1955-07-01

[Stage Direction]
88th anniversary of confederation
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are all conscious that today is the 88th anniversary of the birthday of the Canadian confederation, and we are also conscious that, by chapter 88 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, it is a legal holiday to be observed as such throughout Canada under the name of Dominion day. It was also the same situation in 1947 and in 1952 when this house happened to be in session on the 1st of July. I should like to suggest that we follow the precedent that was set on those occasions, and before entering upon the continuation of our legislative duties, we stand and sing together "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen".
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
O Canada and
Cod Save the Queen.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.- Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).
Ninth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: May I
remind the house that July 1 is also the birthday of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir). Although no one likes to be told that another year has been added to his life, I thought because of my close association with him that I could not let this day go by without expressing my best wishes for long life and good health to my colleague. I am positive that all hon. members, to whatever party they may belong, who have been in contact and association with him since he has been here, will join in wishing him the best of everything for years to come. 50433-350}
Before coming to this house he was directly interested in the welfare of the farmers. I would not want to be indiscreet, but I cannot close my remarks without mentioning that in a few weeks he will have given 25 years of his life for the benefit of his constituents and in an effort to make the best contribution he can to furthering the business of this house. I am sure that somewhere in Manitoba a venerable old lady, his mother, is expressing to her son the same wishes, but in a more tender way.
I want also to remind the house that the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Purdy) is also celebrating his birthday. Let us join in wishing him good health and many many years to come.


Mr. Speaker:: May I on behalf of all hon_ members wish a most happy birthday to those hon. members who chose to be born on July 1.



INQUIRY AS TO COST OF EACH SITTING DAY

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Earlier this week the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) inquired as to the daily cost of parliament. It is not possible to give a precise answer without making certain assumptions; that is, whether or not the salaries of members of parliament and the indemnity paid to them can be considered as a sessional cost; but I should like to table a breakdown of the cost during the last fiscal year of all the cost that may be attributed to parliament, showing a total cost of something in the order of $5,070,235, which works out to about $17,377 per day.


Mr. Fleming:: Is this to be treated as an intimation that parliament should go home before it has fully discharged its sessional duties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Drew:: May I ask a supplementary question with regard to this? Has the computation been arranged in such a way that it would be possible to tell the amount of this money that could appropriately be allocated to the operation of the House of Commons and the part that could appropriately be allocated to the cost of the Senate?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. But I have set out several details.

Committee on Sales Tax I do not have the data which has been omitted, and, as I indicated, it is a matter of opinion as to whether certain costs should be included in the total sessional cost.



TAXATION


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and I wish to inform the house that the small committee to review and advise upon certain technical questions relating to the administration of the sales tax, to which I referred in my budget speech, has now been appointed. The members of the committee will be Mr. K. Le M. Carter, C.A., of Toronto; Mr. Raymond Dupuis, Q.C., of Montreal; and Mr. A. E. McGilvray, of Oshawa.
Mr. Carter is a well known chartered accountant and a past president of the Canadian tax foundation. Mr. Dupuis is both a lawyer and a leading figure in Canadian retail trade and the financial world. Mr. McGilvray is an industrialist and a senior officer of General Motors of Canada.
The terms of reference of this committee are as follows:
1.	To examine the problem arising under sales and excise taxes where manufacturers sell to customers at different levels in the marketing process and to make recommendations for a definition of a tax base or statutory method of administrative practice designed to equalize approximately the tax payable on goods of like value.
2.	To examine the question of appeals from taxes imposed under the Excise Tax Act and make recommendations with regard thereto.
3.	To examine the problem arising under sales and excise taxes with regard to the tax payable by importers of goods and that payable to manufacturers in Canada of goods of like value when sold to customers at different levels in the marketing process and to make recommendations with regard thereto.
4.	To examine the system of exemptions for goods based upon the use of such goods and recommend any changes which may achieve greater simplicity and certainty without substantial loss of revenue.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, at first hearing it is hard to assess the full extent of such a statement, but I take it the intention is that this committee shall deal with the problem in its broad aspects.


Walter Edward Harris: Right.
IMr. Harris.]
lLater:l
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his announcement a few moments ago of the setting up of a committee to examine into the application of sales and excise taxes. I noticed that the people he mentioned were an accountant, an industrialist and a manufacturer, all from the central provinces; two from Ontario and one from Quebec. Has any consideration been given to representation on that committee of the people who pay the taxes generally? I suggest that at least a representative of the two congresses of labour should be added to that committee.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we did not give consideration, except in a fleeting way, to the suggestion for the reason that the purpose of the committee is to study the technical application of the administration of the present act. It is to improve the administration of what is being done. On the other hand, whether or not a sales tax ought to be paid, and who should pay it, is a matter for the government and parliament to decide.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance how long it is expected that the committee will sit in dealing with the problem that has been referred to it with reference to the sales tax?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I hope they will do their work as expeditiously as possible, but I have no time set for the completion of their labours. They are three gentlemen quite competent to do what should be done and to do it, I think, reasonably soon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it the minister's understanding that, whatever their recommendations may be, they will require legislative action, and that an act of parliament will be required to implement them?


Walter Edward Harris: I presume there are regulations which can be changed, but subject to that it would be a matter for parliament.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be appropriate to have noted on Hansard a very significant incident that occurred yesterday afternoon in the course of a meeting of the joint committee on the library of parliament. His Excellency the High Commissioner for

the United Kingdom presented to the committee a beautiful album which constitutes a pictorial record of the history of Earnscliffe.
The album was formally accepted by resolution by the joint committee expressing the gratification of the committee at this presentation. But I think it would be appropriate that it be noted on Hansard that this kind and, I think, very useful initiative was taken by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, who has not only had a very interesting collection of photographs bound together for this album, but is having prepared by a very competent young historian the written story of Earnscliffe from its origin up to the present time. That is now in the hands of the printers and will be available to the Canadian public at an early date.
I should like to couple this notation on Hansard of this gesture of the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom with my own hope that his example will be followed by us here. It is perhaps still early in the history of the nation, but not too early, to commence to have the records of other historic buildings in the capital city and perhaps elsewhere written and kept so that the future birthdays of the Canadian nation will be celebrated by our successors with some accurate knowledge of the monuments or physical marks that are connected with the interesting events of Canadian history.
I am glad to acquaint the house with the fact that, though I have not had the approval of the treasury board, the leaders of the other groups, when I made that suggestion, agreed that, if an appropriation were provided for such work on behalf of the Canadian public, it would not be apt to meet with much opposition in this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as Leader of the Opposition I am very happy to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in regard to the extremely interesting event which occurred yesterday in the chambers where Your Honour arranged for the acceptance of this historic book for the library committee of parliament. It seems peculiarly appropriate that this event should coincide with the 88th anniversary of confederation and the beginning of this nation as one united country. It is fitting that it should remind us on Dominion day of the long history that has been associated with this community, although still part of the history of a still youthful country.
Naturally in those 100 years there have been many people who have occupied that fine old stone building. To those who like to think of the men and women who play
1. 1955	5553
Presentation of "Earnscliffe" Album their part in public affairs as human beings, it is interesting to be able to see the photographs of the daily life of people who have occupied that historic home. Naturally, in the minds of all of us it is associated with the period when it was occupied by the first prime minister of Canada, namely Sir John Macdonald. I would not claim any special or selective interest in that respect on the part of the Conservative party. I recognize that Sir John Macdonald is part of Canadian history and that in the steps which he undoubtedly guided with such great skill and such devotion, he was nevertheless at all times assisted by the co-operation of those of other political opinions who saw before them the vision of a united nation north of the boundary of the United States.
Naturally, for many of us there are sentimental associations with the traditions of Sir John Macdonald. I feel sure that if Sir John had been able to declare his own wish, having regard to all the expressions of opinion in his long life, there would have been no purpose that he would have been more likely to choose as the appropriate purpose for which that home was to be used than as the home of the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom here in Canada. I perhaps would not be in any way irrelevant or irreverent if I suggested that perhaps in spirit Sir John might find companionship in many of the attractive occasions that some of us have shared within that home in recent years. To us it must be a source of satisfaction that in this home situated on the Ottawa river, in a part of the city where so many buildings devoted to activities of the state are located, we should have seen a succession of outstanding representatives of the United Kingdom here in Canada.
I feel that we are indebted to Sir Archibald Nye for the presentation of something which will not only be of historic value to all of us and to all Canadians but which offers a suggestion as to a useful way in which ancient buildings can be brought to life and the daily habits of the people who live there portrayed for succeeding generations. After all, their life and their daily habits are part of the web of our history. I think it will be a splendid thing if, from this suggestion, there grows a more general custom of commemorating in permanent form traditions of this kind. May I simply add to what the Prime Minister has said that, for such amount as may appropriately be required to support any research of this kind in connection with those buildings that are of historic interest in this country, I am sure he will find unanimous support on the part of all members of the house and the very hearty approval of the opposition in such an endeavour.

Presentation of "Earnscliffe" Album


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add just a word because I am thoroughly in agreement with all that has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). Sir John Macdonald belongs to the history of Canada not as the leader of a particular party but as one who helped to lay the foundations of our nation. I think no more fitting memorial could be made to him than the preservation in pictorial form, as we saw it yesterday, of the century-old life surrounding the house which he occupied during his period of great distinction. After all, we pass this way once and are mostly soon forgotten. We hang a picture of Sir John Macdonald in the vicinity of a private entrance to the building and strangers and young Canadians ask who he is. We have a monument of him on parliament hill. People look at it and sometimes say, "What did he do?"
It seems to me that the preservation of a home, a house, particularly if the original furnishings can also be preserved, is a better memorial than a picture or a monument. When I visited Stratford in England I saw Anne Hathaway's house with its furnishings, most of which have been in the Hathaway family for generations. Then there are the baronial buildings in Britain or on the continent associated with the lives of many important persons. I think the preservation of this house as the home of future high commissioners for the United Kingdom, and with its history in our own library, is indeed a very fitting memorial. I join the Leader of the Opposition in saying that if further research is done on Rideau Hall, Laurier House-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Or on the parliament buildings.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes-or some of the other interesting buildings, whether in Ottawa, Quebec, Winnipeg, Halifax, St. John's or Victoria, I shall be very happy to support any appropriation, within reason, that may be necessary to that end.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we would like to be associated with what has been said in connection with this very interesting presentation made by Sir Archibald Nye. I was not able to be present at the ceremony, for which I feel somewhat sorry because I would have liked to join with others on that occasion. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will be able to persuade the treasury board that an appropriation should be made for the purpose of preserving the history of our very interesting

buildings and monuments and that the results will be collected in the library of parliament. We give our support to the project wholeheartedly.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is unanimous consent to have printed in Hansard the proceedings yesterday of the special meeting of the library committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THURSDAY, JUNE

[Stage Direction]
30th, 1955, at 4.30 p.m. for the purpose

[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1955, 4.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Gentlemen, the committee will
kindly come to order.
As you will have observed in the notices which have been sent to you, we are gathered here at this time for the purpose of formally submitting for your approval the acceptance of an album of photographs illustrating the history of "Earnscliffe", to be presented by His Excellency Sir Archibald Nye.
I must confess to you that when we were informed of this proposal, the Acting Speaker of the Senate, Senator Beaubien, and myself enthusiastically accepted the offer of the album. But the offer is made to the library of parliament which is under the jurisdiction of a joint committee of both houses, and we felt that for the occasion we would call a special meeting, because we believed that the kind and thoughtful gesture of Sir Archibald Nye should be properly recorded in our minutes.
I have also invited, for the occasion, the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the leaders of the other two parties in the Commons, Senator Godbout, representing the leader of the government in the Senate, and I understand that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate will be here shortly.
Now, gentlemen, without any further remarks on my part, I introduce to you His Excellency the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada, Sir Archibald Nye.


Sir Archibald Nye:: Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, may I just say briefly that it was 25 years ago when the government of the United Kingdom acquired "Earnscliffe" as the residence, and in the first instance the office, of the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom who had just been appointed.
We were aware at the time that it was a very historic residence, so much so that the high commissioner of the day was instructed from London that before he went ahead with the purchase he should go to the prime minister of Canada and say that we were proposing to buy this house, but that if the Canadian government themselves wished to buy the house either as a residence for the prime minister or for any other purpose, we would withdraw from the transaction and give priority to the government of Canada.

The prime minister of the day, having considered the matter, very kindly said that the government of Canada did not wish to enter into any negotiations for the house, and that left us free to buy it, which we did, and it has been the residence of the High Commissioner ever since.
You will see that we have been conscious from the very first of the fact that we were occupying what I think might properly be called an historic monument in Canada, and we have been conscious, therefore, that there was a duty and responsibility upon us to try and maintain this residence in the state which we feel is appropriate to its history.
I found when I came here that there was no very adequate history of this house. We all know that Sir John A. Macdonald, who was the first prime minister of Canada and the father of confederation had occupied this house, that he had lived there, and that he had died there; but we did not know very much more about it. So I asked one of my officers, Mr. Reddaway, who is here today, if he would, in his spare time and during his leisure, write for us the history of "Earnscliffe".
I was not aware at the time that his father was an historian and that he had an interest in history in his blood, so to speak, and that he had also, so to speak, the nose of a foxhound in nosing out anything of interest.
He has spent an enormous proportion of his leisure-I hope only his leisure-at work on this history of "Earnscliffe", and he has produced two things: one is a written history which is being printed in England now, and which will shortly be available, and the other is a history of "Earnscliffe" in pictures.
We have made an endeavour not merely to give the book character, but to try to bring it to life by giving the story of the people who lived there, with pictures of them, what sort of people they were, and what were their interests and their activities.
It is for other people to judge, but if I may say so, it seems to me that something of extreme interest in our modern active world of a pattern during the last 100 years has emerged as a result. And I felt that since 100 years had passed, this was an appropriate time to do it. I was not unaware of what event is celebrated tomorrow, and I thought this might be a suitable occasion to ask you if you would accept it.
I have already said that Mr. Reddaway did all this work, but wherever he went he found willing helpers. People came more than half-way to meet him and to give whatever information they could. People in every government department; people too numerous for me to mention individually were largely responsible for producing the information on which this is based. A very large number of private residents also came forward with their recollections. It was only in this way that we were able to compile this history.
I felt that since this was so largely concerned with Sir John A. Macdonald and a part of his private life it seemed only appropriate that parliament should have a copy of this very restricted issue of pictures, and I felt too-and I hope this will not be regarded as impertinence on my part-that if this little effort in research on our part led others to desire to imitate it and to carry out research elsewhere, then we would not have lost anything in the doing of it.
If I may say so, I am very touched and very gratified that so many of you gentlemen have found the time to come here on this happy occasion to meet me, and it is, sir, with the very greatest pleasure that I hand to you on behalf of the library of parliament, this book of photographs.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you very much.
Presentation of "Earnscliffe" Album
We will now call on Mr. McGregor to move a formal vote of thanks.


Mr. Robert Henry McGregor:: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to be taking some small part in this meeting here today. Probably had it not been for that great Canadian, Sir John A. Macdonald, who lived in that house for many years, we would not have been called here today.
Sir John A. Macdonald was to the Conservative party what Sir Wilfrid Laurier was to the Liberal party. In passing I might say that it is just too bad that they had discontinued the honours conferred upon these great men, because had they not, today we might have been calling the leader of our government the Prime Minister of Canada -instead of calling him "Uncle Louie", Sir Louis.
On behalf of the Commons, sir, I want to thank you for this great work which you have done for us, and I hope that you and your successors will spend many happy days in that old house of Sir John A. Macdonald's, and that you, sir, may go down in history as having done your part to help the recording of Canadian history.


Karl Arliss Eyre: Thank you very much.
(Translation):
Senator Adelard Godbout: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my fellow members from the Senate on the joint committee of the library of parliament,
I am pleased to second Mr. McGregor's motion and to express to Sir Archibald Nye all our gratitude for what he has just done.
The album which he has presented at this time will remind us in a very vivid way of certain milestones in the life of Sir John A. Macdonald.
Sir John A. Macdonald was one of the fathers of our Canadian confederation and was the first, under our federal system, to occupy the post of prime minister of Canada. As such, and for many other reasons besides, he belongs to the history of this country.
We are told that some countries, having no history, are therefore unable to forget it. But a country like ours does have its history, and might tend to forget some of its important phases were it not for works like this album to record some of the outstanding events in that history.
Earnscliffe was the residence of Sir John A. Macdonald, but it also has been that of several United Kingdom high commissioners in Canada. Of the latter, some held important posts in the political or economic fields, others in the military field, still others in both those fields.
You, Sir Archibald, belong to this third category. You have left your mark on the world and we owe you much. Please accept this sincere expression of our admiration and of our gratitude.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Gentlemen, shall the motion carry?
Carried, nemine contradicente.
Those who are not members of the committee usually cannot take part in the proceedings, but I take it by unanimous consent that we might make an exception today. Is that agreeable?
Agreed.
The Prime Minister: It is very kind of the committee to allow us to witness this ceremony, and we appreciate it, and we appreciate this gesture on the part of Sir Archibald Nye.
I have not seen the album, but I plan to look at it. There may be one thing missing from it, however, because there is a house, the second from mine at St. Patrick in the county of Temiscouata, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence below Quebec, which was an adjunct of "Earnscliffe", a sort of summer season "Earnscliffe" and I am afraid that you have not got a picture of it in this album.
But this is, I hope, a gesture which will be an example, and which will inspire us to find perhaps not as competent a writer as Mr. Reddaway, but
5556	HOUSE OF
Presentation of "Earnscliffe" Album
to find others who will prepare something similar for many other buildings here in the capital city. I have been asked questions about Government House several times and I would like to have some collection which would be based, as is Mr. Reddaway's history of "Earnscliffe", upon documents which can be relied upon and which would allow the Canadian public to know just how Government House developed, and who its occupants have been. It would be interesting to have that kind of document for every one of the public buildings in Ottawa. I think that some day we may be able to prevail upon the treasury board to allow an item to be placed in the estimates to provide that kind of addition to the interesting and very valuable collection which we already have in the library of parliament.
I thanked you before, Sir Archibald, for having started this, and I wish to repeat my thanks and say that I genuinely appreciate the good example you have set on this occasion. As you have said, we are not unmindful of what anniversary tomorrow will be, and I think it is very appropriate to have this presentation take place on the eve of Dominion day, the 88th birthday of the event which has established for all time the reputation and place in history of Sir John A. Macdonald who, as Mr. McGregor has said, meant to the Conservative party what Sir Wilfrid means to the Liberal party-and they both mean as much to the whole Canadian people.
It is in that spirit that I want to extend congratulations to Mr. Reddaway and to express the hope that he may help us in the good work we should carry on.


Hon.   Mr. Drew@: I also welcome the privilege which has been extended to the Prime Minister and myself to be here with the members of the library committee which today receives this unique gift from Sir Archibald Nye, and I wish to join very warmly with the Prime Minister in what he has said about the example which is offered by this evidence of the continuity of our history.
It does, however, serve to indicate our youth when we regard as a mark of age the fact that this house is 100 years old. Nevertheless, 100 years does establish some measure of maturity, and here in Ottawa it indicates that our capital has been settled for some little time, and that you do live in one of the older-if not the oldest-house, Sir Archibald, which has been occupied continuously in the city of Ottawa.
I cannot help thinking that this may well provide the inspiration that has been suggested by the Prime Minister, and that it will offer encouragement to carry forward research into the background of other buildings in Ottawa and other parts of Canada. I can assure the Prime Minister informally, but nevertheless definitely, that there will be no protracted delay with respect to any item which might be set aside for the purpose of carrying that research into effect.
The Prime Minister: I hope the reporter will make a note of that remark.


Hon.   Mr. Drew@: I can assure you of our hearty support, and I would add this; that while there have been many people associated with this building-and in fact we are reminded that during one stage it was actually used as a hospital-generally there has been a continuity of active interest in the community as well as in Canada on the part of those who have lived there. I think that all of us would also agree that having regard to the things he said and did, as well as his own background, and the depth of his feeling about the association between Canada and Great Britain, at this very time-remembering that tomorrow is


Dominion day-Sir John would, himself, have wished that this building be occupied by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom here in Canada.
To you, Sir Archibald, I feel sure that we can all say with certainty that Sir John would be with you in spirit in the commemoration of this 88th birthday of Canada which was founded not only by his leadership and genius, but by the co-operation of all Canadians who came together at that time to form one nation of which we are all so very proud today. Thank you very much.


Major James William Coldwell: There is little which one can add to what has already been said so appropriately by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
I think it is very interesting and proper that in a new country like ours anything which savours of the history of the past should be preserved, and that our younger people in the years to come should have a history of the various historic buildings and institutions that we have here. I have often so thought, as I travelled across this country and have seen so many dilapidated buildings which have historical significance-in my province we have the old building in which the legislative body of the Northwest Territories first met years ago; that building has only recently been restored, after falling into almost complete decay.
I am happy to be here today to witness the presentation of this very interesting volume to the library of parliament. I know it will be preserved and that the people who come after us will look into it with a great deal of interest, realizing that here is the story of the house which was occupied by one of the fathers of confederation-indeed, to some "the father" of confederation; although as the Leader of the Opposition has said, but for the good will and co-operation of all others, not only in parliament but across the country in his time, this great dominion could not have been founded.
I am very happy to have been here today.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank you again, Sir Archibald, and those who have participated in our proceedings.
This album will occupy a place of honour in our renovated library; and I want to say in conclusion that few homes in Canada have had such a distinguished list of occupants as "Earnscliffe" has had. It has been the home of a Canadian prime minister, and it is now the home of a High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, and it will continue to be regarded by Canadian people, more vividly and more impressively through this album and the book which will soon be published, as an imposing symbol of friendship and historical association between Her Majesty's kingdoms, the United Kingdom and Canada.
Now, gentlemen, I invite you to take a good look at the album, following which we will participate in a little reception celebrating the event.



REPORTED SALE OF 10 MILLION BUSHELS TO POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the press report that arrangements have been made for the sale of 10 million bushels of wheat to the



I. 1955

[Stage Direction]
government of Poland for a reported price of $19 million, $3 million of which is to be paid down by the Polish government and $16 million of which is to be guaranteed by the Canadian government in respect of bank loans to be made for payment for the wheat?
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that the negotiations have been proceeding, Mr. Speaker, in what we consider to be a satisfactory manner, but I have not been informed that they have been concluded. The negotiations did deal with a large quantity of wheat, and did deal with the insurance by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation of a substantial portion of the price to be paid within 12 months, I understand.


George Alexander Drew: Will the Prime Minister indicate to what extent, in the opinion of the government, this differs from the Ming Sung transaction, in which the government stands to lose $13 million by a similar guarantee under a transaction which was for the construction of ships for a company in a communist area, but under which the government was called upon to pay money which has not been returned.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Which has not yet been returned; but the government expects this money will be returned within the 12 months of the date of the guarantee to be given by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a supplementary question? Is there any guarantee in a realizable form from the communist government of Poland in respect of the $16 million which will remain unpaid?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no pledge of assets, but there is an undertaking to make the payment and we expect that undertaking will be carried out.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Have any deals of this sort been made with any of the so-called iron curtain countries-Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia- involving government guarantees, and if so, what has been the experience? I am asking that question because I think it is important that everything shall be done, even careful guarantees given, in order to sell the surplus wheat we have. Secondly, I do not think the political complexion of a government should interfere with our trade relationships.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will have to ascertain that. There was one transaction with Czechoslovakia, I believe, where there was a guarantee given under the export credits organization and payment was duly made 50433-351
Inquiries of the Ministry under the terms as agreed. In order to make a positive answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I will ascertain whether the negotiations have been formally completed. I understand that they have not been formally concluded, but they are proceeding in a manner which leads us to believe they will be concluded.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the Prime Minister if, having regard to the experience of the Ming Sung transaction, the government will reconsider the advisability of this course and the desirability of employing any loans that are to be used for sales of this kind, to sell our wheat to friendly governments rather than communist governments which deny to their own people any information that would be helpful to us in building up good will.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As long as the government has the responsibility for administration, it will take that responsibility and when it has made a decision it will not reconsider because the Leader of the Opposition suggests that it should. The government has the responsibility for making deals which it feels are in the interests of the Canadian economy. If it makes mistakes, it will submit to the consequences of those mistakes.


George Alexander Drew: We should not become Santa Claus to communist governments.
ILater.'l


Solon Earl Low: Can the
minister explain to the house the cost of the insurance that is being carried by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation in connection with the sales to Poland?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I have not the details of the cost of the particular transaction, but the proposal is that 15 per cent of the purchase price will be paid by the government of Poland, and the remainder will be financed in the normal way by bank credit.


Solon Earl Low: What I wanted to ask the minister was the cost to Canada of the insurance which is being carried by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.


Walter Edward Harris: I will get that.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister in connection with the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In connection with the proposed deal with the communist government of Poland, will the Prime Minister consider that it may put that government in a very strong bargaining position in connection with the Polish art treasures?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government considered all the factors that could have any bearing at all upon the proposal to purchase the large quantities of wheat for which it did not seem probable that it would be easy to find an alternative market.
bye



PROTEST AGAINST EXTENSION OF IMPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. Will the minister strongly protest the two-year extension by the United States of its import restrictions on rye?


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That question will be brought to the minister's attention and taken as notice.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister had an opportunity to review again the letter from His Worship the Mayor of Saskatoon to the Minister of National Revenue, on June 9, requesting that donations solicited by the various service organizations in Saskatoon to build housing for elderly citizens on a nonprofit basis, be exempt from taxation? Has the minister been able to give a favourable reply to Mayor McAskill's letter of June 22 and the city solicitor's letter of June 21?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence from His Worship the Mayor of Saskatoon has been reviewed. There has been further correspondence from the city solicitor which is under consideration. I am unable at the moment to give a definite answer.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, which is suggested partly by the day and partly by the reference we have had to "Earnscliffe" and to Sir John A. Macdonald. Will the minister examine the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald to the east

of this building. He will find it suffering from a great deal of unseemly weather discoloration.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I will do that personally, sir.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melforl):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Why are Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments denied to those farmers who hold leases on crown lands in areas where they are eligible for payment?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member gave me notice of his question. The reply is, as a result of recommendations from the agriculture committee of this house, and action by parliament, awards under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act cannot be paid with respect to leases on crown lands because such lands are excluded from payments under paragraph (c) of subsection 3 of section 3 of the act.



SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on the second report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the report which is before the committee is the result of rather extensive labours of a special committee over the last two sessions. That, however, is not the beginning of the story. We have had two special committees during and since the war, in 1944 and 1947, with respect to the procedure of the house, and those reports, while they were not adopted by the house on either occasion, did undoubtedly prove of great value to us in the studies that were made. They indicated the difficulties that members thought they had during those years and also indicated to some extent at least the cure of the problem that they had to contend with.
It is true, as I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the reports were not adopted but subsequently there have been at least one and perhaps more rulings of the Chair which have carried into effect some of the recommendations of those committees.

During the period of the parliament before this there was also a committee on procedure, and it has been said on more than one occasion that the only result of that committee was that we changed the sitting hours of the house. That is, I suppose, also partly correct but it should be noted that at that time the government had quite a large majority in the house, and it was stated at the time by the government that we did not feel we should use the majority we then had for the purpose of imposing upon the house any drastic change in the rules that had not been thoroughly considered at some length. No action was in fact taken by the government during the period 1949-53, but when during that campaign it was said, I think by members of all parties in the house, that the house procedure ought to be revised we re-constituted the committee unanimously in the house for the purpose of dealing with the rules, we hoped in a final sense for the time being.
There are many ways of considering the rules of the House of Commons. They can be considered as being something that is sacred and should not be touched, or they can be looked upon, as in fact I think they are, as being the means whereby we dispose of our business on a daily basis. I should like to quote from the fifteenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, as follows:
Much learning and loyalty have been lavished in the past in defending and maintaining forms and rules which had little intrinsic value and have not survived. The true standard of measuring the importance of a form or rule is the extent to which it is essential or serviceable to the exercise by each house of its parliamentary function.
I think that we looked upon our task as being that in essence, to deal with the rules in the light of whether they would be essential or serviceable to the House of Commons. During the last session the government took the responsibility of placing before the committee an agenda and a considerable number of suggested changes. The committee went through the agenda during the last session. Opposition members made their own suggestions and also criticized, quite properly, the suggestions the government had made. Indeed as time went on there was no thought in that committee but that every conceivable suggestion would be considered on its merit and accepted or rejected in the light of our terms of reference.
The consideration which we gave to the rules last session put us in a position where a report could have been made during the closing days of the session, but we all felt that second thoughts would be desirable and we left the report over until this session. Second thoughts were quite useful because 50433-35TJ
1, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure after reconsidering some of the suggestions we rejected them this past winter because they did not appear to be quite as acceptable as we thought they would have been in the first instance. Finally, we reconsidered all the rules and were again in a position to make a report.
At that time we could have had a report by a majority decision of the committee, which of course would have been in accordance with parliamentary practice, but we decided that if at all possible we ought to have a unanimous report. For that purpose certain alterations were made in the recommendations to the committee. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by mentioning the changes that all of us accepted, both from the government standpoint and from the standpoint of the opposition. It might be sufficient to say that we have recommended a report to the house in its present form on a unanimous basis.
In the announcement he made on June 14 when tabling the report Mr. Speaker outlined the chief changes. There were a great many others that were not included in that explanation and I do not need to go through them and I do not suppose we should at this time. It would only be proper however to express my thanks personally to the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Kamloops who constituted an unofficial subcommittee which met on more than one occasion and exchanged views for the purpose of obtaining the unanimous consent which ultimately was obtained.
More especially I think I would be voicing the opinion of all members of the committee if I said that the work of Mr. Speaker and his staff, especially his staff who did work long and unusual hours to meet the deadline we set, was extremely useful to the committee. Of course the presence of Mr. Speaker with his knowledge of the rules, his experience and his presiding genius, if I may say so, had a remarkable effect in creating patience and forbearance in the committee.
I think the committee would want the house to understand that there has not been a general revision of the rules and procedure since the 1880's. It is true that there were revisions in the early part of the century with another revision in 1927, but those were limited in scope and apparently were only the minimum which could be achieved at that time for changes that were felt desirable. We took the other view and we gave consideration to every rule to test whether it now had any useful purpose to serve. We did that, not only because it was covered by our terms of reference but because we recognized

Special Committee on Procedure that in all commonwealth countries where the democratic process obtains there have been quite substantial revisions of rules in the course of the past 15 or 20 years and that Canada had not in fact done that in that time.
This is not to suggest that because others had made revisions we should do so also, but it is to say that other jurisdictions functioning as we do have recognized the need for a more up-to-date procedure to deal with the growth of business. Whether one wishes it or not is a matter of opinion, but government is growing in all democratic countries, a growth which is perhaps out of proportion to the growth in population, because of the increasing demands upon government to intervene in matters that hitherto had been thought to be outside its scope.
For that reason we felt that we ought to find a way of disposing of this growth of public business in a reasonable time but to permit proper opportunity for consideration and criticism. We did not expect that we would be able to perform a miracle; we expect that parliament will continue to require lengthy sittings judging by pre-war standards. But the essential and real purpose of our meetings was to achieve an efficient manner of dealing with public business. It was not to shorten the sessions.
We think that we have achieved that in some measure although we recognize that there may be contrary views. I think the house also ought to know that we have made no substantial change in the functioning of the House of Commons. I think we were all greatly impressed by the durability of the parliamentary system and of the party system within parliament and we would not have made any change had it been looked upon as a reflection upon the existence of the present system.
The house has always been master of its own procedure and all hon. members will recall many occasions of emergency when without any rule whatever or any formal decision the house has reacted instinctively as the emergency required to do what had to be done. Knowing that, we have not altered the flexibility of parliament in any way. On the other hand, it was recognized that certain changes could be made to facilitate the day by day business when matters of lesser importance were under consideration and in so doing we would contribute more to the opportunity of devoting more time to matters of greater importance should they arise.
I recognize that we may have made obvious mistakes. We may have omitted something that hon. members may think we

should have included. It may be that next session in trying to interpret the rules we will find results that we did not anticipate. But subject to these obvious mistakes or obvious changes that ought to be made as a result of certain consequences which we do not expect, I suggest that the rules be accepted as they are and given a decent interval of experience in which to judge their value. Then if necessary we could consider changes, but not until that time.
I should like also to put on the record two other quotations, one of which I think hon. members opposite would wish me to put on the record.
Nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of the administration and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons than a neglect or departure from these rules-when the forms of proceedings as instituted by our ancestors operated as a check and control on the actions of ministers and when they were In many instances a shelter and protection to the minority against the demands of power.
None of us anticipate that in these rules there will be anything which will increase the power of the executive, so to speak, to the disadvantage of the house generally.


Mr. Fulton:: Would the minister say the author of this quotation?


Walter Edward Harris: The second volume of Hatsell, page 237. I should like to give one final quotation which, I believe, sums up our difficulty. This again is from May and is by the author of the present edition. It is a comment on the situation as he found it to be in the course of the past few years:
Recent periods of emergency have not made it any easier to reconcile the ancient practice of the house, which protects the rights of minorities, with its modern standing orders which aim at the forwarding of government business. In face of these conflicting claims the drastic powers of curtailing debate entrusted to the Speaker by the standing orders would be hard to justify but for the confident belief that they will be exercised with a discretion trained in the spirit of the traditional practice.
Of course, the author had in mind the powers granted to the Speaker of the House of Commons at Westminster. But the conclusion, I think, is one which is apt in any event here. We have not in the rules given the Speaker, as I recall, any powers such as they have in the United Kingdom, but we have in some cases changed the rules substantially and for those who might be concerned about them my quotation is apt in that, in the interpretation of standing orders, it might be hard to justify them but for the confident belief that they will be exercised with a discretion trained in the spirit of the traditional practice.

No member of the House of Commons would want to alter the traditional practices of fair play which have always been part of parliamentary practice and esteem. This is a wholly unconscious decision which every member comes to as soon as he becomes acquainted with the background of parliament and seeks to contribute to its future. He would not want to do anything here in the name of the majority, or even in the name of a competent and well organized opposition, which would destroy the respect which parliament must have at all times among the public generally. For that purpose he would not want to offend or outrage public opinion by doing those things which the public would consider unfair.
I think the use of the word "fairness" is to sum up the British tradition in the operation of the rules of the House of Commons, since to say of a person that he is unfair is perhaps the deepest criticism that can be made of him and his actions. For that reason I am confident we have not offended in any way here. We have only adapted procedures in other jurisdictions to our own. Nothing has been done which is not being done under similar conditions elsewhere. We think that these rules will in fact improve the efficiency of the House of Commons.
For that reason, then, I should like to move the following motion:
That the committee adopt the proposal to amend the standing orders and procedure as recommended in the report of the special committee on procedure, presented to the house on June 14.
My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my first words must be words of appreciation to the minister for giving me the opportunity of seconding the motion he has just moved. My second words are words in which I desire to express very great pleasure in associating with the minister in the tribute he paid to Mr. Speaker and to the work done by Mr. Speaker and the clerical staff of the house in processing, expediting, revising and advising on the work of the committee.
The fact that I have been allowed to associate my name with the motion as seconder, although strictly speaking it does not require a seconder, is evidence of the fact that this report of the committee on procedure is unanimous. I want to emphasize that fact and to say that so far as the official opposition is concerned, while of course no one of us who acted for the official opposition on the rules committee can commit his party or all individual members of it with respect
Special Committee on Procedure to all details of the recommendations, nevertheless it has been agreed with respect to the report as a whole that it has our general approval and support.
Having said that, I think it is important that we should make clear the considerations by which the committee was able to arrive at a unanimous report. For myself, I do support this report and I do not intend anything I say now to detract from that undertaking. Of course, having seconded the motion, I could not, even if I were so disposed, oppose the report; and I do not intend to. But I should say that the report now before us represents not only a compromise but, so far as we are concerned, what I might call the choice of the lesser of two evils. It represents the maximum of change which we were able to get in the very far-reaching and, in our view, damaging proposals which were originally submitted to the committee by government spokesmen, on that committee.
On the other hand, the report before yon represents a very substantial modification by the government itself of those proposals: as originally submitted by them, the proposals to which the Minister of Finance made reference earlier this morning. The result of the compromise and the negotiations has been that there are now before you and before this committee recommendations contained in a report in a form which, while not along the lines which our members on that committee would ourselves have preferred, nevertheless constitute a modification of the rules which in our view does not depart too far from the previous pattern and does not make changes of such a sweeping nature that they would be entirely unacceptable. For that reason the report is accepted and recommended by us to the house for its approval. It is accepted as being a great deal better than what I might call the original package deal which was before the committee as a result of the government's original proposals.
It will perhaps be helpful in establishing just why in our view this report should be accepted by the house if I review briefly the pattern of discussions in the committee. As the Minister of Finance has said, this committee has sat now for two sessions and was the inheritor of a great deal of work done in previous sessions, to which he made reference. Speaking entirely in connection with this committee, which is the only one of which I myself have had experience, I may say that at the outset, and up until about the beginning of this session, the representatives of the Conservative party on the committee suggested a certain approach which

Special Committee on Procedure we felt would be the proper approach to the question of a revision of the rules and procedure of the house. I shall refer later in somewhat more detail to that general approach. About the beginning of this session it became apparent that the approach we suggested as a basis upon which the revision might have proceeded was not generally acceptable to the other members of the committee, particularly-and I think I am not being unfair in saying this-to the representatives of the government party on the committee.
As the minister has said, at about that time the government accepted the responsibility of bringing in specific recommendations and proposals and placing them before the committee; and from that time on discussions proceeded on the basis of the government's proposals which were discussed fully and carefully. From those discussions there has now emerged this report which in effect is a modification of those proposals, which we have found acceptable as being a substantial improvement over those proposals as originally presented.
I am not going to discuss in detail the effect of the changes or of the blanket proposal which the government first submitted. By way of a brief review, however, I may say that the proposals contained, naturally enough, amendments of two characters. First, they contained a series of changes in detail which, while important,-and I do not wish to detract from their importance-were nevertheless not of a substantial nature; that is to say they did not constitute a major departure from or variation of any established rule. I refer to such matters, for instance, as the method by which we might deal with questions, the method of dealing with resolutions preceding a money bill and so on. Those matters, while important, were nevertheless the subject of general agreement and our approach to them was merely to work out the best method of detailed application of the changes. As the minister has said, in our discussions our approach was to enable the house to make the most efficient use of its time. There were a considerable number of such matters of detail.
Then there were a far smaller number of matters of substance on which, as became quite early apparent, there was fundamental disagreement in the committee. I do not think I will be going into too much detail, Mr. Chairman, if I say that the effect of those recommendations of the government in the field of these matters of substance was to present the committee with proposals involving three main changes. I am not saying that these are the only effects but to my mind


these were the main effects. The first effect was that there would be two classes of members in the house. Under the proposal with which we were confronted, the effect would be to limit all speeches in the house, with the Speaker in the chair, to 30 minutes on the first two days of any debate; and if the debate on the bill, the resolution or whatever it was that might be before the house carried over into a third day, from there on speeches would be limited to 20 minutes. There were two objections which we took to that proposal. Not only did we not agree that the time of speeches should be further limited by the rules-we did not accept that principle-but we took fundamental objection to the idea that there would be two classes of members, namely first-class members who might speak the full 30 minutes and second-class members who might speak for only 20 minutes.
Then the next effect of these proposals would have been the limitation-and a severe one, in our mind-of opportunities of the opposition generally and of members individually to raise grievances. The detail there was that the number of motions for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply would have been limited to eight a session and the discussion on each of those motions would have been limited to one day each. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that our experience has indicated that while occasionally there are grievances raised formally-and I am speaking only of formal grievances-to which justice can be done in the course of one day's debate, that situation is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore while we were prepared in principle to admit of some limitation on the number of occasions upon which these grievances might be raised, we were not prepared to agree to the one-day limitation; we took this stand on the basis that if a grievance was sufficiently important to justify its being raised formally by the opposition in the house, then it was absurd to agree in advance that it was only important enough to justify one day's debate.
Then the third general proposal which we found to be entirely unacceptable was the proposed limitation of the number of days available to discuss estimates in committee of supply to 20 days throughout the session. In our view that would have been to incorporate in the rules what would have been a fundamentally unsound proposition, namely that in a time such as we are experiencing today of increasing expenditures by government and increasing responsibility of government, we should say in advance now that

we will for all time limit to 20 days the discussion of government expenditures in committee of supply.
I quite realize that that pattern is incorporated in the rules of some other parliaments of commonwealth countries; but that fact does not to my mind indicate that we should necessarily have it here. As was pointed out in the committee-and I shall be referring to the matter later-those countries, particularly the United Kingdom, have in their rules what I might call safety valves which we do not have under our rules here. Those safety valves act to a great extent as a compensating factor for the restrictions of the type that I have mentioned. At any rate, we felt that, under our rules as they stand and under the proposals advanced by the government, this over-all limitation to 20 days in committee of supply was entirely unacceptable.
There were other changes-and important ones-which were recommended but which I have not mentioned, and I will not mention them in detail mainly for the reason that on those changes compromise has been found to be possible, such as the proposals for the limitation of the length of debate on the address and on the budget which were also contained in the government's package proposal.
Our objections, some of which I have mentioned in detail, not only proceeded on the basis of detailed objection to each of those specific proposals but involved also disagreement in principle. We felt that the pattern presented by the government involved the imposition of too much rigidity under the rules and, if accepted, would not allow to parliament that flexibility to which the minister has made reference and which we regard as essential in order to enable parliament to deal intelligently with the issues which may come before it.
To try to condense our thought there into a few words, I would say this. It is impossible to decide long in advance how much time will be allotted to subjects the importance of which you have no way of measuring; that is to say, the pattern of saying that each debate will be limited in advance by the rules to a certain number of days takes no account of the fact that in one year that particular debate may be of no importance because there is involved in the subject no issue which justifies any more than the number of days allowed; but the next year, that very same debate-say the budget debate-may involve proposals by the government which would be of such a far-reaching nature that any man inside parliament or outside of it would agree that it would
1, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure be appropriate for parliament to debate that proposal for a number of days in excess of those allotted under the rules. Therefore in general we were and are opposed to the principle of fixing by the rules in advance the number of days to be allotted to a debate, because it does not leave parliament sufficient flexibility.
Second, we feel that the approach to the whole question must be upon the basis that parliament is an assembly of grown men-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And women.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and not a schoolboy debating society.


Mr. Knowles:: Grown men and young
women.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank my hon. friends for enabling me to be more gallant than I was, and I would like to make their modifications my own.
In other words, we feel that this parliament, being an assembly of mature persons, is and must be in a position where from day to day it decides for itself within the limits of its rules-I am not saying there should be no rules-and within the pattern set down by the rules, just what time should be allotted to the various subjects which come before it, and that it does not require restrictions in advance such as we might impose upon persons of no discretion or of limited discretion, in order to prevent them from wasting their time or from abusing the opportunities for debate which are presented to them. Parliament is a responsible body and only so long as it remains responsible and maintains its responsibility will it maintain the respect which it must have in the eyes of the people. It is wrong in principle to say in effect to parliament that its members cannot be trusted and have to have every right and opportunity circumscribed, limited and hedged about by rules which will ensure that they do not abuse their rights and opportunities. We do not think that is a sound approach to parliament.
I have referred already to the related objection to the principle which we felt the government's proposals in their original form embodied, namely that there would be no opportunity to give important debates that emphasis which they deserve under the limitations first suggested. There is, I know, a very substantial body of opinion-I hope it is perhaps not as substantial now as it appeared at one time to be-which feels that the pattern we should follow is to cut down the time of speeches by formal rule.
I conceive that to be a fundamentally unsound approach, for reasons I have already

Special Committee on Procedure given. It is also interesting to note that in the United Kingdom parliament, where they have over 600 members as compared to our 270, and where their budget deals with more money than we do and in many ways the problems of their economy are more numerous than ours, they nevertheless have no limitation by rule on the length of individual speeches. There is no rule in the United Kingdom parliament to prevent a private member from speaking for two hours if he wants to do so, but the fact is that under their system the average length of speeches of ordinary members appears to work out at somewhere around 25 minutes. I mention that as a matter of interest and as supporting the argument that we make that it is not necessary, in order to have a curtailment of the length of speeches, to write that curtailment into the rules, but that it is a matter which this assemblage of grown men and women is able to handle for themselves.
These were the objections we took to the government's proposals in their original form. After those proposals had been discussed in the committee for some considerable time a series of more detailed negotiations took place in the committee itself and in the subcommittee to which the Minister of Finance has made reference. I should like to take this opportunity, if I may be permitted, to express my appreciation of the attitude shown by my colleagues on that subcommittee, one of those colleagues being the Minister of Finance, who forgot to mention himself. We were encouraged to find that when we got into the subcommittee we were able to make much more progress towards compromise and concession, and we found much more readiness to understand and accommodate our points of view than had at first been apparent. I want to make it very clear that we appreciated the attitude taken by the minister in the subcommittee and carried forward by him into the main committee after the subcommittee had completed its negotiations. As a result of these negotiations there were compromises and concessions which had the effect already outlined in the report of Mr. Speaker, referred to in the minister's statement this morning, and embodied in the report now before the house.
In general 1 would summarize the report itself and our attitude to it by saying that while it does not proceed along lines which we would like to have seen it follow, and while, if we were approaching it ab initio, it contains some things we would rather not see in it, compared with the original proposals made by the government which might have been forced on us had there been a decision to put it through by a majority vote,


it represents a satisfactory compromise. Its effect is not to initiate such changes, departures or limitations as we would feel to be entirely unacceptable.
I think there was a fair effort made after the negotiations commenced that where limitations were to be written into the rules they should be as closely as possible an average of the length of time which had been taken in respect to particular debates over the past number of years. There are only three main limitations, on the throne speech, on the budget debate and on the supply motions which are now limited to six of two days each. The length of the over-all number of days allotted to these three subjects is, I believe, a fair approximation of the average length of time devoted to these subjects in the past.
I want to make it clear that we regard the report as a substantial concession by the government from its original proposals, a concession which I think was won only as the result of hard bargaining, but I have no resentment of that. We all had quite different views and I have no objection to the fact that it was necessary to bargain vigorously because in the result I think the outcome was fair.
I have mentioned the approach that we would like to have seen adopted as the basic approach towards this question of a change of the rules. I should like to dwell on that for a few moments. In this portion of my remarks I will be speaking for myself and in no sense for the party to which I have the honour to belong. As a matter of fact, in connection with this whole matter I think the proper approach is that the rules are not a party matter. The rules do not belong to any party in the house and should not be changed by a majority vote of any party in the house. The rules belong to the House of Commons, and in the outcome that was the spirit in which the committee approached the matter. Therefore in putting these views forward I am speaking for myself, although I am happy to believe that a number of my colleagues as individuals share the point of view I am going to express.
In my view, accepting the principle referred to by the minister earlier this morning that the object of the rules and the object of any change in the rules should be to ensure that parliament makes the most efficient use of the time available to it in which to discuss the public's business, and confronted as we are with an increasing volume of public business both in the sense of dollars and in the physical sense of the number of pieces of legislation that come before us, the answer to the problem is to be

found in the principle of self-discipline on the part of members and on the part of parties rather than along the lines of writing rigid limitations into the rules. It may be found subsequently that such rigid rules limit the rights of parliament and of members in a manner which is most undesirable. When an issue arises in a manner which could not be foreseen when such limitations were written into the rules, the effect may be that parliament cannot deal adequately, and individual members are denied the opportunity to deal adequately with the particular issue.
I believe again, while not saying that just because it is done in the United Kingdom it should be done here, that we can benefit from certain examples and from certain patterns afforded by the United Kingdom. I am ready to confess that there they do have a number of very rigid limitations in their rules. Nevertheless, by and large, the pattern there, and the only way they can get 650 members feeling they have a proper right to be heard, is by the imposition of a code of self-discipline. Members agree that they will not abuse the right to speak and parties agree with respect to the length of time to be occupied by a particular debate. It is my belief that such a pattern of selfdiscipline can only be made effective by recognition of the feature that the appointment of a member of parliament to be Speaker of the house should be permanent.
In my view, there is nothing more absurd, if you analyse it, than our system of changing Speakers every parliament. The responsibilities of a Speaker are enormous. The training that a Speaker has to give himself, the study he has to devote to the rules, to their application and interpretation, is really a lifelong study. I do not suppose there is a Speaker in any parliament who would not agree that, even after being Speaker for 15 or 20 years, he was only just beginning to be really on top of the situation. But in our parliament a Speaker is really only beginning to get a grasp of the rules and to feel at home in his position when we change him for a new one. In that connection, I think our system should be re-examined and we should study the question of the appointment of a permanent Speaker.


Mr. Pouliot:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is this a personal suggestion or a recommendation from the committee?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, this is a personal opinion. Perhaps I did not make it clear, but I am speaking now for myself.


Jean-François Pouliot: Expressing your own views.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Expressing my own views, although I am happy in the belief that my
Special Committee on Procedure views are shared by quite a number of my colleagues and other members of the house as individuals, not as any official group.
Another reason why I think this suggestion has merit is-it is rather delicate to discuss, but I think we should discuss it here among ourselves-that obviously the application of a code of self-discipline does require certain sanctions behind it so that if a voluntary agreement is arrived at between parties or individuals that the length of speeches, let us say, will be limited to 30 minutes in a particular debate, and one member breaks that voluntary agreement, a measure of sanction will be required. It is going to be a great hardship on other members who are conscientiously abiding by the agreement if that is not the case. Such sanctions, in my view, cannot be written into the rules. The only way such sanctions can exist and be applied is through the Speaker.
In some instances those sanctions may have to be quite rigorous and have the appearance almost of being harsh. I suggest to the committee that it would be putting the Speaker in an impossible position to expect him to apply those sanctions absolutely automatically and vigorously when he is open to any suggestion of partiality. I ask my colleagues to believe that I am not making this discussion personal. Indeed, what I say with regard to the dangers of partiality does not in my view apply in the slightest to our colleague whom we have at the moment the privilege of having as our Speaker. I am speaking in general terms. I suggest that this business of rotating Speakers every parliament, so that as the end of a parliament approaches he knows that he is dependent upon the good will of the government for some other appointment, is not a good one. Yet that is the system under which we operate now, and I suggest that it places a very heavy premium on the exercise of impartiality by the Speaker. Human nature being what it is, it is difficult for a Speaker to be entirely impartial under those circumstances, although I believe that our Speakers as a whole have approached as close to impartiality as any Speaker could under those conditions.
I also suggest this. When members have the knowledge of that situation and an apparently harsh decision is applied by the Speaker against a member, say, on the opposition side, the temptation is to say: "the Speaker is being partial; he is being prejudiced. He sat me down without a word, but what else could you expect? After all, he knows that when this parliament is over he has to look to the government for his next appointment". Under these circumstances, I believe it would
5566	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Procedure be difficult for us as members to accept the rapid and vigorous method by which the Speaker would have to apply those sanctions, even although he might be, in fact, completely impartial as between the two sides of the house. I think, therefore, our present system of rotating Speakers makes it impossible for that code of self-discipline to be applied in the way and with the effect that it might be applied elsewhere, where the position of Speaker is permanent.
I realize that one of the reasons why we rotate Speakers is because of the very proper recognition of the fact that there are two main language and racial groups in the country, French and English. I am not suggesting for a moment that in the appointment of a permanent Speaker we should depart from the recognition of that feature. I think the Speakers should be alternated, but that a Speaker having been appointed should be there until he retires of his own accord. Then, the next Speaker to be appointed should be of the other race and language group. In that way, we would preserve the principle of alternation but at the same time have the permanent feature of the office. There are a number of advantages which would flow from such a change. I realize that we cannot do it overnight, but I should like to see very serious consideration given to that suggestion.
Another approach which we feel should be followed with respect to the application of the rules is that a very much greater attempt should be made to arrive at ad hoc agreements with respect to the duration of any individual debate. This again is in accordance with our view that we should not write into the rules these rigid limitations which we think further circumscribe the functions of parliament. We feel there should be an agreement between the parties as to the length of time it would be sensible to devote to any particular debate as that debate arises.
One other feature of the United Kingdom system which I find attractive is the provision there of safety valves which we do not have here. I call them safety valves. I am thinking of the right of a member to raise a matter on the daily adjournment of the house and to discuss it for half an hour. If a member there is not satisfied, say, with an answer given by a minister to his question he gives notice immediately as follows: "Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise this on the adjournment." Then, by I believe a process of balloting, if he is lucky, he gets the right to discuss that particular matter and his particular complaint for half an hour only. It has the effect of forcing the minister to deal with it and to answer what the member regards as a legitimate complaint.


The second feature which they have there is the feature which gives them the right, if a sufficient number of members believe that the matter is important and urgent, to set it down for discussion. They can sign a motion and if a sufficient number of them sign it will be set down and discussed at a certain specific time and for a limited period. They cannot altogether interrupt the routine business and important government business, but there is a safety valve. If enough members believe it is important they can get it set down.
When you have those safety valves, then you can accept to some extent not only limitation of the rules but particularly the limitation which is imposed by the code of selfdiscipline and the sanction behind that code of self-discipline which is applied by Mr. Speaker.
There is one other suggestion which I think we should make here and I hope the minister will take it in good part. For myself, I believe the government at this session has done a commendable thing in getting the legislation by and large introduced and on the order paper early in the session. The minister said that was his intent, and generally speaking he has succeeded in his attempt, although there were a rather larger number of bills than we should like to see introduced late in the session. Nevertheless, in general, the attempt has been made and I think has been successful. However, that being the case, I do want to suggest that it will do a very great deal to expedite the business of the house and, if you like, shorten the session, if the house leader and the government would set the pattern of taking up a subject and carrying it through and completing it before they take up another subject.
I recognize that quite frequently interruptions in debate are made to meet the convenience not only of members and ministers on that side of the house but of members on this side as well. I want to be fair in this. But I do think that even allowing for that, there is much too great a tendency to take up a subject, debate it for a couple of days, drop it and take up something else, which has the effect of course of making the debate less coherent, less effective, and also the very important effect of giving members a second wind and thus protracting the debate beyond what would quite possibly be the duration if it were taken up, dealt with, and disposed of before we went on to something else.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask another question? In the hon. member's view, how many days should be allowed for the debate on the Defence Production Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, I can answer that quite easily. That debate should be continued until the bill is defeated.


Walter Edward Harris: Then the hon. member would recommend that it be the last item of business.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have outlined the approach which some of us think should be taken toward any revision of the rules for the purpose that if a further revision is undertaken we shall have these views on the record. We are accepting the report before you, to which we are agreeing. We are accepting the limitations of the rules, therein recommended, for the reason I have indicated, that it is in the circumstances a compromise to which we are prepared to agree; but we wish it to be clearly understood we do not think it is the proper principle upon which to base an approach to any further revision of the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy on behalf of this group to indicate our support of the motion which has been made by the Minister of Finance and seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops. As would be expected, there are some proposals in the rules before us as recommended in this report which we do not exactly like. Likewise, there are some changes that we were prepared to accept which are not included in the recommendations now before us. Nevertheless, on balance, we feel that the report and its recommendations represent substantial progress in the whole question of procedure for this House of Commons, and on balance we in this group give our support to this motion.
It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not without significance, to which attention might be drawn, that we are dealing with our rules of procedure on this 1st day of July, Canada's 88th birthday. I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am tempted to draw attention to the fact that it was indicated in a resolution of mine that was on the order paper a while ago that only 12 years from today we shall be celebrating Canada's 100th anniversary.
I hope we shall be in a position to celebrate it in the appropriate ways my resolution suggested.
My comment that there is an appropriate relation between this being Dominion day and our discussing the rules of the house is borne out by a little research I have had the pleasure of doing. I have looked up the record of the first day that the House of Commons sat after the Dominion of Canada came into being 88 years ago today. As we know from our history, July 1, 1867, was a gala day with celebrations of various kinds.
Special Committee on Procedure Of course, at that time there was not a parliament of Canada as we now know it. The elections for the first parliament took place that year between August 7 and September 20, and the House of Commons first met on November 6, 1867. This voluminous scrapbook, if I am strong enough to hold it up to read from it, contains reports of what went on in both the House of Commons and the Senate during that first session. One of the things that interested me was that on the occasion of parliament meeting for the first time even the speech from the throne was not delivered on the first day; it was delivered on the second day. Even the speech from the throne was preceded by the question as to what rules the House of Commons would use. Accordingly, when the house met on November 6, 1867, its members performed just two functions. I think I might be permitted to read just a bit from the record of that day as it appeared in print the next day;
The proceedings of yesterday, supplemented by those which will take place today, will form an interesting chapter in the history of our new Dominion, which we have good reason to believe will in the progress of time embrace the whole territory from north of the United States to late Russian possessions, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Already it is the second power on this continent; and should careful and moderate views animate our statesmen, and the struggles of hostile and intemperate factions continue to be a part of the policy of our southern neighbours, rending the various sections asunder, there is no reason that in time it may not be the first of American powers.
A little later in the same report I read this:
Of course among the hundreds of members collected in the capital on Tuesday night and yesterday morning, the all engrossing subject of conversation was as to who would be the first Speaker of the House of Commons.
Even in those days it was a matter of great importance, and to be chosen Speaker of this house was recognized as one of the highest honours that a Canadian could be given. As I read that I find that when the house met there was a discussion over who would be Speaker. The Hon. Mr. Cockburn who became the Speaker was nominated by Sir John A. Macdonald, and his nomination was supported by the Hon. G. E. Cartier. There was some verbal opposition and a number of rather lengthy speeches, but at any rate the motion for Mr. Cockburn's election as Speaker was carried unanimously. The Speaker of that day made the usual statement which a Speaker makes on taking the chair, and then I read this:
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald said that as there were no rules for the guidance of members, he thought the plan adopted in 1841 should be followed.
5568	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Procedure
The reference there was to the rules that had been used by the late Province of Canada, which had been in existence from 1841 to 1867. I might pause to say parenthetically that despite the changes we are now making some of the language and some of the ideas contained in the rules of 1841 are still being carried forward.
This record of November 6, 1867, goes on:
It would be necessary for a committee selected from the whole house to be appointed for the purpose of drawing up a code of rules to be reported to the house.
It is a long-time practice, having committees on rules. Some of us who have been on these committees for 10 years would do well to remind ourselves that the practice has been going on for 88 years. The record continues:
In the meantime, the practice of the last session of the parliament of the Province of Canada, which was almost the same as that which governed the House of Commons in England, was the best that they could follow. He therefore moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Cartier, that the rules of last session be adopted, which was carried.
The next notation is that the sitting then adjourned. In other words, my point is that on the first day that the House of Commons of Canada met it dealt with only two matters, the election of a Speaker and making provision for its rules of procedure. Therefore I suggest that it is rather appropriate that on this 1st day of July when we are celebrating our 88th birthday as a nation we find ourselves dealing with the rules of the House of Commons.
I should like to follow the pattern and I am sure the hon. member for Acadia will want to do likewise, and add to the bouquets which deserve to be extended. I feel we all owe a great deal to Mr. Speaker, and to the Clerk and members of his staff for the help they gave to us in our work as a committee. I too wish to add my expression of pleasure at the way in which the Minister of Finance dealt with us. Not only did he spend a great deal of time in connection with this matter, not only did he bring to bear the results of a great deal of study, but when it got down to the hard business of compromise and bargaining the four of us who met together found that as a result of collective bargaining in good faith-something which I support wholeheartedly-we have been able to come up with a report which is unanimous so far as the committee is concerned. As the hon. member for Kamloops has said, this does not mean that every individual in each of the four parties has to support every item in the report, but so far as the committee is concerned the report is 

unanimous. And so far as our party is concerned, we are in support of the changes which have been made.
Incidentally I might point out that the report being brought in in this way meets a basic condition which we have laid down every time the motion has been made for the setting up of a committee on procedure. We contended every time that the rules of parliament belonged to parliament as a whole and that they should not be changed simply by the government using its majority to put through such changes as might be convenient for the government. We took the position, not that all changes had to be unanimous but that they should be by general agreement. These proposed changes are by general agreement so far as the committee is concerned and so far as the four parties of this house are concerned. I think we can compliment ourselves as a House of Commons on the job that we have done in connection with this matter.
As the previous speakers have indicated, the real work and progress came about once we got down to collective bargaining by four people in a small committee. When that time came everyone was willing to engage in a give and take process; everyone stated quite clearly the issues that to him were most sacred; everyone indicated where he was prepared to make concessions; and it was on that basis that we were able to work out this report.
I indicated earlier that there were some things proposed by the government and by others that we were prepared to accept but which have not been included. As I indicated publicly even before the committee met this year, we would have been prepared to accept a reduction in the time limit on speeches when the Speaker was in the chair from 40 to 30 minutes. Just to let hon. members know we worked in our bargaining, I supported that suggestion of a 30-minute speech right across the board down to the point where we were doing this bargaining and compromising. When it became evident to me that this was an important matter so far as the hon. member for Kamloops was concerned, and when we were trying to bargain on a certain other point I said that as far as I was concerned I was prepared to withdraw my support for the proposal that we reduce the time limit from 40 to 30 minutes if my hon. friend would support me on another point. I will not go into detail but it was a result of that sort of bargaining that we reached this unanimous decision.
So far as we were concerned there were a number of things-as a matter of fact, the

hon. member for Kamloops has referred already to these-which were pressed for by the government which we felt we simply could not accept in the form in which they were put to us. I refer particularly to the attempt to curtail still further the amount of time to be spent on motions to go into supply, as well as the attempt to limit the amount of time to be spent on estimates in committee of supply. These matters were most important to us from our point of view and once the government was prepared to compromise on them, as the Minister of Finance certainly was, we were on the way to achieving a unanimous report.
I think we all recognize that in a matter of this kind we cannot achieve perfection. Parliamentary people have been at this job for decades and centuries. We like to think, and we show this in our quotations from dusty tomes of the past, that there was a great deal of wisdom in those who formulated the rules of earlier days and that we have simply built on the foundation which they laid, but even in our attempting to improve on rules which were pretty good we recognize that what we have achieved is not necessarily perfect. We may find next session that we made some mistakes or that certain other changes should have been made. In the nature of things these changes do not get made very often but I would hope if it is found that there are other changes that should have been made or that some of the changes we have made prove to be unwise that this house will not be unwilling to review the matter at an early date.
This matter has been covered so fully, both in an academic and practical fashion, by the two previous speakers that I do not need to deal with all the matters that I have before me in the form of notes.
However, it seems to me our problem in committee and our problem now that it is back before the committee of the whole house was and is to get in between two considerations. On the one hand it is expected of us, and I think we expect it of ourselves, that we apply a little more discipline to our proceedings. This is expressed in the public mind and in the columns of the newspapers rather offhandedly in the suggestion that we must cut down the length of our speeches and cut down the length of debates. There is something to that, although it is sometimes suggested in a rather offhanded fashion without regard to the importance of debate and without regard to the fact that that is what parliament is for-to debate, to be a national forum for the people of the country that we represent.
1, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure
Nevertheless that is one consideration that we certainly had to take under advisement, namely the whole problem of trying to conserve time where we could-not just to shorten the session, but in order that we might give time where it should be given. It is on that basis, Mr. Chairman, that we have agreed to certain limitations. As hon. members know, the only limitation as to length of speeches is in committee of the whole where we have agreed to 30 minutes rather than 40 minutes each time a member is permitted to speak. The other limitations are three, namely, 10 days on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, eight days on the budget debate, and six supply motions limited to two days each. There are certain qualifications to that, but I shall not take the time to go into them here.
As I say, one of the considerations that prompted us to do that was the realization that we have to discipline ourselves for the good of parliament so that we might devote all the time we have to the issues and to the debates that most need our attention. The other consideration is, of course, that we must not try to muzzle parliament, we must not interfere with the freedom of speech of any of its members. I say quite frankly as a member of the opposition that in the last analysis that means we must be very careful not to limit the speaking rights of the opposition. It applies to government members too, but in the nature of things parliament has become very largely a contest between opposition and government. There is still a great deal of merit in citation No. 1 from Beau-chesne's third edition:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinion within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse." In a close contest when the house is considering a highly controversial measure, the positions of parties are equalized: the government side may rely on its majority but the opposition is strengthened by the rules of procedure which both are bound to observe and which the Speaker must enforce.
If the members on the government side think we sometimes talk too much about the rights of the opposition, I ask them to consider the point made there both by Bourinot and by Beauchesne. The government in the last analysis, whether it is on the 1st of July or 1st of September-some hon. members will know what I mean by that-has its majority. You have to equalize that, if
5570	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Procedure parliament is going to be parliament, by giving to the opposition the full protection of the rules. That being the case, we have to be careful not to go too far in our desire to effect discipline, in our desire to meet the request of the press that we cut down the length of our speeches. We have to be careful not to go too far in limiting the rights of the opposition to the only weapon they have, namely speeches, the right to try to persuade parliament as a whole that the government is either doing something wrong or is failing to take a step that it should take.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the hon. member a question, does he not think that the same protection of the rules should be given to each individual member as to any opposition group?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I made that clear, Mr. Chairman. At least that was in my mind when I first started to talk about this. I asked private members on the government side to realize that we are interested in their rights being protected just as much as ours. But in the nature of things parliament has become a contest between the opposition side of the house and the government side of the house. Since the government side of the house in the end has the majority, on the basis of which it can achieve its will, as Bourinot and Beau-chesne have said, the opposition does have a particular interest in the protection afforded to it by the rules. I agree with my hon. friend that the same protection that is afforded to us by the rules is afforded to him. It should be and I hope it always will be.
Since that was our job, to get in between the consideration that we should apply selfdiscipline and the consideration that we must not limit free speech and must not let parliament become a rubber stamp, there will be some who will say that we went too far in agreeing to the limitations that were set, in particular to the 10-day and eight-day limits and the six times two limit. However, I should like to point out that in accepting these limits we have accepted limits on what in the end are simply procedural motions. We have not accepted and we are not asking the house to accept any limitations on debate at any point where legislation is being enacted.
The debate on the address is a formal motion for confidence in the government. The debate on the budget, so-called, is a debate on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair so that we may go into committee of ways and means to consider the budget resolutions. The supply debates are on motions for the Speaker to leave the chair so that we can go into committee of supply. I do not detract from their importance. They are extremely
TMr. Knowles.]

important and we shall continue to assert that fact. But I point out that we have not imposed any limitation on debate on any resolution standing by itself, or on any resolution preceding a bill, or on any bill at any stage, second reading, committee of the whole or third reading. In other words, when it comes to the business of enacting legislation, there are no limitations on any member of the house. The humblest backbencher has just as much right to speak, regardless of how long it takes to conclude the debate, as has any frontbencher in any party.
So I think we have got in between the two considerations and have achieved a balance. We have made progress in the direction of some self-discipline without interfering with the principle that when legislation is being enacted there should be no limitation on any backbencher, any more than there is on any so-called frontbencher.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be only a few minutes, Mr. Chairman. I want to add that I do not like filibusters, at least when I am not taking part in them. If I were taking part in one, of course, it would be good. I think it will be appreciated by my hon. friends to the right when I say that I am glad that we did not take any steps that would seem to have the effect of preventing filibusters on any item of legislation. Whether one likes them or not, they play their part. In the end it is up to the judgment of those who are carrying on a filibuster as to whether it is what they should do or should not do, just as it is up to the judgment of the government as to whether a filibuster should be stopped by the use of closure. I am glad that we did not make any change in respect of that matter in spite of any feelings that some of us might have about our being kept here in Ottawa in the present heat.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I have talked about selfdiscipline, I had better apply it and conclude at this point, despite other things that I might have said. I will conclude by saying that I think that on the whole the committee has brought back to the house a report which represents a maximum degree of progress although there may be some details with which some hon. members may not be satisfied. I hope that the report as a whole will have the unanimous support of the house.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955-56

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Administrator transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1956, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the second report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat amused to hear the last two speakers extol the virtues of self-discipline. I think it is a subject to which they could both well give further consideration. I recall that in the first world war Brigadier Critchley, who was commandant of the school for officers, defined discipline as being self-control reduced to a habit. I think that would be an admirable quality for members of this house to adopt. I have been a member of the committee on procedure for a number of years, and I must say it gives me a good deal of satisfaction that the committee was able to submit to the house a unanimous report of a fairly substantial nature. We in the Social Credit group intend to support the report. Of course that does not mean to say that one or two of our group may not desire to criticize certain aspects of it.
I would first of all like to express my appreciation of the perseverance and patience displayed by the Minister of Finance and the Speaker during the sittings of the committee, and also the tireless work done by the Clerk and his staff. Without that spirit prevailing we would never have been able to achieve a unanimous report. As previous speakers have pointed out, there had to be a good deal of compromise, a good deal of give and take, not only between the opposition and the government but also between various opposition groups. I know it would be an easy thing for any member of the house, especially one who is not a member of the special committee, to get up and criticize certain aspects of the report. But let these members remember that it is no good criticizing the report and making suggestions unless
1, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure those suggestions would have the unanimous approval of all the other groups.
I believe the report represents the greatest degree of unanimity that could be achieved between all parties. The objective of the committee, as I see it, was not to make recommendations to shorten the session of parliament. The purpose was to provide for a more orderly and efficient handling of the business of the house, and thereby try to relieve the rush of business that invariably takes place in the latter days of a session.
So far as the report is concerned, I have already heard some members criticize it on the ground that it restricts or limits to too great an extent the rights and privileges of members to speak. But at the same time I have also heard other members criticize it for just the opposite reason. They say it does not go far enough, and that we should have done this or should have done that. The point is we had to try to reach an agreement between all parties, and the report, as I say, represents the greatest degree of unanimity. Personally I believe the report goes just as far as it is wise to go. To those who do feel that we have restricted the right of members to deal at length with matters that may be of special interest to them, I would point out that there is no limit on the number of times a member may speak in committee, and a lot of consideration was given to that question. Some may feel that we should have imposed limits, but I think many of us felt that at one point at least in the proceedings of the house there should be an opportunity for a member to express himself to the greatest degree without any limitation, and on the estimates of course that right still exists.
I believe the changes proposed will provide for more efficient handling of the business of the house than we have had in the past. Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the report is that having to do with the limitation of the time for debate on the speech from the throne and the budget. In my opinion the time taken for the proceedings on the speech from the throne and the budget should be restricted in order to provide adequate time for a thorough discussion of legislation and estimates actually before the house. Each party will have to use their allocation of time as they see fit, making provision for a certain number of 40 minute speeches or a greater number of 20 or 30 minute speeches. But I do believe that the effect will be to force each party to use its time to the greatest possible advantage, and I believe the net result of the limitation of time will be a better organized debate on both these subjects. I think nobody can argue that we have had well organized debates on

Supply-Public Works either the speech from the throne or the budget in the past. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the house would be well advised to support the report. If as time goes on we find that certain things do not work out further amendments can be made in the future.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I move the adjournment of the debate, and I also move that the committee report progress.
Progress reported.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
353. Departmental administration, $1,049,280.
The Chairman:: May I inform hon. members that this resolution will be found on page 57 of the blue book of main estimates and the details will be found commencing at page 459.


Mr. Hodgson:: Is the minister going to make a statement on his department?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have no statement at this time. My practice has been, and I propose to follow the same course today, to have members make any statements they care to make or ask questions, and I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I notice that first of all there is a statutory item covering the minister's salary. I see he is no different from the rest of the cabinet ministers. His salary has been increased $5,000 in addition to the increase in the indemnity. Therefore, probably the house and the country are expecting more work and more efficiency from his department. I hope he has arrived at that point during this past year.


Mr. McWilliam:: No doubt about that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We will wait and see. So far as the first page of his estimates are concerned, I notice there has been an increase of $3 million in the cost of property management. There has been an increase in the cost of the administration branch of $101,000; building construction, $2 million; and outside of Canada, $1,250,000. It is quite all right to have these increases because for many years the Department of Public Works did not do very much. These last few years we have been expecting more work from the department and we expect more work in the future.
On some of the other pages there are decreases and some of those are caused by various things that will probably come out in the deliberations today. I notice that on many occasions the department has money


granted which is not spent. Whether that be good or bad, I think that at this time when we need work and wages for the people of the country the public works department should spend its full allotment.
There is not much mention of the trans-Canada highway in the estimates. I do feel, and have reason to believe, that the trans-Canada highway is much behind schedule. Next year, 1956, is the end of the time allotted for the completion of the trans-Canada highway. I do not believe that the highway will be completed in any of the provinces by that time. I believe Premier Douglas, speaking at Regina a few weeks ago, did say that Saskatchewan would finish its portion of the highway by the end of 1956. Some mileages for paving are given, but calculating the mileages that are given and the progress that has been made during the last year, I do not see how Saskatchewan can complete its portion by 1956. Most of the other provinces are behind schedule. Probably they have other roads that are more urgently needed. The trans-Canada highway is really a dominion government project, although it is being administered and the construction carried on by the provinces. At the same time, I believe the provinces are gathering up all the money they can to build roads they need worse than they need the trans-Canada highway, and their money is probably directed that way.
I do not know whether the deal is a good deal or a bad deal. It seems to me it is rather a bad deal for the provinces because, since this is a trans-Canada highway, it is more or less the responsibility of the dominion government. I feel the federal government is paying a smaller percentage of the construction costs than it should pay. The dominion should pay at least 80 per cent and the provinces 20 per cent. Then, too, the premier of Quebec has been up here on several occasions, and when the time comes for answering questions I should like the minister to advise me whether any deal has been made with Quebec so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned. If so, how soon do they expect to start construction? The trans-Canada highway cannot end at both boundaries of the province of Quebec. In order to be a trans-Canada highway it has to cross Quebec. Probably the premier still feels as I do that the dominion government is not paying its full share of the cost. I should like the minister to tell us if anything has happened about that part of the trans-Canada highway and if not, why.
Then, we come to the item covering Ottawa buildings. Some time ago in the house we had a debate on Ottawa buildings and I do

not want to repeat that. I do want to ask the minister about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police building. According to the words of the minister it was inadequate in 1953; it was inadequate in 1954; and is still inadequate. What is being done to make that building the sort of building it should be, and have any expenditures been made on it or are any contemplated? I feel the department has made bad deals in the past in many instances, and I think that was a rather bad deal.
Another one came to my attention some time ago when the department bought a barracks on Spadina avenue. At that time the newspapers said the barracks was worth $10,000, so it seems to me like a misprint when I find the department paid $144,000 for it.
Then I have another more or less personal grievance with the department. I have been wondering for some time when the minister and his officials are going to start to run this department, and to see that it is not run by the patronage system and by a few people who are not members of this house. Some time ago, probably a year ago, the officials of this department told me that there would be a public building erected in Haliburton because the one there was too small and the ground available was not sufficient to add to it to satisfy the requirements of the area at this time. They decided they would build a new building rather than try to improve the old one. We appreciated that part of it, but later on in February of this year we find that another man, who is not a member of this house but a member of the Senate, comes into the patronage system and starts to tell us why and how and who is going to build this building. I think it is about time the minister and his officials clipped that fellow's wings. So far as this building is concerned, I do not care who builds it or who gets the credit for it as long as we get the building to meet the requirements of the people in that area.
Now, we have this patronage tycoon, I guess more or less appointed by the minister or his department, who spreads his fingers out over every riding. Members of this house, some of them Liberals, have told me that if you want to get anything you have to go to Senator Fraser. He is the man who tells you what you will get, how you will get it and all about it. That might be all right so far as contracts are concerned. If this building is going to be let by contract, and there are some pickings in it and W. A. Fraser is entitled to it, then that is all right with me. We would like to get the building, and we would like
Supply-Public Works
to know if this department is going to be run on a strictly patronage basis.
If the minister has any doubt in his mind about this, I have letters here to back it up. This letter was published in the Haliburton County Echo on March 24, and was written by W. A. Fraser on March 10. I do not know whether it was intended to be published, but it is certainly written to the editor. He states that public works will have an item in the estimates to cover this building in 1956-57. I was promised this post office more than a year ago, and I think it would have come along in the estimates this year if our patronage tycoon hadn't got his nose into the muddle. He thought there was not going to be enough Liberal persuasion or something of that sort, so he comes into the picture. He does not stop at writing a couple of personal letters. Perhaps this is a personal letter, I do not know, but it came out in our local newspaper. He writes two columns and then winds up his letter by mentioning my name and stating I cannot have any credit for any post office in that area. I must remember I am an opposition member and things are going to be done by him. He is going to say when we get the post office, and probably will have something to say about who builds it, especially if it is done by a contractor. There are many men up there who need work. There are good carpenters and good bricklayers who will be glad to get a job on this building. I do not care whom you select; select anybody you wish to do the job in my area. They are good workmen, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives. The department should remember that it is not just Liberals who are paying the taxes in this country to pay for these things. I should like to tell him that 75 per cent of the taxes paid in that village are paid by Conservatives.
When it comes to who is to pay for the building, I think they should have a little to say about who does it and how it is done. If you want to put Liberals on the job, that would be all right. We need the work and the wages. The boys need the money and they would be glad to have it. Do it any way you like, because it does not matter how often Senator Fraser comes into my riding I will welcome him or anybody else. I would welcome the minister up there when we open this building, even if it is set back one year or two years. I expect to be invited to the platform when it is opened. He may also do the same as he did in Peterborough. He may bring in the Liberal members from Kingston, Northumberland, Durham and as far east and as far west as he wishes. We will welcome them and give them a good

Supply-Public Works time and do not forget your patronage tycoon, Mr. Fraser. Bring him along, because I should like the pleasure of being on the same platform with him for at least five minutes. That would be as good a place as any I know of to meet him.
I say to the minister that up until now I have received fair treatment from the Department of Public Works. We have got along very well. But for some reason unknown to me at least, the department has appointed a patronage tycoon to come in and run this show and tell us where we are to get off and how we are to get off. It is about time that something was done about it.
There are other things I should like to talk about, but I shall leave them until the items are called. I say to the minister that we look upon him as the boss of this department, along with his deputy minister. If he wishes to assert his authority, then carry out the promises that the officials have made and build the post office this fall. Do not leave it over until next year because Senator Fraser or somebody else wants to get his fingers in the pie. I do not pay much attention to wolves howling in the woods. I have listened to them all my life, and the sounds from around here are not much different either


Mr. James:: You will never get out of the woods.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If I get out of the woods I certainly will not go down to Durham, but when I go to Durham it will be to elect a Conservative and you will know all about it.
I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates. So far as I am concerned that is all I have to say at this time. There are a lot of items and we shall get an opportunity to discuss them as they are called.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, these are
very important estimates and I should like to make a few general remarks on this item. Since I believe in the conservation of energy I shall also refer to a few matters in detail, and I trust that will save the time of the committee and remove the necessity for my rising on a dozen occasions later.
First of all, I must express my personal appreciation of the consideration and courtesy I received from the minister, his deputy and his senior officials. I have found all of them on all occasions willing to listen attentively to any representations I made on behalf of my constituents.
While I am on my feet I also wish to pay a tribute to the British Columbia district officials of the minister's department who are very active in going around British Columbia


to see what is required to meet the needs of the people concerned; also to the local officials in Kootenay West whom I have known for a good number of years and whose work has been appreciated generally by the people of my district. Their work and interest makes a great difference to the lives of many people living in small communities and in isolated points.
I wish to say that when the minister and the deputy took over this department they were faced with a very heavy task, as many hon. members realize. The department was pretty well bogged down because of the urgencies of the war and later a very large and extended building program with which the department's administrative staff was not able to deal effectively. The effects of the reorganization of the department that has been undertaken under the minister's direction and by the deputy minister and his senior officials is already beginning to show results, in improved efficiency.
I noticed in reading the report of the department for the year ended March 31, 1954, there is a reference on page 6 which deals with the realignment of departmental organization. In the last paragraph there is a reference to a matter that I had brought to the attention of the house on several occasions. I often said I could not see why senior engineers and well-trained officials in certain branches, either in the architectural branch or in the engineering branch, should have to be bothering about the janitors' duties in different buildings, whether they had a week's holiday or not. I now quote the last paragraph of this report:
The chief architect's branch has in the past been responsible for all maintenance activity as well as construction of government buildings. Authority is being sought to establish a property and building management branch which would be responsible for accommodation and maintenance. The chief architect, in charge of the building construction branch, would then be able to concentrate primarily on construction.
I was very pleased to read that in the report. When the minister speaks I should like him to inform the committee just what has been done in that connection, because I think it is a very good step in the reorganization of the department,
I also notice that since the minister and his deputy have taken over there is a greater decentralization, which makes for efficiency and often saves time. I know in years past there was a lot of pettifogging delay on some occasions, which I brought to the attention of the house, where the delay cost the public services more than twice as much as the money that was intended to be saved. I remember on one occasion pointing out that

there was a whole crew waiting to build a wharf and the man who was to deliver the lumber on contract raised the price $2 a thousand, I think it was, and the work was stopped until authority could be received from Ottawa to proceed. Consequently, the crew was kept idle there for quite a long period of time until Ottawa gave permission to go ahead with the reconstruction and pay the extra cost for lumber. I think the total amount involved in the extra lumber was just a few hundred dollars. I am very glad to know that owing to the reorganization of the department things like that will not happen in the future.
I can readily understand the desire to maintain control of all major policy and decisions regarding construction and things of that sort; but if we have competent engineers in the district offices and in the local offices, their good judgment can be relied upon to do what is best in the public interest in an emergency.
I must tell the minister that my constituents in the city of Nelson are very pleased with the progress being made on the federal building that is being constructed there. Those in the city of Trail are delighted that at last tenders have been called for the public building there. It is a very important place. This government collects a lot of income tax from the residents of the city of Trail. They have been looking forward to the commencement of this building for about three years. I am pleased that tenders have now been called and we hope that from this time on there will be no further delays in the construction of this important building. The residents of Castlegar were very pleased when their federal building was commenced. However, it was just started and then operations suddenly ceased. I understand the reason is a change in plans owing to a change in local conditions and circumstances.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like the minister to explain just what is intended so that I can correctly inform my constituents. My people at Robson East are delighted that there is to be a reconstruction of the wharf there which is most necessary. The minister may not understand just how important these things are, but the fact is that thousands of tons of ore are being shipped over this wharf every month from the northern part of my constituency, and considerable farm produce.
The people at Crawford Bay are also pleased to know that their wharf is to be reconstructed, and there are half a dozen others to be repaired which I will not take
Supply-Public Works
time to mention. All these improvements are most necessary because some of these communities are not served by roads and therefore the wharf is a most important part of their public facilities.
I was very pleased to note the item for the dredging on the Arrow lakes. There is an increasing traffic on the lakes in the form of tugs hauling ore and booms of logs. It is expected there will be a still greater increase in this traffic in the near future and I think more money will have to be allocated for dredging the narrows between Upper and Lower Arrow lakes in the years to come. It is necessary that that channel be maintained at a sufficient depth to permit the deeper draft tugs to get through. In the years past, stern-wheelers with a shallow draft were used but now there are more and more tugs hauling ore and log booms with a deeper draft. On occasion during low water they have some difficulty in getting through the narrows.
I am pleased to see that some work is to be done in dredging the bar at Arrowhead where the Columbia river enters the lake. This is most necessary. I am pleased also to see an item for channel maintenance in the Duncan river. This is a more or less isolated part of my constituency. But these small items for maintenance and improvement of rivers mean a lot to the people who make their living from lumbering and mining in this part of the country.
I notice an item for snag removal on the Arrow and Kootenay lakes. I am pleased to see that, because these snags have been increasing throughout the years. They come down at high water from the upper Columbia, usually in the form of trees floating vertically, and they catch on a sand bar and stay there and create a hazard to navigation. They accumulate and at times you will find as many as 100 in one spot. I am very pleased to see that this matter is to be dealt with this year. I suggest that an item of this kind should be included in the estimates every year if navigation is to be made as safe as possible. This is particularly so because there are an increasing number of small pleasure craft and small tugs operating on the lakes.
I have been very pleased with everything so far, but there is one other matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister and I am sure the deputy minister will listen to me as well. Over a period of 50 years the Department of Public Works has rendered an excellent service in the area which I represent by the building of wharves and the dredging and maintenance of river

Supply-Public Works
channels and works of that sort. The department has serviced many small isolated communities by providing a float at a landing or something of that type. I hope the department will not damage its magnificent record in that respect by neglecting the building of one more needed float.
A float is required to service the needs of the pioneer settlers at Brooklyn on Arrow lake. There was a float at this point 50 years ago and the C.P.R. service called there. Then the float went into decay and was not repaired. There are settlers there and quite a number of people own summer homes at that point. Other persons own undeveloped property there as well.
I am not suggesting that this is a large point, but the people there live under isolated circumstances without any road connection. I have been asked by various organizations on the lakes-they all sent me copies of the letters they had sent to the deputy minister and he knows all about it-to bring this case to the attention of the minister. These pioneers find it most inconvenient to transport their fruit and farm products across the lake to the landing almost opposite, particularly under winter conditions and even more so when there are dangerous ice conditions.
This would not be an expensive proposition because the department has used sections of floating wharves which are not required at the moment. These have served their purpose in larger communities and have since been replaced by other installations. Only a couple of sections of floating wharf, secured by driving a dolphin at each corner, would be needed. The expense would be small but it would prove of great benefit to the permanent residents and the couple of dozen people who go up there for their summer holidays.
I ask the minister to give consideration to this float as I know it can be built at little expense. I have done a good deal of work for the department in years gone by as they often came to me when they got into trouble when needing an inspector or when they thought I needed an extra dollar. I do hope the minister and his deputy will give every consideration to my request. This is the only isolated point on the Kootenay or Arrow lakes which is not served by one of these small floats and this can be provided by the use of some second-hand material and four dolphins. The present steamer service could then land there, and pick up passengers and freight.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up any time of the committee on this first item because we in this group 
intend to confine our remarks to the items in which we are particularly interested. I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Kootenay West as I do not think he has ever made a speech without congratulating someone in the government. Perhaps he gets more that way.


An hon. Member:: It appears so.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps some of us will have to revise our method of attack in the hope of getting extra service. We have no criticism to make of the way in which the minister has administered his department. I think everyone in this group will agree that he is not doing a bad job. Hon. members have had individual complaints but when they were brought to the minister he looked them over and answers were obtained. They were not always the answers we wanted, but they were answers just the same.


Mr. Patterson:: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Fraser Valley says, "That is right." When we reach the item that particularly interests him he will tells us why that is right. I shall say no more until the items come along in which our group may be particularly interested.


Miss Bennett:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks of a general nature to make.
I listened to what the hon. member for Macleod has just said with regard to praise of the department and I find myself in the position at the moment where perhaps I can give a little praise to this department. In the last few months I have had the good fortune to have very happy negotiations with the minister and his department concerning a new federal building in the town of Oakville. I must say we have had most cordial discussions and things are moving very nicely now. The allotment has been raised from $100,000 to $400,000, and that would indicate that we can expect and look forward to a very fine building which will be an asset to the municipality.
We hope we shall be able to bring these odds and ends of negotiations, about which the minister knows, to an end and we shall be able to get this building under way at an early date. If one must bespeak an invitation to the opening of the building, I must say right here and now to the minister that I hope that when it is completed and opened he will grant me an invitation to be present.


Robert Henry Winters: I extend you an invitation right now.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I look forward to that, and I hope it will be at an early date. I appreciate that the department has many problems

and great responsibilities, because we are growing in a most unprecedented manner in this nation. I know the minister himself, having made a survey in my county of Halton and having gone into the whole question of the federal building and the various matters that pertain to it, will appreciate the extent of the industrial and home building program that is taking place there in the county. Whilst it may sound premature-and I do not think it is premature-I should like the minister to keep in mind that what pertains to my county on lake Ontario pertains to every constituency on the great lakes. We are having the St. Lawrence river widened and we hope, and indeed expect, to see in the near future ocean traffic coming right down into our vicinity and farther on.
I should like to remind the minister that we have there already three very fine harbours, Oakville, Bronte and Burlington. Indeed the department has put considerable money into those harbours to keep them in good condition. We are developing in the county heavy types of industry, but also lighter industries. We have industries that are producing products needed in every part of the world. It seems to me to be a very central area. The department should keep in mind that there should be some development of either one or all of these. We could not ask for all at this stage, but there should be some development of the most important in the south end of the county of Halton, in order that we may have transportation for the movement of products that are being produced in that part of the county.
I would also remind the minister that we have a great concentration of railways and highways. We would like the department to keep that in mind when they are reviewing the situation. When they are setting money aside for the development of ocean harbours, something should be done for that county, which is in the midst of perhaps the greatest concentration of industry in this country.
There is another matter pertaining to welfare. The minister will probably remember that last year there was a very tragic happening at Oakville in which two scouts and their scoutmaster who were out for a sail were drowned in a very sudden storm that came up. All along the beaches in Peel and York and in other counties nearby there is a great new population. People come down there to spend their holidays. There are a great many yachting clubs and sailing clubs there. It would be advisable for the minister to take into consideration some method of coastal protection for these people,
Supply-Public Works
for the community at large on the beaches and for these yachting clubs that are going out and running competitions of all kinds across the lake. They are there in groups and as individuals. There is no means whatsoever of keeping them informed as to weather and safety conditions. There is no concentrated or co-ordinated effort in any of these harbours for lifesaving or warning, or in any way preserving the lives of these people, other than the municipal or local pojice. As our population grows and uses these harbours and the beaches all along these counties for that purpose, it would be well if the department would enter into some arrangement for the future protection of people taking part in that type of sport and the competitions that are engaged in on the lakes by the boating public.
There is just one more matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. I may be presuming a little in mentioning it today, because I note there is money set aside for it. It is in connection with the Burlington bridge. I appreciate that has to be dealt with through the province, but I would urge the federal government and the province that this matter be dealt with as quickly as possible. I can say that we have three highways converging on Burlington cut-off. We have the lakeshore highway, the Queen Elizabeth way and the Dundas highway. They carry thousands of vehicles. On any holiday or Sunday evening it is not at all unusual for traffic to be tied up there for two hours waiting to go through the bridge and go across the cut-off. There are a tremendous number of accidents-not large, but small accidents-of every kind.
Not only is it not good for the people themselves; it is not good advertising for our county, and it is not good advertising for any part of the province. Tourists coming in do not like that kind of delay. It looks bad that when coming through Canada they should proceed from Niagara Falls along the Queen Elizabeth or one of the other highways in an hour and then be held up, on any but an ordinary evening, for two or three hours before they get through. I should like to ask the minister, mainly as a safety measure, to prevent these accidents, to give a better impression, to keep traffic moving and to lend a good reputation to Canada as a tourist country and as an efficient country, that that matter be dealt with in co-operation with the province as soon as possible.


Mr. Balcom:: Mr. Chairman, I presume that the four members who have spoken, including the hon. member for Halton, were speaking on behalf of their party. Being the first member of the Liberal party to speak, I do not

Supply-Public Works
want to stand in any false light in saying a few words for Halifax. I am sorry that these estimates did not come up earlier in the session, so that we might perhaps have conscientiously spent our 40 minutes in going into them in more detail.


An hon. Member:: Go right ahead.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I have some very interesting matters to talk about, and I do not like to take the time of the house today on them. I should like it to be understood that, as some other hon. members have pointed out, time is important to all of us. My birthday is in March and I am prepared to stay here even that long in order to discuss these things. Even though we make some sacrifices I think we owe it to the house to be here, even if the session lasts a whole year.
The hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, intimated that there might be some patronage in awarding tenders. I presume he meant jobs. I would suggest that is something that might be catching in Ontario from politics on a lower level. However, I will say that in Halifax I do not know of any politics that enter into contracts there. If a contract is awarded, it goes to the man with the lowest tender. By way of compliment to the official opposition I would say that there must be some extremely smart Conservatives down there because we have government departments with nothing else but them in it and they are doing, I must say, a reasonable job.
I should now like to commend the minister and his staff-including all his department- for the progressive housing program which has been consistently pursued over the past few years. Legislation and administration have been geared to the changing business picture, particularly as it has affected the building industry. There seems to be little more that the federal government can do to encourage and help our people to build and acquire homes; I refer to those people who can afford to pay for them. Unfortunately, however, we have not yet disposed of the problem of providing homes for the bottom fifth of our population who, by ordinary standards, cannot afford to buy any kind of house. By the bottom fifth I mean those who cannot pay more than $20 to $30 a month rental.
Professor Leonard Marsh of the University of British Columbia, working from the premise that in buying a house, no family should pay more than two times its annual income, came to the conclusion that 20-7 per cent of the population could not afford any kind of house. That was in 1949; and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that condition still prevails. The fact is that shelter been all too few.

of sorts can be had and at a price, but the way it works out is to set up a situation in which the lowest-paid workers get the poorest value for their money in housing. This problem is more serious in an old city like Halifax, particularly as it has unique problems resulting from its character as a seaport and wartime centre of activity.
The National Housing Act has made provision for a substantial contribution to low-rental housing. In assuming 75 per cent of the cost of construction and any operating deficit, the federal government has assumed the major part of the burden. In addition, important projects have already come into being, such as Shannon Park on the Dartmouth side of the harbour and housing projects for the army in the northern part of the city and developments shared jointly by the city of Halifax and the federal government. The latter, I regret to say, have been all too few.
Much remains to be done, but it is encouraging to know that the present mayor of Halifax, Leonard Kitz, has shown his interest and I think we can expect real progress on this problem in the near future.
While the city has the most extensive blighted areas which should be replaced, very real problems of a similar nature exist in the county and the town of Dartmouth across the harbour. In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a broad approach involving these three-that is Halifax, Dartmouth and the municipality-and the federal authority is required. I would freely admit-and I repeat it; I have said it several times previously-that the initiative must come from the municipality for the funds are in Ottawa waiting for our city to use them. It may not be quite as simple as that but that is practically the situation.
Mr. Chairman, we know that the minister and his most co-operative staff-and I refer now particularly to that of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-will take time to assess the slum clearance need in Halifax and will do everything possible to encourage the local authorities to proceed with a progressive program.


Mr. Cardiff:: Last year when these estimates were before the committee I drew to the attention of the minister the fact that the post office in the town of Exeter was too small having regard to the amount of mail being handled and the growing number of people every year who are going into that town. I understood then that the minister would send an engineer down there to make an estimate of what it would cost to build an addition to the post office. They have a very good post office building; it is practically new; but the

number of people has grown to such an extent that the accommodation is not nearly sufficient to take care of the general public.
One reason for that situation is the fact that the Centralia airport is situated close to Exeter and many of the personnel at the airport live in Exeter and of course must be taken care of. There would not be too much expense involved in building an addition to the post office. There is plenty of room to do it. There is plenty of ground available on which to put an addition to the post office. As a matter of fact, when I looked through the estimates I thought I would find in there this year an estimate for that addition to the post office, but I do not see any there. I should like to ask the minister whether he has sent his engineer down there and whether he knows anything about the situation. I should like to hear from him if he cares to answer that question.
There was also a certain situation in the town of Hensall. Before the election the department had some ground-bought, I believe, from the C.N.R.-on which to build a post office there. But for some unknown reason, after the election was over-I do not know whether or not it was because of the fact that the election did not turn out to suit them-that project has disappeared. I have not heard anything more about it at all. A new post office is needed there. As far as the government was concerned, they had agreed to build one or at least they had agreed that someone should build one. They were going to rent this property for ten years after it was built. But for some reason, of which I am fairly well aware, it was not built.
I should like the minister to look into that situation also. We need a post office there, regardless of the fact that perhaps the man they wanted was not elected. That consideration does not change the situation any. As far as I am concerned, I am the representative there; and if the people there want a post office and need one, I think it is up to the government to build one. I would ask the minister to look into that situation and to find out why that building was not completed or was not started. I would ask him to find out some of the reasons why we have not one there now, because we should have had one there by this time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am pleased to note that in the chamber this afternoon the holiday spirit seems to prevail, and I trust my remarks will be in keeping with Canada's anniversary. I am happy to note that this year the minister is providing for three public buildings in my riding. Saskatchewan
Supply-Public Works
is celebrating its golden jubilee anniversary this year, and I should like to say that this is the first time in this 50-year period that the member for Mackenzie has ever been able to rise in parliament and express appreciation to a minister of public works for appropriating funds for public buildings. During that period of time the Parthenon in the field of architecture has been the country elevator.
While the amounts provided for new buildings in Mackenzie will not permit the erection of such public buildings as we have in the capital city, our people appreciate the fact that $75,000 is being appropriated for three public buildings at Carrot River, Kel-vington and Porcupine Plain. I note that the total for the province is $2,565,000; and while $75,000 is a very small drop in the bucket, it is a start. I hope the minister will see that the department does not wait another 50 years before deciding to spend further funds on public buildings.
I am very glad this appropriation has been made, and I want to assure the minister I do not intend to ask for any credit. I think the buildings are being started in recognition of the fact that there are people living in those areas who are entitled to have some federal public buildings. I am very glad that during the period I am in parliament the people of the area are not being discriminated against because they happen to have a member of parliament who is not a supporter of the government.
I know the minister receives invitations to go to Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto and Winnipeg to open public buildings. I do not suppose he has ever been invited to places as small as Carrot River, Kelvington or Porcupine Plain. I hope he will accept an invitation now to be in my constituency to open the first of these three public buildings to be completed. I can assure him on behalf of the people of whichever area he happens to visit that he will be accorded a very warm welcome and the best of western hospitality.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words. I shall start as others have by thanking the minister and his very efficient officials for their co-operation in the dealings I have had with them, both with regard to conditions of work of employees and also with regard to works undertaken in this district.
I shall say very little in connection with employees. We may come to that later. But I should like to say that the minister is to be congratulated on reorganizing many branches of the department. I think it will

Supply-Public Works take a little time for the effects of the reorganization to be felt, but already we know that the conditions of work of people employed by the department in this area are much better. Something could be said, of course, about small details. I think the staff is too small and that too much overtime work is done by employees, but I am sure the minister and his officials will have time for these problems at a later date.
As to the undertakings in this district, they are very large indeed, and the people of Ottawa are of course very happy with the progress of the different buildings under construction. I do not feel too happy that in my own riding in the eastern part of Ottawa, which I have always considered a very beautiful part of the city, the minister and his officials have not seen fit to make plans for any specific buildings, although the area lends itself just as admirably to such construction as some of the pasture land parts of the city and areas on the west side.
I should like to direct the attention of the minister and his officials once again to the Sussex street property facing the river, which belongs to the government, and also to the site designated as the site for the city hall. Apparently the city wishes to refuse that site, but if it is good enough for the government to suggest its use for a city hall it should be good enough for the erection of a government building. I am sure if I keep on asking for the same thing every year I shall be at least as successful as some of the people on the other side of the house who obtain post offices in their ridings.
There is one other type of project which should be brought to the attention of the house. I am thinking now of projects which require the co-operation of the province, the city and the federal district commission. I have only one reproach to make to the minister in this connection. I feel that his publicity department is not too good when it comes to giving a true picture of the part played by the Department of Public Works and the government of Canada in all these projects such as the Chaudiere bridge, other bridges being built in different parts of the city and the new Queensway highway, the land for which is being supplied in great part by the government of Canada through the Department of Public Works. I believe the department should give the public better and more detailed information as to its share in all undertakings in the city to which it contributes, because there is a feeling in many quarters that the only contributors are the taxpayers of the city, the federal district commission and sometimes the province of Ontario. A large share comes from the Department of Public Works.


Finally, to make my remarks brief, let me reiterate my demand for the immediate study of a bridge across the Ottawa river. Surely now that the government has planted the printing bureau across the river and has many other projects in view for the other side of the river, we should take the initiative in bringing about the construction of a sorely needed bridge across the Ottawa river in the eastern part of the city. The interprovincial bridge is not sufficient for a small town. It does not handle anything like the traffic it could if it were of a proper size. I hope the minister and his officials have plans in mind to start a bridge across the Ottawa river in the eastern part of the city.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have no invitations for the minister, no congratulations and no condemnation. Therefore I think I can start with a clean sheet. Specifically, I think what I want to talk about can properly be dealt with on the first item. I only wish to speak about two points, both having to do with new construction. With an aggressive minister who is an engineer I think we should be able to expect at this stage that his department will give a lead to Canadian architecture in its fight to establish a distinctive Canadian trend. I think in this respect we should lead, not follow, and I cannot help thinking that many of the public buildings which are built today would serve better as blockhouses guarding the approaches to the downtown areas of our major cities.
I think there is a trend in Canadian architecture to which the department might give serious consideration and study. It may be that the department is already looking into these things. As a matter of fact the sketches in the newspapers of the new postal building for Adelaide street in Toronto would appear to indicate that we are making an effort to get away from the heavy type of construction which is the trade-mark of things built by the government and things built by the chartered banks.
I should like, as a matter of fact, to refer shortly to an article written by Mr. John C. Parkin, who I think is one of the leading architectural designers in Canada today. He is a partner in one of the largest architectural firms, a firm which has won many of the top awards in architecture. I think we can pay attention to what he says. In an article which he wrote in the last issue of Saturday Night, June 25, he said:
I think we can safely say that that battle between modem and traditional architecture, which has been under way ever since Frank Lloyd Wright doffed his pork-pie hat to the American public, has swung undisputedly in favour of modem. Canadians,-

I like the next few words.
-conservative by habit and by inclination, have fallen victims to the present trend. Granted, there are mopping-up skirmishes here and there; nonetheless, we have evidence in every field of the construction industry that the Canadian people like the ornament-free, glass-walled, efficient-looking (and efficient-acting) buildings of modem achitecture.
Qualitatively, however, the battle for good, modern architecture is only beginning; let us not worry too much about being Canadian for its own sake, but let us direct our efforts, rather, towards improving the quality of our work.
I think there are two aspects of this question of the modern trend in architecture. Certainly there is a problem of fitting public buildings into our new and modern style communities. I notice that in a short paragraph on the next page of this article reference is made to a large modern community under construction in the metropolitan area of Toronto. The majority of its buildings are modern, some uncompromisingly so. One corporation and their architects chose to construct in the heart of this otherwise modern community a neo-Georgian building, an incongruous anachronism. I believe this is a problem the department must face, and must face now.
It seems to me there is no necessity for carrying from one end of this country to the other the massive stone type of construction we see evidenced in public buildings. We can probably make an exception of the type of architecture which should be preserved in this capital city, even preserved to the extent of maintaining the historical parts of it in the form in which they already are, notwithstanding the fact that we may have to modernize in many other respects. I said there was a twofold purpose in this. First of all there is the necessity for seeing that the buildings we construct, no matter where, are in conformity with the new trend in Canadian architecture. Some men, such as the one I have quoted, are in the forefront in seeing that in Canada today we shall have a distinctive type of building which is modern in all respects.
The second point deals with the question of costs. I have only had a short experience here in connection with the construction costs of public buildings. As a matter of fact the Minister of Finance gave me a very short lesson, when he said it costs a great deal more to build here than in other parts of Canada. But I do not see why we should not expect the Department of Public Works to maintain the same levels, the same costcutting procedures, that are maintained throughout industry today. You cannot expect to construct the type of building we have had as cheaply as you can with the 50433-352
Supply-Public Works
new methods of construction which entail such things as the new lift slab method of erecting flooring on the steel skeleton; methods of curtain wall construction, with their new and proven insulating features; uses of fibre glass, plastic and glass.
There is no doubt about it; these methods will bring down the costs of many of these buildings. We must face the fact that with our expanding population, an increasing number of buildings will be required. When you inquire about costs and find that in some instances we have paid up to $22.50 per square foot for a building, then I must agree with the observation previously made by the hon. member for St. Paul's that we certainly are using a surplus of ornamentation on a lot of these buildings.
I am sure the clean-cut modern lines that can be achieved will give the same effect of stability, which I am sure is one of the qualities the minister wants to retain in connection with government buildings. I believe the same effect of stability can be retained and the costs can be definitely reduced. I think the style of architecture which can be produced will definitely fit in with the style in the areas in which the buildings are being constructed. X would say that as a final result, and probably a very important result, we will give a lead to those young Canadians who are building new and distinctive styles of architecture.
If I may go one step further, I do not know whom the minister may have on his list as qualified architects to draft the plans for buildings that are going to be erected in this country, but I would strongly suggest that a real effort be made to see that the newer men coming along are given an opportunity to contribute something of a lasting nature through his department.


Mr. Huffman:: I should like to commend the minister and his departmental officials on the money they are spending on projects throughout this country, because I feel it adds materially to the gross national product of our country. I should like to refer to one illustration of that in my own area. This project was started by the predecessor of the present minister, and was completed by the present minister. I refer to a fisherman's wharf at Wheatley. Since this wharf has been completed I have noticed that the revenue in this area has trebled, and therefore any money expended on projects of this nature is really a benefit to Canada as a whole.
Having done that in one area, Mr. Chairman, I find there is another area in my district that has a problem comparable to that of the fishermen at Wheatley. I should like to refer to the people who engage in fishing

Supply-Public Works
at Erieau. Just recently a lease has been granted to a company to ship grain by water. This lease was formerly held by the fisher-folk from the railway company in that area. Since they have lost their leases to this transit company the fishermen will now have to be located somewhere else. I would recommend to the minister and his officials that the same type of work be done for these men who operate this fishing fleet as was done at another point along the lake. I am sure if that is done the revenue at this point will increase to the same extent as in the other place.
Some people say they have nothing to thank the minister and his department for. Our district has a number of things. 1 know that at the present time the department is seeking a site for a post office at Wheatley and an addition to the post office at Tilbury. Work has been done at Mitchells Bay. I am certain that when the time comes for an extension of the work that has just been completed there, the department will look favourably upon the request for further additional dockage space.
May I at this time compliment the minister on the very fine way in which the district offices look after the work within our district. I know every time any request has been directed to them, if it came within their jurisdiction they have been most willing to co-operate. I have been able from time to time to bring delegations who felt they wanted to meet the minister, the deputy minister and his officials. On all occasions the minister and the officials have met these people, and it has tended toward excellent public relations. I am certain that will continue as long as this minister holds the portfolio he is occupying at the present time. I am not seeking an invitation to anything in particular, but I do wish to extend an invitation to the minister to come to Chatham where ground has been broken for the new public building. On behalf of the mayor, his officials and the citizens as a whole, I should like to extend an invitation to the minister to be present at the laying of the cornerstone at his convenience.


Mr. Mclvor:: He will accept.


Edward Blake Huffman: I was interested in hearing the remarks of the hon. member for York West in regard to helping the younger architects of this country. The building that is being erected in Chatham is along the lines suggested by the hon. member. I am quite certain that if he wishes to see a building of the kind he has mentioned, if he will come to Chatham within a year he will see a building of excellent architectural construction.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two items I wish to draw to the attention of the minister. With your permission, I shall deal with them all at the same time so I shall not have to rise on the different items as they are called. First I wish to mention the breakwater at Gimli. This is an old story, because I must have brought it up five or six times about five years ago. The department built a breakwater there because they realized they were obliged to fix it up. The breakwater has been washed away. I have a letter from the town of Gimli. They tell me they have not the money to replace it. I should like the minister's officials or his engineers to examine it and see what can be done about it, because it is washed away. It has broken down, and it was up only four years. There must have been something quite faulty about it. It should last longer than four years.


Robert Henry Winters: There was supposed to be fill behind it, put there by the municipality. The fill was never put there. That is why the breakwater washed away.


William Scottie Bryce: I think the fill washed away, too. I was there early in the spring and it was not acting as a breakwater at all. I should like the minister to look into it. You get the same story right along the whole of the lake. I have a letter from Sandy Hook, which says that flood water even from Saskatchewan is draining into lake Winnipeg, and they need some more protection there. The letter says:
We put one stone breakwater in four years ago, but last fall the big storm we had then washed it out. Now the lake is higher yet and any storm will do considerable damage.
These people make their livelihood from the summer resorts. When your engineer is out that way he could have a look at it. Then there is Winnipeg Beach, which is in bad shape. They really have it bad there. I have a resolution from the town of Winnipeg Beach which I should like to read into the record so the minister will see it and do something about it. It reads as follows:
Whereas due to excessive rainfall during the past five years, the present level of lake Winnipeg is , six feet above normal; and
Whereas this is causing severe erosion to the shoreline at Winnipeg Beach, is washing the beach away and is endangering numerous cottages on the lake front; and
Whereas it has been reported that a proposal has been submitted to the federal government by the Manitoba government to have the Fairford river-lake St. Martin-Dauphin river channel enlarged in order to drain more water into lake Winnipeg from lake Manitoba; and-

I think this comes under P.F.R.A., but I want to read it anyway.
Whereas it has also been reported that no specific proposal has been submitted to the federal government to have work done on the Nelson river, in order to enable it to carry more water northward from lake Winnipeg; and
Whereas unless remedial work is carried out on the Nelson river, the level of lake Winnipeg will be even greater if the Dauphin river channel is enlarged;
Now therefore be it resolved that the council of the town of Winnipeg Beach request the Manitoba government to submit a definite proposal to the federal government to have the necessary work done to improve the Nelson river outlet; and
Be it further resolved that the council of the town of Winnipeg Beach go on record as being opposed to the Dauphin river channel being enlarged unless similar remedial work is undertaken at the Nelson river.
I am sure the minister can understand what they are afraid of; that is, more water coming in and less going out.
There is another matter to which I would like tc refer. I spoke to the minister about it. I do not know whether he has been able to trace it down. On lake Winnipeg we have the Bradbury, which is a public works boat, and we have two dredges. The men who work on these dredges and the men who work on the Bradbury are entitled to $1.54 a day for food. On the Bradbury everybody is happy because they spend the $1.54 a day or $47 a month that is allowed to each man, while on the dredges some particular person buys the food. They do not necessarily spend the $47 that is allowed. I am sure everybody on the dredges is getting a sufficient wage and does not need to make 10 per cent on some other person's food. I want the minister to look into that and see that everybody working for the public works department is fed on the same basis. The people on the Bradbury are happy; the people on the dredges are not happy, at least some of them are not.
Before I was defeated in the 1953 election the sum of $25,000 appeared in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for a new post office at Selkirk. I know that no post office has been built, but I do not know where the $25,000 went. I have spoken to the Postmaster General, and he assures me that if any place needs a post office it is Selkirk. They are up against it for room and the congestion is terrific, especially in the busy season. I appeal to the minister to get some money back into the estimates so we can get a post office, and then I will be in the enviable position of some of my colleagues and able to extend to him an invitation from the town of Selkirk to come and open the new post office.
50433-352J
1. 1955	5583
Supply-Public Works


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, what I wish to bring to the attention of the committee is not the need for something in the way of a building, but the need for greater care on the part of the department in the acquisition of properties. I intend to refer to a transaction which occurred right here in Ottawa in which it seems to me a price without warrant has been paid for a property acquired by the crown in comparatively recent times.
I go back to a situation which existed two or three years ago, when a firm in Ottawa known as Wittington Investments Limited acquired three properties on Isabella, Albert and Wellington streets from Norlite Realty Limited. The price paid for the three properties as shown by documents of record in the registry office was $967,500.
The Isabella street property was then sold by Wittington Investments Limited to an apparently related company, Wittington Realty and Construction Limited, under a deed dated May 1, 1954, and registered on July 22, 1954. The consideration for the sale of that property as shown by documents of record in the registry office was $204,268.61.
The second property on Albert street was also sold at that time, likewise to Wittington Realty and Construction Limited. The deed of the property was dated the same day, and it was registered on the same day as the deed for the Isabella street property. The consideration for the sale of that property as shown by documents of record in the registry office was $137,501.98.
We now arrive at the position where the third property, the Wellington street property, would be carried by Wittington Investments Limited at a net price of $625,730. The crown proceeded to acquire the property on .Wellington street. It served notice of expropriation, which notice was registered on March 26, 1954. Subsequently the compensation was arrived at, presumably by agreement, and conveyance was made and release given by the recipient of the compensation, namely Wittington Investments Limited. The consideration passing for this property as shown in documents of record in the registry office was $1,396,000. In other words, a property which had cost Wittington Investments Limited the net sum of $625,730 in 1952 was disposed of by that company to the crown in the fall of 1954 for $1,396,000. On the turnover Wittington Investments Limited realized an appreciation of capital or profit, whichever you like to call it, of $770,270 in a period of just two years.
On the face of it that kind of transaction calls for investigation and explanation. Here is a property which in the course of two years,

Supply-Public Works so far as the price paid by Wittington Investments Limited and the price realized by it on expropriation are concerned, has more than doubled in value. On the face of it there is something there that calls for investigation. Attention should be drawn to the fact that this was an expropriation, but apparently the compensation was determined by agreement.
I understand that in a case of that kind the practice of the department is to secure independent valuations from persons who are not only competent in their field but who can give sound advice and who should have no interest whatever in the transaction-I go further and say who should have no vestige of interest in the transaction.
I should like to know what independent valuations were obtained by the department which guided them in the paying of this enormous price, a price which I am informed on competent advice is not only grossly excessive but could not be defended under any circumstances. What were the valuations? What valuators supported this enormous price which was paid for this property by the crown?
My information-I trust that when the minister speaks he will give the committee full information-as far as it goes is that the appraisal was made by Mr. E. S. Sherwood.
I am told also that Mr. Sherwood is the manager of a building now in the course of construction by the same company, Wittington Investments Limited. I think the department will have to have some other source of independent advice to give any colour of justification to the payment of this exorbitant price for this property.
I am quite certain that the people of this country expect on the part of the government a sound businesslike approach to problems of this kind. When the crown finds it necessary to acquire property it should seek a property suitable for its purposes and by means which will guarantee the public as far as possible against being charged an exorbitant price. It is my understanding that the reason we have the procedure laid down in the Expropriation Act for the determination of compensation where the crown expropriates property is that the compensation to be paid shall be arrived at on proper grounds and after all relevant and proper testimony has been obtained.
This is not to exclude agreements where agreements can be entered into by the department in settlement of the compensation where it is obvious the department is obtaining a good price, thus saving the expense of litigation in the course of expropriation. But it is quite evident that was not the case here.


The mere fact that the price paid by the department for this property was double- yes, more than double-the cost of this property to the owner just two years before is enough, on the face of it, to condemn the price paid.
Far be it from me to introduce personal considerations, but the fact is that the gentleman who, I am told, conducted the legal affairs of the company which received this handsome premium on this investment was Mr. Duncan MacTavish, the president of the national Liberal federation of Canada. The fact that he holds that office is no disqualification of Mr. MacTavish-and I speak of a man who is, I am sure, a personal friend of many in this chamber-in carrying on his legal practice and acting for clients even in relations with the crown. But it was an additional reason on the part of the department for exercising the greatest care in a transaction of this kind that no suspicion should attach to it.
When we have, on the face of it, the fact that the price paid is double what the property cost the company just two years before, it seems to me that we have here patent facts which should have put the minister, or at least those of his officials who were in charge of this matter, on their guard and should have called for the exercise of much more vigilance in the public interest than has evidently been exercised in this case. If it were at an earlier stage of the session that we had learned of these matters, this is the sort of transaction that would call for inquiry before the public accounts committee.
At this stage of the session I raise the matter here on the estimates of the minister and say that even though the transaction appears now to be completed-evidently there is nothing, so far as I am aware, that can be undertaken now by way of undoing this transaction-nevertheless I put the house upon notice that the department, in negotiating with a company represented by the president of the national Liberal federation of Canada, has paid for this property, evidently willingly paid for it, more than twice the cost of the property to the owner just twc years before. I believe the house will wanl to know from the minister what were the independent valuations upon which the minister proceeded in paying a price that is on the face of it, palpably exorbitant.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take about a minute. Last year when these estimates were before the committee I made a request that dredging, of which a gooc

deal takes place at the lakehead, be commenced earlier at Fort William. I should like to express appreciation because dredging started early in the spring, and that has helped employment very much in Fort William. I would repeat my request and ask that the dredging commence just as soon as possible. I know they have to have the report of the engineer on the sounding, but the dredging has to be done and I should like to see it commence as early in spring as possible.
I have nothing but commendation for the district engineers and their staff who are doing an outstanding job and co-operating thoroughly. As far as the minister himself is concerned, I have learned to have a great appreciation for the wise man who comes from the east. Since the time he first came here and swung his tennis racquet and walloped an outstanding tennis player of Canada, I have appreciated the work of the minister and that of his staff, and the courtesy of his deputy and engineers.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot invite the minister to the opening of any public building in my constituency. But if some of the intimations I have received from him are justified, I can at least invite him to a fishing party when he completes the building of some wharves that I hope are forthcoming. We can sit on the end of the wharf and perhaps catch some tommy codfish.
I would suggest to him, however, that if we are going to keep that appointment and are starting from here, it will be advisable for him first to get the clocks fixed in this building. Otherwise, if he goes by one clock and I by another, one of us will get there too soon and the other too late. The clocks over the elevator entrances all show different times, and the chimes in the tower are erratic. Sometimes they strike the quarter hour at the half hour, the half hour on the quarter hour and the hour on either one. It reminds me of the ditty of the old Irishman's clock. How did it go? "When the hands are at nine the clock strikes seven and then I know it is a quarter to eleven." That is something the same as we have with the clocks at the moment. I hope the minister, with his engineering background and experience, will take care to see that at least when we do get out of here we shall get out on time. Otherwise we may not get out of here at all.
I did not rise to discuss the matter of keeping time. That seems relatively unimportant just now. I want to explore for a moment a matter of administration on which, frankly, I am not too clear in my own mind. I thought if it were not explored at this time rather than when the question is raised again,
Supply-Public Works
we might be told, "You should have done that when the estimates of the Department of Public Works were before you." The situation is that apparently somewhere between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport a fiasco of major dimensions has been created. We have the situation, according to the press, where the long awaited ferry which was constructed to ply between North Sydney and Port aux Basques now cannot use the harbour of Port aux Basques because of dredging there which has made the harbour too rough for use.
I know the Department of Transport does some dredging of its own. I remember that last year the Minister of Transport gave the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra quite a lecture when he suggested that his officers and engineers were more competent than those of any other department of government, and that they were the best qualified to do this work. It may be that the Department of Transport has done a great deal of this dredging. However, I notice in the report of the Department of Public Works that for the year ending 1954 dredging was done at Port aux Basques by contract. It refers to two areas in that harbour and gives the amount removed as over 6,800 yards drilled and blasted. In the year 1953 I find also in the report of the Department of Public Works that 15,225 yards were taken out of the harbour of Port aux Basques. I am not sure of the technical language, but it looks to me as though all of that had been drilled and blasted as well, but in that I might be mistaken.
It is apparent that during the years 1953 and 1954 the Department of Public Works has been doing extensive dredging in the harbour of Port aux Basques. Whether the Department of Transport was also carrying on dredging is something I do not know. I should hardly think it likely that both departments would be carrying on at the same time, but when you see the net result you would not be surprised at anything. You could not get a sillier situation than this government, between the various departments, spending on piers, dredging and ship construction an amount which according to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald is going to run to about $25 million, and when it is all done the ship has no place to go.
I know the Department of Public Works is not responsible for anything in connection with the ship, but what a ridiculous position some department is in. They built a ship for my constituency or one part of my constituency, to run from Yarmouth to Maine, and they forgot to put the engines in, so it could not run. In this case they built the ship

Supply-Public Works and put the engines in it, but now they have no place for the ship to go. It is a situation as to which I am sure the Minister of Public Works will give some explanation to this committee concerning the responsibility of his department.
In short, as I read it, what has happened is that the harbour of Port aux Basques in earlier days was protected by reefs and islands. In other words there were natural breakwaters there which gave the harbour substantial protection. But in preparing for this particular ship, the William Carson, to enter and leave that harbour freely, a great deal of blasting was done and a new channel was created; and in connection with that operation these natural reefs were blown out. Apparently no one ever thought that one of the functions of the reefs was to keep tidal waves from rolling in. Apparently someone was surprised. It was only a month or two ago they found out.
I notice that the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria put on the order paper early in May a question asking when this ship was going to start operations, and the Minister of Transport replied that no definite plan had been made in that regard at that moment. I can now easily understand why no definite plans were made at the moment; it was because they did not know where they were going to send it. In any event, they blasted out reefs; they blasted out islands, and now they find they cannot tie up the ship in the harbour. They built extremely expensive piers. There are side elevators. The three-inch clearance or three-inch rise and fall is all you can get against these elevators.
I am speaking now of something that is reported in the press. Now with the water surging back and forth in the harbour, it will rise far more than the three inches and therefore you cannot use the elevators. Therefore you cannot unload the ship. Therefore you have a painted ship not on a painted ocean but on an extremely rough ocean. The other day the Minister of Transport said, not in the house but in an interview to press men:
It Is proposed to carry out further work in the nature of a breakwater-
Having blown the breakwater out, you are now going to put it back, Mr. Chairman.
-in order to provide safer facilities for ships coming into the harbour-not only the William Carson, but all ships.
I would say in passing that I think all ships, including the one in which John Cabot -I almost said John Cabot Pickersgill- discovered Newfoundland, were able to lie in the harbour of Port aux Basques
(Mr. Nowlan.]

safely without experiencing rough water until these barriers were blown out. The Minister of Transport has been considering whether they are going to rebuild the reefs which apparently, as I take from the minister's look across the way, the department of the Minister of Public Works blew up, or whether they are going to spend another $1 million putting in artificial breakwaters.
In any event, as I said, I think the substantial part of this fiasco is perhaps with another department, but I at least want to know which department did it, so when the minister replies this afternoon I hope he will tell us. From a smile and a nod a few minutes ago I gathered that he would do so. I hope he will tell the committee whether his department did all this work, how long they have been doing it, how much they have spent in doing it, why they did it, and whether they did it on the instructions of the Department of Transport.
I notice that Mr. Baldwin, the deputy minister of transport, in his statement to the press says the Department of Transport must take the responsibility for this; but he also says that the technicians-whoever they may be-of the Department of Public Works were consulted and advised. It is a problem, as I said, on which we should have some more definite information than so far has been made available. How men and engineers who knew the sea and know something of those waters could play with firecrackers and blast these reefs and islands out in the way they did, without realizing what would happen afterwards, is something which I think is beyond the comprehension of most people. Certainly it is beyond the comprehension of the government member from the constituency of Burin-Burgeo who in an interview with the press, as reported in the Halifax Herald of Monday of this week, said he had been warning the government of this for five years.
He said:
A lot of Newfoundland seamen did too, but when we went to the C.N.R., they didn't seem worried because the government wasn't worried, and when we went to the government, the government wasn't worried because the C.N.R. wasn't worried. The project was not thought out well and I have my doubts whether what they have in mind now will be a remedy. It would be better to have two small boats rather than one big ship that is going to find it hard to get around the harbour, he said.
If there is any merit in the suggestion I know the Minister of Public Works, who is the minister from Nova Scotia, always wants to improve provincial facilities. I would suggest to him that he now take that big ferry which he cannot use and put it on the run

between Saint John and Digby so we can have a car ferry and bring the C.P.R. into Nova Scotia, or he can put it on the run from Digby to Saint John to Boston and we can enhance the passenger and tourist business and further to supplement the Yarmouth to Bar Harbor ferry. I think that would be better than to have this boat drop out of circulation for the two or three years it may take until they get this artificial breakwater built; and when they get that built it may not be any good anyway. However, that is the part of the matter which I wanted to explore delicately at the moment, and we shall listen with interest to the explanation by the minister later on.


Mr. Barnett:: I have listened with great interest to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings. It seems to me there is one obvious aspect of this matter of the harbour of Port aux Basques which he has overlooked, namely that the situation he has been describing may at least do something to help the unemployment situation.
I think perhaps this particular incident which I understand the minister is going to explain before this discussion concludes serves to lend colour to the suggestion that has come to my ears more than once, and it is this. While one cannot discredit the value of the technical knowledge of engineers there may be times when, in matters relating to the sea, more attention could be given to the viewpoints of those who are familiar with the various local conditions of tides, winds, waters and so on. I know I have had that suggestion made to me a number of times. It has been suggested that this aspect is sometimes overlooked by the engineers.
May I say that it was not said in such a manner as to suggest that the engineer does not perform a necessary function in our society. I know that when I passed through Port aux Basques last year I heard some remarks in current conversation about the situation that was developing in that harbour. Possibly I should have paid more serious attention to them than I was disposed to pay at that time. However, we may perhaps hear some further explanation of that subject.
The discussion on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Public Works has become somewhat more extended and varied than appeared to be indicated when we started out. For my part I felt that last year we had quite a discussion on some of the policies which the then new Minister of Public Works was proposing to inaugurate. Some members, including myself, did indicate
Supply-Public Works
our general approval last year of the approach he then said he had in mind. My own feeling is that a period of one year is not sufficient time to be able to judge how far the minister is going to go in putting some of these policies into effect, one of which, as indicated by him, was that he was going to squeeze the water out of the public works estimates. I believe some progress has been made in that direction as far as the area of the country with which I am most familiar is concerned, and I hope that tendency will continue. I may have one or two suggestions to offer in that connection a little later in my remarks.
However, there is one item coming under the minister's department on which there was some discussion last year but which has not been referred to so far this year. I refer to the national highway building program which some of us think should be on a much more extended scale than has been undertaken so far. I note that in this year's estimates the major item for the trans-Canada highway is the same as in last year's estimates, which indicates that the scale of the national highway program is certainly not being extended.
During the past year I had the opportunity to do some travelling on some of our Canadian highways and some of the highways in the country to the south. I must say that by and large the comparison is not in favour of our Canadian highway system. It really does not seem to matter very much in what part of the country one travels; by and large that is the impression one gains. I travelled over a thousand miles on the highways of the province of Newfoundland last year, and from various quarters heard suggestions that they could very well do with an extended program of national highway development in connection with the trans-Canada highway. I think any member of the house who travels across that province will recognize, having regard to their population and their developed sources of wealth, that they are faced with a very difficult program with respect to extending across that province a highway which could properly be considered part of an adequate national highway system.
Following the Easter recess I returned across the continent by highway from Vancouver island to Ottawa, and I travelled most of the way on highways of the United States. It was my first trip by highway to eastern Canada, and I took what according to the map was the main highway route joining Canada's two largest cities. After having travelled several thousand miles on the highways of the country to the south of us, I must say it

Supply-Public Works
was a bit of a shock to discover what constituted the main highway between Canada's two largest cities. At the time the well known phrase, "nothing but an overgrown cow trail", seemed to describe it.
I also had the opportunity of doing a little travelling last year on some of the highways in our national parks. While I can see that quite a program is being carried on there, and I am glad to note that the appropriation has been increased in this year's estimates, nevertheless there is still a great deal of work to be done in western Canada before we can have even a single highway that can properly be called a transcontinental highway. I am not suggesting that I or any other member of this group would advocate going hog wild in the building of highways here, there and everywhere with assistance from the national treasury. I believe, however, that the highway program could and should be extended as part of the over-all transportation policy of the country.
If there is to be federal participation on an increasing scale, I believe that development must of necessity be correlated to a certain extent with the program of railway development that is to be undertaken. In developing our highway program all due consideration must be given to the existing railway structure of the country. I think some of the facts in relation to that matter became very apparent the other day in the meetings of the committee which was considering the bill having to do with agreed charges. I am not going to extend my remarks further on this point, except that I should like to know where I should send the bill for a tire ruined by a very bad pothole in a national park, whether to the Minister of Public Works or to his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. That was a very unexpected termination to a fairly good piece of road, and one of my front tires suffered as a consequence.
I should like very much to be able to take the minister and other members of the house on a little tour of some of the installations in Comox-Alberni that come under the harbours and rivers engineering division of the minister's department, but I am afraid if I were to follow the good example of the hon. member for Kootenay West my remarks would extend to at least a couple of hours. Therefore I shall not go into that matter very extensively. However, I should like to make one or two suggestions of a general nature. I referred earlier to the fact that last year the minister announced his intention of squeezing the water out of the estimates so we would know that when an item for a certain project appeared in the estimates,
fMr. Barnett.]
the department was seriously planning to undertake that particular construction in the ensuing year.
In line with that policy, I should like to suggest to the minister that a logical development would be the laying down of an overall plan with respect to the development of boat harbours, harbour protection works, wharves and floats for the coastal areas of British Columbia. We would then know with some certainty that when a certain project was undertaken it was a part of a logical over-all plan. It seems to me that would tend to improve the situation which so often arises now, when different local communities feel it essential to exert all the pressure they can command for the development of some particular project. If they knew that, generally speaking, a certain volume of projects could be undertaken by the department with the facilities available and with the money that could fairly be allocated for that purpose; if they knew there was going to be a logical development and that at the proper time the particular project with which they were most concerned would be proceeded with in due course, it seems to me that would enable not only the department but the people living in the area to have a much sounder approach to the matter of public works projects.
In that connection, and only because I feel it is a project which would fit in with the over-all development, I am going to mention what I consider to be the urgent need for the development of a more adequate small boat harbour at the important fishing centre of Alert Bay, which is on Johnstone strait just off the shore of Vancouver island proper. I know the people there were very hopeful that an item would be included in this year's estimates covering that project, and they are quite disappointed that such has not been the case. I would draw particularly to the attention of the minister at this time the desirability of that project as a part of the logical development of small boat harbours on the eastern coast of Vancouver island. There are others I shall not mention at this particular time.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal which is connected with the same branch of the department. It has to do with the policy of the department with respect to the use and development of harbour facilities which are going to be required in increasing measure for automobile ferries. This is a matter which obviously involves the jurisdiction of both federal and provincial governments. I think the minister would agree the present situation has caused a good

deal of worry and uncertainty in the minds of many people on the coast of British Columbia.
Quite frankly, and I am saying this deliberately, I feel that some of the responsibility for this situation rests upon the shoulders of the public works department of British Columbia. So far as I have been able to observe their attitude has been rather erratic with regard to the planning they are undertaking in this direction. But I do feel I should suggest a change in federal governmental policy as it now stands on the basis of a letter I received from the minister last year. In this letter he suggested that because a certain harbour was going to be used primarily by a provincially-operated car ferry, the protective works necessary for that operation were not an urgent matter so far as the federal government was concerned. X refer specifically to the problem we had under discussion at that time, namely the ferry run between Hornby island and Denman island.
I feel that policy is not just what it should be. If the provincial government is prepared to subsidize the operation of a certain car ferry, presumably it is doing so only because it considers that particular service is of vital interest to the people of the communities involved. In other words it is not a matter of special facilities being made available for some few individuals. It is rather a general, community service. I feel that if we are to agree that automobile ferries are an extension of the highway system of a province, nevertheless when they involve the use of harbours which are in salt water areas and which have generally been accepted as the responsibility of the federal authorities, either under the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport or a combination of both, it would be a logical arrangement if federal policy could facilitate the type of harbour protection needed rather because of, not in spite of, the fact the harbour facilities may be primarily used by a provincial ferry service.
I said, Mr. Chairman, that I was not going to attempt to carry you all around the many harbours and ports of the constituency of Comox-Alberni. Earlier in my remarks I did indicate that I had done some travelling to other parts of the country last year. I suppose because of that fact I have been asked to present to the house a certain petition, which I have pleasure in doing. When I have read it, I shall send it across to the Minister of Public Works, who undoubtedly is the custodian of such problems on behalf of members of this house. This is a petition to the 50433-353
Supply-Public Works
members of the House of Commons, Ottawa, and it reads as follows:
We the undersigned, Her Majesty's loyal subjects of Raleigh, in northern Newfoundland, do hereby petition the federal government of Canada for a public wharf in this community.
For the past five years we have requested such a wharf, but apparently our request has fallen on deaf ears, because no consideration has been given such a request.
Perhaps I might interject here that they may have appealed to me as a last resort, I do not know, but in any event I have been given the responsibility of presenting this petition. I shall go on and read the rest of it.
Raleigh is a fishing settlement in northern Newfoundland, and the only means of communication is by sea.
There is not a wharf in the community to which the coastal (C.N.R.) boat can dock. Transfer of sick from this area must be made by sea and provisions, etc., must come by sea. There are times when the sick, women and children cannot embark or disembark due to the heavy seas; yet no effort has been made to remedy this situation since confederation. The people of this area expected a better deal, and thought that improvements would be made where they were most deserving-but such has not been the case in Newfoundland since union. It is high time for an investigation into the building of public works in this province-they have not been placed in most places where they were most needed.
We humbly request that the federal government of Canada stop stalling and work in the best interest of the toiling masses of the dominion's youngest province.
We sincerely hope that this petition will be given the sympathetic consideration of Her Majesty's federal parliament.
It is signed by William Elliott and others. There are about two pages of names here. I am sure the Minister of Public Works will have great pleasure in taking this petition in charge, and I am sure that if he wants further details the member for that constituency will be pleased to provide them.


Mr. Michener:: What is the constituency?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is on the north shore of the province, in the constituency of the chairman of the marine and fisheries committee of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Grand Falls-White Bay-
Labrador.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman


Mr. Green:: I point out it is usually customary on the first item of a department to have this general discussion. When the estimates were opened the minister was asked whether he had any statement to make and he said no, he preferred to wait. There are several hon. members who wish to speak on this first item.


Robert Henry Winters: So they may; no remarks of mine at this stage can stop them.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: The minister should allow them to continue rather than break into the middle of a discussion.


The Deputy Chairman:: I point out to the
committee that as long as item 353 is before us, I or the chairman will see any member who wishes to rise. The Minister of Public Works indicated that he wished to rise, and I see him.


Robert Henry Winters: My purpose was this. Several statements were made and one of them, I thought, was a rather serious charge. I thought hon. members might wish me to answer, but if they wish to proceed otherwise I am quite willing to give way.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Hahn:: I regret that I possibly will not be quite as complimentary as some hon. members who have spoken on this item. It is not because I do not admire the minister or his parliamentary assistant or those who are in the department. But certainly after the "slow boat to China" service we have for getting to the different floors of this building in this hot weather, we can quite appreciate that the expenditures on the elevators might well have been put on escalators so we could at least get to the floor we wish to reach a little more hastily than we do in the present circumstances.
I am pleased that the department has seen fit to call for tenders for the addition to the public building in New Westminster that they have been advertising for some time. I would point out to the minister, however, that it is not an unnatural thing for the citizens of a city the size of New Westminster to be unhappy about a fence, protective as it might be, on the main thoroughfare of their city for well over a year after the department began to tear down the building. After the building was torn down the fence remained facing the street for many months, and there is no possible sign of any further action being taken. I would point out to the minister and his officials that there is great danger of the road at what would be the back of the building caving in. I would urge that an examination of the area be made to make sure nothing dangerous happens and that no one gets hurt by a cave-in. The road is subject to quite heavy traffic. Possibly some means of support could be found to take care of the situation until such time as the building is begun and a new wall put in.
It is unfortunate that in deciding to erect this building provision was not made to house all of the various branches of the federal departments that are at present in the city of
[Mr. Winters.l
New Westminster. We have a condition today under which several federal government offices are spread throughout the city. Most of them will come into the new building. However, we are given to understand that the Department of Public Works office is to be transferred to the city of Vancouver. This, of course, makes the citizens of New Westminster quite unhappy, especially in view of a recent statement made by an august gentleman in the other house, Senator Tom Reid.
Usually I do not care to spend my time and the time of hon. members on a diatribe such as I am going to have to put on the record at this time. But I think it does call for some explanation from the minister, and certainly the people of New Westminster should know whether it is the attitude of the government, whether it is the attitude of the Minister of Public Works, or whether it is a new policy laid down by the Liberal party, which is different from that of the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier of whom we hear so much in this house. I am reading from the Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, April 12:
Senator Tom Reid said a funny thing the other day. He calmly announced to the New Westminster Liberal association that if New Westminster had elected Bill Mott, New Westminster would not have lost the federal public works office to Vancouver:	New Westminster, you see, elected a
Social Crediter.
What does Senator Reid mean-that the Liberal government in Ottawa took the office away from New Westminster to get even with the folks there because not enough of them voted Liberal to elect Mr. Mott?
You will see, Mr. Chairman, that charge is most serious. When people who know Senator Reid, as we have learned to know him in my area, as one who is straightforward and says what he thinks-and usually he thinks right in a thing like this-find him making charges that the Department of Public Works is discriminating quite deliberately against a city such as New Westminster because it did me the honour of sending me to this House of Commons as its representative, I think it requires some explanation and not just a shrug of the shoulders.
Further to that, the Vancouver Province apparently thought likewise, because on April 12 an editorial appeared in that paper to this effect. It is entitled:
Senator Reid Frowns on Politics
We were pleased to hear the other day that Senator Tom Reid frowns on governments-or politicians, we suppose-who play politics.
Speaking to a Liberal meeting in his home town of New Westminster, the senator criticized the Social Credit government's decision to double representation from Delta. Said the senator, sternly: "This is strictly a political move."
Having made himself clear on the subject of those who play politics, the senator proceeded to read a fatherly lecture to the assembled Liberals.

Strictly non-political, of course! Just a few words mourning the defeat of Liberal W. M. Mott at the last federal election.
And, said the senator regretfully, if Mr. Mott were still in parliament, New Westminster would not today be on the verge of losing the federal public works office to Vancouver.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I take it his remarks are going to be somewhat extensive. Since it is five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper to be considered in committee of the whole, and also two other bills. Is it agreed that they all be referred to the committee of the whole in one lot?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not unwilling to consider in one batch Bills Nos. 455 to 468 inclusive; in other words, orders Nos. 22 to 35 inclusive. After that we would like you to call the remaining bills which have been committed to the committee of the whole one by one.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 455, for the relief of Marian Douglas Jodrey Wallace.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 456, for the relief of Elie Chabotar, -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 457, for the relief of Evelyn Robert Hurst Watson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 458, for the relief of Sidney Robert Allen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 459, for the relief of Cecil Brooks. 

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 460, for the relief of Jeanne Jacqueline Content Brown.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 461, for the relief of Eugene Theodore Mantha.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 462, for the relief of Marilyn Irene Damer Brophey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 463, for the relief of Dorothea Josephine Forbes Chaffey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 464, for the relief of Violet Ruby Baxter Williamson.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 465, for the relief of Nicole Emile Dardano.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 466, for the relief of Ruth Steirman Levine.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 467, for the relief of Pearl Raicek Rutwind.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 468, for the relief of Lorraine Bennet Favreau Williams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 472, for the relief of Ronald Elikum Bessey.-Mr. Hunter.
50433-353-1
Private Bills
Bill No. 473, for the relief of Margaret Francis Kennedy Bailie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 474, for the relief of Anna Cibula Reynolds.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 475, for the relief of Mary McKinnon McEachran Coolon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 476, for the relief of Joseph Armand Jacques Phaneuf.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 477, for the relief of Julia Hut Lutterman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 478, for the relief of Evelina Dixon Taylor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 485, for the relief of Izrael Szer.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 486, for the relief of Mary Madeleine Codings Bell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 487, for the relief of Joseph Flavien Denis Rheo Baillargeon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 488, for the relief of Susan Wald-man Ruttenberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 489, for the relief of Andre La-breche.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 491, for the relief of Beatrice Macdonald Stewart Pasmore.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 493, for the relief of Kathleen Dallas White Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 494, for the relief of John Tilga.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 495, for the relief of Edwin Albert Verge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 496, for the relief of Aline Sauve Page.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 497, for the relief of Helen Margaret Robb Woods.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 498, for the relief of Jean Louis Larose.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 499, for the relief of Molly Wine-berg Fishman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 454, to incorporate Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 483, to incorporate the Provident Assurance Company.-Mr. Eudes.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 469, for the relief of Robert Irvin Morrow-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I notice that in this case there is evidence under oath of only one witness to the adultery, whereas the usual practice over the years in the other place has been to expect that there would be two or more witnesses to the adultery. At this time I merely wish to comment that in a growing number of cases it seems to be considered sufficient that the testimony of only one witness be given. In my opinion that is hardly good enough, as it is an indication of the growing contempt that exists in certain sections of Canada for the houses of parliament. Apparently they have the idea that

Private Bills-Divorce
anything is good enough, that they can get away with anything. Sometimes people who have been convicted of criminal offences in Ontario or Quebec are accepted as reliable witnesses. In this particular case apparently they were satisfied to take the word of only one witness.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill	reported,	read	the	third time	and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 470, for the relief of Phyllis Lilian Buck Beatty- Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill	reported,	read	the	third time	and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 471, for the relief of Barbara Louise Bartlett Broadbent-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to draw the attention of the committee to this type of bill, which has been before us on a number of occasions this year. In this case both the petitioner and the respondent appeared and no detectives were engaged. It would appear that both parties desired the divorce. The petitioner was asked the customary questions:
Q. Has there been any collusion between you, any arrangement whereby a divorce may be obtained?
A. Definitely not.
Q. Have you connived at his alleged adultery, have you winked at it?
A. No.
Q. Have you condoned or pardoned the adultery?
A. No, sir.
Then the husband appeared and admitted having been at a certain motel, and the owner of the motel also gave evidence. Almost as quickly as that the divorce was granted. It is worth noting that both parties did appear; that both parties seemed to be in favour of having the divorce granted and it was unnecessary to follow the usual procedure of engaging detectives and of hiring a hotel room, which procedure is followed in so many other cases.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 479, for the relief of Frances Marguerite Beaudin Karibian-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure Your Honour is one who will be glad that standing order 112 will be amended along the lines of the proposal of the committee on procedure. In the meantime the standing order is still in effect, and I am wondering how you are getting on with signing the initials of your name to the preamble and the various sections of these bills as they are agreed to.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understand that the committee of the whole has agreed that these bills shall be considered in one batch. They will be signed and initialled where required by the chairman of the moment before they become effective, as provided by the standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 480, for the relief of Claude Ferron-Mr. Hunter -Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a little time on this bill and ask hon. members to refer to the evidence which was presented to the Senate committee in connection with this case. For the benefit of those hon. members who have not the evidence before them I might say that the petitioner is a medical doctor. He alleged that his wife was suffering from drug addiction. On page 17 of the evidence he was being questioned regarding a visit to their home by his wife's father, who apparently also is a medical doctor. He was telling what happened at this particular time:
She was probably under the effect of drugs, and when she was lacking the drugs she was very nervous. I told her that her father and I decided to bring her to hospital. She said "I am in no state; I can't go." She was trembling. What I gave her was no narcotic; I gave her somnifeni, which was injected intravenously; that is like phenobarbital. I gave her an injection, and when her father came to my room I was giving it intravenously. As I say, that is not a narcotic; that is a drug people can have without a prescription.

Then we have the question by counsel:
Q. Is it correct that when Dr. Guibord, your wife's father, actually arrived at your domicile, you were at that very time injecting your wife?
A. I was not.
I should like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that in that paragraph he denied that he was injecting his wife, whereas in the previous paragraph he said that he was.


Daniel Roland Michener: The question was "at that time".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He was asked:
Is it correct that when Dr. Guibord, your wife's father, actually arrived at your domicile, you were at that very time injecting your wife?
Previously he had said he was. The divorce is recommended on the evidence submitted by a young girl, aged 21. She apparently had stayed at the Ferron home for a year or more under welfare care. This was her foster home. This girl was being questioned:
Q. And you were taken to Mr. Ferron's home at the request of Mr. Ferron and Mrs. Ferron?
A. That is right.
Q. Were you paid?
A. Was I paid?
Q. Yes, were you paid by the welfare?
A. The welfare was paying.
Q. Was the welfare paying it to Ferron? Isn't it true that Mr. Ferron was giving you money every week end?
A. A couple of times he did, until Mrs. Ferron accused us we were $10 missing and that it was either one of us had taken it and we would have to replace it by our allowance, and we never saw any more allowance after that.
Then this 21-year old girl is asked:
Q. Were you treated by Dr. Ferron?
A. While I was living there, no.
By Mr. Pager:
Q. After you left?
A. A little while later I was.
Q. Would you mind saying what kind of treatment-
The Chairman (Senator Roebuck) : Now, what is the significance?
The solicitor for the respondent says:
Well, I will have to give testimony myself, I will have to say what I know, right away. She had a child.
The credibility of the witness was being questioned, and the witness was asked by counsel for the respondent:
Q. Would you mind saying what kind of treatment you were given by Dr. Ferron?
A. I am still being treated for my nerves.
Q. You had a child, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you not testify in court that you had a child?
A. I never said any such thing.
Then the counsel for the petitioner, realizing that his witness was not doing a very good job, says:
Witness, I don't know if you heard the question asked by Mr. Pager. He asked you if you had a
Private Bills-Divorce
child and if you had been treated by Dr. Ferron. Is that what you meant?


William Alfred Robinson: She denied it;
I don't think there is any necessity of going over it.
Then the counsel for the petitioner said:


Mr.   Riel@: I want to know if she understood the question.


William Alfred Robinson: She thoroughly understood it and answered it very emphatically. As far as this committee is concerned, you don't need to go further into that matter with this witness.
Then later on:


Mr.   Riel@: Before the witness leaves the stand, I should like to make a statement. The doctor is here. It is possible the question asked by Mr. Pager took her by surprise, and she is bashful about it. But the doctor treated her for a child that she had, so I think there must be some misunderstanding.


William Alfred Robinson: Go ahead and clear it up.


Mr.   Riel@: I want to ask this girl if she correctly understood what Mr. Pager asked her. I understand that she denied about the child. I put my question to her, and she has not answered it.
The Chairman (Senator Roebuck) : She did not answer it because I stopped her. Go ahead and clear the matter up.
By Mr. Riel:
Q. You have to state the truth even if it affects your own feelings.
A. All right, yes, I had a child, but it had nothing to do with Dr. Ferron, if that is what they are getting at.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. How long since did that happen?
A. Three years last January.
Q. Was that prior to your going to the Ferrons?
A. That I had the child?
Q. Yes.
A. I had the child after I left the Ferrons.
By Senator Barbour:
Q. That is shortly after you left?
A. Yes; I left in December and I had the child in January.
This witness gave evidence to the effect that her brother with the R.C.A.F. had committed adultery with the respondent. Unfortunately the lad with the R.C.A.F. was not available to defend his good name, but counsel for the respondent, before the proceedings were concluded, read a letter, as follows:
The above mentioned Dr. Claude Ferron has petitioned the Senate of Canada and the House of Commons for the granting of a divorce law dissolving his marriage with his wife Marielle Guibord.
The petition for the obtention of this divorce is based on an act of adultery that he alleged his wife committed with you, during a week end of August, 1951, at their summer chalet in St. Eustache, province of Quebec.
Be hereby notified of the said allegation; we do not want to bring your name in the testimony without you knowing of it.
The question was raised as to where the young lad was.


William Alfred Robinson: It is a copy of the original and counsel says that he sent it registered, and that he wrote it himself. Where did you get this address of the R.C.A.F. station, at Comox island?

Private Bills-Divorce


Mr.   Riel@: I wrote to Ottawa and asked R.C.A.F. headquarters about the station of Ronald Leonard, and they gave it to me.
He apparently is out in British Columbia. But this young lad with the R.C.A.F. was not called before the Senate committee to give him a chance to clear his good name in connection with the unusual evidence which was placed before the committee by his sister, who told two stories while she appeared before the committee. I submit that this doctor should not be relieved of his rightful responsibilities to his wife who, he claims, is suffering from a drug addiction, based on the incredible information which was supplied before the committee.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clause 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported.



GEORGES-ETIENNE CARTIER

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 492, for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Erhart Regier: I notice that in this bill one of the witnesses or investigators whose word is accepted is a man by the name of Maurice Pichette. In speaking on the other case I mentioned the growing contempt for the houses of parliament of Canada. This case shows it up maybe more than, or at any rate as much as, many another.
This investigator works for a firm known as the Reliable Detective Agency. I should like you to note the name "Reliable Detective Agency". The firm before that used to be known as the Fidelity Detective Agency. From the information I can gather it is very much the house of infidelity. The owner of this so-called reputable business institution is a man by the name of Gordon Etheridge. He does not only hire investigators; he also appears himself. In other words he is a working employer. He works right alongside of the many men he employs.
A year ago, in the parliamentary session of 1953-54, the employer, Mr. Etheridge himself, testified that he personally witnessed no less than 90 cases of adultery. How in the world the upper house can ever listen to a man 90 times over without beginning to ask questions is completely beyond my powers of comprehension, especially when a man testifies that he has to follow cases for weeks and sometimes for months on end, almost 24 hours a day, before he finally nabs them in the act of adultery. I am sure that in many cases he winds up on a dead-end street. Here he


shows up in 90 individual cases in which he says he was able to witness acts of adultery.
His employees, Mr. Chairman, are of no higher repute. This man Maurice Pichette who acted in this particular Cartier case was found guilty of having fabricated evidence before an Ontario court. He very haughtily says, however, that he was exonerated afterward. He was not exonerated, Mr. Chairman. The appeal court judge said in his concluding sentence; "however contemptible the conduct of the appellants may be considered . . ."; and he goes on to say in effect that he had to grant the appeal on a technicality. Yet even after all these things happen, the other place Is continuing to accept the word of this man under oath.
The same man was also found guilty and paid a fine of $200 in the province of Ontario for operating there without having obtained a licence. I hear there are a number of other things against him in the province of Quebec, but I have been unable to do the necessary research on that phase of the matter. However, I come back to my argument, and in conclusion I wish to emphasize to this committee the fact that the houses of parliament of Canada, in certain sections of Canada, are held in extremely low repute and that the opinion is growing, "Go to the parliament of Canada and you can get away with anything".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to say something about this case after having read the evidence carefully. But in support of the argument my colleague has just made I think the committee might consider the credibility of the witnesses in this particular case. Might I remind the committee again of what my colleague has said, namely that one of the investigators, one Pichette, was convicted on the charge that he,
. . . with intent to mislead a court of justice, did unlawfully attempt to fabricate evidence by means other than perjury or subornation of perjury.
That is taken from the report of the case as set forth in the Ontario Weekly Notes No. 23 of June 17, 1955 and from which I read briefly as follows:
The facts of the case may be simply stated. The appellants, desiring to obtain evidence for the purpose of enabling a married woman to secure a divorce, planned to trap the husband into a false position from which adultery might be inferred or found if evidence was later given in some proceeding for divorce. This plan was to have a woman go to a room in an hotel, register under an assumed name, and give the room the appearance of the bed having been occupied. She was not required to do anything more. The husband was to be lured by a pretext to the room and, when there, could be found by the two appellants, who would then be in a position to give evidence as to his being found there with the woman. In carrying out this plan, the appellants arranged with



L 1955

[Stage Direction]
woman "A" to obtain the hotel room and perform her part of the plot, which she did. In the meantime, the appellants arranged with woman "B" to call the husband, under an assumed name, which was the name which woman "A" was to use at the hotel, and invite him to come to the room. This was done by woman "B", but the husband was suspicious. Woman "B" claimed to be a friend of the husband's sister, and the husband took the precaution of calling his sister as to the friend whose name he had been given over the telephone. Instead of going to the hotel room as invited the husband went to the police, with the result that the plan at that stage miscarried and it was the police who went to the hotel room, instead of the two appellants who were endeavouring to mislead someone.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The A plus B theorem went haywire.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The judge pointed out:
This ground of appeal, therefore, turns upon whether or not the Senate committee and parliament are a "court of justice" within the meaning of s. 177. In my opinion, they are not. The expression "court of justice", in the sense in which it is used in this statute, in my opinion, should be given the meaning attributed to the word "court" in Murray's English dictionary, vol. II, p. 1091, col. 1, under item 11, from which I quote the following:
"An assembly of judges or other persons legally appointed and acting as a tribunal to hear and determine any cause, civil, ecclesiastical, military, or naval."
In summing up the learned judge said:
In my opinion, therefore, however contemptible the conduct of the appellants may be considered, they have net been proved guilty of the offence charged, and effect must be given to the legal position taken by their counsel. The point which has been raised in the instant case, apparently for the first time, would appear now to be academic, because the legislation is entirely changed in the new Criminal Code, 1953-54, c. 51, which came into force on the 1st April, 1955.
These two men who were convicted appeared before the House of Commons special committee last night. I for one am unwilling on their evidence to convict Madame Cartier, who is named in this particular divorce case; and I invite members to read this evidence carefully. I am not going to take the time in which to read it, but in the Senate committee there seemed to be some query as to how so many people could be living in such small quarters. It is obvious that many people who have extremely large incomes have no information with regard to the problem that is presented to so many Canadian families who just cannot rent decent quarters.
The half-brother of the woman gave very good evidence. He told about the sleeping arrangements in the house, and he gave his sister a very good name. The co-respondent is employed with the federal government post office. His evidence would indicate he is an honourable, respected citizen doing Her Majesty's work in the city of Montreal,
Private Bills-Divorce
looking after the mail. The respondent also has been working in the post office, and I submit that the evidence given by Mrs. Cartier, by her half-brother and the boarder is very straightforward.
If I had to choose between the word of these people I have mentioned and the evidence submitted by these investigators, whose evidence before the committee last night and that taken some time ago resulted in their conviction in the city of Ottawa, I would choose the evidence of the people I have mentioned.
I should like to refer to the evidence given by the two children, first of all that of Jean-Pierre, 13 years of age. I find the following in the proceedings of the committee:
Q. What would happen to you if you did not tell the truth?
A. I would commit perjury.
Q. What would happen to you if you did commit perjury?
A. I would go to prison.
Q. What would happen to your soul?
A. I would lose my soul.
Q. What is your name?
A. Jean-Pierre Cartier.
Q. What is your age?
A. Thirteen.
Q. Where do you live?
A. Boulevard-des-Prairies, Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Student.
Q. Who lives in the house with you, Jean-Pierre?
A. Myself, Suzanne, Mr. Bernier and my mother.
Q. And you said "Louis"?


Mr.   Jacobs@: No, he did not.
Then the interpreter said, "I did not hear 'Louis' ". Then one of the counsel said:
He counted the names on his fingers and he said "Louis".
The Interpreter: Yes, Louis.
Q. Where did all those people sleep in that house?
A. I sleep with Louis in my bedroom, Suzanne sleeps with my mother, and Mr. Bernier sleeps on the chesterfield in the living room.
Q. Does Suzanne go to bed before you?
A. We go to bed approximately at the same time, but sometimes earlier because she is younger.
Q. Have you seen her in bed before you go to bed at any time?
A. It has happened.
Q. Where was she sleeping?
A. In my mother's bed.
Q. That is all.
Then the petitioner's lawyer said: "No questions".
Then I refer to the evidence of Suzanne Cartier.
Q. What is your name?
A. Suzanne Cartier.
Q. What is your age?
A. Nine.
Q. Where do you live?
A. 340 Boulevard-des-Prairies, Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Student.
Q. Where do you sleep in the house you occupy on Boulevard-des-Prairies?
A. Always with my mother.

Private Bills-Divorce
Then the petitioner's lawyer said: "No questions". Then the petitioner was recalled, and there is the following passage:
Q. How much do you make per month?
A. $250 or $260.
Q. And you are paying your wife $100 a month?



A. $100.

[Stage Direction]
Q. Do you have anything else other than your salary?
A. No; I sometimes work overtime.
Q. Do you have any assets, real estate or anything like that?
A. No.
Q. Bonds of stocks?
A. No.
After reading the evidence given by these children, their mother, the boarder and the mother's half-brother, and after reading the evidence of the investigators and knowing something of their record, I hope the House of Commons will give this poor woman the protection which I believe she deserves.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the preamble carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Preamble agreed to on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Title agreed to on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the bill carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill agreed to on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported on division.



CLAUDE FERRON


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to your calling third reading in one motion for all bills except Bill No. 480, for the relief of Claude Ferron, and Bill No. 492, for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier. Rather than have all the bills stand, perhaps you might single out those two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: When shall Bill No. 480, an act for the relief of Claude Ferron, be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: When shall Bill No. 492, an act for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier, be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.



REAL PERRAS

Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 484, for the relief of Real Perras.


Erhart Regier: This bill, Mr. Speaker, has given me some concern over the past several months. I was approached on this matter last year, and at the time I last spoke in this house on January 13 or January 12 I appealed to the Prime Minister to relieve this house of the serious responsibility of dissolving marriages. Since that time we have waited in vain for the Prime Minister to tell the house what efforts, if any, were being made. The only conclusion to which we can come, in what we hope is the last month of the session, is that the Prime Minister is not making any effort to find a solution to this difficulty.
At the time I made the statement that I had been approached by members of the Roman Catholic clergy on behalf of certain cases, I said I would rather not name the clergy. One of the members of the house was indiscreet enough to take me up on that and rib me by saying that I did not name the clergy. In this case I do intend to name the clergy, and I have the permission of the clergy so to do. I should like to read into the record a letter I received dated March 7, 1955. I am prepared to file the letter, which reads in part:
The poor lady-
This is referring to the respondent, Mrs. Perras.
-has been notified that the Senate committee for divorces will hear her case on Friday, March 11. For the last three weeks, she had been on the verge of a nervous collapse.
Might I interrupt here, Mr. Speaker, to say that the usual procedure is for the husband to intimidate the woman for so many years until she finally agrees to sue him for divorce. He supplies the funds and she sues him for divorce. He does not contest the action, and everything appears to be aboveboard. In the process such low characters as were mentioned several minutes ago are employed and make a living. When you consider 90 cases

Private Bills-Divorce
at $300 each, I should like to call the attention of the Minister of National Revenue to the fact that I believe he has a real source of income tax available to him. However, I continue the letter.
The expectation was too much for her.
If I may again interrupt my reading of the letter, Mr. Speaker, yesterday down in room 118 when we had a meeting of the committee, the lawyer for the petitioner asked the woman who was attempting to defend her case, "Madam, why are you defending this case"? Naturally, the woman broke down, as any decent, self-respecting woman would.
I should like to challenge any member of this House of Commons to ask his wife, "Madam, why would you like to save your marriage?" I continue the letter.


Mr. Hosking:: She committed adultery,
admittedly.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member who is now interrupting does enough interrupting in the committee meetings.
February the 26th, she tell sick and the doctor had to be called. She was sent to hospital and since then has been in bed under treatment. She had a blood transfusion-
They do not give blood transfusions, Mr. Speaker, for the fun of it.
-daily serum and was seen by the hospital's psychiatrist.
Now, she will not be able to go to Ottawa this Friday. The lawyer asked for a written statement from her doctor and is going to present the committee with that letter. The doctor is even ready to go to Ottawa and testify if necessary.
What I am afraid of is that the adverse party tries to pull a fast one on her and win the case by default.
I simply think that it is criminal, even for a husband to frighten and torture his wife so much in order to get his goal that she totally collapses under the strain and tension. Such ignominious behaviour should be punished and I am really deeply shocked by the fact that our laws permit such events to happen.
I trust you to be able to stop a divorce that could be obtained under such circumstances. If you feel it may be useful to use my name and letters in that case, don't hesitate to do so.
May I thank you again for the care you took of that case.
I am very truly yours,
Capt. Rev. Robert M. Rivest, Headquarters Quebec Command, 3530 Atwater Avenue,
Montreal.
He is the Roman Catholic army chaplain there. This is a case in which, if the mover of the bill insists, we intend to call for a division of this house. I do not know whether or not Mrs. Perras has ever committed adultery. I intend to be quite honest. She claims in her evidence before the other place that she is not guilty of committing adultery. Others claim she has, amongst whom are
the employees of this famous Mr. Etheridge, of Montreal, and his Reliable Detective Agency, especially a certain Mr. Maurice Pichette, who has been convicted of fabricating evidence. However, even granting that this woman may have committed an error,
I think in this case we should pursue the policy that was pursued yesterday down in the committee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the committee we had the case of an honest woman. She came to the committee and attempted to preserve her marriage, and honestly admitted that she had been guilty of committing adultery. I am very pleased that by an overwhelming vote the committee decided not to grant her husband's suit for divorce. The consensus, if I gauged it rightly, was that even though this woman had committed a wrong, she had done so after extreme provocation, running over a number of years, on the part of her husband, and therefore if anybody was deserving of a decree of divorce it was the woman and not the man. However, the committee's hands were tied. We had to vote either for or against the man's petition, and we decided by an overwhelming vote that the case was unworthy of further attention in this house.
My reason for not even wanting to let the Perras case go before the committee on miscellaneous private bills is that this case is built on the testimony of men who have shown their contempt for the houses of parliament of Canada. I believe the case a worthy one even on its own merits. However, if this parliament wants to maintain its dignity, it has to show some action.
I have repeatedly appealed to the Minister of Justice on this issue. He has hedged ever since we began to appeal to him a year ago. I asked a year ago, who is responsible for maintaining the dignity of the houses of parliament when testimony is given before them under oath? The minister, after some shillyshallying, finally came forward with the answer that it was the attorney general of the province of Ontario. Now a year later, when the attorney general of the province of Ontario has taken action and has been able to obtain a conviction, it is found by the Ontario court of appeal, and on a technicality, that those people cannot be adequately dealt with. The minister says the new section of the new Criminal Code is designed to look after these people. However, the minister has not yet satisfied this house and the country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I hesitate to interrupt any hon. member in presenting his case, perhaps more particularly when he feels strongly about it. But

Private Bills-Divorce
I think we are getting a long way away from the principle of this particular bill. May I interrupt the hon. member long enough to read to him an extract from Mr. Speaker's remarks on February 7 of this year, when he said, as reported at page 888 of Hansard:
During previous sessions we have had debates as to how these divorce bills shall be dealt with on second reading. It being the beginning of a new session perhaps one may be able to adopt a new resolution. I have resolved that no matter how much latitude I may be inclined to give I shall not allow any discussion except that which relates to the principle of the bill. I do not think hon. members will find that they are referring to the principle of these bills when they stand up and offer suggestions as to how they should be dealt with.
That is the end of the quotation. I might paraphrase it and say that I also do not think hon. members will find they are referring to the principle of this bill if they are discussing ways in which the Department of Justice, or some attorney general, should deal with reported cases of perjury in respect of other bills.
I know the point the hon. member is trying to make, and I have no desire to make it difficult for him to make his point in this connection; but I ask him to try to restrict his remarks to the principle of the one particular bill we have before us. In this particular type of bill it is very hard, I know, to realize that what is applicable to one divorce bill is not legally applicable to another, and to try to hold our discussion to the particular Perras bill which is before us.


Erhart Regier: Thank you. May I just spend a moment in explanation of why I violated what I thought might be the ruling of the Chair? I realize your ruling, and I quite appreciate the rule. However, on numerous occasions we have had pleas from government benches to spare them the grimy details. They do not like to see the grimy details besmirch the pages of Hansard. As the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) ably pointed out a year ago, if members on the government side insist on our placing the grimy details on the record, by attempting to force us to speak on these bills in particular, we shall do so, if necessary, to relieve this parliament-


Walter Edward Harris: Nobody on this side interrupted you.


Erhart Regier: -of this onerous task. We shall do it by putting on the record the grimy details.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Surely this is all out of order.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite) .1


Erhart Regier: I do think there is a case to be made out for a discussion on the credibility of witnesses when we are asked to vote on these measures. I was asking the house to support us on this Perras bill when it comes before the house for a vote, on the ground that the reputation of the two houses of parliament is at stake here. I indicated- and I think it has a bearing on my appeal for a final vote-that we have not yet received an adequate, satisfactory assurance from the Minister of Justice that these things can be avoided in the future.
We go over these bills, and this bill in particular, and we notice that this firm, the so-called Reliable Detective Agency, is still very much in business with all its henchmen. A year ago they were asked whether they received so much a case and they admitted before the committee that their fee was so much, and if the case went through successfully they received an extra award. Well for some reason or other yesterday they testified that they are now on a weekly basis.
When you operate an agency of this kind, exclusively devoted to divorce, and you pay your men on a weekly basis, Mr. Speaker, you can only pay that weekly wage in one way; that is if you secure enough accounts each week to make the business enterprise pay. I think that is an even worse method of paying them than the old method.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It is six o'clock. May I remind the house that at eight o'clock we shall resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock. If it is the wish of the house, the order to go into committee of supply might be read now and we shall then continue in the committee of supply at eight o'clock. I presume we shall go into committee of supply by consent now.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 353. Departmental administration, $1,049,280.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this is a long week end I wonder if we could get along without the page boys from now on and do our own messages. Could they have your consent to go?


Walter Edward Harris: I think it would be desirable if we had the usual services tonight. I believe we need the assistance of the page boys, but we will not keep them too long.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, when this discussion was suspended at five o'clock to give way to private bills I was expressing pleasure at the fact that at long last the department was going to do something about the public building in New Westminster. I also drew the attention of the minister to the possibility of a cave-in occurring in the roadway directly behind where the building will be located. The roadway is badly sunken in two or three places, and automobiles face the danger of sliding off into a precipitous ditch.
I had also reached the point of expressing resentment at the removal of the public works office from New Westminster. At five o'clock I had completed reading two articles, one from the Vancouver Sun and the other an editorial from the Vancouver Province. Both articles stressed the same point, that Senator Reid had stated that the Liberal government had taken this building away from New Westminster to get even with the folks there for not having elected Mr. Mott, the Liberal candidate.
Senator Reid was not speaking in the Senate when he made this statement; he was speaking in his home city, and I think he was saying what he felt was the truth. These are serious charges, and it is a dangerous condition when a government allows itself to get into the position where one wonders what has happened, not to the spirit of fair play, but to the right of the individual to expect the same treatment from the government even though he be an elected representative and a member of a certain party by choice which does not happen to be of the same political stripe as the government. Things like this make one wonder whether the government has forgotten that after all the people of the country are the important consideration in matters such as these. They should be permitted to exercise their choice as to whom they wish to have bring these things to the attention of the government.
If what Senator Reid says in this speech is correct it would indicate that here is something which the Prime Minister should not countenance. If he would countenance such actions, then I think we have fallen to a new low in so far as the government of this country is concerned. I hope this machine which is directly opposite from me does not feel that it alone is capable of representing the people in the proper way.
Supply-Public Works
When the minister replies later in this debate I ask him to make it quite plain to the people of my riding that the removal of this public building was not carried out because a favourite son of the Liberal party from that area was not elected to this house, but rather that there were specific reasons which he should give to this committee. Possibly he may be able to indicate that the senator is wrong and might be better spending his time playing his bagpipes.
The second problem which I would raise at this time concerns the Queensboro bridge, as there does not seem to be any particular item under which I could bring up this matter.


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if I could suggest that we would perhaps have a more orderly discussion If hon. members reserved such remarks until the specific items were reached. I think that would be better for the committee generally.


Frederick George Hahn: I have searched the estimates to find a vote that would cover this matter.


Robert Henry Winters: It would come under
engineering projects, or the vote for British Columbia projects.


Frederick George Hahn: Then I shall reserve my remarks until we reach that vote.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon as I listened to the rather fulsome praise of the minister's associates, when the sycophants of the party heaped upon him their adulation for the various things he had done for them or the various things they hoped he was going to do for them, I was quite impressed with the difference between the attitude toward the Minister of Public Works and the attitude toward ministers in charge of other departments. It is quite obvious that this particular minister has within his purview the opportunity to give or to take away tremendous benefits in any riding. It was. rather apparent, at least to me, that there are many hopefuls on the minister's side of the house who are looking to him to give them some of these things. I have a few lines here which I think are quite original which came to my mind and which I would dedicate to the minister. They are:
Praise Bob from whom all blessings flow, Praise him you Liberals row on row;
Great gifts to friends he doth award While taxes grow across the board.
Certainly the minister and his department constitute the dream landlord of all time for the other departments of government. Where else would you find a department which has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of

Supply-Public Works
buildings spread across the country, which keeps them clean and in good repair, and then supplies them rent free to all other departments? This makes it most difficult to find out specific costs of operation of certain departments because the minister has hidden in the inner recesses of his operations much information that would be most helpful if it was given to us in connection with departments such as the Post Office Department, for which he supplies buildings.
In connection with the operations of his department, as I look over the estimates I find a most interesting group of positions. I just picked out a few. They employ a photographer, a number of greenhouse men, a blacksmith, two linoleum layers, one seamstress, 11 part-time caretakers of tower clocks, a sign painter, and they even have three part-time boom-keepers in the department. As the government's housekeeper, the department finds work in Ottawa alone for 1,599 charwomen, 201 elevator operators, 45 carpenters and 40 electricians. In addition, in other parts of Canada it employs 274 elevator operators, 1,015 cleaners and helpers, and 487 part-time charwomen.
This is only a partial list of employees, but it brings me to something that shows up in the minister's estimates and which is disturbing to say the least. That is a very great increase in the number of people he plans to employ in his department in the coming year, as opposed to the year just ended.
We have had in the course of the last few months much discussion as to variations in employment in Canada, but certainly in the case of the minister's department there is only one trend; that is an upward trend, to such an extent that a quick calculation shows an over-all increase in the number of permanent employees by 16 per cent in this one year, an increase from 4,373 to 5,161. That is completely out of line with the experience of other government departments and with the experience of business at the present time, and I suggest it is perhaps out of line, unless the minister can justify it, with what his requirements should be.
In the field of departmental administration alone there is an increase of some 30 per cent in the number of employees. Some of the people he has added this year in brand new positions are a few economists and several personnel officers. Then, as somebody suggested earlier in the afternoon, his public relations may not be as good as he would like, so he has added three information officers, a staff of departmental purchasing agents, and a bunch of technical officers. Apparently he is also going to open a library, because he is employing a librarian. I hope

when the minister gives his explanations to the house he will go in some detail into the reason it is necessary for his staff to be increased by 16 per cent, by 788 people, in one year and why in the case of departmental administration the figure has to jump by 30 per cent.
Then I express the hope that the department will work very hard to watch its payments for rentals across Canada. I was surprised to find that in addition to all the public buildings across this country-and there is no one in Canada who is not aware of the fact that public buildings are fairly widespread-the government in the coming year plans to spend something over $9 million in rentals.
In a city like Montreal we tend to lose touch somewhat with the individual operations of a department like public works. We have so many buildings and so many people that a new post office or a new customs house may not hit us with the same impact as it would hit people in other parts of Canada.
I was interested to notice the extent of the minister's operations in obtaining some information recently. I found that last year, for example, at Plum point, Newfoundland, the government built a new wharf. I can imagine the excitement in Blubber Bay, British Columbia, when $32,000 was spent on wharf repairs and improvements. Then the folks in Fanny Bay must have realized how close government comes to home when public works invested $18,000 there in breakwaters and floats, while the people of Old Harry should find their new wharf extension, which cost just over $43,000, a big help to local traffic.
Incidentally, anyone who says that Canadians lack imagination should just examine the list of place names where this money has been spent over the past year. I do not suggest these expenditures may not have been merited, but it does draw again to our attention the opportunities the minister has for, shall we say, favourably influencing the people of Canada toward him and his associates through the placement of construction work such as this. I just wonder whether his expenditures in the past 10 years, which have risen from $14 million in 1944 to the present budget of $162 million, were truly merited and required in the interests of Canada, or whether some of it may have been spent in consideration of benefits which perhaps do not directly accrue to Canada as a whole but more particularly to certain political segments of Canada.
One of the things which surprised me a little in the course of the past year was an

advertisement issued by the civil service commission for an economist, grade eight, to be employed by the Department of Public Works. The reason it surprised me was my previous belief, which I had not checked, that the department would already have an economist to do the particular duties which were set forth for this position. When I checked, I found they did not. The reason I thought they would have such an individual was the stress which was placed by the minister and other members of the government in past years on the shelf of public works projects which was going to be available for use in the event that anything very disastrous happened to the Canadian economy.
Last year, of course, the minister himself retreated somewhat from that position. He said he was not at all sure that a shelf of public works projects was just the thing to deal with this situation. But the point is that at various times over the past several years we have been led to believe that there was in existence a very carefully calculated shelf of public works projects which were designed to help certain sections of Canada in the eventuality that they needed it.
Thus it is surprising to find what this economist was being asked to do. Here are his duties, as cited by the civil service commission:
Under direction, to assess economic significance and viability of various public works projects, both in relation to local areas and to the national economy, and to make recommendations in connection therewith; to develop techniques for forecasting economic trends in specific areas and to formulate standards to appraise potential economic contributions of proposed public works projects in relation to the costs involved; to make special investigations in the various parts of Canada.
Then there are a number of others, but I have underlined the words which to me are significant. The department for years have claimed that they have a shelf of public works projects, that they knew where they would be put into effect if necessary, that they could appreciate the significance of these projects and the effect they would have on the economy of Canada. As I say, after this has been said for years, they finally go out and bid for an economist to get this information for them. Since this is a new position in the department, it would seem to me highly unlikely that the department could have had the basic information they required to make effective their shelf of public projects in the years when they were so proudly telling us about this shelf and the possible effect it would have on Canada's economy.
I turn now to a point which was touched on briefly-and I shall not go into it at any
Supply-Public Works
great length.-this afternoon by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I refer to the question of the clocks here in the building.
I realize that the minister is an engineer and likes facts. I realize that for two or three years he has been treated to dissertations on the ineffectiveness and irregularity of the clocks in the building. I therefore did something that he might have had somebody do a good while ago. I walked down four corridors in the building and compared the clocks with a watch which gave the time correctly.
Here are the results. On the sixth floor two clocks were correct, one was 15 minutes fast and the other one was torn out. On the fifth floor one clock was 57 minutes slow, one was 10 minutes fast, the third was 14 minutes fast and the fourth was correct. On the fourth floor one clock was torn out, one was 3 minutes fast, one was correct and one was 34 minutes slow. On the third floor-which was the last one I inspected, it being a hot day-in two spots there were no clocks with the elevators-none built in, that is-one was torn out and the other was correct.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Are you a clock watcher?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I heard a reference to a clock watcher. May I say that I am not a clock watcher but, judging from the remarks I have heard around here, there are a number of Liberals who are calendar watchers at the present time.


Henry Alfred Hosking: What is that?


William McLean Hamilton: Calendar watchers. Undoubtedly the hon. member will get the significance of that remark tomorrow. It refers to their urgent desire to get out of this place as quickly as they can, without paying proper attention to public business.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Don't bother telling us jokes.


William McLean Hamilton: The
summary of that situation, as I see it, is that of the clocks I examined-and there were 13 of them-two had been taken out-


An hon. Member:: It is a wonder they did not all stop.


William McLean Hamilton: -five were correct and six were wrong. Here is a man who expects us to view with equanimity and trust his expenditure of about $162 million, yet he cannot even keep the clocks on time in the House of Commons building.


Mr. Winch:: It is not his fault. Can we not discuss more important business than that?

Supply-Public Works


William McLean Hamilton: I too
would like to discuss more important business, but the unfortunate thing is that I have found that, in order to make a case with the government, you must bring it down to specific examples. If you come into the House of Commons and say to the government, "You are rotten administrators"-as they are-they do not get their hackles raised very much because they say, "Show us".


Harold Edward Winch: I have not much money, but I will buy you a watch if you want to know the time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William McLean Hamilton: Then, when you proceed to show them, you get this type of barracking from the government and their supporter here in the C.C.F. party who say, "Oh, this is small stuff". But I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is small stuff which makes big things. It is a composite picture of men who cannot make the clocks run in the parliament building, men who cannot figure out that a boat with a certain draft is going to need a harbour to accommodate a boat of that draft, and men who cannot figure out that boats need engines to propel them. As I say, it is a composite of that type of sheer inefficiency and inability to cope with specific situations which gives rise to the general charge of maladministration in government.
I turn now to something which I think will be more sympathetically received by all sides of the house. I wish to suggest to the minister that in the course of the various changes which are being fairly steadily made in the centre block here, and which are proposed or contemplated in the west block, he might give consideration to the installation or establishment of, shall we call it, a meditation room. In the United Nations building in New York there is set aside a comparatively small room to which people of any creed or faith can turn for a few moments of quiet and meditation, for a few moments of consideration of their own thoughts. In Washington recently a similar room was established. I might read a few sentences from Time magazine of April 4 in which reference is made to this particular room. The heading is "A Place to be Alone" and the article reads in part as follows:
A lasting monument to the 83rd congress may well prove to be the simple, secluded room in the capitol that was opened last week. The room's purpose: Prayer and meditation . . .
Before the window is a simple oak altar topped by two vases of fresh flowers and a spotlighted Bible (King James version, open to the 23rd Psalm). The room's only other furniture: An American flag, two electric candelabra, a pair of kneeling benches and 10 arm chairs.


There is more but I shall not read it, Mr. Chairman. The point is that some of those in this house, more particularly the ministers, are fortunate in that they have offices to which they can retire and in which they are screened by a staff in an outer office. They can at least secure a reasonable amount of privacy. Many of the rest of us-and this should be so because we are public servants- live our life here in Ottawa with our door always open to the public. For perhaps nine days out of 10 or even 20 days out of 30 in the month that perhaps is advantageous; but I suggest that there are moments when all of us in the House of Commons, irrespective of where we sit, would like some place to which we could retire with our innermost thoughts, where we could refuel ourselves, so to speak, for the discussions which take place. I think it would be well for us in Ottawa to follow the example of the United Nations, the United States congress, the Boston airport and various other places throughout the world which have seen fit to provide a meditation room. I believe it is something that would be creditable and beneficial to us.
There is one further point to which I should like to direct the minister's attention. It concerns a question I put on the order paper some time ago and which, after several months of delay-and I emphasize the several months of delay because of what I am about to say- was finally answered. The question asked for information covering 1954 and January, 1955, with respect to trips made by ministers of the crown to points outside Canada which were paid for in whole or in part from the public treasury and for which transports were used that were supplied by the public service or the Department of National Defence. A number of ministers made answers, some perhaps more fully than others, but no answer to the question in any manner, shape or form was received from the Minister of Public Works.
I think we are all aware that in 1954 he did make a rather extensive trip to Europe on behalf of the government, during which one of his official duties was to sign a treaty of some sort on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, if my memory serves me rightly. I shall take up the general tenor of the reply to the question with the Secretary of State when his estimates are before us, because it is his ineptitude and lack of follow-up which are primarily responsible. But I do feel that the Minister of Public Works should be taken to task at this point for apparently not even being prepared to answer a legitimate request for information made by a member of the house, which was answered by a goodly number of his colleagues. I do not know the

reason for it. Presumably he will have an explanation of some kind, but the matter is certainly regrettable because it casts doubt upon every piece of information coming from the minister's department in reply to questions asked in the house.
Here is an open and shut case. The minister has travelled close to 15,000 miles outside of Canada. He has been to England, Spain and the Mediterranean. Certainly he has been doing it on behalf of the people of Canada; we were so informed in the house. Yet when the simple question is asked whether the trip was made, who made it, to where, for what purpose, what expenses were incurred and whether or not the public transport was used, the question goes unanswered and unacknowledged by the minister and his department.
I think we are reaching the point where [DOT] those of us who ask questions in the hope of obtaining information on which we can base speeches or investigations feel there is little use in asking questions if we cannot trust and believe the information we receive. Obviously it would make the government very happy indeed if nobody questioned them, but I do not think the minister would want to be a party to that breakdown in the processes of parliament, in addition to some of the other breakdowns we have seen in so far as his party's activities are concerned.
Having said that, I want to say one more thing. Last summer I made a very extensive trip to the maritimes. In the course of my trip I visited Lunenburg and other parts of the maritimes that are within the minister's territory. I want him to know from me that, although I may disagree with him on a number of things, although I may think his administration leaves something to be desired and his answers to questions leave almost everything to be desired, many of the people to whom I spoke down there thought quite highly of the minister.
The only regret I found in my conversations with the people of that area, and it seemed to be fairly general, had to do with a rather well-known Canadian painter by the name of Bailly. I think he is known across Canada. He is without arms, and paints by holding the brush in his teeth. He has held exhibitions in the United States and various parts of Canada, and he lives in the minister's constituency. I know the people of that area would be more than happy if one of the paintings of this comparatively young man were procured by the Dominion of Canada and placed in the art gallery here.


Robert Henry Winters: One has been.
Supply-Public Works


William McLean Hamilton: congratulate the minister. I am delighted that he has done that.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly interested in just how large was the amount the Minister of Public Works cost the taxpayers of Canada when he went to Europe. I do not imagine he had a string of debaucheries across the continent.
I am more concerned with what he does as Minister of Public Works.
I was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace when he mentioned Blubber Bay. Apparently there is something particularly dubious about the fact that the Department of Public Works should make any expenditures at Blubber Bay. Blubber Bay does not happen to be in my riding. It is in the riding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but I happen to know the place very well. Possibly it strikes a responsive chord in my breast because it is the only place I was ever arrested.
But for the benefit of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace may I say that while Blubber Bay may sound like an odd name and may seem like an isolated settlement, it is actually the shipping point for a very large limestone quarry, probably one of the largest in the country, for a cement plant, an iron mine and for a considerable logging industry on Texada island. Therefore I imagine that any expenditures on wharves there were quite well justified, and as a matter of fact my complaint is that the minister will not build enough wharves.
I want to come now to another matter which my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni called to my attention. It has reference to some of my difficulties in getting the minister's department to make quite necessary improvements to the small boat harbour facilities at Northwest bay. I notice that in the report of the Department of Public Works for 1954 Northwest bay is mentioned as belonging to the constituency of Comox-Alberni, which it does not. Of course I quite realize that the minister, having spent-I think quite unjustifiably-vast sums of money in the constituency of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, would hesitate to spend any more at Northwest bay when he thought it was in Comox-Alberni. I want to remind him that it is in Nanaimo riding, and the expenditure is very badly needed.
To be serious, there is a very great need on the whole of the east coast of Vancouver island for suitable small boat harbours. Anyone who looks at the map of that coast might be doubtful of that statement because it looks as though there must be a harbour
5604	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
every few miles, but as a matter of fact from Nanaimo north to the slough at Courtenay, a distance of about 80 miles, there is only one reasonably safe small boat harbour, the one that has been constructed by the department at French creek. There is a rather unsatisfactory small boat harbour on Northwest bay which requires quite extensive improvements, which I hope to persuade the department to undertake in the course of the next year. That is one of the great problems on the east coast of Vancouver island for small boat fishermen, finding a spot in which to take shelter in rough weather.
There is another matter I want to bring to the minister's attention, and that is the problem of the transportation facilities among the various gulf islands. I do not need to remind him that the government sank a great deal of money in these gulf islands in the last two or three years. I am not blaming them for doing so, although that money has been largely wasted, some $200,000 or $300,000, I believe, in building wharves for the Canadian Pacific Steamship company's service, which they promptly abandoned once those wharves were built.
I suggest to the minister that with the increasing population, there are going to be continuing demands for transportation facilities. If his department is going to avoid making similar mistakes-I won't say mistakes, because it was not their fault-but if they are going to avoid being drawn into unwise expenditures I think they will have to undertake a very careful survey of the requirements of these gulf islands for the next few years.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, there are upwards of a dozen inhabited islands varying from Saltspring island with several thousand inhabitants to smaller islands with a few hundred people. There are going to be more and more demands for transportation facilities. I would urge the minister to undertake a survey of that whole area, so that when the inhabitants come to him and demand wharves and so on he will have the composite picture in his mind. As I indicated last year, I think I am almost unique in this house in having constituents who complain about the expenditure of public funds in their constituency. The residents of the gulf islands of British Columbia did make such a complaint at that time. I should like to see a really thorough survey, so we could develop an integrated interisland transportation system in the near future.


Daniel Roland Michener: As we are beginning the 89th year of confederation, it is perhaps interesting to compare the expenditures of


the Department of Public Works, which we are asked to approve now, with those of confederation days. I have not the figures for the earlier dates, but I am reminded that the expenditures of this department with which we are now dealing amounting to $162 million, equal between one-third and one-quarter of the entire federal budget of 1939.
Certainly this is a very important department of government, and one of which all Canadians are justly proud. They are hopeful that the expenditure will result in credit to Canada and efficient service in government administration. The department extends throughout the whole dominion. Its expenditures amount to $10 or $11 per capita for each of the 15 million people in Canada and perhaps $50 or more per family, so we are dealing with no unimportant matter. The minister has under his direction a very considerable part of the revenues of the country.
I am not rising to complain about the expenditures. What I have to say relates more to timing, and I wish to support what was said earlier by the hon. member for Fort William when he suggested to the minister that in letting these dredging contracts every effort should be made to see that tenders are called and the work begins as early as possible in the year. If that is not done serious inconvenience may result to shipping. I am moved to say that as a result of the experience in Toronto harbour. The eastern channel in Toronto harbour has to be dredged every year, and it makes a great deal of difference whether or not that dredging is done before shipping becomes general through the eastern gap or whether the dredging goes on concurrently with shipping and is an interference with shipping through that channel. Two years ago, through some difficulty about the original tender, a second tender had to be called and we found that dredging was proceeding with rather antiquated equipment in July when the channel was receiving its maximum use, to the inconvenience of shipping.
It is an inconvenience. There is only one passenger line out of Toronto, and modesty forbids me mentioning its name. There is still one passenger ship on the upper lakes which runs from Toronto to Niagara-on-the-Lake.


Mrs. Fairclough:: There are two.


Daniel Roland Michener: Well, I believe there is a tug from Hamilton, but I am not going to count that. The difference in time in travelling from Toronto to Niagara-on-the-Lake using the western channel instead of the eastern channel, which is the direct route, is 15 minutes. This makes considerable difference in the schedule of a ship proceeding

in that direction. I would urge, therefore, that these tenders be let as early as February, if possible, and the dredgers put into operation by the end of May.
I do not think that is an unreasonable request, Mr. Chairman. If the work is done by the end of May or the middle of June it will help a great deal in many respects. The hon. member for Fort William put it on the basis of relief of unemployment, but I put it on the basis of convenience to shipping. It has to be done, so why not do it at a time when no inconvenience is going to be caused to shipping using these channels?
The other matter of timing is one of importance. I am not sure whether we have had in this house any explanation of any kind of the reference the government made earlier in the year to a competent member of the civil service of the problem of timing public expenditures, particularly public works expenditures, with a view to creating maximum employment and using public works as a means to relieve unemployment. Perhaps the minister will tell me if any explanation of this has been made heretofore, but I do not recall having heard the results of that inquiry.
I distinctly remember that some months ago, I think before we assembled here, a competent public servant was requested to review public works expenditures, to consider what employment-making value there was in them, and to establish the priorities which would be useful. This followed the theory propounded some years ago by the predecessor of the Minister of Finance, that in this country the government would not permit great unemployment to exist and would use the power of the public treasury and expenditures on public works to create employment in times when that was needed.
There was a considerable fanfare about this reference and the newspapers indicated, I suppose quoting the usual reliable sources, that some $150 million in public works was involved, and that this would be the answer to some of the unemployment problems in Canada in the early part of 1955.
Though we have gathered here and discussed the question of unemployment there seems to have been a reluctance on the part of the treasury benches to recognize that any problem existed. But what I am concerned about tonight is whether that inquiry was pursued, what results came from it and whether or not the estimates we have before us tonight have been in any degree affected by the study which was put in hand six or eight months ago.
In other words, is this program of the Department of Public Works, which is to
Supply-Public Works
cost $162 million, in any way directed toward the creation of employment in the areas in which those works are carried out or in the priority with which they are undertaken? I think that is a very proper matter for the minister to comment on when he replies to the numerous comments which he has heard today. We shall expect to hear the results of that study and to what extent effect is being given to it in the votes we have before us tonight.
There are a number of other matters which may more properly come up when the individual items are called, and I shall leave them until then except to mention one or two things by way of preparation. I am interested to learn whether the department considers that the development of the deep waterway channel from the Atlantic seaboard to lake Ontario necessitates the installation of additional harbour facilities in lake Ontario. What points does the department consider would be most affected by that deep waterway? More particularly, will any additional installations be required in the Toronto area, and in particular at the mouth of the Welland canal at Port Weller and Port Dalhousie on the Niagara river?
Another matter in which I am interested is the policy of the department with respect to insurance on public buildings. I take it the government has followed the policy of being its own insurer. That raises some very interesting questions. If the risk is great enough and spread over enough property- and in this case I dare say it is, because the public buildings of Canada are numerous and reach from coast to coast-it may be a sound policy. But it would be interesting to learn what thought has been given to that and what the deliberate policy of the government is with respect to the risk of fire and destruction of public buildings in that way. I raise the issue because it may be a sound policy with modern buildings which are generally fireproof, and the risk may be worth taking. It may be better and less expensive to take the risk than to pay the extensive premiums that would be involved in insuring the whole of the public buildings of Canada.
On the other hand, there may be specific buildings which are of ancient construction, with a good deal of wood in their make-up which are fire hazards, which might be better insured and the public protected against these greater hazards in case of destruction by fire. Perhaps one of the buildings which falls in that category is the one which the minister has indicated is due for reconstruction, namely the west block. We all have our ideas of how that should be done and what the results should be. I do not choose to set up my

Supply-Public Works
judgment against that of the department. It is a building in harmony with the general group here, and I certainly hope the result will leave it in the harmonious ensemble that we have today. Whether it is better to demolish it and reconstruct it or to reconstruct it within the masonry that exists today is something on which I would not like to touch.
With these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think I might leave the more detailed discussion of these items until the items themselves come up.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a very brief word to say. I should like to say at the outset that none of the suggestions I have to make reflect in any way on either the minister or his parliamentary assistant. I have always had the most courteous and considerate attention from both of them. However, the matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention is that of the procedure at the opening of public buildings.
I believe it would be a matter perhaps not of good politics but of common courtesy that when opening ceremonies are held for public buildings, such as post offices, the department, or whoever in the department makes the arrangements, should invite the sitting member.


Robert Henry Winters: It is wrong to try to create the impression that that is not done. It is done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Robert Henry Winters: It certainly is done.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister may be under the impression that it is done.


Robert Henry Winters: It is done.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I may say that at the opening of the post office in my constituency last yepr I was not invited. I went anyway. It may very well have been an oversight.


Robert Henry Winters: It must have been, because many hon. members opposite know we do invite them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Only Liberal members opposite know it is done.


Walter Edward Harris: Directly opposite.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Minister of Labour, who actually was functioning at the ceremony, took pains to see me in the crowd and invite me up to the platform. As I say, it may have been an oversight. If it was, greater care might be taken by whoever in the department arranges these matters.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks which will be brief, because I shall

endeavour to restrict myself entirely to a few subjects which I feel can best be discussed under this item rather than under later items.
The first matter I should like to discuss for a few moments are the observations of the Auditor General with regard to the Department of Public Works, as contained in his most recent report. The Auditor General points out that the Department of Public Works is responsible for providing accommodation for all the other departments, either by erecting buildings or renting them. He goes on to say that in recent years expenditures in this connection have increased very rapidly. That, of course, is understandable. I shall cite one example. In the year 1949-50 rentals amounted to roughly $808,000, whereas in 1953-54 they were $2,237,000. The problem of arriving at some suitable way of having the departments which actually occupy these buildings made responsible for payments of rent or payment for their accommodation was considered.
There is also the very exceptional problem which the Department of Public Works has in providing stores for other departments. I think these stores are carried in the inventory of the Department of Public Works and are lent out to the other departments. The Auditor General observes:
In the course of examinations, it was also observed that the Department of Public Works reconditions furniture but not infrequently encounters resistance when a reconditioned, rather than a new, article is proffered to a department. Were departments required to pay for all furniture provided, a greater demand for reconditioned articles might develop.
That is an understandable problem, of course. I hope the minister will make some comment as to what consideration has been given to resolving this problem to the better advantage of all concerned. Personally I think if the other departments actually bought their furniture and equipment from the Department of Public Works and were responsible for carrying their own inventories, a saving might accrue.
The Auditor General also pointed out another weakness in administration which I believe obtains in most departments. He observed that sections of different departments might requisition or buy new equipment which was actually carried in store by another section of the same department or by some other department. He felt that a consolidated inventory of stores of some sort might be justified so that unnecessary equipment would not be purchased.
Having made these comments, I should like to direct the attention of the minister to another problem. Over the last few months

considerable interest has grown up regarding developments in the capital city of Ottawa, with special regard to permanent public buildings which will be built in the near future and their effect on the general lay-out. I have in mind such buildings as the national library and so on, and I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to make a brief statement at the appropriate time which would bring this house and the country generally as up to date as possible with regard to the plans for the near future in respect to new major construction jobs in the city and the immediate surrounding area.
Reference has been made already to the renovation of the west block. I think it is important that as much as possible of the present character of the west block be retained so the historic value of this building will not be lost. After all, it has a close association with our first prime minister and many other famous Canadian statesmen. I think it would be in keeping with other policies and programs being carried out by the government if as much as possible of the present character of the building is retained. If that building were to lose its historic significance it would indicate a trend contrary to that we are trying to create and maintain with respect to historic buildings generally. Even this session we had legislation to provide for the retention of buildings of historic value, and it would be running contrary to the policy which has been followed in the case of Laurier House and other buildings connected with former prime ministers and so on. I feel confident that the minister is fully aware of this situation.
Earlier in the session we had what I regarded as an unsatisfactory situation arise with regard to major expenditures for a large building which appeared in the supplementary rather than the main estimates of the Department of Public Works. I hope the minister will assure us that this sort of thing will be avoided in the future if at all possible.
I want to commend the minister upon the fact that since he has taken over the department there has been a most noticeable decrease in the number of meaningless items which appear in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I think the minister is making progress toward the ideal situation where items will not be put in the estimates to be passed by this house and calculated in the budget requirements unless the money is actually going to be spent in the year ahead.
In that connection I should like to refer briefly to an example which I have mentioned already, the federal building now under construction in my riding. For a number of years we had items in the estimates for such
Supply-Public Works
a building, but no action was taken. Over the years all members representing the riding which I now represent put forward arguments that such a building was necessary, but those arguments seemed to fall on deaf ears. The minister is a native maritimer, and I think that pre-eminently qualifies him to survey this country which stretches from sea to sea in order to see things in their proper perspective. In any case the construction of this building is going forward and progressing most favourably.
I do not want to say anything more about this except to indicate that no doubt there have been occasions when members have not been invited to the opening of public buildings in their ridings. But in fairness to the minister I must say that it has been my experience to be treated most courteously in this regard. I was invited to and was present at the laying of the cornerstone of the new federal building in Charlottetown which occurred recently, and I was also at the opening last year of a public building not far from where I live but in an adjoining riding. Generally speaking this criticism of the minister is not valid as far as I am concerned, but I trust that special care will be taken to see that exceptions to this rule do not occur.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to enter into a discussion of this item until I heard the minister speak with injured innocence with regard to inviting members of parliament to attend the opening of public buildings. That type of thing does not worry me at all, but may I draw his attention to the fact that a year and a half or two years ago when the first shovelful of earth was turned in starting the new Winnipeg post office, which will be a rather large building when finished in the distant future, none of the members from the city of Winnipeg knew of this historic occasion until he observed in the press a picture showing the machinery at work, with the hon. member for St. Boniface officiating at the ceremony.
I just draw this to the attention of .the minister in the hope he will keep in mind that when that magnificent post office is opened, the members representing the city of Winnipeg will be invited. The hon. member for St. Boniface of course will be quite welcome. Although the members for the city of Winnipeg at that time may be still two Conservatives and two members of the C.C.F., they should be apprized of that occasion.


Robert Henry Winters: There will be a cornerstone laying in Winnipeg on Tuesday for that same building, and I hereby invite the C.C.F., the Tory and the Liberal members from Winnipeg to attend.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few policy matters I wish to bring up on this first item. I suggest that there should be a complete review and reassessment of what are or what are not public works. I use the words "public works" in the broad sense.
I can think of three reasons quickly why I should make this assertion. First, there is a continuing maritime aspect to public works. We have in the maritimes, as the minister very well knows, a peculiar attitude to public works and assistance from Ottawa. Not only is it tied in with politics; it is tied in with our way of life, and has been for many years. Without attempting to explain this in my own words I should like to read about ten lines from the Globe and Mail of July 17, 1953, which explains it very carefully, in an article entitled "Canada's Stepchildren" by Richard J. Needham:
Over the maritime provinces lies the shadow of the dominion government-sometimes a rich uncle who spoons money out to them; sometimes a wicked uncle who exploits them in war and neglects them in peace. Certainly, the people of the maritime provinces are far more conscious of Ottawa than those of Ontario and Quebec. Some of them think-one is tempted to agree-that they are much too dependent upon its whims and wishes.
Of course that applies to public works more than anything else.
Second, perhaps the reason this is prominent in my mind at this time is the fact that there are so many large projects in the process of development in Canada. For instance, there is the St. Lawrence seaway; and I can think of Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick, the causeway at Canso and others. They only increase the problem of attempting to assess just what area and what department they are going to be considered under.
Third-this is perhaps the main reason I mention it-I refer back to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 29 of this year, which says:
Federal estimates tabled.
$20 million works program in Nova Scotia provided for.
Then it goes into the details. On the same date I picked up the Saint John newspaper and saw:
New Brunswick may receive $2,946,000 total in federal works.
When the articles are read, I shall admit, they explain what the general headings refer to. We agree that these other large projects are important, but a maritime member wants to find out if his area is being looked after. The headlines in the Nova Scotia newspaper say there is to be $20 million for Nova Scotia, and the New Brunswick newspaper says there is to be $2 million for New Brunswick. Later on the New Brunswick situation was clarified.


The minister spoke at Moncton on March 21 of this year and said there would be $16 million for New Brunswick public works. I think New Brunswick should have as much as Nova Scotia, but perhaps that is not so much out of line.
Just to repeat briefly the point I am making, the minister has probably made many statements about what comes under his department, but I feel there should be some sort of agreement as to what are going to be considered public works when these statements are made to the press and when we are trying to assess the various works programs, as to what department they may be under in an area, and how much they affect us in the different provinces. I would appreciate a statement, because we are trying to follow matters, and these things are confusing. As I say, the matter has been explained, and I understand how it has levelled off, but it is confusing. We should have a reassessment of the meaning of "public works" when the words are used generally.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three matters I should like to place before the minister before he replies to the various suggestions that have been made this afternoon and this evening.
The first one has to do with our own west block. There has been some mention of it during the discussion, and I understand that the government is proposing to remodel the building, leaving the exterior as much as possible in the form in which it is at the present time. The minister must know that there are some misgivings about this plan, on the ground that the west block is one of the historic buildings of Canada and that it should not be altered. I have been told that the west block was built before confederation and was used by the old parliament of Canada at a time when Canada consisted of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
I suppose it is necessary to do remodelling, but would it not be possible to restore the office in the west block which was used for some years by Sir John A. Macdonald, the father of confederation. Apparently he directed the affairs of the young nation from that building, and it seems to me that if his office could be restored it would be an historic centre which would be a great attraction to the people of Canada who visit Ottawa.
As the minister knows, several hundred thousand people come through this main parliamentary building in the course of a year. There is no other building nearby which they can visit, and in this particular building there is nothing of an historic value,

that is nothing that dates back, of course, because the building was only finished early in the 1920's. This does seem an opportunity to make an historic centre which would have great attraction for Canadians visiting Ottawa.
Then, as the minister will remember, last year on the discussion of his estimates I asked to what extent his department was attempting to take over its proper functions. The Department of Public Works was originally set up to construct the buildings, harbours and other public works of the country, but during the war years and in the years after the war that function was taken over to quite a large extent by other departments. The minister will realize that in the Public Works Act, which sets up his department, there is a very clear definition in section 9 of his responsibilities:
The minister has the management, charge and direction of the following properties belonging to Canada, and of the services in this section enumerated, namely:
(a) The dams, the hydraulic works, the construction and repair ox harbours, piers and works for improving the navigation of any water,-
And the minister might point this out to his associate, the Minister of Transport:
-and the vessels, dredges, scows, tools, implements and machinery for the improvement of navigation;
Then it goes on:
(b) the slides, dams, piers, booms and other works for facilitating the transmission of timber-
This statute goes back many decades. Of course the minister no longer is obliged to worry about booms of timber. Then it lists roads and bridges, public buildings, telegraph lines, and so on. It is true that in subsequent sections there are provisions whereby the responsibility for some of this work can be handed over to other departments; but less than a month ago the minister himself, when speaking in Toronto to the Canadian welding society, made a statement which was reported as follows:
Mr. Winters said his department is responsible for only about 40 per cent of government building, most of the remainder being constructed by the crown-owned Defence Construction Limited for the defence department and by the transport department.
I do not know where the minister obtained that figure of 40 per cent. It seems to me that he actually is not responsible for that large a percentage of government construction.
I have here the "Summary of Standard Objects of Expenditure" for the fiscal year 1955-56, and I find that one group of items is entitled "Construction or acquisition-buildings and works, including land". From it we find that the Department of Public Works
Supply-Public Works
is asking for approximately $85,600,000 under that heading, but the total amount asked for by the other departments, exclusive of the departments of defence production, national defence and civil defence, is almost twice as much, namely $165,800,000. I am just using the round figures.
Here are what some of the other departments are asking for. For example, transport is asking for $29! million as against public works $85| million. Agriculture is asking for over $11 million and northern affairs and national resources for over $7 million. Atomic energy is asking for over $6 million, citizenship and immigration for over $5 million, and so on. I shall not give any other figures. The Department of Public Works is getting only slightly over half of the total amount to be voted this year for the construction or acquisition of buildings and works, exclusive of buildings and works for the defence department, the defence production department and for civil defence.
Then we turn to those figures, and we find that they are more than the total that is being voted for what I might call the civilian departments. For example, for defence production the amount is over $8 million and for national defence it is $161! million. Then there is a small amount for civil defence. The total for the defence projects is $172 million. It therefore does not leave the minister in a prominent place so far as public works in Canada are concerned.
I admit that his department spends some money for other departments. The last report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, shows that the Department of Public Works spent nearly $12 million for other departments. But even taking that fact into consideration, there are millions and millions of dollars being spent by other departments for public works. I should like the minister to explain what steps have been taken by him or by the government to cut down on the works constructed by these other departments, which are not building departments, and to place that work in his Department of Public Works.
This afternoon we were told about what appears to have been a serious mistake in Newfoundland in connection with the harbour at Port aux Basques. The reports indicate that the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works and the Canadian National Railways were all involved; but whoever is to blame, you cannot get away from the fact that millions of dollars have been spent to build a new ferry, that millions of dollars have been spent to build docks and on work in the harbour, and that when the whole thing is done here is the

Supply-Public Works
net result. This is a quotation from the deputy minister of transport:
Of the hitch generally he said:
"We had our engineers on the project. The C.N.R. had its experts on the docking and loading facilities, and the public works department had its technicians.
"We didn't realize what was going to happen until the work had been completed.''
We now find that the ship cannot be docked at the port. It is going to have to go 190 miles farther to get a port where it can dock; and some department-presumably the Department of Public Works-will have to spend millions of dollars more fixing that harbour. The suggestion is that they will have to put back in the reefs they blew up. That suggestion may be right or it may be wrong; but I suggest that if the responsibility for that work had rested where it should have rested, namely with the Department of Public Works, then at least there would not have been the necessity for plans being worked out between two departments, and the government might not have fallen between these two or even three stools as seems to have been the case. I think that is a good example indicating why the Department of Public Works should be given the work it was intended to do under the statutes of Canada.
So far as defence construction is concerned, I am afraid that is another case of the Minister of Defence Production reaching out and grabbing powers wherever he can find them. He has got into this construction business right up to the hilt, until he is going to spend for defence construction as much as all the other departments put together are spending for public works. Surely many of these defence projects could be built by the Department of Public Works.
In the annual report of Defence Construction (1951) Limited, which is the crown corporation which does the work for the Minister of Defence Production, I was astonished to read that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is under the Minister of Public Works, turned over the supervision of a great number of defence construction projects to this crown corporation under the other department. The result was, of course, that the total staff of Defence Construction (1951) Limited went up from 101 to 579, of whom 201 were Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation employees who were transferred from the Department of Public Works.
There may have been a good reason for transferring them to this crown corporation under the Department of Defence Production. However, I believe the time has come for the Department of Public Works to do
IMr. Green.]
the bulk of these jobs. Having the two departments in that field results in duplication. If the Department of Public Works is capable of doing the work, then it should be doing it. If it is not capable of doing the work the house should know about it, and something should be done to improve the department.
After all, we are living under conditions which are not temporary. They are going to continue for years and years ahead. Let us get back to the ordinary basis of doing work of this kind and get as much of it as possible under the Department of Public Works. I hope the minister will explain to the committee whether the government has taken any steps to bring about a change in the direction I have mentioned.
Then there was a criticism of the minister's department contained in the report of the Senate standing committee on finance dated June 16, 1955. In that report I find this statement:
We draw attention particularly to significant increases in the numbers of civil servants with special reference to the Department of National Defence and-
This is the part that affects the minister. -to high costs connected with the construction of new buildings and the reconstruction of old ones.
On the following page there are these words:
The figures relating to the costs of certain public buildings in Ottawa are cited as an example of the increasing expenditures connected with government buildings everywhere.
Then they list the costs of some of the buildings in Ottawa. I shall not go over them, but of course the one which cost the most by far is the printing bureau. The senators have reported that it is to cost $14 million. That includes the site, the building, $150,000 for landscaping and $250,000 for furnishings and equipment. I understand this building has cost a great deal more than the original estimate, and I wish the minister would take it as an example and tell the committee why it is that the government buildings are costing such very large amounts.
I should also like to say one or two words in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. He mentioned that Senator Reid had reported that the office of the public works department had been moved from New Westminster to Vancouver because New Westminster riding had defeated the Liberal candidate in the last general election. Senator Reid has been in public life in British Columbia for many years. He was elected to this house in 1930, and he is not given to making statements off the cuff. That was his explanation of why



I, 1955

[Stage Direction]
the office has been moved from New Westminster to Vancouver. I think the minister owes it to the house to explain whether or not that is the case and, if not, to give the reasons for the removal.
There have been other examples of the government playing politics in New Westminster riding. Just this year the Postmaster General's department changed the name of a post office and sent a wire to the defeated Liberal candidate so he could announce that the name had been changed. That sort of thing has been going on in the riding, and it is no wonder that the people would pay some attention to the statement made by Senator Reid.
Would the minister bring us up to date with regard to the Marpole bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river? He will remember we discussed that matter at some length earlier in the session. So far as I know the present position is that the dominion government has $400,000 burning a hole in its pocket, but will not pay it over to the provincial government toward the cost of the bridge unless the provincial government will agree to build a bridge that will be free of tolls.
I need not repeat to the minister the arguments we have made in favour of the dominion contributing one-third of the cost of the bridge. They are of course largely based on the fact that the bridge is the only possible connection to the international airport. We would like to know what the stand of the dominion government is at the present time with regard to the bridge. There does not appear to be any item in either the regular or supplementary estimates to provide for any assistance in the construction. I think opinion on the coast was accurately summed up by the Vancouver Herald when it said in an editorial on April 21:
The onus for the toll is on the federal government. If or when the federal government comes through with its proportionate share of the cost, the toll will be reduced or removed altogether.
The people of that part of Canada have reason to approve the position taken in the editorial. In any event, we would like to know the position of the dominion government at the present time.
Finally, would the minister explain what the present policy is with regard to the use of public works to relieve unemployment? Until last year we thought his department had a filing cabinet full of plans for public works which were to be built as soon as we had unemployment. We found last year that the cupboard was bare and that there were no such plans on hand. But has the government
Supply-Public Works
any method of helping to solve the unemployment situation through public works other than by perhaps timing some of the construction so it takes place at a time when employment on other projects across the country has slackened off? I believe the committee is entitled to know the present stand of the government on this question.
Mr. Kickham:: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should not let the opportunity provided by the first item of the minister's estimates pass without expressing to the minister the appreciation of the people of the southern part of my county for the splendid federal public building which was completed last year, and in respect of which the hon. member for Queens said he had been invited to be present at the official opening. The minister was not able to be present at that opening, and he passed on that very pleasant task to me.
I also want to say a word of commendation and congratulation to the architects of the Department of Public Works for the splendid design provided in their plans for the building. The property is well landscaped, and I can say without hesitation the building is one of the best in that part of our county. It is the pride of our citizens, and I again congratulate the architects who drew the plans for the structure and also the officials of the Department of Public Works for the splendid co-operation I have had.
Now the Post Office Department is thinking of building an extension to the present post office building at Souris. The new building is to provide space for customs and fisheries. After some consideration the Post Office Department have decided that it would be long-range economy to construct a new building and have so recommended to the Department of Public Works. Our difficulty is that the present building is fairly good, but the rapid growth of the town has rendered its capacity much too small. The difficulty is that while the municipality would like to obtain the building, it is very poor. As I have learned from discussions in this house, it is in the same position as the rest of the municipalities across this dominion.
I share the minister's concern in this respect. Were the Department of Public Works to select one of the three sites that are now available they would provide much greater accommodation than the present site, which only provides 60 feet parallel to the main street. In my own mind, and in the minds of the people of the municipality, such a site would not provide a building in keeping with modern construction. Here is our difficulty. I have new prices, but I am hesitant about passing those on to the minister because possibly at the next session some

Supply-Public Works
of our opposition friends will ask of the Minister of Public Works, what did the municipality in eastern Kings county, Prince Edward Island, get for the old site, and what did they pay for the new one? We only hope we can carry on negotiations until such time as we can have the new building constructed on a site that will be in keeping with what we feel we should have at this stage of modern construction. We could, of course, go ahead and expropriate, but I do not think either the present minister or the former minister of public works favour expropriation where they can make some reasonable arrangement for sites that are desired.
I know the minister hears very many complaints, but I think that is largely because most opposition members speak on these estimates. I do not take very much of the time of the house, and I think it should be a little more satisfying to the minister to have some Liberal members get up and make a few congratulatory remarks. I heard the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and several other members from the maritimes speak on the first item of the departmental estimates, and they usually utter words of condemnation and criticism. I do not feel the Department of Public Works makes any differentiation between the Atlantic provinces and Prince Edward Island. During the war years essential materials such as creosote and steel were needed by the defence department. I think it was only in 1952 that steel was removed entirely from the restricted list.
Prior to 1952 the Minister of Defence Production had to give permits for steel to be used in essential civilian construction. It is only within the last two or three years that steel, creosote and other essential building materials have been taken off the restricted list. I feel that largely accounts for the fact that the federal public building now being constructed in Queens county was deferred for some time. I can say to this house that our public works in Prince Edward Island are pretty well maintained.


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not interrupt the hon. member for Kings on a point of order, but I did not say, particularly of the public works department, that I was critical of or condemned the department as such.


Robert Henry Winters: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have covered much ground since we started discussion of this general item earlier this afternoon. There have been so many questions posed and so many topics covered that I am sure hon. members of the committee would not expect me to deal with them in detail at this time. However, if they wish to have me particularize on the various specific

items later I shall be happy to do so. At the moment I feel I should confine myself to the statements of a more general nature made here today, and deal with one or two major assertions as well as one rather serious allegation that I thought was made.
At the outset I should like to commend the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, upon his elevation to the important post of official critic of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I wish him well in his task, and I can assure him we will always be pleased to have constructive criticism as it applies to this department. Notwithstanding the presentation he made, we had a great many other hon. members from the same party, ending up with the usual worth-while contribution made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
I wish to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this discussion so far, especially those who were good enough to say nice things about the department. More particularly I wish to thank those who were kind enough to invite me to attend particular functions in their constituencies. My only hope in that regard is that I will be able to accept them before too long.
The hon. member for Victoria asked some questions about the trans-Canada highway, as did the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I shall be pleased to deal with that in a few moments. First of all I should like to mention the property on Wellington street, referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton. I am sorry he is not in the house at the present time. He made an assertion that I thought was not quite in keeping with his usual fair approach to these problems, when he said the deal was negotiated by Mr. Duncan MacTavish, Q.C., who is at the same time president of the national Liberal federation. The latter statement is quite correct, and I am very pleased it is correct, but it is not a fact that he negotiated this deal. To my knowledge he did not appear in the deal at any time. I had no dealings with him with respect to this acquisition, and I have been told by officials of the department that they had no dealings with him in these negotiations. I am sure the hon. member would not wish to allow the impression he created this afternoon to stand.
The fact of the matter is that this property to which he referred, known as the Orme, Brock and Norlite property on Wellington street, was purchased some time ago by the previous owners as part of an estate. It included other properties. Subsequently the then owners decided to erect a building on the site which did not harmonize with the plans of the national capital planning board.

After due consideration the government decided to expropriate the property to protect that plan. The owners had no desire to sell the property. As a matter of fact, after we took expropriation action they endeavoured to recover the property from us, but the negotiations had then reached such a stage that after further discussion we mutually thought it would be in the best interests of the public at the time to have this property publicly owned.
Since the previous owners acquired the property they effected substantial improvements to it in the form of new elevators, a new front on the building and other general improvements of a costly nature. They had complete plans and specifications for the new building they intended to erect on the site, and of course we had to pay those expenses, as we had to assume certain other legal expenses and administrative costs, all of which were connected with the building.
The owners asked us at the outset in excess of $1,600,000 for the property. We did not accept that, but we invited independent appraisers, John Pitt of Montreal, and Appraisers Limited from Montreal, to evaluate the property and give us their figures. They did so. The figure submitted by John Pitt of Montreal was $1,462,863.74. The figure submitted by Appraisers Limited, Montreal, was $1,249,713.32. We ultimately settled for $1,328,849. I am convinced that the deal was in the public interest; that the public will lose no money on it, and that it will contribute greatly to the further development of the national capital plan.
The other project that I should like to mention is the one raised in the first instance by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and subsequently referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, namely the harbour development at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. That port was designated as the eastern terminal of the ferry that was built to run between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques. The development of the harbour was undertaken by the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways. The Department of Transport requested the Department of Public Works to act as its agent and do the dredging, and that was done.
The Carson is a larger boat than the one that has been operating, and when the marine officials of the Canadian National Railways studied the situation preparatory to the inaugural run of the boat they concluded that the harbour was rather exposed. It was always exposed. Nothing we did to it made it more or less exposed than it was before.
There were then a series of meetings, some of which I attended. It was decided that 50433-354
Supply-Public Works
further harbour protection was needed. It is not routine in the amount of money required, but it is a normal thing to protect harbours to the extent that harbour protection is needed.


Howard Charles Green: What will it cost?


Robert Henry Winters: The final decision on the nature and extent of the harbour works has not been determined, but the Department of Public Works has suggested at least one breakwater at the entrance of the harbour, and perhaps there will have to be some additional structure there. But that does not result from anything that has been done to the harbour, as has been suggested here. It is just an added precaution to make sure the harbour is safe under all conditions of weather, as those hon. members who are so familiar with seafaring well know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister differs with Mr. Baldwin of the Department of Transport.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not believe there is any difference between Mr. Baldwin and me on that. Mr. Baldwin attended the meetings I did, and as far as I can see there was a meeting of minds both in respect of what it meant and in respect of what must be done to make the harbour safe.
I did wish to say a few words about the trans-Canada highway, but it is ten o'clock, and if it is the desire-


Clarence Gillis: Finish your first item.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understand the minister has unanimous consent to finish his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have had enough. Ten
o'clock.


Robert Henry Winters: Since considerable interest has been shown in this highly important project, I thought I should report that the nine provinces participating with the federal govern' ment under the terms of agreements pursuant to the Trans-Canada Highway Act have to date committed a total of $190,001,601 to the construction of the highway. Of this amount the federal government is committed to half, or $95,000,800. Claims have been submitted and paid in the amount of $65,944,648 to the various provinces, as follows:
Newfoundland	 $ 5,478,732
Prince Edward Island	 1,530,178
Nova Scotia	 75,699
New Brunswick	 2,553,559
Ontario	 20,637,935
Manitoba	 5,654,639
Saskatchewan	 7,101,842
Alberta	 8,402,583
British Columbia	 14,509,494

Supply-Public Works
To date 1,481 miles have been graded and 1,075 miles paved lor a total of 1,346 equivalent miles constructed. The length of the trans-Canada highway, excluding the province of Quebec, is 4,580 miles. Accordingly, about 30 per cent of the route has been completed to trans-Canada highway standards.
I would like now to contemplate the project from another point of view, on the assumption that we are aiming at highway facilities for motoring across Canada in reasonable comfort on paved highways. In some provinces a considerable portion of the route was already paved when the trans-Canada highway agreement was signed. While most of that part of the highway is not up to trans-Canada standards, I think it would not be entirely realistic to expect the provincial governments concerned to rebuild it as long as it has substantial useful life remaining.
In Nova Scotia, for example, there is a paved highway across the entire province from North Sydney to the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border at Aulac. It is true that the route chosen for the trans-Canada highway is not completely paved, but at the same time it is possible for a motorist to traverse the entire province by alternative routes on paved highway of reasonably good standards. The route chosen for the trans-Canada highway is 310 miles in length, and of this 264 miles are already paved.
I used Nova Scotia as an example because this is one province that has not done a great deal of work on the route of the trans-Canada highway for the reasons I have mentioned. The government there has been concentrating on new and more adequate bridges along the route.
Across Canada there are 1,899 miles, or 40 per cent of the route of the trans-Canada highway, that are not paved. It is on these portions and on gaps where there is no grade at all that we have been endeavouring to encourage the various provincial governments to concentrate. Broken down by provinces, these mileages where there is no paving are:
Newfoundland	
610	milesPrince Edward Island	
25	milesNova Scotia	
46	milesNew Brunswick	
24	milesOntario	
646	milesManitoba	
88	milesSaskatchewan	
131	milesAlberta	
72	milesNational parks	
44	milesBritish Columbia	
213	miles
In the three western provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and in Prince Edward Island, there is a possibility that the route will be fully completed to trans-Canada 

highway standards by the date of the termination of the agreement; that is, December 9, 1956. In British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, completion by the designated date does not seem possible. In New Brunswick the situation is comparable to that in Nova Scotia, to the extent that there is now a paved route across the province and the problem is largely one of rebuilding to the higher standards specified in the trans-Canada highway agreement.
Newfoundland has a special problem. There was little paved highway along the trans-Canada route at the start of the agreement. In fact there was no road of any kind along much of the route. The immediate problem there has been to build a grade for a good road across the island. This work has gone forward quite well having regard to all circumstances. At present there are two gaps on the route of the highway which constitute an obstacle to continuous travel across Newfoundland. They are between Clarenville and Gander, 83 miles, and between St. George's and the Steel Mountain road, 43 miles. Work is now in progress on these sections and I hope that by the end of next year a grade will be completed along the entire route and some paving under way.
In British Columbia the major unfinished section of the highway is along the route known as the Big Bend between Revelstoke and Golden. The British Columbia government has not pressed forward here as fast as we would like because of the fear that a dam if built at Mica creek would drown out a substantial part of the highway. We assured them at the outset that there would be adequate compensation in that event. Some progress is now being made.
In the meantime our engineers have explored an alternative route through Rogers pass which, if feasible, would save some 100 miles of road. A preliminary examination indicated to us that such a route was worth considering, but the British Columbia engineers, who are of course close to the situation and responsible both for the selection of the route and the maintenance of the highway, had other views. Just recently we received a request from the British Columbia government to participate with them in the cost of a survey of the Rogers pass route, and we have agreed. I am hopeful that the pace of the work along the route of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia can be accelerated.
In Ontario the gap that imposes a barrier in the way of vehicular traffic along the route of the trans-Canada highway across the province is a section between Marathon and Chapleau,

a distance of 185 miles. Recently I have had conferences with the premier of Ontario as well as the minister of highways and his officials, with a view to having work on this section of the route accelerated. I have just received a letter dated June 29 from the minister of highways of the province of Ontario indicating that during this present season they propose to undertake approximately 30 miles of grading and 12 miles of clearing in that area, and that next year the work will consist of 47-2 miles of grading, 49 miles of clearing, and the construction of four structures. The minister says in his letter that they hope they will be able to make speedier progress on this part of the trans-Canada highway.
Once these outstanding gaps in Ontario and Newfoundland are closed there will be a good grade permitting relatively comfortable travel along the route of the trans-Canada highway from one end of Canada to the other.
There is just one other point I should like to refer to, and that is the remark of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace with reference to a trip I made last year to Europe. He had other things to say about me and the department, but they can be dealt with at a later date. He referred to a question he had asked reading as follows:
Between January 1, 1954 and January 31, 1955, how many trips, paid for in whole or in part by the public treasury and/or using transport supplied by the public service or national defence department, were made by ministers of the crown to points other than in Canada.
Supply-Public Works
There were other incidental questions. I did make a trip to Europe last year but I did not travel by a means which I interpreted to be covered by this question. I went in both directions by steamship, and moreover I was deputizing for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Whatever expenses I incurred were borne by the Department of Trade and Commerce. After due reflection we decided in the department, with my concurrence, that this question did not apply to me and therefore we did not make a return. At that time I did not think I was disregarding the wishes of parliament, and I hope hon. members still will not think I had any such intention.


Daniel Roland Michener: There is one question the minister did not deal with.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I could deal with that on the specific item and we could pass the general item now.


Daniel Roland Michener: If the minister will deal with it later.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take the defence production bill and the motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
50433-354i
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 4, 1955