatives of the provincial government. They are discussing the future of the coal industry in the maritime provinces, because they realize that within a few years the Quebec and Montreal areas will be served with natural gas. That will mean displacing the only economic market for maritime coal in existence at the present time. It also means the wiping out of not only the Dosco shareholders' investment in the coal industry but also of the economies of the communities which are based on coal, and to a large extent disrupting the economic future of these provinces. I would also like to remind hon. members that Nova Scotia is the province which brought the rest of Canada into confederation, and it should be shown more consideration than it has received up to the present time.


An hon. Member:: Was it not Prince Edward Island?


Clarence Gillis: They held a meeting on Prince Edward Island, but the leadership came from Nova Scotia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Prince Edward Island was only the cradle.


Clarence Gillis: I cannot see how this kind of development can be termed technological advance. I would ask the members of the
12. 1954	2949
Niagara Gas Transmission Limited committee, when this bill comes before them, to give very careful consideration not only to the benefits which certain sections of Ontario and Quebec may enjoy through the provision of cheaper fuel, but also the hazards which are inherent in that development. I would remind hon. members who represent Montreal and Quebec that the provision of a 3,000-mile pipe line for the supply of natural gas will also mean adapting all your heating equipment to that type of fuel. That alone presents many hazards. Any number of difficulties might arise; the development of available supplies is merely guesswork at the present time, and no one can estimate how long these supplies will last. No one can say immediately with any degree of accuracy that we have sufficient fuel to supply all of Canada and parts of the United States adjacent to Alberta. That angle has to be taken into consideration.
I would also ask the committee to consider the statement made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as reported in a recent issue of an Ottawa newspaper. In that statement he warned those interested in the future supply of fuel not to be in too great a rush to close down the coal industry of Canada. He pointed out, and rightly so, that if you close down mines in which the people of Canada have a huge investment it will be impossible to open them up again very quickly. My experience has been that if you close a mine for six months, then it is almost impossible to open it again.
The minister also pointed out, quite rightly, that we are living in a disturbed and uncertain world. No one can predict how long we will continue to live in peace and security, and in that uncertain future anything might happen. The minister also pointed out that in the event of this country or this continent facing a war, coal would be needed almost as badly as it was needed during the last war, when the government had people running around this country digging gopher holes in order to obtain the necessary fuel to keep the war effort going.
The minister in that statement took a thoroughly realistic position on this subject. For the information of those hon. members who may be on the committee which will consider this bill, I would point out that the whole development of natural gas, oil, coal and hydroelectricity should in the past have been welded into one national fuel policy administered by a board capable of analysing the subject and determining which fuels are most economical. That has been done to a limited extent, although haphazardly, and I would like to point out to members of that
2950	HOUSE OF
Niagara Gas Transmission Limited committee, if they do not already know, that after pondering that question for some years some of us in this house believe that is the only policy which can cope with the situation. There is already an interdepartmental committee composed of experts on fuel considering this entire question of a national policy, so we should not be in too much of a hurry in passing bills of this kind.
We have a national pipe-line act already in existence under which the government has certain obligations, and it is my belief that any more bills of this nature would be unrealistic until such time as that committee has had an opportunity of examining the whole question and advising the government as to what is required.
Another matter which should be given consideration in relation to this fuel question is the development of atomic energy. The rush to spend millions of dollars and uproot communities in the fuel field is rather shortsighted, particularly when one considers what is going on in Britain. They are at present using pilot plants in certain industries to obtain the necessary data as to how well particular types of fuel operate under given conditions. Submarines have been powered with certain types of fuel. In fact one was launched quite recently.


An hon. Member:: What would that do to the maritimes?


Clarence Gillis: I am coming to that.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hunter:: 1 do not like to interrupt the hon. member's speech or prevent him developing the broader aspects of his argument, but we are talking on the general subject of pipe lines, and I suggest that he is going rather far afield when he starts discussing atomic energy and matters of that nature. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member confine himself a little more closely to the bill.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's point, and I am quite willing to co-operate with him. What is wrong with our whole approach to this problem is that in the past, rather than considering the picture as a whole, we have considered the interests of a few people who wished to promote a pipe line. I am sure the average citizen in Ontario did not ask for this pipe line. It took a few promoters to start the ball rolling.
I do not believe you can discuss the development of natural gas, oil, or hydroelectricity without considering the entire fuel picture, and I suggest that we should be a little bit cautious in this regard because it appears to me that the time is not far distant 

when the money we are now spending on fuel may prove to have been wasted, and that it would have been better used in a government-sponsored atomic energy project.
My hon. friend asked what it would do to the maritimes. That is exactly the point I was leading up to in this whole discussion. The one place in Canada where a test should be made with atomic energy is in the maritimes, where there is a shortage of power and where, because of that shortage, it is difficult to establish subsidiary industry. The government is now making an examination of the possibilities of thermal power. That is a long-term process. I think, however, that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and others in the cabinet should now consider the possibility of establishing a pilot plant based on some industry in the maritimes in order to determine the possibilities for atomic energy in that field, as is being done in the United States and in Britain.
Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to say this. My main plea is that when this committee meet to study the terms of this bill, they should look at it in its relationship to the national pipe line that we have already decided upon. Is this duplication? Is it stock promotion? Is it an attempt to grab a field which is lucrative and which might be sold to the main line when it comes through? Do not forget that a government interdepartmental committee today is studying the whole question of fuel with the end in view of a national fuel policy.
Let us not do anything in a hurry. Let us at least wait until some pronouncement is made by that committee as to the economic possibilities of fuels in all fields across this country. I am sorry if I wandered a little bit off the path, but in order to discuss the matter properly I think it was necessary to put the whole thing in its proper perspective.


Mr. Elmore Philpoti (Vancouver Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two on this bill. It seems to me that it raises several important points. First of all, the onus is on the sponsors of this bill to show clearly-much more clearly than they have yet shown-that if they are successful, this project will not prejudice the national pipe line which is already under way. I did not read this bill as carefully as I might have, but I have not understood it yet. I personally have no objection at all to the general proposition behind this bill, provided it can be clearly shown that it is not going to prejudice the national pipe line on which we are all depending so much.
There is one point I should like to make. We in British Columbia are hoping for a pipe line of our own before too long. It

just might happen that unless favourable consideration is given to this particular bill our friends in the United States would not be so disposed to give favourable consideration to the application which we shall soon make to have gas piped down to Vancouver and then on into the state of Washington. We cannot have a practical proposition in British Columbia unless we also have that state of Washington market.
There are one or two remarks I should like to make with regard to the statement of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I do not believe we can consider pipe lines in Canada intelligently unless right from the beginning we face the fact that they will have a most vital effect on the future of the coal industry of this country. I think it is impossible to discuss this or any other pipe-line bill without admitting that fact right from the very beginning. I believe the welfare of the coal industry in Canada is of vital concern not only to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the people of Nova Scotia but also to us in the west. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is certainly going to be affected by the growth of pipe lines and their competition with the coal mines in his riding. My hon. friend who sits to my right is also going to be affected with regard to the coal mines in Fernie.
In this house not so long ago we heard about the way the coal industry is now coming back and facing up to the competition it has been getting from the dieselized railways. It seems to me that it would surely be in the national interest if everybody in Canada began seriously to consider just how coal can hold its own in competition with the new fuels such as natural gas and oil.
I for one do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South on this one particular point only. I believe it is absolutely in the interests of Canada to bring the coal industry back and keep it back. But surely there is a responsibility upon the coal interests themselves. The natural gas interests are coming here, but they are not asking the government to do everything. Surely the coal interests themselves could begin to set their own house in order. Surely the coal interests of Canada, perhaps assisted by the national research council, the dominion fuel board or something like that, could undertake the development of such things as the gas turbine. I should like to see the coal industry and/or the national fuel board or the national research council take into consideration such things as central
12, 1954
Niagara Gas Transmission Limited heating plants for whole municipalities. There is a successful one-and it has been operating for many years-in Lockport, New York. From my friends in Winnipeg I know they have one that I believe is partially successful. As far as I could find out, the chief kick is that it is turned off too soon in the spring, and then the people who are dependent upon it have no heat.
It seems to me that if we had intelligent research into how to bring back coal on a large-scale basis, perhaps coal could hold its own in competition with these new fuels. Why do we use these new fuels like oil and natural gas? Certainly it is not entirely because the new fuels are cheaper than coal, because in a good many cases oil and natural gas are much more expensive than coal. In my own home in Vancouver I burn artificial gas and have done so for 12 years. It is much more expensive than coal or sawdust would be, but of course we bum it because of the extra convenience.
My point is that you cannot separate such things as an application for a particular pipe line for Ontario from the pipe-line picture in Canada as a whole; and in my opinion you cannot separate the pipe-line picture in Canada as a whole from the whole question of fuel and coal.
My hon. friend from Cape Breton South is 100 per cent right on that matter. It is in the interests of the whole economy that we should keep the coal industry healthy and vital; but I think the main onus is on the coal industry itself. It is facing modern competition in a modern age, and it must get busy and fight for its own interests. It must not, for instance, wait for the railways to be dieselized and then, ten years later, begin to come back with things like the gas turbine. If the coal industry would get on its toes like these oil and natural gas boys, perhaps the coal industry would not have so much to fear.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: The Social Credit members of this parliament, Mr. Speaker, have followed very closely the statements which have been made with respect to this bill concerning the Niagara Gas Transmission Company. Reference has been made also to the desirability of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited project. We do not think it is necessary for us to be long-winded in making our position clear. We were pleased to hear the views expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as well as those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). They

Niagara Gas Transmission Limited stated that the building of this line would have a tremendous and positive economic impact on Canadian life.
We believe it is relevant to this debate to restate that the Social Credit government of Alberta, acting as guardians of the people's resources, has consistently stated their willingness to share their great gift, this natural gas, with the other parts of Canada provided the present and future requirements of the people of Alberta be fully protected at all times, both in the economic and supply sense. When an amount of gas has been established over and above the requirements of the province, then and only then would the Social Credit government approve the export of gas if it was evident that this would be in the best interests of the people of Alberta and the people of Canada.
We have been very consistent in our gas and oil policies. We advanced them many years ago, long before the other political parties realized their value and it became expedient for them to also adopt those policies. As a matter of fact we were constantly abused and criticized by the remnants of the old parties operating in Alberta for the stand we took. I should like to remind this house that in the last provincial election the entire Liberal attack was based on opposition to the export of surplus gas. I believe we should have no more of this political nonsense as to the fatherhood of a sensible oil and gas policy. The truth of the matter is that it was originated by the Social Credit government of Alberta, certainly not by those who now appear so eager to be given credit.
On page 2725 of Hansard for March 5, 1954, the Acting Prime Minister stated that if parliament passed this private bill the government would cease to have jurisdiction over the situation. In view of this fact, and since it is important not to interfere with the proposed pipe line from Alberta, the building of which depends upon its economic feasibility both from the standpoint of the consumer and the producer in the west, I feel it would be a wise and profitable move for the federal authorities to secure the views of the Alberta government on this matter, as well as those of the principals of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
The sponsors of this bill have signified their willingness to switch to natural gas from Alberta when it becomes available. If that is so, then I think more than just a verbal assurance is required. This is a matter which deals with the national interests of the people of Canada, and I believe we should take every precaution to see that nothing is done in this parliament or by any pressure

groups which would jeopardize the building of what is presently considered most desirable, namely the trans-Canada pipe line.


Howard Charles Green: This is the sixth year, Mr. Speaker, in which the members of this house have listened to a pipe-line debate. As I sat here during this debate it seemed to me there was something missing. Of course that "something" is my old and distinguished friend George A. Cruickshank, the former member for Fraser Valley.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He talked himself out, too.


Howard Charles Green: He, more than anyone else, made the pipe-line debate a popular thing. I think they drew larger crowds than any other debates, except the budget debate. In addition, right from the start he had the vision of what could be done for this nation by an all-Canadian pipe line. He had the courage to fight for that project, even against the members of his own party, showing the same courage which he showed to such a wonderful degree in the 29th battalion with which he served during the first world war.
With regard to the question of who is to have credit for the all-Canadian gas policy, I was somewhat surprised to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stake out a claim to that distinction when he spoke on March 9.


Solon Earl Low: A lot of people are trying to get on the bandwagon.


Howard Charles Green: His remarks will be found on page 2817 of Hansard for that date. I am not anxious to start a political fight, and I merely bring this up by way of setting the record straight. The right hon. minister said this:
In the first place, a private member's bill should be considered apart from politics. If it were not I would be tempted to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) for having adopted Liberal policies with reference to oil and gas pipe lines.
Well, of all the nerve; I think that takes the medal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your leader
agreed with me on oil pipe lines.


Howard Charles Green: I do not believe he did, and we are speaking of natural gas pipe lines. I have here an extract from the Vancouver News-Herald of May 10, 1950, which is headed "Exclusive Interview; Howe gives facts on coast pipe line". Then there is a picture of Erwin Kreutzweiser, a reporter for the News-Herald, and underneath that picture there are the words, "He dared". There is a picture, too, of the Minister of Trade and

Commerce, and underneath his picture appear the words, "He talked". Then the article goes on to say:
By earlier reports Tuesday, trade and commerce minister Howe had either 'dodged' or snubbed newsmen seeking to interview him on his visit to Vancouver. The News-Herald's political writer, Erwin Kreutzweiser, however, calmly dared to beard the outspoken minister in his suite Tuesday night, found him willing to talk. Here is his exclusive interview.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now he is working for the government.


Howard Charles Green: Then we find this statement by the minister, which shows where he stood in 1950:
The determined filibuster which has been staged by Conservative and C.C.F., and a few Liberal M.P.'s on the issue of an "all-Canadian route" is a "phony angle", he said.
"It is so fantastic I could not take it seriously at first," he declared.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those who came to scoff remained to pray.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is talking
about oil.


Howard Charles Green: We have had a great conversion. Then on March 13, 1953, the minister came right over to our side. We find him saying this on page 2930 of Hansard for that date:
I am convinced, after thorough study of the matter, that the only reliable supply of natural gas for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec must be from western Canada by means of an all-Canadian pipe line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some day you will both
come to our policy of public ownership.


Howard Charles Green: That remains to be seen. In any event the minister and I are now in agreement on an all-Canadian natural gas policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am worried
about that.


Howard Charles Green: So am I. Under this plan
Alberta gas is to be piped through Saskatchewan and Manitoba to Ontario and Quebec, with great benefit not only to the western provinces but also to all parts of Ontario and to the Montreal area of Quebec, as well as possibly the Quebec city area.
As the minister said the other day, this development will mean the expenditure in Canada of up to a billion dollars, and of course it cannot help bringing work for many thousands of our people. In central Canada the Alberta gas will partially replace United States coal. I suggest to the house that one of the weakest spots in the Canadian economy down through the years has been the fact that the heavily populated provinces of Ontario and Quebec have been largely dependent upon United States coal. I believe this bringing of Canadian natural gas into
12.	1954
Niagara Gas Transmission Limited Ontario and Quebec will strengthen the nation as no other development in recent years has done.
But as the minister pointed out, and as is generally agreed by all members, the Toronto market for natural gas is essential to this development. If that market is taken by United States gas, other than for a year or two, I suggest such action may be fatal to the whole plan for an all-Canadian gas line policy. Hence the great importance of this bill, because it is this Niagara Gas Transmission Limited which is proposing to bring United States gas into the Toronto market.
I realize, of course, that Niagara Gas Transmission Limited is only a subsidiary of Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto, and of Tennessee Gas Transmission Company of the United States. The plan of this company will mean that United States gas will reach the Toronto market. In my view, at the same time there would be some benefit to an all-Canadian line, because such action would help to build up in the Toronto area a market for natural gas from the west. But as the minister has intimated, the house must try to prevent any action which will kill the trans-Canada plan.
I do not agree with him when he suggests that the responsibility rests entirely with the house. I believe there is a far heavier responsibility on the government because, after all, the government is in a position to make absolutely certain that nothing will be done by Niagara Gas Transmission Limited which will interfere with the all-Canadian plan. And, as in respect of other measures, the government cannot escape final responsibility.
It is worth while to take a look at the plan of Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto, as it is set out at page 2720 of Hansard by the hon. member for Parkdale, who is sponsoring the bill. He has stated that Consumers' Gas made contracts with suppliers of gas in the United States, and in addition made a contract with Tennessee Gas Transmission Company for the piping of that gas to the middle of the Niagara river. The hon. member will correct me if I am wrong in any of these statements. Apparently the contract is for a 20-year period, not just a year or two.
After obtaining that contract Consumers' Gas or Niagara Gas Transmission Limited, I am not sure which, went to the federal power commission of the United States and obtained permission for the export from that country of a certain quantity of natural gas on a 20-year basis. Again this was not on the basis of only a year or two. I believe this permission was obtained at prices set by the

Niagara Gas Transmission Limited federal power commission, prices which were higher than those in the adjacent area of New York state.


John William Gordon Hunter: Not "set"; approved.


Howard Charles Green: All right; "approved". And now I believe there is an application before the federal power commission in the United States for an increase in that price. My information is that no decision has yet been reached.
The permission is for the Toronto area only. In other words it does not extend to Hamilton, Niagara Falls or St. Catharines; only the Toronto area. That is the only area, of course, in which Consumers' Gas has a franchise. And we must remember that any order made by the federal power commission is subject to further order, depending always upon demands in the United States. Down through the years their decisions have been to this effect, that where anyone residing in the United States can prove a need for gas being exported, such person shall have the right to obtain that gas, and in those circumstances exports to Canada can be cut down accordingly. I believe this has happened in respect of exports to western Ontario. In that area Canadians had the experience of having their gas supply reduced by order of the federal power commission, because some people in the United States were able to prove they needed extra gas.
Apparently, after obtaining this approval from the federal power commission, and because of the insistence that the plan of Consumers' Gas must fit into the all-Canadian plan, Consumers' Gas made a subsequent contract with the Tennessee company. This was referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale when he said, as reported at page 2720 of Hansard:
However, a contract has now been made between Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto whereby over the period of the twenty-year contract between Consumers' Gas and the United States suppliers, Tennessee Gas Transmission Company will purchase all or any of this gas at any time. This latter contract was made so that if-
And I draw attention to that word "if"
-Canadian natural gas is brought to Toronto the Consumers' Gas Company can-
And I draw attention to the word "can", and suggest it can be fairly interpreted as meaning "can, if they wish"-
-purchase Canadian gas and dispose of the United States gas for which they have contracted, without any loss to Consumers' Gas.
On the next page the hon. member says:
-if and when Canadian natural gas becomes available-

So there is nothing binding upon Consumers' Gas or Niagara Gas Transmission Limited to take Alberta gas.


John William Gordon Hunter: There will be.


Howard Charles Green: That may be, but there is not at the present time. The result is that if this bill is passed, Consumers' Gas or Niagara Gas Transmission Limited can probably block an all-Canadian route. They have already tried to do that. I think the minister knows that last year Consumers' Gas published a number of advertisements about natural gas, some of which I have here from which I propose to quote. From the first I read this paragraph:
The only logical and economical source of natural gas for Toronto is the United States. What always has been true of coal is also true of gas.
Then from another:
It is the opinion of this company and of outside experts that the attempt to bring Alberta natural gas to Toronto is at present uneconomic and therefore not in the public interest.
And another:
Tentative suggestions about natural gas from elsewhere, in the opinion of the company and of outside experts, are for such a high price that the gas could not be sold in sufficient quantity to justify the cost of the pipe line.
There is another which is quite touching, in that they base their argument on their desire to help British Columbia and Alberta. It says:
To help Alberta
Plan of Consumers' Gas to bring natural gas from the United States will help, not hurt Alberta's problem in selling its surplus natural gas and in developing it oil resources.
Careful and expert study indicates that Ontario cannot get Alberta natural gas at prices likely to promote large sale. At the same time if import of Texas gas is prevented by government, it is highly probable that U.S. authorities would be disinclined to permit Alberta gas to enter the northwestern states, the most populous market nearest to Alberta.
All authorities agree that the Vancouver market is not large enough to support a trans-mountain pipe line. So a decree preventing Consumers' Gas from getting United States gas can result in Vancouver not having any natural gas.
That was a pretty far-fetched argument but it does show the attitude of this company just a few months ago. However, on December 4, we had a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am reading from the Ottawa Journal, in which he had this to say:
Mr. Howe said the government was undertaking to bring the two western pipe-line companies together to put through the one 30-inch trans-Canada main to central Canada.
By the way, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been successful in bringing

about a shotgun marriage between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and Western Pipe Lines. The dispatch goes on:
"The all-Canada line is going to be built, let's have everybody understand that", said Mr. Howe.
And further:
"If Consumer's gas can fit into the Canadian picture all right; if not, then no good", said Mr. Howe.
I find that a similar statement was made by the minister, as reported in the Vancouver Province, on January 5 of this year. The report says:
On the controversial subject of whether Consumers' Gas Company Toronto should be allowed to bring in United States gas before completion of the cross-Canada pipe line, Mr. Howe said the government still holds the view that Consumers' would have to fit into the over-all Canadian plans.
Mr. Howe said the Consumers' import plan has not been ruled out, but he expressed doubt about two points concerning the Toronto company's plans.
These are two points which should be kept in mind by hon. members:
1.	He did not think it could bring gas into Canada more economically than western Canadian gas.
2.	He was not sure of the economics of using the proposed Consumers' line to send Canadian gas southward once the cross-Canada line was built.
In any event, as a result of that stand taken by the minister Consumers' Gas Company now say they will take Alberta gas when it comes east, and will reverse the flow through their pipe lines to the United States.


John William Gordon Hunter: I do not think that at any time Consumers' Gas said they would reverse the flow of gas through their pipe lines to the United States. They simply said they would change from importing United States gas and take the Canadian gas.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; perhaps I did not put it as clearly as I should have. They say now that they will take Alberta gas. They want the United States gas for the first year or two; then when the Canadian gas comes through they will take it, and their pipe line can be used to pipe the Canadian gas down into the United States.
When the minister spoke in the house on this bill he made it very clear that he was unable to give a guarantee that that result would be brought about. For example, at page 2725 of Hansard he said:
However, this is a private member's bill asking for the incorporation of a company to build a pipe line.
Incidentally, I point out to the minister that they are not asking for incorporation. The company has already been incorporated under the Ontario company law. I continue:
No import permit is required to do so and if parliament passes this bill the government as such
Niagara Gas Transmission Limited would have no control over the situation. It is true that the bill must go to the board of transport commissioners, which, as hon. members know, is a judicial board. I sincerely hope the board of transport commissioners will be seized with the long-range problem of bringing gas to Ontario and Quebec and will measure the effect of the application made under this bill with regard to the over-all results.
I would emphasize, however, that once this bill is passed the machinery operates as set out in the Pipe Lines Act, and no further federal government authority of any kind is required. If the board of transport commissioners should decide that no regard should be paid to the situation brought about by plans to bring gas from western Canada, the government would be powerless to intervene.
He said the same thing when he spoke on March 9, at page 2817 of Hansard, in opening his speech that evening:
Mr. Speaker, before I adjourned the debate when this measure was last before the house I pointed out that the government is unable to give the guarantee sought by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that the interests of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will be protected. I pointed out that this measure is a private member's bill. The bill will be examined in the appropriate committee. It will then be returned here for third reading, and after the bill becomes law, all the decisions having to do with the project covered by this bill as well as the project covered by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill will be in the hands of the board of transport commissioners, whose decision will be final.
Then he suggested, as reported at page 2818 of Hansard, that as a remedy there should be what he called a "coming into force" clause which, if I understood him correctly, meant that this private act should not come into force until an agreement between Consumers' Gas and Niagara Gas Transmission Limited, or both, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited had been duly executed and deposited with and approved by the board of transport commissioners. Obviously the minister was, and I presume still is. uncertain about the effectiveness of that proposal. I think the objective he had was to see that the trans-Canada line was not interfered with, but he is not yet sure of the best method of realizing that intention. He said:
That is only my suggestion; there may be others.
I propose to make one or two suggestions as to what could be done to bring about the result which is desired by the minister and myself, and I think by nearly everyone in this house.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock we shall resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
2956	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
360. Departmental administration, $821,732.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make some comments on this item. During the years I have been in this house I have found the public works estimates to be somewhat unique. The predecessor of the present minister, of whom we were all very fond, seemed a creature so far remote from bricks, mortar and such things that one really felt the public works estimates were more in the realm of poetry and romance. So this afternoon when the minister told us he had nothing to say I began to fear that we were again going to be in that delightful world where we were treated with the greatest courtesy but where we found at the end that we had got very little information. I have never quite understood how the minister was able to carry us along so gently and deposit us at the end of the course not much wiser than we were before.
Certain tributes have been paid to the new minister today which interested me a good deal. I would not say for a moment that they were not fully justified, but I think we must be careful that we do not allow the new minister to deal with us in the same way as his predecessor. We have had the minister pictured to us this afternoon in baseball terms as being a man who catches everything, and then there was also a suggestion about delivery. I noticed that while the hon. member for Fort William paid a high tribute to the minister, which I am quite sure was genuine and might have been taken to be disinterested, he did murmur something about a breakwater and other more mundane things which I think he hoped the minister would also be interested in.
There was one thing the hon. member for Fort William said which interested me a good deal. He spoke about the great advantage of not having too much weight, and I mean physical weight. He seemed to think that was an advantage, and indeed I would like very much to agree with him and hope he is right.
When the minister was speaking to us I was interested in some of the phrases he used, and which I took down carefully. I gather that the department he now heads is being "re-established as the government's agency in the field of public works." The


word "re-established" of course raises certain thoughts in one's mind. One wonders what the Department of Public Works had been doing these last several years, but at any rate it is nice to think it is being re-established. It is also nice to think that the Department of Transport is considering-only "considering"-transferring some of the construction it carries on to public works. At any rate that is a beginning, and one hopes the minister will be able to continue it and that some day the Department of Public Works will really be the agency of the government in the field of public works, which some of us were naive to believe it always should have been.
I want to make one or two general remarks about the estimates, because after all these are part of the total estimates which we have had put before us. It is with regard to those total estimates that I want to make some observations at the outset. I want to point out a fact which everybody knows, that government expenditures have gone up. The only reason for this that I can imagine is that the government really does not believe the people are much worried about expenditures. Indeed, I have heard it put much more strongly than that, that the ordinary taxpayer likes to have lots of money spent and that you do not win elections by economy. Indeed, I heard a man say the other day that no election had even been won by economy or by an argument for economy. I do not like to believe that, but I quote it as the opinion of a man who has had some experience with elections. He expressed that with great vehemence.
Having said that; having said that I think the government must hold that view when it brings us estimates so much larger than they have been except in the realm of defence, I am going to make reference to two or three expressions which I hope represent public opinion more accurately than this attitude which, rightly or wrongly, I have attributed to the government. I have here the Edmonton Journal of February 8, which contains an article entitled "Where's the Economy Axe?" I read briefly from it as follows:
Hopes for any federal tax reduction in the 195455 fiscal year have faded with the publication of the estimates Friday. The government is apparently committed to the highest program of spending in Canada's peacetime history-a total of $4,491,751,000. We are left also with the unpleasant thought that, with supplementary estimates, the eventual total may be much larger, perhaps up to the highest level of the war years.
Then I read further from the same editorial.


Robert Henry Winters: May I rise on a point of order and ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether

it is in order to discuss the whole field of the estimates on vote 360, which is the administration vote of the Department of Public Works?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was a little afraid the minister might raise some question of that kind. However, I submit that this is the first item, on which we always have liberty to range pretty far.


Robert Henry Winters: Related to the department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The departmental expenditures are part of all expenditures, and I submit that in surveying the expenditures of the Department of Public Works we are entitled to survey them against the background of the total expenditures. I quite realize that it would not be proper for me to start going into details of the Department of National Defence in remarks on public works, but I do submit that it is perfectly proper to bring to the attention of the minister, who I am sure would like to keep down his estimates to the lowest point and who needs every assistance to that end, what I intend to say. I feel confident that it is relevant to bring to his attention some remarks which have been made about his estimates along with all other estimates.


Robert Henry Winters: As long as it is this department's estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will appreciate that I am putting it in that way; the estimate is included in the total figure, and I am referring to that. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will take another view; otherwise you will miss a good deal of a very interesting speech.


William Alfred Robinson: After all, we are discussing item 360, which is the administration or first item of the Department of Public Works. The minister has raised a point of order which perhaps I should deal with at this time. As hon. members know, the usual practice has been to allow a very general discussion on the first item of the department, but at the same time speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I do not want to prevent the hon. member for Greenwood laying a proper basis for his argument or discussion on item 360, but at the same time I hope he will co-operate with the Chair in confining his remarks as closely as possible to the Department of Public Works.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am very glad you used the phrase "laying a proper basis", Mr. Chairman, because that puts better than I could what I have in mind. What I am
Supply-Public Works
attempting to do is draw attention to the broad situation we find in relation to the figures of the Department of Public Works, and what I said was by way of laying a foundation. I want to read quite briefly from a statement by this independent newspaper which in no way supports our views. He states:
Our government's indifference to economy is all the more unfortunate because the general economic outlook in 1954 is more uncertain than it has been for several years.
I shall not read all of it, Mr. Chairman, because I wish to defer to your ruling, but I would like to read briefly from an editorial in the Financial Post which has this to say: ... if the defence department estimates are lower, why shouldn't total spending also be lower?
That of course is relevant to the Department of Public Works, because it is one of the departments which has higher expenditures. The quotation continues:
Isn't the high cost of defence the principal reason for high taxes?
Then the Post goes on to give a very
interesting illustration. It states:
It's exactly like the housewife who, having saved seven dollars on the family's groceries, turns around and spends nine dollars on a hat she does not need or cannot afford.
That is a very good illustration of the kind of thing we are talking about. I now want to refer to a well known Liberal paper in western Canada, the Leader-Post, from which I shall read very briefly. Under the heading of "Ottawa Spending Spree Continues"-


Robert Henry Winters: Does that refer to the Department of Public Works?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It refers to the Department of Public Works as included among those spending departments, and it refers to total expenditure. I want it to be clearly understood-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. I requested his co-operation. 1 can, of course, go further and declare this general discussion out of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must defer again to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I now come to a situation which I believe will be more strictly in order because it deals specifically with an important matter in relation to the Department of Public Works. I wish to refer later on to the substantial additions to the staff of the Department of Public Works, and there are several questions I would like to put to the minister. However, by way of laying a foundation for that, Mr. Chairman,

Supply-Public Works
I would like to quote briefly from the Winnipeg Free Press which points out the different situation which we have in the government service when compared with crown corporations. In one case the staff has been increased and in the other there has been a decrease. This is the quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press dated March 5, 1954:
Federal government figures, just published lor November, 1953, by the dominion bureau ol statistics, illustrate the difference in employee and money management of government departments compared to some crown corporations.
That includes the Department of Public Works. The quotation continues:
In the current downward business "readjustment" in Canada, government departments indicate little or no intention to cut their staffs and wage and salary costs. On the other hand, crown corporations, such as the Canadian National Railways, compelled by competition with private enterprise of another railway, trucks and aircraft, markedly reduced expenditures between October and November, 1953.
Continuing the same argument with reference to the Department of Public Works, the same editorial continues:
Employees of government departments increased in numbers by 10,273 between November, 1952 and October, 1953-from 161,846 employees to 172,119. Their wage and salary bills rose in the same period by over $3,000,000-from $36,495,543 to $39,520,152. Between October and November, 1953, when the "readjustment" became noticeable, there was a slight decrease of-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to a general discussion of the Department of Public Works. Surely he is not suggesting that the Canadian National Railways come under the Department of Public Works?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you, and I was simply pointing out the comparison between government departments where the number employed is going up, and crown corporations where the number employed is going down. I submit that since I am leading up to questions regarding the increase in staff, it was quite proper to illustrate the condition which exists in relation to which I wish to ask the minister some questions. In any event I had almost completed the quotation.
The government crown corporations showed a different record. Their employees had also increased by 10,553 between November, 1952 and October, 1953-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I really cannot allow the hon. member to transgress the rules of the house. I am in the hands of the committee, but I cannot allow him to deal with questions which are not strictly relevant to item 360.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were conceding the relevancy of what I was doing, but I certainly shall not attempt to disregard your ruling in any way.
You have rather cramped my style, Mr. Chairman, but I shall now come to the questions I wish to ask the minister. I shall attempt to be strictly relevant from now on. The minister told us this afternoon in a very interesting fashion of certain changes in method which had been followed. I would like to recall, though, that in the department he previously headed the minister had occasion to call in expert assistance. That is one of the things I wish to ask him about. But first of all I wish to draw attention to some of the increases in staff. On page 431 of the estimates under "Department Administration" it is noted that staff increased from 203 to 228, and agricultural branch employees increased from 128 to 158. I need not read the other details. That is the point I wished to underline, Mr. Chairman, and it is unfortunate that you felt I was out of order in my method of doing so because there are some very interesting figures which I did wish to draw to the attention of the minister, and which I believe he would have liked to hear about.


Solon Earl Low: Let us have them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to run the risk of incurring your displeasure again, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to put it to the minister in this fashion. As the Acting Prime Minister has said, we are in a rather unusual business situation, and we are not quite certain how things will develop. Some of these newspaper quotations 1 was not allowed to read indicated that they also thought this was the time for economy on the part of the government.
It will be recalled that the Department of Public Works estimates, if my memory serves me right, are up by some $7 million. It will be seen that one of the chief expenses is salaries, which bulk very large in the department's expenditures. The minister has come in as what might be termed the head of a large new business which he has taken over. He finds that his staff is increasing substantially. I want to ask the minister this. What steps has he taken to scrutinize that position? I suggest to him-and I think he will agree betause he, like myself, is a reformed busi-nesman-that in a business, if a general manager comes along with a substantial increase in staff, he will be cross-examined by his directors as to what these are for and as to whether he has done everything possible to keep the number down. I suggest

to the minister that this theoretical general manager I am talking about will have to prepare himself for a strict cross-examination as to why his staff is up in number, as I have already indicated.
I want to ask the minister just what steps he has taken. Has he obtained any outside assistance? Has he had any efficiency experts? Or has he just said to himself, "Oh, this is my first year" we will just let things ride along as they are. Then I will have a look at it and I may be able to satisfy myself as time goes on"? Those are the first questions that came to my mind as I read the estimates. Those are the first things that stuck in my mind for answering.
I say again, do we apply one test in private business and an entirely different test in public business? I repeat that I think any executive head of a corporation-especially if times were not too good-who brought in a substantial increase to his staff would be under the strictest cross-examination. I should like to ask the minister if he would just tell us what steps he took before he presented to us these figures which call for substantial additional salary payments.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak for a few minutes in this interesting debate. I might say that I enjoyed listening to the discussion this afternoon, because we all look at public works rather from our own experience within our own ridings. I enjoyed the careful analysis of the Department of Public Works administration given by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
I was also interested in the information given to the house by the minister. I think it indicates that we are going to have some improvement in the administration of the Department of Public Works. The minister is a competent engineer, and with his qualifications and experience I think he is well suited to head this department assisted by his deputy, who has had a wide experience in military and civilian life. I join with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and other members who have expressed their respect for and appreciation of the qualifications and ability of the minister and deputy minister. I sincerely trust that this combination will cure the administrative constipation from which the department has suffered since about 1945.
I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Department of Public Works. I have known a good many of the officials in British Columbia over a period of 45 years, and the local officials constantly throughout that period. I want to say this. While the work of the senior officials is what comes to the
Supply-Public Works
attention of the House of Commons and the public in general, it is the good work of the hundreds of minor officials in the constituencies that also enables the department to do the work it has done.
I want to refer to two in my own constituency. The first is the clerk of works since shortly after the first world war, Mr. Douglas Male. He happened to be a comrade of mine in A company of the 54th Kootenay battalion. We were wounded on the same day. A lot of good men were knocked out that day. I want to commend the interest he has taken in his work and the effort he has made to satisfy the requirements of the service and yet be courteous to the people, and to meet a lot of unusual circumstances which arise in a constituency and which I am quite sure many of the senior officials know little about.
The other one is Mr. Lomax, whom the hon. member for Skeena knows quite well. He is one of those highly respected Englishmen who never become well off, and throughout the years has acted as inspector of wharves, buildings and various projects. It is the integrity of people like these which has made it possible for the department to do the good work it has done in Kootenay West. He would not allow a contractor to get away with not putting a lock washer on a wharf, or to miss a spike, to put in some poor lumber, or to fail to drive a pile to its required depth.
To do that sort of thing a man has to have some strength of character. He often runs up against people who think that because they have certain political affiliations, certain things can be skipped or overlooked. But here is a man I have known for many years -he retired just recently-and who served the department and the public very well. I mention this matter because the efficiency of the department is to a great extent based on the loyalty and integrity of the junior officials and employees throughout the constituencies. I wish to pay a tribute to the work of these people, who work without recognition.
I recall two or three occasions, because my ranch was adjacent to certain wharves that were being built, where the department took pity on me and realized that I was in a mighty poverty-stricken condition. As a result on a few occasions I was called upon to relieve the supervising inspector when he had to leave a job because of sickness; and on some occasions I met contractors who thought that political affiliations should influence the depth to which a pile was driven, and things of that sort, or just how

Supply-Public Works work should be done. I want to pay tribute to the district engineers we have had in British Columbia. On all occasions, on which a stand has had to be taken against attempted political influence-and I am not suggesting it was official; there is often some selfish person who thinks he has political influence and who wants something improper done on the strength of his political affiliations-I always found the engineers in British Columbia stood solidly against that sort of thing. I think that is a matter of great credit to them, because it is easy to give in to local pressure and permit a little bit of unfairness and scrimping in order to remain popular with some local people. I mention this question because I have had that experience and I think it should be mentioned to indicate the quality of the department's officials.
I was pleased with what the minister had to say with regard to certain reorganization in the department. I have often suggested- and I am speaking with at least some knowledge of the administration of the department in the constituencies-that the public works department was too centralized in its administration. I think the minister will recall that year after year I have suggested that we should have more regional and district administration for the efficient operation of the department. I have often said that, because of local conditions, the local officials should be allowed more latitude to make decisions and meet local conditions. As I say, I have personal knowledge of this matter. I know of several projects that were unnecessarily delayed because certain decisions had to be referred to Ottawa, to the engineering branch, the architectural branch or the legal branch. I believe there should be a regional or district administration of the department, and that the administration should be more decentralized.
I want to illustrate my contention in this respect, and I shall give three or four instances. I know in the last four or five years of the failure of a contractor who had signed a contract to deliver certain lumber and timbers for the building of a wharf. I am now speaking of the Beaton wharf. The failure of the contractor to deliver the lumber in the quantity the local officials required meant that the matter had to be referred to Ottawa, and a new tender called for the delivery of this lumber. The reason for the failure of the contractor to deliver it was that lumber had gone up $10 per thousand after his tender had been accepted. Here we had the public works crew, the piledrivers and other equipment waiting for weeks and weeks, which meant lost time and extra expense. All this occurred because the district officers did not have the power to act in a situation [Mr. Herridge.l

like that. It meant delay and it meant unnecessary expense in the building of that wharf because the district engineer and his officials were not empowered to meet this unforeseen situation. They should have been empowered to immediately purchase lumber at some other point and carry on with the job, rather than have the piledrivers and a crew of men tied up for several weeks while a decision was awaited from Ottawa.
I recall several occasions when the construction of wharves was delayed for months and months because it was necessary for the administration to call for tenders for float logs under wharves. They are difficult to obtain because they are large diameter cedar logs and scarce. Particularly since the war, the lumber operators have not been particularly keen to tender for these logs. The department seems to try to secure a bid for the total number of float logs for the whole wharf, which is almost impossible. The local officials know the small operators, and if a contract called for 200 logs for a wharf they could get 50 from this man and 50 from that man, provided there was authority within the district office of British Columbia to meet a situation like that. This would overcome the delays that have frequently occurred in the past, and on some occasions would have lessened the cost.
Then there is another thing I want to mention. I understand that the department calls for tenders for the construction of wharves, rip-rap, mattress work and works of that sort. Naturally the lowest tenderer is usually given the contract. It often happens that the local officials know that the lowest tenderer has not the capacity or the financial ability or the experience to properly do the job. I know of one wharf that was built in my riding less than three years ago in which the department ran into that situation. In fact I do not think the situation is cleared up yet.
I know of half a dozen men who have lost anywhere from $300 up to $2,000 through supplying goods to these contractors. I feel that in such cases it might be better to let the tender to someone at a higher figure and make sure the work can be completed satisfactorily. In these cases the advice and knowledge of the district officials should be given some consideration, because sometimes the lowest tender does not always mean the job is completed at the lowest cost.
Before I conclude there is one other matter I should like to mention. On one occasion I had to write to the chief architect about holidays for the janitor of the federal building in the city of Nelson. A comparison arose between the holidays of the janitor in Nelson

those of the janitor of the federal building in Trail. Naturally these people get together and sometimes they think they are not getting identical treatment, from their point of view.
I was amazed that the matter had to be referred to the chief architect in Ottawa. I feel that the chief architect is too valuable a man to be looking after janitors' hours, cleaners' hours, and things of that sort. I presume the situation is going to be corrected. If I correctly understood what the minister said this afternoon, a division of property maintenance is to be established, and I presume that division will be in charge of janitors, cleaners, and details of that sort. I think that is a necessary improvement in administration.
I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra gave certain figures which indicated that only about 55 per cent of the total money voted for public works in British Columbia last year was spent. That is clear evidence that the department's administration has been pretty well bogged down. There is no question about that from the evidence. I know there have been a number of revotes in Kootenay West. In fact for three years there was a revote for a wharf at Waneta, which is only a small dock and quite easy to construct. Then we have had delays with the construction of the proposed federal buildings in Nelson and Trail. I shall have more to say on this question at the proper point; I am not going to be out of order now. I do say it indicates that the administration of the department has been slowing down. I believe that condition is general since the war. I know the department has been under tremendous pressure, and I am not criticizing the officials. I blame it on centralization.
I was glad to read in the Ottawa Citizen of February 6 a statement, apparently by one of the senior officials, that this year the government was going to start all projects provided for in the estimates. When the minister replied to the member for Vancouver-Quadra I believe he said something similar, that only those projects were placed in the estimates that the department felt fairly certain of carrying on with this year. I think that is a sound policy, because otherwise you are just fooling the people by putting through estimates year after year and not proceeding with the work.
In conclusion I do urge consideration of my suggestion which I have mentioned for three or four sessions, that there should be a decentralization of the administration of the Department of Public Works. There should be a greater use of the regional or district offices than there is today, and the local officials should be given the opportunity of
Supply-Public Works
meeting unforeseen circumstances of which many senior officials at Ottawa are unaware. I do hope the minister will give consideration to the suggestions I have made, and before the debate concludes I should like to get the minister's opinion regarding them.


Leonard T. Stick: I hope you will not call me
out of order, Mr. Chairman, because I have to lay a basis for some of the remarks I am about to make. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Greenwood refer to the free spending by the government. In my personal experience, so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, it is like trying to draw their eyeteeth to get anything out of them. I have not seen any evidence of free spending in my riding, and certainly not in my province.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, there are one or two things I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. As you know, four years ago we joined with Canada and certain terms of union were negotiated at that time in good faith on both sides. Some of us feel that it is about time some of these terms were put into effect. Our people are under the impression that the federal government is rather dilatory in carrying out its duties in that regard. Under the terms of union, section 33, paragraph
(d), public harbours, wharves, breakwaters, and aids to navigation came under federal jurisdiction.
Section 36 reads as follows:
Without prejudice to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1846, any works, property, or services taken over by Canada pursuant to these terms shall thereupon be subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
Then on page 35 of the terms of union, under the heading "public harbours"-I think that is public works-we find the following:
It is the policy of the Canadian government to construct and maintain public wharves where and when such action is considered necessary in the public interest. The construction and maintenance of public wharves throughout Canada is within the jurisdiction of the Canadian government and the responsibility for deciding whether or not a public wharf or a breakwater is necessary in any given locality rests with the federal authorities, who take local requirements into consideration.
The Canadian government will, at the request of the province of Newfoundland, and having regard to the best interests of the province, investigate the desirability of establishing one or more harbours in the province as "national harbours" under the national harbours board.
Mr. Chairman, to date there is no sign of establishing any national harbour in Newfoundland; neither do I know of any survey

Supply-Public Works which has taken place there or that is about to take place in connection with this matter.
In this debate reference has been made to revotes, and I know that revotes have taken place so far as Newfoundland is concerned. The hon. member for Greenwood was concerned about the extra staff required. Well, I can say right here and now that the staff we have in Newfoundland is not sufficient to carry out the work, and I think the minister knows it. I want to bring it to his attention again. I do not want to have revotes come before parliament year after year, with nothing done about it. We need in Newfoundland more public servants, and it is the impression of the people in that province that our public services should be brought up at least to the standard of those in the maritime provinces. That is not in the terms of union, but it was understood when the exchange of conversations took place. We are far from that, very far from it.


An hon. Member:: A low standard.


Leonard T. Stick: A very low standard, too low for us. We want to see it improved.


Robert Henry Winters: Who said it was a low
standard?


Leonard T. Stick: One of my friends to my left.
We want to see our services improved, and we want to live within the terms of union. We would like to see a greater effort being made to carry out those terms of union. The Minister of Public Works, or whoever might hold that portfolio, has to listen to many complaints. But I think the complaints I am making, or the remarks I have been addressing to the committee, are quite justified in the light of circumstances which have developed within the last four years.
The minister paid us a short visit last fall and received a royal welcome. May I say to him, or to his staff, that he should make an extended visit to Newfoundland this summer so he could study the whole public works situation down there. I think he will find that some of the remarks I make tonight will be substantiated. If he were to come we would feel that we are not being neglected, and that an effort is being made to bring our public works at least up to the standard of those in the maritime provinces. If this happens, then under the terms of union our people will feel that they are getting somewhere at last. We are not ungrateful for what has been done, but we feel more should be done. We feel, too, that we are justified in asking for it, under the terms of union.
I do hope the minister will take these remarks into consideration. They are offered


in good spirit, in the hope that the situation in the city of St. John's and other places, so far as federal government agencies are concerned, will be rectified and that we will get the services we desire and which some of us think we deserve.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the minister, in commenting on the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer-


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member for Kootenay East is rising on a point of order?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes. It appears to me that with the Liberal party, the government party, having a majority in the house, if the practice is followed of allowing three speakers from that side of the house before one is allowed from this side, the situation becomes very difficult.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had better start over again so my remarks will be intelligible. This afternoon, commenting on the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer, the minister assured him that there had been no discrimination in the matter of erecting public buildings throughout the country generally, and particularly in Alberta. Unfortunately the figures showing the number of buildings erected out there hardly bear out the minister's contention.
I took the trouble to jot down the amount of money appropriated in the estimates for the past nine years so far as the cities of Calgary and Edmonton are concerned. I find that from 1947 to the present date the amount allocated for public buildings in the city of Calgary is $699,500 while the amount for the city of Edmonton is $6,485,000, a proportion of about ten to one.


Mr. Prudham:: A bigger city.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, that does not by any means tell the whole story, because you have to subtract from the amount of the estimates the amount of the revotes, and those have been very considerable. We have heard a good deal about them. So far as Calgary is concerned revotes amounted to $316,500, while for Edmonton they amounted to $2,218,000. If you subtract those figures from the amount of the original estimates you find that for Calgary the amount provided was $383,000 while for Edmonton it was $4,267,000.


An hon. Member:: Your story.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Somebody says that is just my story. Well, if you don't believe it, all

you have to do is take the book of estimates, which I did this afternoon, and jot down the figures, then add them up.
But that is not the whole story, because the total of $383,000 includes the $150,000 in this year's estimates. None of that has been spent up to this time. Then there is a further $100,000 which appeared just before the election in 1949, but which was dropped immediately afterward. So that the total amount spent in Calgary comes to $133,000. That is the total amount for public buildings in that city in the last nine years. I do not know the total amount spent in Edmonton, but from the fact that these sums were being revoted, showing that work was being done, I would judge that most of the amount voted for Edmonton has been actually spent.
These two cities are comparable in size, Edmonton having about 40,000 more population than Calgary. On the other hand Calgary pays considerably more in taxes than Edmonton, and its bank clearances are much higher. In other words a great deal more business is done in Calgary, and probably for that reason there is more need for government offices, particularly income tax offices and the like, which we would be very pleased to get rid of.
Nevertheless, as I have pointed out $133,000 is all that has been spent on public buildings in Calgary in the last nine years, while during the same period of time about $4 million was spent in Edmonton. This, of course, is subject to whatever deductions there may be for some of the items which were not spent. It is clear, however, that no comparison can be made between the amounts spent in these two cities.
Like the hon. member for Red Deer, I have been loath to think that the political complexion of any constituency would cause any difference in the amount of public building that might be carried on. However, the figures I have just placed before the committee indicate that there is something very smelly behind some woodshed, so far as federal buildings in Alberta are concerned. There has not been a fair distribution. The suspicions that I, in company with other people in Calgary, have had in connection with the erection of public buildings, and the possibility of political influence, were not at all allayed by the fact that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys came down to Calgary before the election and intimated to the people of that city that it would be very much in their own interests to elect Liberal members from Calgary, if they expected to get in on the pork barrel.
Supply-Public Works


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I at no time made such a statement in Calgary or anywhere else.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of course-


Mr. Dickey:: Were you at the meeting?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -I am not quoting the exact words of the minister, but that was the gist of what he had to say. Naturally he did not go out and say to the people of Calgary, "If you want to get in on the pork barrel, vote Liberal"; but his remarks meant that, and as a matter of fact-


George Prudham: Were you there?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -they resulted in two or three editorials being written, as I recall, in both Calgary papers, although one of them is Liberal, upbraiding the minister for trying to bribe the people of Calgary in this manner with their own money. I may say that this statement of the minister in Calgary in regard to this matter probably contributed materially to my returning here at this time.


John Horace Dickey: Why complain about it, then?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I complain about it because the thing is morally wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Brooks:: You would not understand that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The very mention of
morality causes the Minister of Fisheries to break into loud roars of laughter.


John Horace Dickey: He looks at the source.


Douglas Scott Harkness: His attitude in regard to politics apparently does not take morality into consideration from the word "go". However, a certain number of people in this country both in and out of politics think it is important.
Now, in addition to the fact that this sort of thing is wrong from that point of view, it is also completely unfair. It is unfair as far as the unemployment picture is concerned; it is unfair to the departments of the government which have not adequate or proper space to work in. In 1948 there was an estimate of $100,000 in the public works estimates to make a start on putting up a Department of Veterans Affairs building in Calgary. After the election of 1949, that estimate, having been there for two years, was dropped, or it disappeared, and nothing was ever done about putting up the building. The building has not yet been put up, and the Department of Veterans Affairs offices in Calgary are in three separate buildings. They are scattered about the city, which makes it extremely difficult for them

Supply-Public Works
to carry on business, and extremely awkward for people who have business to do with them, trotting from one building to another to see Department of Veterans Affairs officials. Nothing was done in regard to the matter after that election.
There is another vote of $150,000 which came up last year, and I see there is a revote of $150,000 this year. I am hoping the same thing will not happen to that $150,000 that happened to the $100,000 which was put in before the 1949 election; in other words, that after this year it will not be quietly dropped and we shall hear no more about it.


Mr. Rowe:: Until before another election.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of course the minister is
not responsible for what has gone on over the past nine years, but the government to which he belongs are responsible. They are the people who have been guilty of the discrimination which has taken place out there in regard to the erection of the building; they are the people who are guilty of not putting up this Department of Veterans Affairs building, and as a result inflicting inconvenience on the residents of Calgary and the people of all southern Alberta for many years.
The same thing applies to other government offices. A large number of them in the city of Calgary are scattered about in very inappropriate places, and nothing is ever done about erecting another building. The only building erected there in recent years was between the two elections, and that was a $20,000 weights and measures building, a little bit of a thing. That is all right in its own way, but that is all that has been erected there while those millions were being put into the constituency of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


George Prudham: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


George Prudham: Can the hon. gentleman tell me where that money has been spent in the city of Edmonton?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we would like to know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister does not know where the money has been spent I do not know why he should ask me, because I do not live in Edmonton. All I know is that it was voted and apparently it has been spent there, from what one can make out, on these various projects. One would need to go over the estimates, because there was a revote of a certain proportion of the

original vote in the, next year, which indicated that part of the work was done and a certain amount more was needed to complete it.


George Prudham: All we have is a hole for our public building.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, then, it is one of the
most expensive holes in history, I would say.


John Horace Dickey: Next joke, please.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has had the sum of $4 million poured into it.


William Earl Rowe: They will leave the hole for another election.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They must be trying to dig a hole to sink the city of Edmonton in. In any event, I join with several other hon. members who have spoken in the hope that things will be better in the Department of Public Works from now on. I trust the present minister will go ahead with this particular vote I have mentioned, and also that in deciding where future buildings are to be erected in the province of Alberta he will decide on the basis of the needs of the people there rather than, as apparently has been the case in the past, on the political complexion of the constituencies in the province.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I have three reasons for taking the floor at this time. My first reason is to express on behalf of the people I represent, as well as on my own behalf, our thanks to the minister and his staff for the public works that have been carried out in our province and in my own riding in particular in the past four years.
In this connection I should like to express my own personal appreciation of the sympathetic appreciation and co-operation which I have always received from his officials here in Ottawa, and particularly from his district architect, district engineer and their staffs at St. John's. These people in Newfoundland, as my colleague the hon. member for Trinity-Conception pointed out, are working under very great difficulties, under conditions that do not obtain elsewhere on the mainland, and very often they are working with insufficient staff. I am sure the minister is aware of these difficulties and that everything possible will be done to alleviate them.
My second reason arises out of some remarks made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra earlier this afternoon. My hon. friend drew attention to the small proportion of the vote for Newfoundland that had been spent by the architectural branch, and he suggested that it looked as though some padding had been done in that vote for

electioneering purposes. I can assure my hon. friend that such is not the case. If my hon. friend will look at page 439 of the estimates he will see that out of the 11 items listed under the architect's branch in Newfoundland, seven are revotes. Two of these are in my own riding, and I can assure my hon. friend that one of these revotes is necessary because some unexpected difficulties were encountered in the selection of a suitable site. The other revote was necessary because the plans for the building had not been completed in time to get the work started before winter conditions set in.
We cannot do very much with respect to choosing sites, but the bottleneck with respect to the drawing of plans is the result of the policy of the department of having all those plans drawn here in the head office at Ottawa. This bottleneck could be overcome if the district engineers were permitted to initiate plans and submit them for approval, and then go on and complete them in their own local offices. If this were done I know it would greatly expedite the completion of many of the public works which otherwise have to be carried over. I strongly recommend that for the minister's consideration.
I next would like to draw the attention of the minister to the need for more dredging equipment in Newfoundland. We have only one small dredge which is unsuitable for many of the dredging operations, and which cannot possibly cope with all those for which it is suitable. We really need a second larger and more powerful dredge, as well as some drag-line equipment for small harbours which the dredge cannot enter. I hope the minister will give consideration to these needs as soon as he can find it convenient to do so.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to follow the general argument which was presented this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer, because the particular projects which he brought to the attention of the minister as not being in this year's estimates are located partially in my constituency. We are greatly incensed over the fact that these particular projects were in last year's estimates and now, a year later, have disappeared. The minister gave as a reason for this that he did not feel it was right to place items in the estimates which they were not prepared to proceed with, and then went on to inform us in his amiable way that because they did not appear in the present estimates did not mean that they had been abandoned.
That sounds nice; that sounds lovely, to be told they have not been abandoned, but when they do not appear you can hardly
Supply-Public Works
tell people they have not been abandoned. That phrase can mean anything. We might ask if they are going to be gone ahead with and be told that they have not been abandoned, they may be in there next year or they may be in there five years from now. We are told that they have not been abandoned, and they may be in there 50 years from now or 100 years from now. To be told they have not been abandoned just does not mean anything. What it does mean is that it has been abandoned for this year, and that is what we do not like.
I can understand the desire of the minister to cut out a lot of deadwood from the estimates and not have items there just for the sake of putting them in. However, I would like to ask if there are any projects in the estimates this year which were not approved last year. Are there any public works to be erected in Alberta this year, which are in the estimates this year, which are new items and which were not previously approved? If so, then I think there is something wrong somewhere. I contend that the department is duty-bound to go ahead with projects which this parliament has approved before they enter upon any new projects. If they are going to do that we are just not going to know where we stand at all in respect to these things.
The hon. member for Red Deer pointed out that in last year's estimates there was a group of projects with which the minister was going forward to the extent of acquiring sites if money was available after the other work had been done.
I bring to the minister's attention one particular project in that group, the public building for the town of Claresholm. I met with representatives of the service clubs, the board of trade, the mayor and other responsible citizens, who called me by telephone and asked me to come and look over the situation. They said, "Mr. Hansell, as far as the site is concerned, we have one already". They showed me an admirable site, a corner lot on one of the main streets just a stone's throw from the busiest section of the town. There could not be a better site. They said, "We are prepared to give this to the federal government so they can get started". They offered it to the government, and the last I heard from the minister the papers were being drawn up by the legal branch and the government was taking over the site.
That was real progress, but what is the position now? The position is that the town has handed over a beautiful site to the dominion government, and there is nothing in the estimates to show that they are going

Supply-Public Works forward with the building. They are put back a year, and this government has the property. That is the situation now.
I think the minister should answer that question. While he is thinking about the answer to that I am going to ask him another one. I would like to know if he can give to this house, particularly for the benefit of some of the newer members, particulars of the procedure followed by the government in arriving at projects which they seem to think should have priority. I understand that in the case of public buildings which, generally speaking, involve the housing of post offices, the R.C.M.P. and other governmental agencies, the Post Office Department will submit a number of requests which are then blocked off into groups according to their importance, group A, group B, group C and so on. If that is not right, the minister can tell me.
If there is a priority list of that kind I should like to know if that list remains unchanged or do they say something like this. "Here is one item in group A. We will have to put that back in group B and take something from group C and put it up at the top." Does that ever happen? I cannot see that the situation would change so quickly as to cause that to happen, because these various communities are not changing as rapidly as that.
It seems to me that if there is a priority list, that list should not change very much. It might vary slightly, but not too much. Therefore if there is something in the estimates one year it is reasonable to suppose that if they do not go forward with it that year it will reappear the next year, because it would be that much further on toward the top of the list. I should like the minister to answer those questions for me.
I am not going to say too much about the political significance of these things. I think the government has acted pretty fairly with me and with my constituents except in the case of the group of projects we are now bringing to the minister's attention. They constitute a sore spot. What happened is simply this. They appeared in the estimates, they were approved by parliament, the community said they had a site which they would give to the government. Then there was an election. I am not going to say what happened, but they returned a Social Credit member and the following year the project was missing from the estimates.
That does not look good. We cannot very well go back to our constituents and say, "We hope you get it the year before the next election." That presents a rather embarrassing situation for some of us, and I do not think it can do anyone any good. In addition it is
[Mr. Hansell.l

embarrassing for the government, though I cannot say the government has been unfair as regards my own constituency. Even this year Edmonton received $2 million, which is quite a chunk out of the total of $3,600,000 which goes to Alberta as a whole. The remainder of that money has to be divided up among the other constituencies, and it is obvious my constituency gets a fair share, so I have no complaints to make.
I do not know anything about what the hon. member for Edmonton West did in the last election. I did not follow him around or listen to all he said. I had something else to do. My leader points out that I could not stand it in any case. Nevertheless, in a general election campaign we know something of what is said, because people are going around the different political meetings. I do know for a fact that my opponent said, 'The reason you have not got a public building in this community"-this does not apply to Claresholm but it does apply to two or three other places-"is because you have not been voting Liberal." That was said, but it did not go down with the people. They do not swallow that sort of thing, because it will be noted that I am here and the poor old gentleman who said that lost his deposit. But that sort of thing is pretty low campaigning. I do not believe the minister would agree with that sort of thing, and I would like to think that the Liberal party would not stoop to that low form of campaigning.
I believe the minister should close those mouths tonight and say, "No, sir, we do not agree with that", so that the next time that sort of thing is said we will have the minister's word to the effect that these public works projects are not going to be administered on the basis of whether the government gets support from here, there or somewhere else. If he will make a declaration to that effect it will settle the problem.
Once again I wish to emphasize that I personally have no complaints to make, but I do believe some of these two-by-four politicians going around should raise their sights a little bit and carry on their campaigns not on the basis of pork barrel politics or handouts, but on the basis of great principles. Of course if they have no principles they cannot talk about them, and perhaps that is the reason. Perhaps they do not know of any, but surely we can raise our sights in political campaigns and tell what we stand for and what we propose to do.
I do not wish to say any more, Mr. Chairman, except to ask the minister this question, and I hope we will get a straightforward answer and not the reply that some of these

projects are merely being held over. My question is this. Will he tell us whether there are any new projects which are taking priority over projects which have already been approved by parliament?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Kootenay East.


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if the hon. member for Kootenay East would permit me to answer the specific question asked by the hon. member for Macleod. I can give a specific answer. There are no new projects in the estimates for this year concerning the province of Alberta which have taken priority over projects which were approved in the estimates for last year.
As to the charge, implied or direct, that these projects are determined on the basis of politics, I wonder if the hon. member has, for example, consulted the hon. member for Bow River, or the hon. member for Lethbridge, and asked them if they are in agreement as to whether we have ever determined these projects on the basis of the local candidate's ability to get votes. I believe it will be concluded that we have been fair in our approach to this problem. The hon. member for Red Deer, speaking last night, reminded the house that one of the projects which was dropped was in the constituency of my good friend the hon. member for Athabaska.
As a matter of fact I might tell the committee that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has just reminded me that one project in his constituency has been dropped.


An hon. Member:: Is that the post office at Lemberg?


Robert Henry Winters: I have forgotten the name. We have been trying to work in conformity with the general policy enunciated. Many hon. members this afternoon and this evening have said that this is a good policy. I believe every hon. member in this house believes it is a good policy, and it will doubtless be regarded as a good policy as long as it does not adversely affect any particular hon. member. But when it does affect a particular hon. member adversely he feels it is not a good policy but rather is based on political partisanship. That is not the way these projects are administered, and all hon. members will realize that once we have an opportunity of dealing with some of these revotes, and actually starting the construction of these buildings and clarifying the estimates, then we can deal with new votes for new projects.
The hon. member for Greenwood spoke about the organization of the department, 83276-188|
Supply-Public Works
and asked what I had done about looking into this situation, and whether I was satisfied with the increase in personnel. He had several other questions relating to administration. I am sure he knows that most of the-increases shown in the estimates were authorized before I came to the Department of Public Works. Indeed, very few have beem authorized since that date. The only substantial recent increases are caused by the transfer of personnel from the Department of Resources and Development in the trans-Canada highway division, and personnel related to some of the other functions which were transferred.
The senior officials of the department and I have been going over various sections of the department very carefully. I have endeavoured to get around the department and speak to all individuals myself. I know the deputy minister has done more than I in that particular field. We recently assembled in Ottawa the chief district personnel of the department-engineers and architects-to discuss with them the whole range of problems with respect to the operation of the department within the scope of their jurisdiction to see how we can make the department more effective, and to what extent we can delegate operations from the headquarters here at Ottawa so as to clear bottlenecks.
As regards the question of whether we have brought in outside management consultants to survey the activities of the department, my answer to that is no. We are endeavouring to get this department into the condition we want it, and that will take us some time. At the moment I have no plans for seeking that sort of outside help.
The hon. member for Kootenay West made his usual good suggestions about decentralization, and I must say I have some of these very points in mind. I believe there should be some decentralization of the operations of the Department of Public Works, and we have already taken some steps in that direction. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo also dealt with the same point. I thank him for his suggestions. I think that covers the points I have before me at the moment. If there are any others I shall deal with them later.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister takes his seat, may I ask him to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert? I refer to the Lunam Construction Company matter.


Robert Henry Winters: As to the Lunam Construction Company, I may say that we have been engaged in trying to satisfy the claims of the

Supply-Public Works
subcontractors in so far as there is money available for that purpose, and depending upon whether or not they themselves can get together and determine the quantum and validity of their own claims in relation to each other. That is being done at the present moment, and I hope that before too long we will be able to pay to the valid subcontractors the moneys remaining in the hands of the crown for that purpose.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I must apologize to the Chair for my impetuousness, but I wanted to follow my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West. I wanted to do so, first, because I want to say how highly pleased I am to see him so fit after his serious illness. As he will realize, he is my neighbour. My second reason was that I wished to associate myself with his high praise of the departmental officials and the ministry in general for the efficient manner in which they have handled public works affairs.
There is another matter, however, that I feel is important at this time, having regard to the objections of the other provinces, particularly Alberta, to the absence of large appropriations for their various projects. There is one thing I should like to point out in regard to the matter of unemployment at the present time. It is my opinion-perhaps it is not shared by everyone-that public works at this time in the form of necessary projects would do a great deal to alleviate the bad situation that exists in British Columbia. I have formed the opinion recently that, in relation to all of Canada, the figure in British Columbia in the matter of unemployment is 65 per cent higher than that of the over-all picture.
With that fact in mind, while there is a substantial appropriation for public works in the matter of acquisition and construction of public buildings and so forth, for the trans-Canada highway and other projects, nevertheless I would hope that before the supplementary estimates come down the cabinet would give this matter serious consideration, and that certainly the estimates of the Minister of Public Works would be given careful consideration. I am sure Alberta is not suffering as greatly as is British Columbia in the unemployment situation. Alberta is predominantly a farming and oil province, and there is no recession in that regard.
This afternoon something extremely interesting was raised with regard to the question of whether or not there is favouritism in the matter of public works. I do not think there is, even if the province of Alberta does fall $1 million below British Columbia-I believe the :figure is about $800,000-in this one item that

I am looking at, namely the acquisition and construction of public buildings. In that one item they lack only about $800,000 in order to equal the appropriation for British Columbia. On the other hand the hon. member for Macleod, in an earlier address, pointed out that British Columbia pays to the federal treasury $239 million in round figures, or $45 million more than the total collected from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. With that fact in mind it is not a large figure by which we exceed their appropriation.
The hon. member indicated that there was some favouritism, or that he felt there was going to be favouritism, because of the fact that when he went home for the election they were singing some sort of song there. I have not the exact words but I believe they went something like this-


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Do you want some music?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -"With Shaw, no public buildings; without Shaw, a federal building". I do not know what the tune was. Perhaps "Home on the Range" would work in nicely. Perhaps it would have had more effect had they been using that tune. On the other hand, I had a highly interesting experience in British Columbia. For some unknown reason my supporters felt that I was not too much needed in my riding, and they sent me into the interior to support a Liberal in another riding. It happened to be a riding held by a member of the C.C.F. party. This, by the way, is in relation to whether or not there is favouritism, or whether the members on either side of the house should feel there is favouritism.
I had made what I thought was a good speech. I do not know whether the audience thought so or not. However, I had given a good account of what the Liberal party had done in the past number of years. I did not say in any way that they had constructed buildings here or there; I gave the over-all picture and did not become parochial in any way. After I sat down one of the gentlemen in the back of the hall stood up and said, "Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the speaker a question". I said, "Yes?" He said, "The C.C.F. candidate has been going about this riding saying, 'Don't be foolish; don't send a Liberal down there; send one from the opposition'. He had in mind the C.C.F. He said they are the only ones who can really get anything out of the government".
That is the other side of the picture. Whether it is politics or not, certainly I felt that he hit well below the belt. My answer was that that certainly was not so, and that

when a really progressive member of parliament put his case before the government he received the same treatment regardless of whether he belonged to one party or the other. I think it is pretty generally the feeling on the other side of the house that this government is treating all projects with reference to public works, transport or anything else, absolutely on a non-political basis and only on their worth.


George Prudham: Some of the hon. members from Alberta have insinuated that there is not fair treatment in the allocation of public works. The Minister of Public Works has effectively answered that charge. They also made some insinuations. The hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Macleod suggested that during the recent campaign questionable methods were used to get political support.
In that inference I completely agree with the hon. member for Macleod. I would say that there were some extravagant statements made in Peace River by the hon. member who presently represents that constituency. I did not take hearsay for it but procured from the radio station a copy of the script of one of his speeches. I am sorry I do not have it with me tonight, but part of his speech was to this effect. "You do not have to send a Liberal to Ottawa to get public works. Look at your constituency. I got you a new public building. I got you $600,000 for the airport. Look at the two Liberal constituencies, one on either side. They got nothing. If you want public works, send me to Ottawa."
Now, if that is what the hon. member for Macleod means when he says two-by-four politicians go around using questionable means to win political support, I completely agree with him.


Mr. Nicholson:: After listening to the
interesting remarks just made by the minister I probably will not have very much to say. I should like to express my appreciation of the vote in the estimates which will enable Mackenzie to have our first federal public building in the near future. 1 am sure there are very few members in this house who have not within their constituencies at least one public federal building. My remarks last night might have conveyed the impression that Mackenzie is a God-forsaken part of the world, but it is not. It so happens the constituency is spread over a large area, and about 50,000 people live there. We produce large quantities of grain, timber, minerals and fur.
Mackenzie did have a public building at one time, back in 1874. The first government
Supply-Public Works
buildings in the Northwest Territories were built at Fort Livingstone in my constituency. Then, as now, there were people who were critical of the government's extravagance. "The buildings were erected at a huge cost, but were of flimsy and unsubstantial character, built of lumber and hewn logs." Hon. members might be interested in the huge costs-$5,600. There was to have been a divisional point at Fort Livingstone on the C.P.R. running from Winnipeg to Edmonton over the northern route, which would have been a much better route for the first transcontinental railway, in my opinion.
For some reason or other the Canadian Pacific's plans were changed and the railway went miles to the south, through a much more desolate part of the country. Consequently the government buildings were moved from Fort Livingstone. At that time Mackenzie did boast a public building, but now there is not a single federal public building in the constituency.
I must thank the minister for looking after Kelvington. I hope it was an oversight that resulted in Carrot River, which I understand had been included a year ago, being overlooked this year. I hope that when the supplementary estimates are brought down the minister will take care of that oversight. I might say that I have had several letters from the town clerk, and also I have had some photographs sent along which I shall send to the minister. I would appreciate it if he would keep them until the new public building is erected. Then we shall be able to compare the pictures of the old with the new. I have letters from the secretary of the Carrot River board of trade, and from the minister's colleague, the Postmaster General. The latter wrote me on February 5 as follows:
We have reason to believe that the Department of Public Works may be considering the erection of a public building in which the post office and other government departments would be located.
The present accommodation is not satisfactory, and is being leased by the Department of Public Works only on a monthly basis.
As a result of previous representations and the evident need for improvement, this department is urging the Department of Public Works to provide improved postal accommodation in accordance with our policy for offices in this class.
I might say that Carrot River is the end of steel. If the Minister of Agriculture were here I am sure he would agree with me that it is a very important centre in one of the last frontiers of prairie settlement.
I have been interested to note that there has been a change in government policy since I was here from 1940 to 1949. At that time there were a great many requests from communities for public buildings, and naturally I referred those requests to the proper departments. The replies were that because
2970	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
ol the war and the necessity for channelling all our efforts into the war effort, we could not build public buildings. Later the policy seemed to be that if the total revenue of the post office was less than $10,000, neither the Post Office Department nor the Department of Public Works would recommend a public building.
This afternoon, while waiting to make these remarks, I have gone through the annual reports of the Minister of Public Works for the years 1951 and 1952. I have noticed that for Yorkton there has been a very large appropriation of $800,000 for an addition to the very fine post office. Centres like Regina and Saskatoon have been getting generous consideration. I think there should be something said for these rural communities that have not any finer type of architecture than the country elevator. I feel that under the new concept of the minister, some of these small communities should have an example of what can be done by a little imagination.
I notice some progress has been made. I was checking over the constituency of Melville, where the minister indicated they are passing up one building. All these places I am about to mention are much smaller than Carrot River. The revenue from the Carrot River post office is $8,508. These places I am going to mention have had public buildings, according to the minister's reports. Lemberg, with a post office revenue of $4,810, has had a new building. Ituna, with a revenue of $5,354, had a new building costing something over $30,000. Fort Qu'Appelle with a revenue of $8,000 had several buildings, the contracts for which were awarded to the Lunam Construction Company. There was a contract for the construction of a public building, $129,000; an Indian hospital for $318,000; a sewage disposal plant for $19,000. Then Balcarres, with a post office revenue of $7,005, apparently had a new building. Lang-enburg, with a revenue of $8,277, had a new public building constructed by the Lunam Construction Company at a cost of $84,000. Saltcoats, with a revenue of $5,676, must have a very modest building because the cost is shown at $75.74.
I would suggest that since the constituency of Melville has been able to get public buildings for centres like Lemberg, Ituna, Fort Qu'Appelle, Balcarres and Langenburg, it is not unreasonable to expect a building in Carrot River. It is not unreasonable to expect that the commitment made a year ago for a new office building should be proceeded with, and that when the supplementary estimates come down before Easter this oversight will have been corrected.


These public buildings serve two purposes. They handle Her Majesty's mail, and they house the representatives of the R.C.M.P. I submit that if Her Majesty should visit the post offices in Mackenzie constituency she would decide that they must have been built in keeping with the times of her great-greatgrandmother, Queen Victoria, because there have not been appropriations that would make it possible for the people in these rural communities to have the public buildings which are taken for granted in the larger cities. I know the Post Office Department has taken the position that the large cities provide the revenue, but in the final analysis the taxpayers of all Canada provide the money for these wonderful public buildings that are being erected in nearly all Canadian cities.
I hope the minister and his staff will give a new look to this department. I want to endorse what has been said by hon. members in all parts of the house, that we have a great deal of confidence in the imagination and the ability of the minister and his staff. And so I hope in the years to come there will be worth-while appropriations for rural constituencies such as Mackenzie where, in the past, we have not been able to get many public buildings.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, for the first time since I have the honour of sitting in this house, I have before me the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955. When I saw that the Department of Public Works intended to spend $130 million and a few hundred thousand dollars during the coming year, I asked myself for what purpose the government was requesting parliament to vote such a large amount. I came to the conclusion that the government had the duty of providing the Canadian nation with the numerous public services needed to ensure its expansion, development and progress. And secondly-this seems quite important to me- a public works program gives work to those who must provide for a wife and children.
Mr. Chairman, I note with regret that the amount earmarked for public works in Quebec city-I have the honour of representing one of its constituencies-is but $225,000. When I say $225,000 I am being generous because that amount includes $125,000 which is a revote from last year, the money not having been spent.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and of the government the fact that the citizens of Quebec city are probably those who are most affected by the unemployment situation now prevailing in Canada.

On November 23 last, I had the honour of making the first speech of my political career in this house. At that time, as will be seen from page 231 of Hansard for that day, I spoke of the working classes I represent in this house. Mr. Chairman, may I quote to the hon. members a few excerpts from that speech which, in my opinion, are quite relevant to the remarks I wish to make tonight. I stated, Mr. Chairman, that:
However honest and generous they may be, our working people must not nevertheless consider themselves as forming an inferior class. It is as honourable as any other class of society. Our workingmen are legitimately proud of what they are. They rely upon their elected representatives to give voice to their legitimate representations.
(Text):


Mr. Bourget:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the hon. member is talking about unemployment, and in the circumstances he is out of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the hon. member for Levis-


Maurice Bourget: I am speaking to a point of order.


The Deputy Chairman:: I understand the hon. member is discussing the question of unemployment in its relationship to the public works program of this country. In so far as he refers to it with a direct relationship to public works, undoubtedly he is in order. But perhaps he will do his best to see that his remarks are strictly applicable to the Department of Public Works, because he will realize that unemployment has been discussed, and a decision made by the house. I would thank the hon. member to keep in mind that it is not possible for me to check too closely because of the language in which he speaks. So I know I can depend upon his help.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I thank you for your observations, Mr. Chairman. I want to discuss public works, and in doing so I wish to claim public works for the city of Quebec. I would point out at the same time that I am asking for public works in that city because there is unemployment. In speaking in my mother tongue, Mr. Chairman, I shall do my best to have you understand me by speaking as slowly as possible.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I was saying that there is at present acute unemployment in the city of Quebec and that it is the duty of the state to put an end to it by undertaking the necessary public works.
Supply-Public Works In the speech I delivered on November 23 last and to which I again refer, I added:
The workingman, Mr. Speaker, is entitled to the gratitude of the government. To his ability, competence and love of work we owe almost everything that strikes our eye. His rugged hands are evidence and confirmation of the long hours he has toiled in his shop or in the yard, under the burden of his tools. The honest and conscientious worker- and those traits are typical of the worker living in the constituency of Quebec West-is the builder of the nation and it is our duty to recognize that fact.
Mr. Chairman, on the same occasion, and I intend to do it again tonight, I asked the government to undertake in Quebec urgent and necessary public works that were needed and that the government may not disregard any longer today. I ask and I demand as strongly as I can that the St. Charles river be dredged and that the pollution of the Lairet river be eliminated. That is a knotty problem, not for the constituency I represent, but more particularly for the constituency of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) since these two rivers happen to be in his constituency where, I repeat, they are not only a disgrace for the city of Quebec, the capital of the province of Quebec, but they are also a source of infection for its citizens. I am at a loss to understand why a self-styled Liberal government should not pay more attention to these people. After all they have regularly obtained from them expressions of what I might make so bold as to call blind confidence. If my hon. friends now find themselves sitting on the opposite side of the house, the citizens of Quebec are the ones primarily responsible. Is that the way in which the Liberal government chose to show its gratitude? In that case may I ask them quite simply to stop this joking at the expense of the people of Quebec and to proceed with those works which are needed to cure this unemployment situation.
When the public works estimates are considered, I shall have the opportunity of referring again to the same subject. Tonight I merely wanted to speak on behalf of the province of Quebec and ask what I already asked on November 23 last, when the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was here, that the people of the province of Quebec should get what is needed in that province. This has become a necessity. Both rivers to which I referred a moment ago are a danger to public safety, especially to public health, and I feel that our human resources must be protected if we want Canada to remain great and continue along the path to prosperity.
I read in the newspapers this week a statement which seems to me utterly fanciful; it was reportedly made by the Right Hon. the

Supply-Public Works
Prime Minister in Seoul, Korea, while addressing Canadian troops. He said: "Just wait for maple syrup time, spring is just around the corner. You will then be able to come back to Canada and find all the work you need".
Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that statement by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister is quite untimely for the good reason that, as we know, there are at present in Canada and more particularly in the province of Quebec, works that should be undertaken and which the government refuses to give us although they are needed. Well, Mr. Chairman ... I see that my hon. friend from Saguenay (Mr. Brisson) seems to be having fun behind the curtains.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: It is rather funny.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I know that work has been done in Saguenay county. I have asked some questions and requested documents which I obtained. I shall say a word about them to the hon. member later on. I know that there have been a few little scandals when certain public works were undertaken in Saguenay county-


An hon. Member:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: One is always out of order when speaking about the scandals of our hon. friends opposite.
Does the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) wish to say something? He seems to want to rise.
(Text):


Mr. Boisvert:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Quebec West-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is this a point of order?


Maurice Boisvert: -has been out of order for the last five minutes. He is talking about a declaration made by the Prime Minister in Korea, and he has just been speaking about some development in the lake St. John district. It has nothing to do with the item under discussion.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If it is not a point of order-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. As the committee knows, the Clerk of the House is conversant with the language in which the hon. member for Quebec West is speaking, and I have been kept advised as to the tenor of his remarks. It is my opinion that while under a strict application of the rules of order one might say that at times he strayed into other fields, I feel bound to say that I believe the hon. member is as strictly on the subject we are discussing as have been many
(Mr. Dufresne.]
of the allusions made in various addresses from both sides of the house during the day. I suggest that the hon. member, who knows the rules, continue his remarks and keep the rules in mind.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Translation):
I do not want to delay the proceedings of the house any longer. I know that the house will have to adjourn in three or four minutes from now.
However, I would like to ask once more the government and the minister, for whom I have much respect-and I think he does everything possible to run his department properly-to act as spokesman for the people of Quebec in order to obtain for the families of the city of Quebec the work they need. I ask the minister to urge the cabinet and, more particularly, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, when he returns, to undertake for the benefit of the people of the city of Quebec certain projects which not only are necessary but urgently needed. The carrying out of these projects will contribute to the development of the city of Quebec and, especially, to the conservation of its human resources.
It is difficult for me to understand, as I said before, why the city of Quebec, which has always been blind in its trust of the party opposite, gets so little from the government. They vote Liberal in Quebec and the government knows that the people of Quebec will continue voting Liberal, yet the representations made by the people of Quebec are laughed at. Well, there is an old English saying that goes like this:
(Text):
We can fool some of the people some of the time but we cannot fool all of the people all of the time.


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The people of Quebec will surely remember that.


André Gauthier: Think of that at the next election.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend asks me to think of that when the next election comes. Mr. Chairman, I am not thinking of the next election but only of my duty here. I ask all of my hon. friends

opposite to visit my riding during the next election. The people of Quebec West will let them know if their representative has done his duty or not.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: With pleasure.
(Text):
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take the Criminal Code, beginning with a statement of those items that were stood by consent as they were placed on the record yesterday by the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2975
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 15, 1954