1955-07-19

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hunter for the second reading of Bill No. 484, for the relief of Real Perras.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion? I see the hon. member for Yorkton rising. I also see on the order paper the third reading of Bill No. 503. Would it be agreeable to hon. members if consideration of the second readings of Bill No. 484 and Bill No. 427 were allowed to stand until later this day so the third reading of Bill No. 503 might be called first?


Mr. Nicholson:: No, Mr. Speaker. I think we should follow the regular procedure of dealing with these bills as they appear on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton.


Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those unfortunate divorce cases in which there is difficulty in coming to a decision as to what should be

done, and where hon. members have difficulty in deciding whether or not justice has been done.
The evidence is contusing, and to my mind it is certainly far from convincing. It is the type of case I think should not come before the House of Commons, and I must protest again, as we have done on so many occasions, against parliament having anything to do with finding, as a point of justice, whether the person in this instance is guilty or otherwise.
Previous experience in cases of this kind has not been of the best, and some of the evidence presented has been seriously questioned. Another point that causes us some qualms about the decision in this case is the fact that some of the investigators are, I understand, those who were found guilty in an Ontario court of committing perjury, but who later won their appeal to an Ontario appeal court on the ground that the court here is not a court of justice. I believe last year the Criminal Code was amended to correct that difficulty. I still do not think this is a court of justice in the true sense of the term, and I must repeat my protest against the sort of thing that is being done in the committee.
I do not claim to have greater wisdom than judges in the courts, but I do claim that members of parliament, including the members of the committee, are not trained to be judges, and I maintain we should not assume the duty of deciding court cases in circumstances such as these. There are grave doubts in the minds of many members of the House of Commons as to the merits of this case. The defendant has had difficulty in presenting her side of the story. But my main reason for objecting at the moment is that if there is not complete proof of the guilt of the defendant, then serious injustice will be done, not the least of which is the injustice to the children involved.
In this instance nothing has been proved completely. The evidence was presented to the divorce committee of the Senate, and that committee made its decision. The bill is now brought to this house for second reading. In view of the lack of conclusive proof to establish guilt, I must protest against the passage of this bill on second reading.
The only redeeming feature in the situation is that I understand, according to information I received within the last 20 minutes, that this case is being presented to our committee on miscellaneous private bills, and that the defendant will be given an opportunity to come before members of the House of Commons who sit on the committee and present her case. We are willing to reserve judgment 50433-405
Private Bills-Divorce
until after that has been done. It is my hope that when she does appear full opportunity will be given her to present her case completely, and perhaps on that evidence we can come to some proper judgment. Until that is done I reserve my right to oppose the bill on second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.


George Hugh Castleden: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hunter for the second reading of Bill No. 427, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members that this is the same case which came before the House of Commons about a year ago. After I had reviewed briefly some of the evidence that appeared in the Senate committee report, this house decided by a majority vote that the bill should not be read a third time and referred it back to the miscellaneous private bills committee. I would ask hon. members to follow me rather closely in what I am about to say, so they may decide whether in their judgment a home should be broken on the basis of this evidence.
In one paragraph of the petition it is alleged that-
-your petitioner ever since he discovered that the said Antoinette Seguin had committed said adultery has lived separate and apart from her-
Upon being examined the petitioner alleged that some 17 years ago his wife committed adultery. This of course was denied by Mrs. Delorme, but he stuck to his story upon cross-examination. When being cross-examined he was asked these questions and gave the following answers:
Q. Where did you go in the house?-A. I went in the door, went in the room, and saw the two of them together, and I went away crying.
Q. What?-A. I went away crying.
Q. Did you wake them up?-A. No I did not.
And then, apparently, a couple of years after he alleged that he found his wife in a compromising position, which she denied, and he said that he went away crying. He was asked these questions and gave these answers:
Q. You mentioned that you had forgiven her until she took court proceedings?-A. Well, it is not that I really forgive her, but for the sake of the children I kept my mouth shut.
Q. Even though she had committed adultery you were willing to sleep with her?-A. As I say, for the sake of the children I done everything I could_

Private Bills-Divorce
Q. But when she asked for $20 a week that was enough?-A. That is the arrangement.
So much for the evidence of the petitioner. Now, the following is the evidence of the paid detectives in connection with the case. The first of these is Mr. Bergeron. He appeared and said he was being paid to do a job. These are questions and answers in his evidence. I shall begin with an answer:
A. We proceeded to check the electricity.
Q. You pretended you were going there to check the electricity?-A. Yes, so we checked every room and Mrs. William Delorme was showing us every place in the house.
Bearing in mind that he had sworn that he checked every room in the house, let us see what he said a few minutes later on crossexamination. These are the questions and answers:
Q. How many bedrooms are there in that house? -A. We didn't check all, we checked only one room.
Yet only a few moments before he said he had checked every room. The evidence continued:
Q. How did you know it was that room?-A. Because she told us that she was sleeping down there.
Q. Did you ask her where she slept?-A. Yes.
Q. And she told you where she slept?-A. Yes, she told us . . .
Of course the respondent, Mrs. Delorme, denied that most emphatically, saying it was most absurd to suggest that a complete stranger who came there representing himself as being there on behalf of the electrical company would be shown rooms and told where everybody slept.
Then this man had something to do with the ladder. Hon. members will recall that this is the case where the evidence hinged on certain evidence procured from a ladder. The witness was asked:
Q. How many of you went up that ladder that night?-A. Three.
Q. You each went up separately?-A. No; two together, and myself alone.
The next witness was Jean Leclair, the second paid detective. On page 33 of the evidence he was asked these questions:
Q. The two of you were up?-A. Yes.
Q. And you mentioned that you were up first?- A. Well, it is a way of talking; I would say the first one. We were going up slowly and sometimes I was putting my foot on his and trying to take a grab of a rung and sometimes I would cross Mr. Nadeau's hand.
Q. But you were up first?-A. I wouldn't say that: sometimes he was maybe a few inches higher than me and sometimes maybe I was higher than him.
Q. Are you telling me that you both went up together side by side.-A. Yes, it is a broad ladder.
Q. How wide is the ladder?-A. It is a big ladder. I don't like to say it is a very tall or long ladder but it is a very wide ladder.
Q. How wide?-A. Maybe two feet.

Q. And the two of you were climbing side by side?-A. Oh, yes. We had done that before.
By the Acting Chairman:
Q. I presume, witness, it is a ladder you have for the purpose?-A. Not exactly. We use it a lot many times but it is a handy ladder around. It is a hard ladder. It is a heavy duty ladder.
Q. Is it made of aluminum?-A. No, it is light wood but big wood, and the rungs are strong with some braces under. It is a big ladder and a strong ladder.
The hearing adjourned until 2 p.m.
Then we have the evidence of the chief of the detective service. He was asked about the one detective who went up alone:
Q. You say you came down and that Bergeron went up?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that he came down quickly?-A. Yes. Well, he is never a fast man, but he came down faster than he usually comes.
Then the chief of the detective service was asked about the location of the ladder, and hon. members should follow this carefully:
Q. On what side of the building was the window in question that you looked into?-A. On the north side.	I
Then Mademoiselle Dumas, also on the staff of the detective service, was called. She, of course, did not go up the ladder as one might expect, but she saw everything that happened on the ladder. She was in the car. She was asked these questions:
Q. Now, the night that you went on the 21st, where was the car parked?-A. First of all. we were parked on Dube street in front of the restaurant and then we went up and parked up in front of 10053 Dube street.
Q. You are positive you parked in front of that house?-A. Not exactly in front of the house but just a few feet away.
Q. On which side?-A. On the south side.
Q. Well, we have been told by Mr. Nadeau and the others that the bedroom in question is on the north side. What would you say as to that?- A. I don't know where the bedroom would be.
Q. So on what side was the ladder put up?-A. I can't say exactly.
Q. Well, from the position you were in the car on the south side of the house if the ladder had been on the north side could you see it?-A. I don't know.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that evidence from this type of witness certainly should not be accepted in this chamber this year, as it was not accepted last year.
There are a few additional comments I should like to make. I should like to mention that the elder son of the family, who is in the air force, came to Ottawa a year ago in the hope that he might be permitted to give evidence to save his mother's good name. Unfortunately the Senate committee refused to hear him, on the ground that they had heard all the evidence they wanted to reach a decision. Later on, of course, this young chap was heard by the House of Commons miscellaneous private bills committee.

Regardless of how hon. members voted on the particular proposition, I am sure they were agreed that the young chap gave very good evidence. His younger brother has since been married. It is significant that these two boys are so loyal to their mother. As devout Catholics they are upset by the prospect of having to face for the rest of their lifetime the fact of this divorce, in which the mother in their opinion is unfairly branded as guilty of an offence which in my opinion she disproved very effectively. In my opinion the two sons were good witnesses.
There is another factor that the hon. member for Saskatoon brought to our attention a year ago, which I think is worthy of consideration. At page 6483 of Hansard, June 26, 1954, the hon. member for Saskatoon is reported as having said:
There is a member in the house today, and he is sitting in this house now, who found it necessary to resign from this particular committee because his son happened to be the counsel for the petitioner in this case. May I say that the hon. gentleman acted up to his name in being honourable. He came to me and told me the circumstances and explained why he was resigning from the committee and having nothing to do with the case. I expect he explained to other members of the committee also his son's connection with the case. My sympathy goes out to him in the awkward situation in which he was placed. His decision, of course, meant that he took no part in this case and he was a mere spectator. One can readily understand the awkwardness of the situation because in and about that committee he would naturally meet his son and his son's client, and that is not a very nice situation. However, another gentleman was put on in his place and that particular gentleman happened to be one of those recorded as voting for this particular divorce. Incidentally, may I point out that I asked for a recorded vote on that committee and the names of those who voted for and against can easily be found on the records.
I want to endorse what the hon. member for Saskatoon has said. The members were convinced that counsel for the petitioner was a very able young lawyer, but I am sure in the province of Quebec there are a great many lawyers who are interested in taking up these cases. It is unfortunate that the friends of the father of the counsel should be placed in the embarrassing position where they have to vote for or against a case in which one of their colleague's sons is involved.
I want to thank hon. members who, in spite of differences with members of this particular group, have broken party lines to reach fair decisions. A year ago-


Mr. Harris:: Why don't you do it once in a while?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, we do it once in a while.


Mr. Weir:: Only once.
50433-405$
Private Bills-Divorce


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A year ago nearly all the Liberal members from the province of Quebec refrained from voting when the house divided, but the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough (Mr. Kirk), the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Lafon-taine), the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), as well as all those on this side of the house, voted to support our proposal, and I hope others will support us today.
When the miscellaneous private bills committee heard the case I am happy to say that the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) and the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck), refrained from voting one way or the other, although the majority of the members who were there were convinced that the divorce should be granted. I hope the motion I am going to make now will receive the sympathetic consideration of the house and that party lines will not be considered.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



DONALD JOHN MCGILLIVRAY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hunter for the third reading of Bill No. 503, for the relief of Donald John McGillivray.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The last time this bill was before the house I moved the adjournment of the debate. This case was referred to the miscellaneous private bills committee. Whilst I myself have some doubts regarding the decision, I should say that after spending a day on this case the majority decided that the divorce should be granted. As far as I am concerned, I shall abide by the decision of the majority on this case.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have the consent of the house to revert to the estimates and continue with public works at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the proposal agreed to? Agreed. Is it agreed that I now leave the chair without question put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
following fact: Why grant one person $2.10 or $2.25 per square foot in a building-
(Text):


Mr. Bourget:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is out of order because he is discussing an item which has already been passed.


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, I think I should have the same privilege as the parliamentary assistant who has just risen. He has discussed the question at length, and I am not to have the same privilege. I am just asking for the same privilege the hon. member has. He has brought up the question. Should I not be allowed to answer it?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I think the hon. member started the discussion and then I followed. I think that it would be fair to say that the question has now been dealt with and the item has been carried.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It might be decided with you, but it is not completely decided with me. I am not through yet.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: At the moment I do not know what it is the hon. member for Quebec West wishes to discuss. I would point out to him that the item with which we are dealing is the maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works under the heading of Department of Public Works harbours and rivers engineering branch, dredging. With the assistance of the table I shall listen to the remarks the hon. member for Quebec West makes from now on. If they are pertinent to the item I have read, he will certainly be in order; if not, I am afraid he will be out of order. But I am not going to attempt to decide until he has developed his argument and I know what he is talking about.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I will simply say that there has been-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Edward Turney Applewhaite: On Department of Public Works, item 378.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned at five o'clock, I had not completed the few remarks I had to make. I referred to certain political patronage and the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Bourget) to the Minister of Public Works took exception to my statement. So now I come back to the [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You could at least wait until I have started.
(Text):


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. May I suggest to the other members of the committee that they leave the question of whether or not the hon. member is in order to those who are unfortunately charged with deciding that, and it will be easier for us to come to that decision if we can hear what he has to say.

(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I will not talk about patronage for everybody knows there is patronage, especially as regards the item I mentioned a moment ago-


An hon. Member:: It is true of Quebec.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is probably why Mr. Pollack is able to contribute to the Liberal party campaign funds-
(Text) :


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. member is coming back to item 358. We are now discussing item 378. There is no doubt that my hon. friend is out of order, and he knows it. That is why he is speaking in French, because the chairman cannot understand it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, before coming back to the rivers, where I was a while ago, I just went on a tour of Boulevard Charest, where Mr. Pollack and his friends are.
The Depufy Chairman: Let me tell the hon. member for Quebec West that I am very willing, as the house is, to stretch the rules in order to enable every hon. member to discuss items coming under the Department of Public Works. But I know this much. The question of the Pollack building and the Catholic Syndicate building was discussed under another item where the discussion was appropriate, and that discussion is concluded. If the hon. member for Quebec West has any remarks to make pertinent to dredging, we shall be glad to hear them.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now follow your instructions. I will come back to the rivers.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I will simply say that, although the hon. member for Levis did everything he could a while ago to make us believe that the St. Charles and Lairet rivers did not come under federal jurisdiction, he will undoubtedly permit me to disagree with him. It is amazing to see-and amazing is not the word I should use-that any time the government does not intend to assume its responsibilities, it passes the buck to the provinces. Not only did the federal government take over the provinces' best sources of fiscal revenue, but when the time comes to honour its responsibilities, it lets the provinces down.
As far as determining whether the Lairet river is navigable or not, I would say that is partly so, and my hon. friend knows it. As for the part that is not navigable, it should undoubtedly be, because those who know a
Supply-Public Works
little bit of history will recall that Jacques Cartier, the discoverer of Canada, went through there. In fact, in the vicinity of that river, a monument has been erected to his memory.
Assuredly for more than 20 years now we have been asking the government to look into this question of the St. Charles and Lairet rivers which threaten public health, but the federal government clings to its laissez-faire policy. It surely has a strange concept of power, and if the hon. member for Levis had his way, no member of this house would stand up and defend the interests of those he represents. He would have us allow the government to act as it pleases.


Maurice Bourget: I never said that.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member did say a while ago that I was resorting to this matter to-


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I never uttered the words just mentioned by the hon. member for Quebec West and he knows it. I merely said that the other representatives of the city of Quebec, particularly the right hon. Prime Minister and the member for Quebec South, could take care of matters concerning the city of Quebec and that, in fact, we have had, from all the departments of the federal government, everything we were entitled to get. That is what I meant.
(Text):
The Depuly Chairman: Order.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, it is always funny to hear someone say-


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: You like to have your fun!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Gaspe has his fun once in a while.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Not with you.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Fortunately, because I am choosy.
I repeat that the hon. member for Levis has intimated a few minutes ago that I had raised this question merely in order that my electors may know that I have once more brought up the matter of the St. Charles and Lairet rivers. This the hon. member cannot deny. When I was elected in the constituency of Quebec West on August 10, 1953 -


Mr. Habel:: A disastrous date!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: A disastrous date for the government, no doubt. I have not been elected to sit here and agree in silence to anything

Supply-Public Works
that the federal government wishes to do or not to do. As the representative of my constituency, I have the responsibility of protecting the interests of my electors and, at this moment, not only am I protecting their interests but I have the courage to speak on behalf of the electors of Quebec East for whom no one feels any concern just now and whom nobody cares to represent.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: What courage!
Mr Dufresne: A courage unknown in the constituency of my hon. friend from Gaspe.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I am ready to compare my patriotism with yours.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that those works have been requested for more than 25 years, I understand that my predecessor did not ask for them in this house, but that is no reason why his successor should not speak on behalf of those who want them done, because they are urgent, necessary works-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Will the hon. member permit a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly, if it is a sensible one.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Let us see if the hon. member can give a sensible answer.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What is your question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The hon. member just said that the electors of Quebec West have been requesting those works for the last 30 years-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I never said that.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You just said it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I said for more than 20 years.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You said 25 years, and going back 25 years from 1955 takes us back to 1930. Now, if I refer to the Parliamentary Guide, I find that it was the Hon. Maurice Dupre, then member for Quebec West and minister in the cabinet of Mr. Bennett, who should have asked for the work to be done on those rivers.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I was positive the question could not be an intelligent one, since it was being put by the member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel). However, he does forget a very important point, the fact that in 1930 the government was going through a depression inherited from the previous government, a Liberal government. The major works done in the province of Quebec at the time, under the auspices of the Hon. Maurice Dupre, then solicitor general for Canada and my predecessor in the

riding I now represent, were carried out in the Quebec harbour and represented an expenditure of millions of dollars which benefited thousands of our fellow citizens. It can hardiy be said that the government of the time did not do a thing. Unfortunately, it remained in power only five years-
(Text):


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member for Quebec West that the item now before us is one dealing with the estimated expenditure for the year 1955-56, and that under that item we have always regarded it as proper to discuss expenditures of a similar nature for the year past and sometimes for more than a year past. However, I would suggest that he is going a long way back. I am going to ask him to come up closer in point of time to the estimate now before us than he is at the present moment.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If I went a long way back, Mr. Chairman, it was because I was taken there by the hon. member for Cochrane in the question he asked me, and I thought I had good reason to answer him.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps the hon. member will now come back to my suggestion.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yes. I am right there, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):
In closing, which will undoubtedly please my hon. friends opposite, let me merely repeat that those works are necessary, urgent, and if the government is ever so slightly concerned with our human capital and public health, it has never been offered a better opportunity to act.
In the city of Quebec, we have a serious problem and now that I have had the privilege of being in this house for nearly two years, I urge that something be done in this respect. If the government does not have those works carried out, in the best interests of the public, and to preserve our human capital, the country's greatest asset, we shall in due time accuse it in the house and elsewhere of carelessness and guilty negligence.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: And you will be
defeated!
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
379.	New plant and equipment, $1,241,000.
George Hugh Castleden: I wonder whether the minister would give us an outline of the new plant and equipment. Will he give us a breakdown of this $1,241,000?


Mr. Winters:: The list of items includes two tugboats for New Brunswick, $22,000; a tugboat to replace the L'Ardoise, $25,000. She was lost in "Hurricane Edna" and a replacement is needed. Then there is a launch to replace the Buganda, dredge No. 129, $24,000; a new tug for dredge No. 252, $48,000; a new steel hull for the tug Peguis, $54,000, and a new 20-inch suction dredge, $857,000. Those are the major items of equipment.


George Hugh Castleden: Where is that last dredge
used?


Robert Henry Winters: That is to replace dredge No. 305, the King Edward. It operates in the Fraser river.


George Hugh Castleden: Is anything being done with regard to the dredging of Port Churchill?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I do not recall any dredging there.


George Hugh Castleden: I notice that there is an amount of $102,000 for the western provinces and the Northwest Territories. I was wondering where the dredging was to be done.


Robert Henry Winters: The bulk of it is in Great Slave lake.


George Hugh Castleden: What project is it, or is it just to maintain the channel?


Robert Henry Winters: To maintain the channel, and there is some work being done in the Pine Point area.


Mr. Gillis:: Is it the intention to carry on the discussion of dredging under this item, or would the minister prefer to do it when we come to the different provinces?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it would be better if we were to wait until we come to the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Graving docks-
380.	Maintenance and operation. $937,761.
George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister give us a breakdown of this item?


Robert Henry Winters: The breakdown of the amount of $937,761 is as follows: Total salaries and wages, $241,913; professional and special services, $5,400; travel and removal expenses, $225; telephones and telegrams, $1,410; office stationery, supplies and equipment, $300; materials and supplies, $35,800; repairs and upkeep of docks and appurtenant works, including materials required therefor, $542,510; spur track rental, $50; construction or acquisition of equipment, $28,550; repairs and upkeep of equipment, $27,250; rental of equipment, $400; electricity, gas and water, $53,486; unemployment insurance contributions, $165, and sundries, $300.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Green:: In the details to be found on page 487 there is a reference to the Prince Rupert drydock and shipyard. It is my understanding that since the house last met this drydock has been sold by the government to some interests in Seattle. I would be grateful if the minister would explain that transaction and also advise the committee whether the government has any plans in contemplation whereby a drydock service can be restored at Prince Rupert. The port is increasing all the time in importance, and I believe it is a great tragedy that the drydock was taken away even though it did cost a certain amount of money to keep it in operation.


Robert Henry Winters: As you, Mr. Chairman, well know in this instance, the drydock was owned by the Canadian National Railways, and under a vote in the Department of Public Works estimates we paid the operating deficits each year. Once again the hon. member will find in the supplementary estimates an item to cover the deficits incurred up to September 30, 1954. Just what final disposal has been made of the drydock I am not sure, since it was not the property of the Department of Public Works. Perhaps during the dinner period I could get some information on the matter and let my hon. friend know.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister also ascertain whether there are any plans for establishing a new drydock at Prince Rupert?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: You will get the answer?


Robert Henry Winters: I will get the answer.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 380 is carried subject to the minister obtaining the information requested.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Locks and dams-
381.	Maintenance and operation. $355,457.
George Hugh Castleden: I am wondering where the Department of Public Works starts and where the Department of Transport ends with regard to the operation of these locks and dams. Is the Department of Transport not expending its money on maintenance of dams and locks for transportation purposes? Where does the Department of Public Works come into the picture?


Robert Henry Winters: Generally speaking the Department of Transport does operate canals and locks. There is the odd instance in which the Department of Public Works operates dams and locks. One such instance is the structure at Lockport in the province of Manitoba, just north of Winnipeg and south of Selkirk. There are a considerable number of dams

Supply-Public Works
operated by the Department of Public Works for water control purposes which were related primarily years ago to the movement of timber. That was the purpose for which they were built, and that was a function of the Department of Public Works.


George Hugh Castleden: Six o'clock, Mr. Chairman. At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Robert Henry Winters: Before item 381 is carried, Mr. Chairman, may I say that just before the dinner recess the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked me the situation regarding the drydock at Prince Rupert. This is a drydock owned by the Canadian National Railways, and I presume that here again my colleague the Minister of Transport will be able to provide more detailed information than I can, because it is not the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, other than to pay the deficits.
I understand the situation is that the floating part of the drydock has now been sold and in fact is in Seattle. The remainder of the drydock is still at Prince Rupert, and what disposition is to be made of it is a matter which I understand is under consideration by the C.N.R.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows of no plan to establish a new drydock in Prince Rupert?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand-and here again it is a matter for the Department of Transport -that some alternative arrangement for the drydocking of ships is under consideration. However, I am sure the Minister of Transport will be able to provide the details.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Just as a matter of interest, how is it that the Department of Public Works is good enough to step in to pay the deficits; at least that is what I understood the minister to say?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct. It is an understanding that goes back for a great many years, whereby this department pays the operating deficit on the drydock. I do not know what was the origin of the arrangement, but it is under the terms of a subsidies act.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Do you pay it
on any other drydock?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, we also pay it on the Saint John drydock in New Brunswick, and the Burrard drydock in North Vancouver.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to labour the point, but I confess that it seems an odd arrangement.


Robert Henry Winters: It may be that it has come to an end with respect to Prince Rupert.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was going to ask that; because otherwise it seems that those who should bear the load are not bearing it and, vice versa, that the Department of Public Works is bearing it when it should not be. However, I do not wish to press the point. Did I understand from what the minister said that this arrangement is approaching an end?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that the floating part of the drydock has been sold, so there is no drydock there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I meant this whole business of the Department of Public Works paying the deficit on the drydock.


Robert Henry Winters: No, I do not think that has come to an end. Under the Dry Docks Subsidies Act we are responsible. There is an item in the estimates dealing with drydock subsidies, the Burrard drydock at North Vancouver and the Saint John drydock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
382.	Maintenance and operation, $398,825.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with roads and bridges. Would the minister explain the statement he made last night concerning the Marpole bridge? After reading what he said I am afraid I am no farther ahead than I was before I asked my question. I find this at page 6360:


Howard Charles Green: But you would contribute $400,000 to the other bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: If it is not a toll bridge, I would be prepared to recommend to my colleagues that $400,000 be allocated for that bridge.
Everyone knows that the main bridge is to be a toll bridge.


Robert Henry Winters: Which one?


Howard Charles Green: The main bridge. But there is a subsidiary bridge going off the main bridge across to Sea Island international airport.


Robert Henry Winters: That is the one I was speaking about last night.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean the government will pay $400,000 if there is no toll only on the subsidiary bridge which will go from the main bridge to Sea island?


Robert Henry Winters: That is the bridge to which I referred last night.


Howard Charles Green: In other words if the toll is only on the main bridge, that would not


prevent the $400,000 being made available to the provincial government; is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right, yes.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the Hillsborough bridge, across the Hillsborough river to Charlottetown. While I intend to address my remarks to the minister and ask some questions, I realize the minister is as well aware of the facts as I am. I shall make my remarks brief, but I feel that for the information of the committee and those who would read Hansard I should place on record the history of this bridge.
The bridge was built under an agreement signed in 1900 between the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island. The bridge was completed in 1906. In the agreement the dominion government built the bridge and was also responsible for maintenance. Prince Edward Island paid an annual sum to look after interest on construction costs, and for maintenance. This bridge was to carry rail and highway traffic. Incidentally, the steel part of the bridge is just under a half mile in length, but the over-all length including approaches is about one mile.
The construction of the bridge was completed in 1906. The original narrow gauge railway was replaced by a standard gauge in 1930. Because the standard gauge trains and rolling stock were heavier than the old equipment it was considered unwise at that time to haul freight trains across the bridge. I should point out that the line across the bridge was the connecting link in the rail line between Charlottetown and Murray Harbour. It was considered unsafe to run freight trains of the heavier type across the bridge. With this in mind a line just under 20 miles long was built from Mount Stewart, at the head of the river, to Lake Verde on the Charlotte-town-Murray Harbour line. This routed the heavy freight traffic around the head of the river, but passenger trains continued to run across the bridge.
Nothing further was heard about the structure until 1951. At that time the Canadian National Railways applied for permission to withdraw their lines from the bridge. Permission was granted by the board of transport commissioners. At the same time summer service in that area, between Charlottetown and Lake Verde, was discontinued. However, during the late fall, the winter months and the early spring months a passenger service is provided there. The trains come as far as Southport at the southern end of the bridge, and from there the passengers are brought by taxi to the city, a distance of about a mile, over this same bridge.
Supply-Public Works
In April of this year an order in council was tabled in this chamber transferring control of the bridge from the Canadian National Railways to the Department of Transport. Subsequently the Minister of Transport entered into correspondence with the premier of Prince Edward Island suggesting that the province take over the operation of the bridge. The suggestion was that according to legal opinion they had obtained the agreement had expired because of certain reasons, details of which I shall not discuss now because in these remarks I am trying to be brief.
The premier of Prince Edward Island refused to consider this. So far as the people at home are concerned, they felt that the original agreement of 1900 was still in effect. Finally on July 8 this year the bridge was closed by order of the Department of Transport. When hon. members realize that there are more than 3,000 vehicles per day using the bridge they will realize the extent of the dislocation of traffic which ensued. Fortunately the provincial government was able to take action on the same day to reopen the bridge.
This bridge lies on the route of the trans-Canada highway between Charlottetown and Wood Island, the latter of which is the Prince Edward Island terminal of the ferry service connecting our province with Caribou, Nova Scotia.
This means that a new and modern structure to meet trans-Canada standards will have to be built. It is the intention, I think, to build a causeway. Because it is trans-Canada highway the federal government will pay one-half the cost. That is the standard practice on trans-Canada right across the country. But the original agreement gave our province certain special rights. Because of that it was contended by our people at home that we should get special consideration in the continued bridging of this river, whether by bridge or by causeway.
One suggestion was that when the new causeway is completed, if it is built, the railway should put its lines back over it and abandon the 19.9 miles of line which they operate from Mount Stewart to Lake Verde. There are reasons why this would seem practical. Let me take an extreme example. I can say that in order to run freight from Southport on my side of the river to Charlottetown by way of the existing line around the head of the river would mean a distance of some 40 miles. The distance is not exact but it is approximately correct. Across the bridge, of course, it is a little more than one mile.
The minister is acting in a dual capacity here so far as our province is concerned. He

Supply-Public Works
is interested in this problem as the minister of the crown who is charged with the responsibility of administering the trans-Canada highway. He is also the man who speaks for our province at the cabinet level. That is one reason I am raising the question now.
As I said, I know he is aware of the problem because I have discussed it with him a number of times recently. I know he is in very close touch with the premier, because I too have been in very close touch with the premier in the last few days. Both of us have tried to emphasize the gravity of the situation to the minister and the urgent need of getting a decision if one is possible. At his own suggestion the minister said he would discuss this very important problem at a high level conference. I believe he does realize the importance of this matter so far as our province and my constituency are concerned. I am wondering whether the minister has anything he can tell me as to the results of his efforts thus far?


Robert Henry Winters: This matter of the Hillsborough bridge has been concerning those of us who have been responsible for the administration of the Trans-Canada Highway Act ever since that statute was put on the books. We have been discussing with the government of Prince Edward Island the route of that highway. This bridge became an essential link in the trans-Canada highway in that it means access to the city of Charlottetown.
Under the agreement any part of the trans-Canada highway becomes eligible for 50 per cent participation by the federal government to the cost of construction. But, as my hon. friend has said, there seemed to be a federal interest here going beyond its interest in the trans-Canada highway, by virtue of the fact that this bridge came into being in the first instance as the result of an agreement signed in 1900 between the then minister of railways and canals and the premier of Prince Edward Island. The bridge is no longer safe for railway traffic, which has been discontinued. But it is worth noting that if there were a suitable causeway, or a replacement for the present bridge, it would also serve the interests of the Canadian National Railways by whatever means they chose to transport passengers and freight.
We have recently had discussions with the Canadian National Railways, the Department of Transport, the premier of Prince Edward Island and our own department, and it was agreed that there is an interest by the federal government over and above the trans-Canada highway interest to the extent of one-third, which leaves two-thirds for the provincial government and the federal government to divide between them under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act. This means in

effect that the federal government is prepared to pay two-thirds of the cost of a replacing causeway or other suitable structure on the understanding that the provincial government will pay the remaining third. I understand from the premier of Prince Edward Island that this arrangement is satisfactory to him and his government.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I thank the minister for that assurance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
384. Nova Scotia, $3,230,500.
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words to the minister on this item in reference to dredging. I looked through the estimates and found there was no item covering the subject matter that I want to bring to the minister's attention. If the minister examines his files back over the past few months he will find that different bodies in Cape Breton have petitioned his department to do something about dredging the harbour of the town of Glace Bay. I should like to take a minute to impress upon the minister the need for this particular dredging.
As the minister is well aware, that town has suffered considerably from economic upheaval over the past couple of years, and is badly in need of something that will enable the community to expand existing facilities. While the town of Glace Bay is known as a mining town, I want to impress upon the minister the fact that the harbour of which I am speaking is also a very important fishing centre. The largest sword-fishing industry in Canada is located in that harbour. During the season boats from all over the province of Nova Scotia and from Newfoundland fish out of that harbour. In the six or eight weeks of the fishing season probably 200 boats come in and go out. In addition to that, at that point there are two fairly large fish plants. Markets for the fisheries have picked up considerably, and there could be a great expansion of the fishing industry if the harbour were put in shape to accommodate the craft that could make use of it. Dredging has been a problem for some considerable time, as there were sewer pipes in the harbour at one time. That difficulty was removed some years ago by the removal of those pipes.
When the minister is taking a look at it this time I suggest the work should not be done as it has been done in the past, namely by dredging this year and then waiting for a request for the same operation again next year. In conversation with some people in that town it was brought to my attention

that a couple of miles away one of the large stone collieries have a place where they dump the refuse from the mine. During the season the tides run in the direction of the harbour and all the silt that is dumped over the cliff from that colliery drifts into the harbour. If the minister is going to do something about the dredging of the harbour he should get in touch with the people who are using that spot as a stone dump to try to eliminate the reason for having to dredge that harbour year in and year out.
I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates, but I want to impress upon him that this work has been requested for some time. I do not find anything in the supplementary or main estimates to cover it, but I am sure in the different appropriations in the department there must be some miscellaneous funds that could be used to carry on this dredging operation. There are two fairly large dredges in that area from time to time.
This is not a routine job; this is something that should be done for this community that requires help very badly. As the minister knows, some 800-odd employees were just callously dumped on the streets within recent months and there was quite an upset, and any gesture that could be made by the minister at this time in respect to improving those facilities which in turn would encourage the expansion of small industries located there, such as the fish plants I mentioned and the sword-fishing industry, would be money well spent. Could the minister indicate whether he will be able to undertake this work this year, in view of the fact that there is no item in the estimates?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the views and comments of the hon. member for Cape Breton South on this problem of Glace Bay. We are certainly anxious to do everything that is reasonable, especially in the light of the closure of 1-B colliery. The harbour has been studied, and while doubtless the facilities might be improved they seemed to be adequate for the type of operations being carried on. I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied at this time if I tell him that I shall be glad to consider carefully what he has said and have the whole matter reviewed again.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will appreciate my forbearance. The vote concerning buildings in Nova Scotia was allowed to pass without our either thanking the minister for buildings received or asking him for the construction of others that have not been passed on, so perhaps I can ask one question on this item with regard to the harbour at Yarmouth. I understand that the pier is now finished or about to be finished, 50433-406i
Supply-Public Works
and I should like to know its cost. I should like to know also the cost of the terminal building, for which there is an item of $261,000. If I understand the estimates correctly, $900,000 was voted last year, which seems rather a large amount for what is after all only a ferry terminal where people will be coming off the ferry, getting into their cars and driving away.


Robert Henry Winters: The cost of the contract with the Kenney Construction Company Limited for the pier is $512,000. I am not quite sure that a contract has been entered into for the terminal building, but Kenney was also the low tenderer.


George Clyde Nowlan: I read that last week.


Robert Henry Winters: Speaking from memory I think the amount of that contract is $512,500.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am very glad to know that we are going to have this building but I noticed in the newspaper story with respect to the tenders that one of the many accommodations in the building was to be a clock at which the tourist could look and see the time in every time zone in North America. I think any tourist who has had brains enough to drive from California to Maine will be able to translate Atlantic time to eastern or central time without having a special clock to look at. Such a clock might be all right at Gander or Greenwich, where world times are necessary, but I think it is rather a superfluous item here. As I mentioned the other day, the way the clocks run here there would be no need to have four or five different clocks to show the time zones; you are able to get five different times from the same clock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
385. Prince Edward Island, $1,102,000.
Neil Alexander Matheson: I should like to refer to the item covering the landing at Covehead. This is greatly needed because these people have no landing facilities at all. They have had to step over the sides of their boats into the water and this improvement will be greatly appreciated. As the minister knows, there is a companion project about which we have had considerable correspondence. I am wondering if the minister would care to put on record the intentions of the department with regard to point Prim, and possibly he might make some comment regarding the item for Rustico harbour. There are three items in which I am interested.


Robert Henry Winters: With regard to point Prim, the work contemplated will cost an estimated $68,000. It will be noted for consideration for next year's estimates. This will consist

Supply-Public Works
of (a) an extension to the existing wharf for about 200 feet in length and (b) a separate rubble mound breakwater about 90 feet long.
With regard to the harbour at Rustico, there is an amount of $145,000 required mainly for the contract with R. A. Blyth at $121,737 for the closure of Little Harbour at the east end of Robinson's island. The balance of the funds will be used to carry out investigations or tests, or to provide for further construction based upon the investigations and tests already made. It is estimated that the closure of Little Harbour will increase the depth of water in the main harbour by concentrating the flow through the main channel. The greater depth of water would permit drag-gers to operate from Rustico and fish in the offshore waters that are reported to be among the best fishing grounds in eastern Canada.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the engineers at headquarters, and I want to refer especially to the courtesy and co-operation shown by the district engineer's office in Charlottetown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
388. Ontario, $6,874,100.
Mr. Small:: I should like to ask the
minister if he would give the details of item 388 for Toronto harbour repairs and improvements. There is a vote of $721,000 including a revote of $380,000.


Robert Henry Winters: The vote for Toronto is $721,000. It is made up as follows: reconstruction of section "R" of the western breakwater, $271,000; dredging three areas between Jarvis and Parliament streets, $450,000.


Robert Hardy Small: Is there any prospect of any major extension in connection with wharves there in view of the St. Lawrence seaway going through?


Robert Henry Winters: I imagine all this work that is being done in Toronto has in mind the future development of the harbour, which is coming along very well, but beyond this I have no knowledge of anything that is planned specifically with that in mind.


Mr. Sfanion:: I was in contact with the minister some time ago, and I believe others have been in communication with him, regarding the wharves at Brockville and also concerning certain bridging being done there. Could the minister tell me what the department has in mind at the present time in that regard?


Robert Henry Winters: There is nothing in the estimates for Brockville, Mr. Chairman. As my

hon. friend says, the harbour at Brockville has been under study at his request and that of other gentlemen whom he knows well, but we have not reached the stage where anything can be put in the estimates.


Mr. Enfield:: Mr. Chairman, before we leave that item with regard to Toronto, am I right in assuming that the policy with regard to the use and development of the Toronto harbour is purely in the hands of the Toronto harbour commissioners under that act?


Robert Henry Winters: They have their own statute and act under it; that is correct.


Frank A. Enfield: So that any planning in
regard to the expansion of the harbour to take care of any further expected increase in activity because of the St. Lawrence seaway would be purely in the hands of the Toronto harbour commissioners? Do we act on their recommendations or requests in so far as money to develop the harbour is concerned?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes; it has been somewhat of a joint approach. There is a Toronto harbour commission, which is composed of citizens in various walks of life, some of whom are appointed by the federal government. The policy to date has been that the commission has requested from time to time that the federal government build certain structures there, and they have been built where they have been considered justifiable, by the Department of Public Works. In most, if not all, instances the commission has taken the initiative.


Frank A. Enfield: If I could just leave this thought before we leave that subject, Mr. Chairman:	The Toronto harbour commissioners have sold control of the harbour within what might be called the old city. We now have a metropolitan Toronto executive group covering some 16 to 20 miles of shore line altogether. It might be a good idea to consider expansion of the Toronto harbour commissioners to a metropolitan harbour commission that could assess the problems of the whole greater Toronto area to the best advantage. Perhaps it would be worth while for the minister to bear that in mind in regard to future negotiations or policy.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Mr. Michener:: I am not sure whether the minister answered a question I asked on the first item, as to whether any new installation was planned in the lake Ontario region in respect of operating the St. Lawrence deep waterway. I had in mind not only the Toronto area but the mouth of the Niagara

river, where there are the ports of Port Weller and Port Dalhousie. There are no facilities in the Niagara river itself, although it is navigable. Having in mind the prospective industrial development of that area, has the department considered the need for further harbour installations in that section and, if so, what are they?


Robert Henry Winters: This seaway development has precipitated a great many requests from virtually every port along the great lakes to have an investigation carried out to determine what must be undertaken to accommodate deep sea shipping. It will take some time for this whole matter to crystallize to determine which ports will become key ports in the operation. That field of activity falls more appropriately under the Department of Transport, because it does relate to shipping.
As I have said before today, the role of this department is largely that of a service department to build structures and works that are requested by some other department of government or are brought to our attention through other channels. The responsibility for trying to assess the relative value of ports and decide which should become important and key ports in the economic role of this country is a function that is beyond the scope of the Department of Public Works as such.


Daniel Roland Michener: As I read the estimates there is no extraordinary expenditure planned for this year along the line which I have indicated as a possibility. The estimates appear to be fairly consistent with prior years, with no extraordinary expenditures for the kind of ocean shipping which might develop.	[DOT]


Robert Hardy Small: The estimate of $721,000 is just for improvements to the harbour inside the perimeter of Toronto bay, as far as the harbour board commissioners are concerned at the present time?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
3go. Alberta and Northwest Territories, $120,000.
Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the minister regarding the wharf at Ma-Me-O beach, and the minister promised to look into the matter for me. Could he make a statement on that at the present time?


Robert Henry Winters: I have some information on Ma-Me-O beach. What my hon. friend has in mind is the fact that this wharf which was recently built consists of a rubble mound approach and a pile bent headblock. The rubble mound approach deteriorated in some parts during the winter, but the headblock stood firm and is in good condition.
Supply-Public Works
The history of this old wharf is that it was built about 1936, I believe. It was later abandoned, and over the years it decayed to the point where most of it was under water. Last year the department decided to rebuild it. Some settlement was expected and some settlement did take place, because there was at least one unusually severe storm. The damage was not considered to be heavy, and we intend to put the wharf back into good shape.


Ray Thomas: I am very glad to hear that, because it did not take a big storm to wash it out. As a matter of fact I was looking at it a week ago today. I would say that a length of about 100 feet of the wharf is completely under water. The surface of the ramp is unusable as it is. It will require a complete new top. Also the day I was there I was informed that the ice in the lake this year fortunately went out as the result of an offshore breeze in that area at approximately 12 o'clock noon, and that by 4 o'clock at least 15 feet of it had already been washed away as the result of a small wind. The waves could not have been very high because the ice was still in the lake. I hope the minister, in rebuilding this work-because I think the approach to the pierhead is going to have to be almost completely rebuilt- takes good care to get fairly large-size gravel.
I point out to the minister that immediately after the construction of the causeway, or whatever it might be called, was started last winter, one of the residents of the town came to my home in Wetaskiwin and reported that he thought the gravel that was going in there consisted of from about 50 per cent to 75 per cent clay and sand. I therefore went out that afternoon and took a look at it. I immediately went to Edmonton and reported to the local engineer that in my opinion the dirt content was such that it could not possibly stand up under any waves. I was informed that they had their inspector there inspecting every load of gravel that went into it, and that as far as he was concerned the materials were perfectly all right.
Since then, or at least during the day I was out there a week ago, I was told that the gravel pit from which the gravel was taken had been abandoned a good many years ago by the provincial government because of the extremely high clay and sand content, and because the gravel there was so small that they considered it not fit to use in construction.
I would therefore ask the minister that when they are reconstructing the work they be careful of the materials that go into it, because we should like to see it last the

Supply-Public Works
summer. However, I am still of the opinion that if we get a good break-up in the spring, with a northwest wind, in another year we shall probably have to rebuild the pierhead. Maybe the gravel will stand up until that time. So when they are rebuilding I would ask the minister if he would consider putting in some sort of sloping sides on that pierhead so as to allow the ice to ride over rather than get under the pierhead and push it up on to the shore.


Mr. Yuill:: I should like to ask the minister if he would care to comment on the request I made on behalf of the people of Wabamun last night with regard to the replacement of the wharf that had been burned.


Robert Henry Winters: From the hon. member's remarks last night I understood that he was referring to a wharf built by the Department of Public Works which was burned and never replaced. I can find no record that the Department of Public Works ever had a wharf at Wabamun lake, Alberta. We have no plans now to build one.


Charles Yuill: It is very much in evidence. It is just a matter of making a visit there and you will find that is quite so.


Robert Henry Winters: Are you sure we own it?


Charles Yuill: I have been told that. I have no authority for it.


Robert Henry Winters: Our records do not show that we own the wharf there.


Charles Yuill: My information may be wrong, but I have been told by fairly responsible people living in that town that you built it or that your department built it and that your engineer promised to replace it just prior to the 1953 election. I do not know whether or not that has any significance. But on behalf of those good people I want to say-


Robert Henry Winters: Have you any evidence to that effect?


Charles Yuill: I have only their say-so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Yuill: Of course there is evidence of other things in that part of the country that perhaps could substantiate a person thinking along that line, but the important thing is this-


Mr. Prudham:: I should like to ask the hon. member if he can name one person who told him that.


Charles Yuill: I can give the name of Mrs. D. V. Thomson.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Mr. Thomas.]


Charles Yuill: You know Mrs. Thomson as well as I do. I can give you the name of Mr. Hancock. I think he is the secretary of the chamber of commerce there. I have a letter in my files that I could show you.


An hon. Member:: Bring it down.


Charles Yuill: All I am asking for is kindly consideration of the plight of these people.


George Prudham: I should like to know if those people whom you have just named said the public works engineer said he would rebuild it.


Charles Yuill: I beg your pardon?


George Prudham: I should like to know if those people said the public works engineer promised to rebuild it.


Charles Yuill: I have a letter from this Mrs. Thomson, who was secretary of the community club; I think that is what they call it. I received that letter a year ago. This year I received one from Mr. Hancock, one of the officials of the chamber of commerce, giving me the same story. I had the same story from two sources. I am only giving it to you for what it is worth. I cannot substantiate it.


Robert Henry Winters: What did they say?


An hon. Member:: They are not worth the paper they are written on.


Charles Yuill: Mrs. Thomson told me personally and again by letter that the engineer had come out there-prior to my election, of course-and said-


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Charles Yuill: That is not very smart. You mind your own affairs. She told me they had been there. I am only giving this for what it is worth.


Robert Henry Winters: She told you they had been there?


Charles Yuill: She told me the engineer had been there inspecting the wharf after it had been burned, and promised that it would be rebuilt.


Robert Henry Winters: I think you had better document your stories a little bit better than that.


Charles Yuill: This year I received a letter requesting that I press for it again on behalf of the chamber of commerce, and telling me in substance the same story.


Robert Henry Winters: But you have nothing from the Department of Public Works telling you that?


Charles Yuill: No. I tried to get that matter out into the open last year but you turned it down, I think rather rashly, because you did

not take time to get the whole story. I do not want to quarrel with you or with anybody else, but I think if that is the case-and I do not see why these good people would tell me that if it did not have some element of truth in it-something should be done. All I should like to do is ask you to consider the matter on its merits. I should be glad to discuss it with you at any time in order to see if we cannot find out some of the pertinent facts that would satisfy you. Then I would expect to get some assurance that you would do the right thing about it.
I do not know what more I can do. It is a request that has been passed on to me. I am presenting it at its face value. All I should like you to do is to be fair enough to me and to the people of that community to recognize the facts pertaining to it. Then I am satisfied that you will do the right thing about it. That is all I want, and I would certainly appreciate it if that were done.


Mr. Hansell:: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, let me just say a word with respect to the discussion which has just taken place. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson was kind enough to reveal the names of certain people who have spoken to him and written letters to him concerning this small project. He did so under the prompting of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the responsible minister from Alberta. Let me tell the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: -who came to the rescue of his colleague-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Pipe down.


Ernest George Hansell: -that as a matter of fact it is rather unusual for a member to be called upon to reveal the names of those people who write to him concerning affairs in which they are interested. It is not necessary to reveal names, but the hon. member for Jasper-Edson was courteous enough to reveal the names. If it is a matter of political interest to the responsible minister from Alberta to know the names of those who complain to us concerning the activities of the government, we can give him plenty of names.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Ernest George Hansell: He has not heard the last of this. We can give him some names of people.


George Prudham: You can make implications, too. You have implied it was an election bribe.


Ray Thomas: You should be the last one to talk about implications.
Supply-Public Works


Ernest George Hansell: The inference was that an engineer was around there previous to the last federal election talking about the reconstruction of this wharf.


Robert Henry Winters: Nobody said he talked about it. That has not even been implied. You have just introduced that.


Ernest George Hansell: I understood the hon. member for Jasper-Edson said that. If there is any inference in that the minister is quite at liberty to draw that inference if he wants to. I can tell him it would not be the first time that Liberal government officials have been around previous to elections promising all sorts of things.


George Prudham: You are thinking of the Social Credit government of Alberta.


Ernest George Hansell: In all probability it was the minister himself. Don't let the minister from Alberta think we are ignorant of some of his movements.


George Prudham: You are not ignorant of such tactics.


Ernest George Hansell: He is going to hear something about some of these movements. I do not want to say anything further about this matter. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson rose on the basis of complaints and asked the Minister of Public Works if anything could be done. The minister said he had no knowledge of the project as being within his department. When the whole thing is revealed perhaps it will not come within his department, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not anyone can jump up here, especially a minister of the crown, and demand who said this anl who said that and who wrote this and who wrote that. Let him ask me that and I will tell him where to go. Even if I am a preacher I will tell him where to go. Furthermore, if he does not watch himself we will put him there. We are not going to take anything in this house from any two-bit politician.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
391. British Columbia and Yukon, $4,419,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with British Columbia and the Yukon. I would ask the minister to give the committee information concerning two of the projects found on pages 498 and 499. The first one concerns the item of $365,000 for the fishing harbour at False creek, Vancouver. I think that amount will do the job, but perhaps the minister can tell us whether or not such is the case and, if not, when it is expected the work will be completed.

Supply-Public Works The other item has to do with the dredging of the first narrows of Vancouver harbour. I should also like to know whether this vote will complete the dredging that is to be done there, and what has happened with regard to the second stage of the improvement of the first narrows. If I remember correctly, a model was to be set up at the University of British Columbia with which the currents were to be studied, and the second step in improving the first narrows was then to be undertaken. I do not believe any of that work has been done yet, but perhaps the minister can tell us what is the situation.


Robert Henry Winters: The whole work for the fishing harbour at False creek involves an amount of $252,867.35, and the estimated date of completion is May, 1956. With regard to the amount of $500,000 for dredging the first narrows, this revote is required toward the contract with British Columbia Dredging Company Limited and the contract with North Western Dredging Company Limited in the amount of $1,042,800 for dredging along the north shore of the first narrows at the entrance to Vancouver harbour. The dredging will be to a depth of 39 feet below low water. Completion is scheduled for August of this year. The hon. member spoke of a model or asked if there was a model'-


Howard Charles Green: The dredging covered by the vote was only the first step in improving the entrance to the harbour. Studies were to be made of the currents before the second project was undertaken. What I want to know is what progress has been made with these studies, and when it is expected that the further project will get under way.


Robert Henry Winters: I understand a committee has been established to look into the further development of the harbour that will be necessary to allow deeper draft ships to use it. I have here an extract from a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 25, 1953, having to do with the establishment of a committee to study conditions at the first narrows bridge in order to determine the effect that widening of the channel would have on currents within the harbour. In April, 1953, the name of the committee was changed and it is now called the associate committee on navigational facilities on the west coast. The president of the national research council was to be chairman ex officio. I have seen no report from that committee. I will see if I can find out how the matter stands.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister, either tomorrow or at a later date, would let us know what progress has been made in this connection.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to.


Mr. Barnett:: One of the votes under item 391 refers to the Qualicum beach, French creek, improvements, stating that the amount to complete is $31,500, of which $8,000 is a revote. Has the minister any particulars to show what will be the depth at low water in the entrance channel to the boat basin when the project contemplated is completed? He will recall that this item has continued for the last two or three years. Last year I pointed out to him the necessity for a further deepening of the channel before the project reaches completion. Inasmuch as this item indicates that the sum required is to complete the work, I should like to have a picture of what the finished entrance channel will be like.


Robert Henry Winters: I have not those details with me. However, there again I will be glad to get the information and see that the hon. member is given it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would be pleased to have that information, because it is the deciding factor in the over-all usefulness of the harbour. Inasmuch as this amount is for the completion of the work I would like to have some assurance that that has been looked after.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to see that the hon. member gets it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
393. To provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures and to complete protection works already under way, $700,000.
Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, rivers have been considered boons to any area through which they flow, and certainly the Fraser river of British Columbia is no exception to that rule. However, after admitting that fact we also realize that rivers can cause a great deal of difficulty and many problems as well. In my riding of Fraser Valley there are a number of sections in which the Fraser river is causing considerable difficulty. I believe this is the item under which I should bring the facts to the attention of the minister and ask that further consideration be given to these problems.
A number of times in the past I have called attention to the situation existing in these various areas; and although some work has been done, these problems are of a continuing nature. At the present time, as in the past, we still stand in need of assistance in order to cope with the problem and try to effect some satisfactory solution.
There are three main areas where the problem exists, and I wish to mention them briefly and to refer to communications I have had in connection therewith. The first of

these is at Hope, British Columbia. Some time ago the matter was brought to my attention by some of the old-time residents of the area, who sent telegrams saying their property was in danger. The water had been cutting away at the bank until that property was in danger of being swept away.
From that time we have had communications with the department and have also made personal representations, but up to the present time we have not been able to convince the minister and his officials that this is a responsibility the federal government should assume. I have here a letter from the department dated July 5, after I had brought the matter to its attention. It bears the signature of the deputy minister and says in part as follows:
On the 28th of June the district engineer at New Westminster, B.C., submitted his report covering the bank erosion problem at Hope.
From the lengthy report it seems clear to me that the cause of erosion is a natural action of the river. It may be aggravated, however, by the passage of tug boats close to shore (20 to 25 feet) causing a heavy wash. Another contributing factor is that some of the high bank upstream was bulldozed down to provide a logging truck road at low water level last winter. This latter action, however, while it has speeded up the erosion in the immediate vicinity, is not the cause and would have been done naturally in about one year.
The final paragraph of the letter is as follows:
As there have been no departmental works, either construction or dredging, in the vicinity, which could in any way be said to have been a contributing factor and as the department has no interest in this land, I regret that it cannot assume any responsibility for any protection works.
Following further representations I received another letter from the minister. This letter is dated January 31, 1955, and states in part:
A careful reconsideration has been given to the matter since the deputy minister of the department wrote to you last July 5th, and regret to say that the Department of Public Works cannot accept responsibility for the matter of erosion at this particular point.
As you know, the cause of erosion is the natural action of the river. A contributing factor is that some of the high bank upstream was bulldozed down to provide a logging truck road at low water level last winter. As I see it, erosion at this point is essentially a question of protecting, from the natural forces of the river, river bank property over which the Department of Public Works has no jurisdiction.
And he states in closing:
I am sorry that I cannot give you a more helpful reply in this matter.
I certainly share the minister's sorrow over that fact. Then on March 4 I had a letter from the local member of the legislative assembly, Mr. I. F. Corbett. This letter, dated March 4, 1955, states in one paragraph:
I would also like to state that the minister's reference to the road as a contributing factor to
Supply-Public Works
river erosion is, to me, to say the least, foolishness. Just below where this road has been cut down, the village of Hope, for the past few years, has been building or strengthening the river bank with large stumps and boulders that have been taken from various portions of the streets. The majority of the complaints of the river cutting away the people's property come from below this point from 200 yards to half a mile.
Then finally his very conclusive letter from the minister under date of March 16:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 9, 1955, concerning river bank erosion at Hope, B.C.
This matter has been carefully looked into by this department, and the conclusion is still the same as stated in my letter of January 31, 1955. 1 pointed out that this erosion was mainly due to natural causes and was, therefore, not the responsibility of this department.
I regret that we cannot assist you in solving this problem.
This letter is signed "Robert H. Winters".
I should like to call attention to this fact once again, that no matter what the engineers may say about the situation there, the navigation does have a very definite effect on this situation. The residents who have been living there for years, right at the river bank, have watched the problem develop and have seen it become aggravated, and they are confident that navigation does have a very definite effect upon the erosion problem existing in that area. I would request the minister to make some further attempt to look over the situation, because I feel that as it is a navigable river up to and beyond that point, the federal government certainly does have a responsibility.
One of the areas where this hungry Fraser river has been taking a terrific toll of valuable farming land is right around the town of Agassiz. This is the area in which the Department of Public Works has seen fit to give considerable assistance, and I want to express again, as I have on other occasions, the appreciation of the reeve and the residents of the area as well as myself of the assistance the department is giving in this particular section. I trust that a certain sum has been set aside to assist further in this work. I hope the minister will make reference to it and let us know how much has been allocated for that purpose.
This situation has caused so much difficulty and has cost the municipality such substantial funds that it has about reached a point where it cannot do very much more. It has gotten beyond the capacity of the municipality to solve the problem. They are doing their best; they are putting in as much as they possibly can in order to conserve their property and their area. I suggest that perhaps special consideration could be given. I would like to see the dominion government accept an even greater share of responsibility in

Supply-Public Works
effecting a permanent solution by at least taking care of the whole area so the municipality would have to look after only the maintenance work in the future. I make that suggestion this evening.
The other area where the same problem obtains is at Albion. Again I have had considerable correspondence with the department in connection with this particular area, but so far I have not received any favourable consideration. The attitude taken is that it is just natural causes, natural erosion and is not caused by navigation. I would remind the minister that even although the reports may have been to the contrary, navigation does have a very definite effect upon the problem in the vicinity of Albion, British Columbia.
As I have intimated, there has been no response to our appeal so far. I believe some new proposals will be advanced in the near future; some new requests will be made, and I certainly hope that if the minister and his officials take another look at the problem they will be able to accede to the requests and the proposals that are made to assist in this particular section.
I know this is becoming almost a yearly plea; I suppose it is more than a yearly plea, but we are definitely concerned. The people are suffering great losses, as I have said, of their valuable farm lands in this section. The area between the river and the mountains is so small that they cannot afford to lose very much more. Therefore I would ask the minister and his officials to look the whole situation over again and assist in every way possible in the solution of this major problem.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should make some comment on these questions that have been raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. This is a very serious situation in the province of British Columbia. I happen to know from my own personal knowledge that what he has said about the situation at Agassiz is only too true. The municipality of Kent- that is the name of the municipality-is under a tremendous burden in trying to keep up the dikes and preventing the river from eating away farm land there. Can the minister not tell the committee what the government has in mind with regard to works on this part of the Fraser river? I hope he can give the hon. member for Fraser Valley some assurance of favourable consideration to the suggestions that have been made this evening.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure the hon. member has concluded from the long list of correspondence just read by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on this matter that it has already received very exhaustive consideration. The extent of the federal government's

ability to participate is delineated by the wording of the vote. These projects do not fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction. We did participate at Agassiz last year to the extent of some $7,000 on a three-way program with the provincial government and the municipalities in respect of the diking to which my hon. friend has referred.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley said, despite the fact that the engineers do not think the erosion is caused by navigation, he and some of his friends do think so. Well, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows the position I must take. We have competent engineers. I think hon. members know that in these instances, if there is any opportunity for the federal government to participate on the ground that the erosion is attributable to navigation, or if it endangers navigation, or if it is caused by any federal structure, then we do come in and participate. In this instance there has been no engineering evidence whatever that the erosion is not due entirely to natural causes.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean the government is not going to make any contribution toward the work at Agassiz during the present fiscal year? I point out that ships are plying there. For example, there is the ferry running across the Fraser river at Agassiz. The hon. member is quite reasonable in making the suggestion in his statement that navigation has something to do with the washing away of the bank.


Robert Henry Winters: We have not been able to find that. In the instance in which we did participate the request came to us through the municipality and the provincial government. To the best of my knowledge we have not had a request for continued participation there and, again to the best of my knowledge, the interests of navigation are not involved.


Howard Charles Green: Would the government not be willing to help during the present fiscal year?


Robert Henry Winters: We have no plans to help. There has been no request from the provincial government and the municipality to participate on the same basis, and there are no grounds for the federal government undertaking the work by itself.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Possibly the minister misunderstood, because in one of the letters I read-the letters have been sent to the debates office-there was an admission that navigation did have something to do with it. It seems to me I read that letter, but it was not the only cause.


Robert Henry Winters: I believe the hon. member read that letter in connection with his request that something be done at Hope.


Mr.   Pallerson@: That is true, the one at Hope. I thought the minister was speaking of the over-all plea I made when he said his engineers were of the opinion that navigation did not have anything to do with it. Certainly the letter did say that navigation had something to do with it, but it was not the only cause. It did aggravate the situation, and that is why I very definitely think the federal government has a responsibility in this field. Because of the fact that it is navigable water and the boats ply up and down, they aggravate the problem in regard to Agassiz. Perhaps I take too much for granted, but I understood something was included in this vote this year for the Agassiz area. Certainly if there is not the people will be very disappointed, and the request will be made again in the future.


Mr. Harrison:: The remarks I wish to make might have been more appropriate on item 389, but I think they will fit in under this item. There was a previous vote for a dock at lie a la Crosse, Saskatchewan. The present structure is in such condition that it cannot be used. In fact you could drive a team through some of the holes. I wonder what happened to the previous vote, and whether it is intended to proceed with this dock?


Robert Henry Winters: That item was passed some time ago and I have not the records here. I shall look up the information and give it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Would it meet the convenience of hon. members if we went to the supplementary estimates, harbours and rivers, engineering branch?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works- .
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
728. British Columbia and Yukon, $808,200.


Howard Charles Green: This is supplementary to the item we were just discussing. Has the minister taken into consideration the fact that the Department of Fisheries is vitally interested in the use of the Fraser river? I should think this flooding and erosion would have some effect upon the fishing industry. Then there is also the fact that a joint dominion-provincial committee is considering the whole Fraser river system, which I suggest brings the federal government into the picture and would be a reason for some
Supply-Public Works
assistance being given by the minister's department to meet the situations which have been put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Has the minister taken these facts into consideration?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall bear that in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering branch-
396.	Construction of spans of bridge over the interprovincial channel of the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec, $500,000.
Mr. Forgie:: I would not want this opportunity to pass without paying tribute to the minister for bringing together the warring factions in connection with this bridge. We have been working on this bridge in the Ottawa valley for about 45 years, and in the short space of time since the minister came in as Minister of Public Works we have reached the point where this bridge is actually being constructed. The hon. member for Pontiac has asked me to speak on his behalf, as we both feel we would be remiss in our duty if we did not call attention to this fact. This will be further demonstrated when the minister attends the opening ceremonies.


Mr. Hodgson:: You would never have had that bridge if it had not been for the two provincial governments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering branch-
397.	Towards construction of the Burlington beach bridge, the province of Ontario to pay a like amount, $500,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is this to be the federal government's share to carry the project over the next year?


Robert Henry Winters: This does not represent the full extent of the federal government's participation, but it will cover the federal government's share of the expenses during the current fiscal year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The dominion government is paying one-third of the cost?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, but the bridge has not gone to tender yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trans-Canada highway division-
399. Administration, operation and maintenance. $523,395.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on the trans-Canada highway because it is of great concern to my constituents and to a large number of organizations in the area. The route chosen through the Columbia river basin, which historically

Supply-Public Works
is the Kootenay country, will be oi great importance to the development of the district and to Canada generally.
I might explain to hon. members who are not fully acquainted with the possibilities of the district that the Kootenay country in my opinion is the Koh-i-noor diamond in Canada's casket of natural resources jewels. I do not think anyone can question that. It is a country which is known for its breathtaking scenery and the prospects for revenue from its profit-making resources.
I mention these things briefly because this is not a party question. The question is too big and of too great concern to the people I represent and the people in the surrounding riding for it to be treated in any partisan manner. It has not been treated in that manner in my constituency. I can say that what I intend to say here this evening has the support of a large number of people of all parties in my constituency.
The decision as to the choice of route must be based on a knowledge of the country, on facts, on economics and on common sense. We are very fortunate in this instance in having ample time to make certain that we do choose the correct route through the Columbia river basin in Canada. There have been three major routes under discussion. The first is the Big Bend route, which was constructed largely by the old department of the interior of the federal government and which has been in operation for quite a number of years. The distance on this route from Revelstoke to Mount Eisenhower is about 270 miles. I understand that the provincial government is doing some paving this summer on the western end of this section of the highway.
There is need for this highway for the building of the Mica creek dam; the highway will be needed for the servicing of that dam. I understand from conversations with Americans who were connected with the building of the Grand Coulee dam that a good highway will be needed to carry the enormous tourist traffic which will naturally be visiting such a great structure. I understand that this would be something in the nature of Boulder dam in the United States. We have that route to go on with. It is possible that the provincial government will pave this portion of the road if the Mica creek dam is built. This road will be required even after the dam is built.
Another alternative route is the Rogers pass route, which was the route followed by the C.P.R. The distance from Eisenhower to Revelstoke over this route is 163 miles, as it is somewhat shorter. I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a
[Mr. Herridge.J	I
recommendation which has been made by a civil engineer in my constituency, who at great personal sacrifice of time and some money explored all these possible routes in the interior of British Columbia. I refer to Mr. Affleck of Nelson, who is known all through the southern part of British Columbia. He and two or three other people have spent a great deal of time in exploring these routes.
Only recently in an effort to obtain a firsthand and independent viewpoint on Rogers pass as a route for the trans-Canada highway across the Columbia river basin in British Columbia three members of the interested boards of trade, Hal Bavin of Windermere, Boyd C. Affleck of Nelson and Alex. Jacobs of Kaslo, hiked over the old abandoned roadbed of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Rogers pass. They made a reconnaissance over this route, and Mr. Affleck has drafted his report. I am very pleased to give the minister's department a copy of it. It will be interesting for them, because he is an old-time location engineer. In this report he deals with the difficulties of the route, heavy snowfalls and things of that kind. I am not going into the question of its advantages. That must be determined by final surveys.
As a result of Mr. Affleck's reconnaissance over the Jumbo pass route, a reconnaissance party was established a few years ago, and he and a number of others travelled over the route. The Jumbo pass route, from Mount Eisenhower Junction to Revelstoke, is about 234 miles. It will go from Mount Eisenhower, to Invermere, over the Jumbo pass to the Duncan river to Howser, along Trout lake, then along Arrow lake to Arrowhead and then to Revelstoke. A great deal of enthusiasm has been developed in support of that route. A very good report has been made on it by Mr. Affleck.
In addition to that, last year the provincial government made another reconnaissance survey over the whole route. I understand the route was found quite practicable and has possibilities, but at this time the provincial government is not concerned with recommending it without further survey and investigation. We had those three routes in mind; what the people in British Columbia call the Big Bend route, the Rogers pass route and the Jumbo pass route.
The people in my constituency are particularly interested in the possibilities of the Jumbo pass route. As I said before, this is not a party question. It is a very important question with respect to the development of the Columbia river basin. For the first time in a development of this type, we have time

on our side. We have time to make certain that the final route chosen is the best possible route through the area. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman-and I am being as brief as possible-that there should be a very thorough investigation and survey of all three of these routes as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.
Generally speaking, according to the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act I know the choice of the route is left to the provincial government. But this is a very big question in the interior of British Columbia, and I think the decision in this important matter should be the result of conferences among the federal government, the provincial governments of Alberta and British Columbia and the dominion parks board, and possibly the result of conversations with the Canadian section of the international joint commission. My idea is to have all interested parties cooperate so that when these surveys are completed-and I think a thorough investigation is very necessary of the possibilities of all three routes-the final route will be the best possible one as a result of that coordination of information and possibilities and so on.
That is all that I am going to say in that connection, because I do not want to detain the house any longer; but it is a matter of great importance to my constituency and to all those persons living in the Columbia river basin in Canada. I hope it is approached in a purely non-partisan spirit and that the final result of the co-operation of all parties concerned will be beneficial.


Mr. Blackmore:: After the hon. member for Vancouver East had spoken last evening in favour of the idea of a system of trans-Canada highways, I said I supported his view in that respect and that 1 would say something more concerning this important matter when the appropriate item came up for consideration by the committee. The appropriate item is here.
I do not desire to say too much or too little about the trans-Canada highway in the western part of Canada. I hope members of the committee will be able to get clearly in their minds a picture of the vastness of western Canada, so they will realize that from, say, Lethbridge in southern Alberta to Edmonton in central Alberta there is a stretch of close to 400 miles, and about midway between those two cities comes the city of Calgary.
It happens that Providence has blessed each of these cities with a pass to the west through the Rocky mountains to the Pacific coast. Just west of Edmonton is the Yellow-head pass, west of Calgary is Kicking Horse
Supply-Public Works
pass, and west of Lethbridge is Crowsnest pass. Each of these passes is apparently designed by Providence to be the location of a road from all of Canada out to the Pacific coast. Each of them has been proposed as the means whereby a trans-Canada highway should go through. The one going through Yellowhead pass has been called the Evergreen highway or the Yellowhead pass highway. The one going through Calgary has been referred to as the Big Bend highway or the Kicking Horse pass highway. The one going through the Crowsnest pass we have been calling the southernmost route or the Crowsnest pass route highway.
In 1947 when we began discussing this matter in this house, with the deep interest of the present Minister of Defence Production, we went into the whole matter with great care. I know he took a deep interest in the problem and still does, and that the minister himself has a deep interest. It is well to remember, I believe, that the welfare of Canada depends upon the maximum development of industry and trade in those two great provinces in the west. In order to have that maximum development of trade between those two provinces, we need all three of those highways. It was thought we should choose one of them to be the particular trans-Canada highway. On the occasion when we were discussing the question in 1947 I held that the southernmost road was the most logical route for the trans-Canada highway. I am still convinced that that is correct.
There are several reasons for that. In the first place it is by far the most direct route from Winnipeg to Vancouver. In the second place it is right along the southern border of Canada. Just as soon as tourists came across the border they would come into contact with this splendid highway and go east or west and, because they would have found a very good highway in Canada where they did not expect to find one, they would therefore be greatly encouraged to travel far and wide into the depths of Canada.
I think this is a very important matter. From the standpoint of trade the area of Alberta and Saskatchewan which would be connected with a corresponding fine area in British Columbia is susceptible of tremendous development. We have for instance great irrigation projects in southern Alberta, with their vast possibilities. Then we have all the fruit growing and lumbering industries and various other industries in British Columbia. I wish to refer to these only briefly, but with sufficient detail to help the committee realize that there is something really big involved here. I could mention other aspects of this matter of the Crowsnest route.
6430	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Last night the minister made a statement which I think did him credit. It was exactly what you would expect the minister to say. May I say that I have the highest esteem for the minister. I do not see how they could find a better man for the job. He said, as recorded on page 6354 of Hansard:
Our first aim and object must be to complete the trans-Canada highway.
That is correct. I agree completely. Now, how to get the trans-Canada highway or, at least, a trans-Canada highway as soon as possible is the first great problem. That would be the minister's opinion, I think, and that is mine.
When we were debating which of these three routes we should use the choice was left to the provinces, as it should have been.
Premier Manning and Mr. Carson, who then had responsibility in British Columbia, chose the central route. I believe that in making their choice as the ideal highway route they made a major blunder. I think the reason they selected the route-in fact I am almost certain of it-was that they wanted to see the dominion government get its teeth into that problem because in Alberta the highway had to go through the E.I.D., which is an irrigation problem and which is a very costly kind of terrain to take a highway through, while in British Columbia there are mountain difficulties on the Big Bend highway.
Anyway they selected that as the trans-Canada highway official route. We are still having troubles, and we are going to have plenty of troubles for a good many years yet before we find the really best central route to accept, as the hon. member for Kootenay West has just pointed out. Meanwhile the completion of the trans-Canada highway is awaiting all these decisions to be made.
The southernmost route is the Crowsnest route. That route is not so very difficult. There is much building already accomplished. In fact Alberta highway No. 3 now completed crosses the province of Alberta and gives a good highway right from the western border of Saskatchewan out to the border of British Columbia, and British Columbia has made splendid progress from the British Columbia eastern border west as far as Creston. I went over that section several times last year and I was struck with admiration for the very fine highway that is being built there.
Now British Columbia has built a great deal of good highway from Vancouver east. There is only one section of the Crowsnest route highway which it seems to me needs to be built at the present time to enable it to link right up and connect through to Vancouver, and that is the stretch between Creston and 

Trail. It is sometimes called the Creston-Salmo-Trail cut-off. I understand it will be expensive to build that highway, but that the route is thoroughly feasible and the highway can be built.
Last night the hon. member for Vancouver East mentioned the possibility of going down the eastern side of the Cascades into the United States, going along a corridor and coming up on the western side of those mountains. He mentioned that as being a desirable route. I have no objection to that suggestion, but with all due respect to the United States, I do not hesitate to say that we cannot safely bequeath to our children of the future any possibility of complications with that country. It will be good to make an arrangement with them so long as it is temporary; but if we are to be safe we must build in Canada, as well as the Creston-Salmo-Trail area so we might be sure we have a good highway in Canada. Then the United States will not bother us at all.
My suggestion to the minister would be that he give immediate attention to the construction in that area from Creston to Trail. If the British Columbia government needs assistance financially-and I am sure it does- I would suggest that he make an especial effort to provide financial assistance. Something like this might be done. Money might be taken out of the Bank of Canada at probably 1$ per cent interest and advanced to British Columbia with which British Columbia could finish that road right through, with the assistance, aid, advice and co-operation of the federal government.
This thing could be done on a basis like this. The province might have this money advanced without being considered to be indebted with interest attached, and it could pay off this money year by year as it felt able to spend the amount of money, so that in due time the money would be returned to the federal government, the province of British Columbia would own the highway outright and the highway at an early date would be complete.
I just want to say a word or two about the highway system. I do not want anyone to get the idea that I do not want to see the northern part of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia served by the Yellowhead pass highway. It is an excellent highway, or will be when it is finished, and it is greatly needed. It also connects areas of great potential industrial and commercial importance. I do not want to see the central route neglected. I should like to see the Big Bend highway constructed just as soon as possible, but meanwhile I should like to say, in the words of the minister, that we must get this

highway or at least a highway through to Vancouver just as soon as we can possibly do it.
In order that this end may be accomplished,
I think the dominion government would be well advised to expand its program with respect to building highways for the especial benefit of the three western provinces so as to include a system of highways that will envisage the construction of three highways at least, and that the dominion government co-operate and assist in every way in the construction of all three. But let us concentrate on the southernmost one first, because 1 am sure it can be finished soon and is the best one, or will be ultimately.
There is one thing more about this southernmost route that I should mention. It is an all-weather highway. Very rarely do you find the road impassable right from Lethbridge or Medicine Hat clear on out to Vancouver. At such times as there may be obstruction as the result of snow, the situation can quite easily be taken care of by the snow-cleaning machinery which we have available at the present time. Concerning the other two highways I do not believe as good a report can be made.
Once more may I urge on the minister that without any further delay he go right to work on this matter of planning and building a system of highways across western Canada from Winnipeg to the city of Vancouver, especially concentrating upon the Crowsnest route.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Hornby Harrison: I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just spoken in his choice of routes. I do not think we have too much to do as far as this government is concerned in that respect. I think his remarks would be better addressed to Mr. Manning and Mr. Bennett. As it is all in the family, if his arguments are as good as he says they are he will not have any difficulty in convincing them what route is best. But anybody who wants to travel over that desolate, flat country might travel in the United States, on U.S. highway 2. But if they want to travel in country that is interesting, where the fishing is good-and they will travel through such territory-and through such large oil centres as Edmonton, they will go north and use the Yellowhead route.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate the hon. member's contribution and I do not want to get into an argument with him; but evidently he did not pay much attention to what I was saying.
Supply-Public Works


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I see the hon. member for Cariboo.


Mr. Leboe:: Having spoken on this matter in my maiden speech in the house, I am going to take up the committee's time for only a few minutes. I realize that the federal government at this point has no policy in connection with a system of highways. I realize that. I think in the future such a system will be developed. I believe the conference that will be held between the provinces and the dominion government this fall will bring forth some public investment program which possibly may include a system of highways in Canada. I can say, however, that the link between Jasper and Kamloops on the Yellowhead route will be finished-


Robert Henry Winters: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion at this stage is out of order. We are talking now on this particular item of the trans-Canada highway, which has been clearly designated; and it is only one route. To be in order, I believe we should address our remarks now to the trans-Canada highway as such.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I do not believe there has been-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the hon. member for Cariboo will permit me to interrupt him for just a moment, I should like to say this. I think the point of order raised by the minister is well taken. There has been discussion here in connection with alternative routes in connection with the trans-Canada highway, and in so far as they are practical discussions of routes I do not feel that I can rule them out of order. But it is not possible for the committee of supply to introduce a new policy of highway contributions by the federal goverment at this time, as the items we are considering are bound by the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act. Therefore I would ask hon. members to direct their criticisms and discussions to the trans-Canada highway as such, either where it is or where it should be, and not to the general policy of contributions toward highways other than the trans-Canada highway under this vote.


Bert Raymond Leboe: As far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned, from information I have received it is my impression that they are uncertain at the present time where the trans-Canada highway is going to be located.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the trans-Canada highway has been located. The hon. member talks about a highway out of Jasper. It certainly cannot be on the trans-Canada highway, which goes through Calgary, Banff and on west.

Supply-Public Works


Bert Raymond Leboe: Does it go over the Big Bend highway?


Robert Henry Winters: At the present time it is designated to go by way of the Big Bend highway but, as the hon. member for Kootenay West said earlier, the British Columbia government has asked if we are prepared to participate in a survey of Rogers pass which, if successful, will by-pass the Big Bend highway. We have agreed to participate in that survey.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Has the Yellowhead route never been suggested by the British Columbia government as a possibility as well?


Robert Henry Winters: No, the Yellowhead route has not been suggested by the British Columbia government, but it has been suggested by almost every other interested group, particularly in the Edmonton district.


Howard Charles Green: I have one question with regard to an alternate route to the Big Bend highway. The minister said on July 1 and has confirmed today that the British Columbia government had asked the dominion to join in a survey of the Rogers pass route. Has any consideration been given to surveying the third route the hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned, namely the Jumbo pass route, which is farther south again? I raised that question a year ago and the minister said at that time he would look into the possibility of using the Jumbo pass route.
It seems to me that when the two governments are surveying the Rogers pass route it would be worth while also to survey the Jumbo pass route. Many of the local residents believe that the Jumbo pass is preferable to Rogers pass, which has a very bad name for slides. The C.P.R. had some terrible accidents there when their line ran through Rogers pass. I believe snowsheds would be required for long distances for a highway through Rogers pass. While the two governments are looking into alternate routes, I suggest it would also be wise to have a look at Jumbo pass, if that can be done.


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that the British Columbia government put a walking survey party through Jumbo pass, but we have not received a report from them on it.


Mr. Trainor:: I should like to ask the minister if there are any standards of construction with regard to the trans-Canada highway that are insisted upon by the federal government. I do so because of the experience in Manitoba, and I presume other provinces have had the same experience, that the construction of a road using bitumen or black top, as it is commonly called, involves very heavy maintenance costs, and it would seem
[Mr. Winters.!

that the only satisfactory material for the road is concrete? Are there any standards requiring a particular type of construction?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, there are standards. The specifications permit either asphalt compound or concrete, and in the province of Manitoba good use is being made of concrete. Generally the standards are that there is to be a 24-foot paved surface, with a minimum of 22 feet, 10-foot shoulders on each side, 600-foot vertical and horizontal sight distances and other limitations of curvature. The specification does permit the minister responsible to authorize deviations from the specification where they are requested in writing and where economies or the topography of the situation seem to dictate deviations from the standards, but generally speaking we have been quite successful in having the provincial governments adhere to the standards to which they agreed.


Owen C. Trainor: Does the matter of the use of concrete rest with the provincial government?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, it does.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
400. To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks, $3,500,000.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask one
question on this item which has to do with surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks. I notice that this year the item in the main estimates has been increased to $3,500,000 as compared with $2 million last year. I also note that a further amount of $2 million is provided under item 730 in the supplementary estimates. Can the minister give us a brief explanation as to what plans have resulted from this expanded scale of spending? Would he also deal with the extra $2 million in the supplementaries?


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member knows, the federal government is solely responsible for the construction of the trans-Canada highway through the national parks that are on its route. The two big ones in the west are Banff and Yoho. We are responsible for construction of the highway through them, and this is an attempt to accelerate the work. The hon. member knows that a considerable amount of work has been done from the east gate of Banff park westward and from the west gate of Yoho park eastward. It is expensive work. The time is getting on now, and we are trying to accelerate the work. These are the amounts required to do that.

Supply-Public Works


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will these items result in the the next session of parliament, that is to completion of the main program?	say somewhere around the middle of June.


Robert Henry Winters: No. There is still considerable work to be done.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Has the amount of $2 million in the supplementaries anything to do with the establishment of a national park in the province of Newfoundland? Is it related in any way?


Robert Henry Winters: No. That park has not yet developed to that stage, but when it does we will of course be responsible for building that part of the highway through it which becomes a part of the trans-Canada highway.


Bert Raymond Leboe: The minister did not say
whether or not there was going to be any work done from the town of Jasper to the boundary. Can he say whether or not any work is being planned between Jasper and the border of British Columbia?
Mr. V/inters:	Between Jasper national
park-


Bert Raymond Leboe: Between the town of Jasper-


Robert Henry Winters: Between the boundary of the park and the border between British Columbia and Alberta it is a purely provincial highway.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I mean within the park, between the town of Jasper and up to the border between Alberta and British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that a considerable amount of work, if not all of it, has been done there. I know of no program this year, but I will look into that further.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
406.	Statue of the late Sir Robert L. Borden, $45,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister give us one word with respect to where this matter stands and when he expects the statue will be completed?


Robert Henry Winters: The statue is developing. I understand that a half-size model will be completed within a month. The rough schedule is that the pedestal will be in place early next spring.


George Clyde Nowlan: Where?


Robert Henry Winters: Just to the west of the west block.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is a good reason for maintaining the west block. We need it as a background.


Robert Henry Winters: It is hoped the unveiling ceremony can be held toward the end of


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
408. To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $1,450,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have had a complaint from Vancouver to the effect that it is very difficult to get approval for a loan under the National Housing Act on a 33-foot lot. Perhaps I could best place the position before the minister by reading extracts from a letter I have received from a reliable person who is in touch with the situation. This gentleman says:
The point I want to bring to your notice is the difficulty of getting a 33-foot lot approved for an N.H.A. home. It is easy enough to get approval for a large lot for a home of anywhere from $13,000 to $20,000, and this is where the act misses the point:	A lot of these people don't need any help;
it's the young couple starting out in life who want to get a home that need the help.
Then he goes on to say:
I was dealing with a couple last week who are living in a basement suite. I found a lot, 33 feet, which is their limit financially; but because there were several vacant lots in the block it would be just a waste of time to try to get approval from the N.H.A. people. So we had to arrange for a private mortgage which means higher monthly payments and interest.
Then my correspondent goes on to say:
Yet on the other hand a man in the high income bracket can apply for an N.H.A. loan to build a duplex for revenue purposes, and get it every time.
Why is it so difficult in Vancouver to get approval for a loan where the home is being built on a 33-foot lot?


Robert Henry Winters: The same general regulations apply across the country. Part of the National Housing Act confers upon Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the responsibility for encouraging a good class of housing in Canada, as well as developing the desired quantity of housing. In the light of experience to date it has been found that a house on a lot smaller than 40 feet is not the kind of house that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would approve for mortgage purposes.
I do not think this works any great hardship. I have had no problem brought to my attention before. This is the first time I have heard this complaint, that we are not authorizing loans because the lot is too small.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding is that the housing act was designed originally to help

Supply-Public Works
young people acquire homes. In Vancouver quite a large part of the city has been subdivided on a 33-foot lot basis. In recent years I believe a lot must be 40-feet, but in the old subdivisions the lots were all 33 feet. I think it is most unfortunate that a person with a family cannot get any help under the National Housing Act if he builds on a 33-foot lot. It is perfectly legal to have them, if the subdivision was made some years ago.
Lots in the city are now becoming very scarce. And, as my correspondent says, young people in this position many times cannot afford to buy bigger lots. Surely it is not the policy of the government that young people who do not have large sums of money cannot get any help. They are the ones who need it more than others. This is one situation the minister might check in order to see if there is not some way in which he can get around this difficulty.


Robert Henry Winters: As my hon. friend knows, the 33-foot lot certainly makes for congestion in the long run; and we have the responsibility of trying to develop projects that will stand for a long time as a credit to the communities. Most municipalities now have gone to a minimum 40-foot lot. Very few of them do not insist upon lot frontages larger than 33 feet in subdivisions, and I think it would be a mistake to encourage housing developments these days on a 33-foot lot basis. But if the hon. member will give me the particular case he has in mind I will look into it.


Howard Charles Green: In Vancouver some of the finest people in the city started out in homes on 33-foot lots. The hon. member for Greenwood has just said to me that he is now living on a 33-foot lot.


Robert Henry Winters: Where?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the slums of Toronto.


Howard Charles Green: There are not many of these smaller sized lots left in Vancouver, but I see no reason why it should not be possible for the owner of a 33-foot lot to have the benefit of a loan under the National Housing Act.


Robert Henry Winters: Would the hon. member give me the details of the case he has in mind. Perhaps he would send it to me.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this is the general practice of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Vancouver, namely that they will not approve a loan for a house on a 33-foot lot. It is that policy which I think should be made more flexible.


Robert Henry Winters: Exceptions are now made, but as a general policy we like to encourage a minimum 40-foot lot.


Howard Charles Green: Exceptions are now being made, are they?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to bring a matter to the attention of the minister. I have been asked to do this by a member of an organization in Trail. I am referring to the proposed sale of the Sunningdale houses at Trail, British Columbia, which have been occupied by veteran tenants since 1948.
The sale of these houses has been the concern of these veteran tenants for a number of years. As the minister and his officials know, there has been considerable correspondence in this matter. The veterans were delighted to hear last year that there was a possibility the houses would be offered for sale this year. Finally there was a decision to sell on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and at that time I received a letter from the minister in which he advised me that the houses were being offered for sale. He said in one paragraph:
Letters offering the houses for sale to the present tenants will be despatched on July 4th. The prices established by the corporation for the two-bedroom units, will be $5,950 to $6,250 and for the three-bedroom units, the prices will be $7,050 to $7,400. To the above prices is added a rebate of $1,000 which may be earned by the purchaser at the rate of $16.66 per month over a period of five years for each month of continued ownership and occupancy.
Shortly after that the tenants were advised, I think by Mr. Wood, branch manager of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Trail. Then the storm blew up. First of all I received a strong protest from the city of Trail. I received the following letter from L. G. Anderson, city clerk:
Dear Sir:
We enclose herewith a copy of our letter to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation requesting that the sale price established on the low rental homes in Sunningdale be reviewed as it was the opinion of the tenants that these values are out of line.
Then I received a telegram from the Canadian Legion in Trail expressing strong dissatisfaction with the sale price:
Trail Branch No. 11, Canadian Legion strongly protests sale price set by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation re Sunningdale veterans homes. Any assistance you can give in this regard will be appreciated.
Then I received another telegram from the secretary of the committee which represents all these veteran tenants. These are very responsible people:
Sunningdale veterans protest ridiculously high prices set on houses. All our previous correspondence has been ignored. Urgent that you take action to correct this injustice.

And so on. Then the city clerk wrote a letter to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I shall quote just a paragraph from that letter:
At the regular meeting of the council held July 4 a delegation, appointed by the tenants and represented by Mr. R. F. Harrison, addressed the council advising that in their opinion the sale price of the homes was too high. The delegation stated that a maximum sale price of $5,500 for the three-bedroom house and $5,100 for the two-bedroom house had been placed on the homes by a qualified statistician who based his findings on the type ol construction, age, and location of the dwellings.
It was also pointed out that the tenants had maintained and improved the properties at their own expense over the years, and that this factor should also be considered in setting a sale price.
It was further pointed out that by withholding the S1.000 rebate for a period of five years, the purchaser would be penalized due to the fact that interest would be charged on this sum for the five-year period and would result in the purchaser receiving a lesser rebate.
In view of the circumstances as outlined by the veteran tenants, it was the decision of the council that your corporation be asked to obtain the services of an impartial appraiser for the purpose of establishing a fair and equitable sale value of the homes.
The council has, on previous occasions, requested that the homes be made available for purchase by the tenants and, in further continuance of this desire, it would be appreciated if you would give this matter your earnest consideration.
My roint is this, Mr. Chairman. We have these three responsible organizations taking exception to the prices established; the city council of Trail, the Canadian Legion in Trail, a branch of over a thousand members, and then the committee of the Sunningdale veterans' housing project, which is a committee composed mostly of engineers employed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, all responsible organizations and people who have some understanding of building and a good knowledge of sales.
In view of the fact that the minister on one occasion did tell us that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not a profitmaking organization, will he consider the representations of these organizations and my representations this evening, and have an independent appraiser appointed to establish the real value of these houses? I trust that as a result a valuation will be established that will satisfy the tenants, the council, the Legion and all people concerned.


Robert Henry Winters: I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West would like me to reply.
This question has come up in the house before. There are a number of municipalities, some 23 in all, where the veterans' houses have been put up for sale at th : request of the veterans themselves. The government has not been anxious to sell these houses. We have put them in what we term a sales position in order to meet the express wishes
Supply-Public Works
of the veterans themselves and local organizations. We have in no instances endeavoured to push these sales. It is a matter left entirely to the individual veterans themselves to decide whether they wish to buy. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is endeavouring to do no more than have its costs returned. It is not making any profit at all on the transaction.
The hon. member has referred to the fact that these people have kept their houses in good condition and in some instances have improved them. 1 agree that they have done so, and it is to their credit; but it must be remembered that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, during the period in question, has had considerable administrative costs, and during this period the veteran tenants have been getting good accommodation at a low rental. I think that in itself leads them to believe that they should be permitted to buy these houses at a lower price than they are offered.
I understand that in Trail a house of the type that is being offered for sale would cost at least $3,000 more than they are being offered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. To date, despite the fact that no sales effort has been put into this program -in fact, as I said before, the government is not pushing it but simply endeavouring to meet the wishes of those veterans who have indicated a desire to buy the houses-279 of them have been sold, and in the month of June just past 66 houses moved into the hands of veteran owners. I think that is an indication that the over-all program is acceptable and that it is generally fair.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is all across Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: All across Canada, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the minister a question with regard to his statement that Sir Robert Borden's statue, as I understand it, is to be placed west of the west block? Does the minister think that is like putting it in no-man's land? That part of the grounds is never frequented and it will never be seen. I submit that for consideration.


Robert Henry Winters: The item has been disposed of, and we are on housing now, Mr. Chairman. I thought it met with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly he was a party to discussions about the statue.


Mr. Drew:: No, I was not a party to any discussion of location.


Robert Henry Winters: I thought it was mentioned at the time we were together. If the Leader of the Opposition says no, I accept that. However, I believe the location to the west of the west block near the driveway leading out

Supply-Public Works to the west gate is a prominent location. It is intended that it balance up the statues on the east side of the east block. I personally feel it is quite an appropriate location, and I thought it was generally accepted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the Minister of National Health and Welfare had his estimates before us the other night there was some discussion about housing for the aged. At this point the Minister of Public Works might have something to say.
I am very glad the minister is now providing some subsidized low rental housing. We have a very large group of Canadians in the old age pension bracket. In all the provinces where there are Liberal governments we find there are no supplementary benefits paid, which would indicate that in those provinces at least it is considered that those who are receiving old age pensions are federal responsibilities.
Would the minister indicate what stage he has reached in studying the problem to find out how large a group we have in Canada who are receiving old age pensions, and what sort of housing a couple getting $80 a month are able to obtain? Can he give us some information as to the sort of housing that is available in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Halifax for a couple receiving $40 a month each? Has the time not arrived when the minister should be entering the field of low rental subsidized housing in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities for those people receiving old age pensions, the group 70 or over?
I am referring to a couple who receive $80 a month and who have no other income. They should be able to get some housing. Will the minister say what studies are being carried on and how soon he would be prepared to recommend that subsidies be paid by the federal government to make housing possible for people in this group?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know what significance the hon. member intended by his statement that no Liberal government pays supplementary benefits. I am sure he has full knowledge of the fact that it was a Liberal government which made old age pensions available right across Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But some provinces are paying supplementary grants, like Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Robert Henry Winters: The basic arrangement was put into effect by a Liberal government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Nothing more than $40.


Robert Henry Winters: Be that as it may, the subject under consideration is housing, particularly for the aged and those who are not able to


pay economic rentals. I am sure my hon. friend is familiar with the old section 36 of the National Housing Act, which enables us to enter into partnership arrangements with any provincial government that cares to do so to provide subsidized housing for the citizens of municipalities within the province. That program has worked out quite well. It has been implemented to the greatest extent in Ontario, but other provinces including Saskatchewan have taken advantage of it.
There is also the limited dividend section of the act which has been used in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and elsewhere with particular application to old age pensioners. It enables interested bodies to make available low rental housing to old age pensioners without the subsidy element. If a provincial government is interested in going beyond that and getting into the subsidization realm of housing, then section 36 is available. We have invited them on more than one occasion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister indicate how many units have been constructed in Canada which are available to the old age pension group?


Robert Henry Winters: I am informed that a rough estimate would be somewhere around 2,000 under the limited dividend section covering low rental housing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Lapointe:: Tomorrow we shall move to go into supply, and when the motion carries we shall take up the items under legislation with the understanding that those items will stand. Then we shall take estimates, the Department of Transport, the remaining items of justice, mines and technical surveys and secretary of state.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty-five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
358.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $800,000, $22,366,419.

Building construction branch-
359.	Branch administration, $658,305.
360.	District architects, staffs and other expenses, $624,290.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of. and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
361.	Newfoundland. $2,100,000.
362.	Nova Scotia, $3,205,000.
363.	Prince Edward Island, $1,410,000.
364.	New Brunswick. $1,099,000.
365.	Quebec, $10,120,000.
366.	Ottawa, $8,500,000.
367.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $9,855,000.
368.	Manitoba, $2,725,000.
369.	Saskatchewan, $2,565,000.
370.	Alberta. $4,165,000.
371.	British Columbia, $5,667,000.
372.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $350,000.
373.	Outside Canada, $1,250,000.
374.	Unforeseen improvements, $1,000,000. Harbours and rivers engineering branch-
375.	^Branch administration, $437,650.
Engineering services-
376.	Salaries, surveys, inspections, etc., $1,862,815.
377.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $100,000.
Dredging-
378.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,834,280.
379.	New plant and equipment, $1,241,000.
Graving docks-
380.	Maintenance and operation, $937,761.
Locks and dams-
381.	Maintenance and operation, $355,457.
Roads and bridges-
382.	Maintenance and operation, $398,825. Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
383.	Newfoundland, $2,837,601.
384.	Nova Scotia, $3,230,500.
385.	Prince Edward Island, $1,102,000.
386.	New Brunswick, $1,847,000.
387.	Quebec, $3,828,400.
388.	Ontario, $6,874,100.
389.	Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $15,000.
390.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $120,000.
391.	British Columbia and Yukon, $4,419,000.
Generally-
392.	Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction and replacements for the maintenance of services; to provide for wharf repairs at Ste.
Supply-Public Works
Angele de Laval, Quebec, and to autnorize commitments against future years in the total amount of $420,000, no new work to be undertaken. $3,285,000.
393.	To provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures and to complete protection works already under way, $700,000.
Development engineering branch-
394.	Branch administration, $413,381.
395.	Towards international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Calais, Maine, the state of Maine to pay a like amount, $250,000.
396.	Construction of spans of bridge over the interprovincial channel of the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec, $500,000.
397.	Towards construction of the Burlington beach bridge, the province of Ontario to pay a like amount, $500,000.
398.	Surveys, planning and supervision of construction of roads and bridges in national parks (formerly under Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources), $109,201.
Trans-Canada highway division-
399.	Administration, operation and maintenance. $523,395.
400.	To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks, $3,500,000.
401.	Contributions to the province of Nova Scotia towards construction of dam on Isgonish river, Nova Scotia, $65,000.
General-
402.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $15,000 to be expended on any one work, $700,000.
403.	To provide for advanced planning of projects including acquisition of sites. $500,000.
404.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works. $400,000.
405.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1955-56, $650,000.
406.	Statue of the late Sir Robert Borden, $45,000.
407.	Emergency shelter administration, $1,500.
408.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $1,450,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
538. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland and at Pembroke, Ontario, for sale or rental, $1,330,000.
704.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $44,610.
Property and building management branch-
705.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc.-further amount required, $306,150.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
706.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc.-further amount required, $175,000.
Building construction branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount witnin the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
707.	Newfoundland, $20,000.
708.	Nova Scotia, $350,000
709.	New Brunswick, $15,000.
710.	Quebec, $342,000.
711.	Ottawa, $427,500.
712.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $136,000.
713.	Manitoba, $25,000.
714.	Saskatchewan, $600,000.
715.	Alberta, $24,500.
716.	British Columbia, $358,000.
717.	Outside Canada, $1,350,000.
Harbours and rivers engineering branch-
Dredging-
718.	New plant and equipment-further amount required, $212,000.
Graving docks-
719.	Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs for the period April 1 to September 30, 1954, $78,000.
Roads and bridges-
720.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $51,100.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may
increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
721.	Newfoundland, $336,000.
722.	Nova Scotia, $487,500.
723.	Prince Edward Island, $70,000.
724.	New Brunswick, $393,500.
725.	Quebec, $782,500.
726.	Ontario, $665,800.
727.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $66,000.
728.	British Columbia and Yukon, $808,200.
Development engineering branch-
729.	Branch administration-further amount required, $28,616.
Trans-Canada highway division-
730.	To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks -further amount required, $2,000,000.
General-
731.	To provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites-further amount required, $750,000.
732.	To provide for the restoration of the special
account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account during the fiscal year 1954-55 in respect of:	(a)
Losses sustained as a result of the operation of federal-provincial rental projects-federal share, $25,402; (b) preliminary expenses incurred under enabling agreements with provincial governments, $312, $25,714.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
786.	To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1954-55, $7,000,000.
787.	To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, and at Pembroke, Ontario, for sale or rental-further amount required, $858,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 20, 1955