1956-04-13

Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that I received yesterday the report of the conciliation board which I appointed on December 6, 1955, under the authority of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to deal with the dispute between the management and the non-operating unions of Canada's railways.
The report of the board was signed by the chairman, Mr. Eric Taylor, and the nominee of the unions, Mr. David Lewis. A minority report was signed by Mr. Paul Smith, the nominee of the employers.
In accordance with usual practice, copies of this report were made available to the parties concerned, and were in their possession at nine o'clock this morning.
Copies of the report are being released to the press this morning.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister *cf Labour if he could give the house any of the details of the majority report to which he referred a moment ago. Will copies of the majority and minority reports be made available to members of the House of [DOT]Commons?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, Mr. Speaker, in my department we receive a great many reports from conciliation boards. Since I have been Minister of Labour we have not had occasion to table any such reports in the house and, *as far as I know, before that time it had not happened. I do not think I would like to be put in the position of having it made mandatory that every board's report should be tabled, but in view of the public importance of this matter, sir, if you tell me it is the wish of the house and if we may revert to motions, I would be willing to table the .report.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. [DOT] Speaker, I think this is of sufficient public
importance. It is on quite a different level from most other reports received by the minister and therefore I think copies should be provided to the members of the House of Commons since they have already been provided to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, the minister may just hand over the report to the Clerk and it will be considered as having been tabled.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, with respect to my question of April 10? In view of the further representations, is the minister now in a position to give a report on the more than usual lay-offs at the Saint John drydock?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can do no more this morning than to report progress in so far as our national employment offices are concerned, in helping to find employment for those employees who for shorter or longer periods require to do other work, but I shall continue to confer with my colleagues on the matter of employment in the drydocks themselves.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that the central bank rate in the United States has been raised, could the minister be a little more communicative as to the significance of the recent rise in rate of our own central bank? May I remind him that it was made perfectly clear that it is the finance department which controls these matters.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should add more to the answer I made the other day. Early in the session I was asked by an hon. member, I forget at the moment who it was, if the governor of the Bank of Canada would be made available for the banking and commerce committee. I said he would and he is anticipating a discussion of monetary policy.

Inquiries of the Ministry


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, Mr. Speaker, does that deprive us of the right of asking questions of the minister who, after all, is the head of the department? The head of the bank, as we have been told, is in effect an employee of the treasury department.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, anyone would seriously expect me to make a reasoned statement about monetary policy on the orders of the day. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with the proceedings of the banking and commerce committee, of which he is a member, I would be glad to discuss it on my estimates.

On the orders of the day:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to my question. I wish to ask the minister again whether he thinks that this matter, which is of immediate significance to a very large number of business people in Canada, is a matter which should be left for days or even weeks to be discussed in the banking and commerce committee? Does he not think that this is a matter the significance of which should be expressed at this time to this house?


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister mentioned that the governor of the Bank of Canada would appear before the banking and commerce committee. Will the minister indicate when he will appear and under what item?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course it is up to the committee to decide its order of business, but I would expect that the governor would appear before the banking and commerce committee when the report of the Bank of Canada is being discussed.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question on the same subject. May we take it from what has been said by the Minister of Finance that the government has abdicated its responsibility to declare policy and is leaving that to the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: The same answer to the same question last week; no, sir.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister tell us now what the policy of the government is with regard to the discount rate, as was previously asked?


Walter Edward Harris: As I have said, I would have no time to do that on the orders of the day.


George Alexander Drew: Pursuing that, when will the minister avail himself of time to give us an answer in regard to this extremely important matter?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I made it clear that monetary policy has in the past been discussed at some time in the banking and commerce committee whenever that committee felt it was desirable to do so. We anticipated that there would be a request for this information during this session and some time ago it was understood that the governor of the Bank of Canada would make himself available before the committee to discuss this very point. As I have said, if my hon. friend feels after that that there are matters of policy which ought to be taken up in the house I shall be glad to provide time in which to do it. May I point out that as far as I can see now there would be no opportunity except on my estimates, although perhaps it can be arranged.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister not agree that policy in this matter is something that affects a very large number of Canadians who have depended on the assurances of the government in regard to investments they have made in government securities.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is there a policy?


George Alexander Drew: That being the case, will the minister not agree that it would be appropriate that the government, which is responsible for policy, should declare its policy in this respect at this time?


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Finance assure the house that there will be no general increase in bank interest rates between now and the time the discussion to which he has referred takes place?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I cannot give any such undertaking.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to comment on a statement carried in this morning's press with respect to the fact that the rescue service on the British Columbia coast may disband?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately did not read the report in the Montreal paper. It was mentioned to me and I have not had an

opportunity either of reading it or of verifying the facts, but I shall do so without delay.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he would place before the house the offer reported to have been made by Gairdner and Company Limited as an alternative to the trans-Canada pipe line proposition now before the house? Would the minister also table any offer received from the company, and also the one from the McMahon interests relative to this matter?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade apd Commerce):: I shall be glad to table any documents I have. I have two documents from Gairdner and Company which I shall table; I have no documents from the McMahon interests. Perhaps my hon. friend will reciprocate by tabling copies of his correspondence with Mr. R. T. McElerny of the American Natural Pipe Line Company and also his correspondence with Mr. John Merriam of Northern Natural Gas Company.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I were to follow the usual practice of the government I would say that it is not in the public interest. I do not want this matter to degenerate into a debate. Will the minister produce the offer by Gairdner and Company instead of facetiously trying to wipe it aside with the remark he has just made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all. I will produce the documents from Gairdner and Company but will the hon. member produce the correspondence to which I have referred?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Any correspondence I have I shall table if the minister will place these other records before the house. I have no objection to tabling any correspondence because it will be in the public interest and for the enlightenment of Canada to know exactly the attitude of the various companies. Is the minister going to table those documents?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to momentarily probe the encyclopaedic mind of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread curiosity
Inquiries of the Ministry and interest in the question, would the minister inform the house who was responsible for drafting the regulations covering the Disabled Persons Act?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which I understand is prompted by a statement that is alleged to have been made by a member of the government of British Columbia, that the regulations regarding the disability allowances were framed by the federal government alone. I thank my hon. friend for giving me the opportunity of saying that the regulations governing the disability allowances were framed at a dominion-provincial conference and represent the collective will and judgment of those provinces and the federal government at that conference, at which British Columbia was represented.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Frederick George Hahn: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister care to indicate whether the provinces were in full agreement with the proposal that was submitted at that time, and whether a protest was not made by these governments that the submission by the federal government did not equate with what the provinces had in mind?


Mr. Marlin:: In answer to my hon. friend's question, there were some aspects of the regulations that were not acceptable to all parties to the conference. The federal government did not agree with some proposals, and certain provinces did not agree with some proposals that were in the majority shared by others, but I am not aware that the province of British Columbia objected to the particular regulation complained of. What I am saying now is that it is not in the interests of good government in this country for a particular minister of the government of British Columbia to suggest that the regulations administering this matter were framed entirely by the federal government, when the fact is that the government of British Columbia, like the government of every other province, was responsible for the regulations and must in fairness share both the blame and the credit.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Could the minister say when the
2896	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
queen of his fleet, the Bluenose, will be resuming regular schedules?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall have to take my hon. friend's question as notice. I shall make inquiries and give him another opportunity of discussing this subject, which is so dear to his heart.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is dear to the people of Nova Scotia, more so than to the minister, apparently.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
344. Departmental administration, $1,128,150.
The Chairman:: May I advise hon. members that they will find this vote on page 59 of the blue book of estimates and they will find the details on page 450.


Mr. Hodgson:: Is the minister going to make a statement at this time?


Mr. Winters:: No, Mr. Chairman, I have no statement to make. I shall follow my usual practice of answering questions to the best of my ability.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: 
I see that there is an amount of $35 million odd for the trans-Canada highway. That seems to me to be pretty small having in mind the amount of work that should be done on the highway each year. The minister may say it is the fault of the provinces that not enough work is being done. As I see it, the department is not doing enough work and providing enough money for this project. The highway has been under construction for some six years now and there is legislation before the house to extend the time of construction for another six years. This is a federal highway and by the end of another six years the part of the highway constructed in the first few years will be worn out unless the government takes hold of the situation and makes it a federal highway from coast to coast.
So far as the provinces are concerned, all the provinces now have more roads to look after than they can handle. There is an increase in road transportation. The number of cars has doubled in the last six years. The number of trucks has more than doubled and the weight of the loads carried by the trucks has increased. Speed of vehicles is also increasing. I am sure the minister and the government would be proud to say that we have a good trans-Canada highway but if the government wants such a highway the department must do more towards its construction. If they have not got the knowhow or the ways and means to build the trans-Canada highway they should give the provinces more money. They should pay at least 90 per cent of the total cost of the road right across the country. As I said before, if something more is not done quickly and better construction provided great portions of the highway will be worn out before the last part is completed.
The minimum width of the highway is 22 feet. Six years ago a width of 22 feet did not sound too bad, but with two lines of traffic travelling along a highway with a 22 foot top, one going east and one going west, the wheels of the vehicles run along in about the same place on the highway with the result that the highway wears out much more rapidly. I think many parts of the highway should have a 30 foot top and some parts should have four lanes.
As for the provinces putting up very much money for the building of the highway, it is not possible. I think Ontario is representative of all the provinces and Ontario has more north and south roads than it can maintain. We all know that we need north and south roads just as much-and from the provincial point of view probably more- than we need a trans-Canada highway. In

Ontario the great commercial and tourist traffic is mostly north and south because our big cities are found along the lakes and rivers in the southern part of the province. I refer to Windsor, the cities of the Niagara district, Hamilton, Toronto and, farther east, Cornwall. We must not forget Port Hope, the great uranium centre. Then we go east down the St. Lawrence where there have to be bridges across the river for north and south traffic.
Then, there is the defence aspect. In case of invasion or a bomb dropping on this country and people having to be moved out of the cities, we cannot move them over to the United States because they would be in more danger there than they would be here. We cannot move them east and west, so there is only one way to move them and that is north. There are not enough aeroplane facilities to move more than a small percentage of the people out of the cities, so there is only one way to move them and that is over our highways. If we are considering our national defence situation and the moving of people out of cities in case of emergency, then we have to have north and south roads. The provinces seem to think they are responsible for these roads. If they are, and they have been spending large sums on these north and south roads, then it is up to this government to do more towards building the trans-Canada highway. A better road should be built. You have to change the set-up from what it was six years ago and you have to build a better and wider road before it will ever be successful.
As I said, the dominion government should pay up to 90 per cent of the cost of this trans-Canada highway and should get more of the construction work done. I feel this is more the responsibility of the dominion government than it is of the provinces because in the first seven months of 1955 this government collected $116 million from the motor industry in excise and sales taxes. During the same period this government only spent $15f million on road construction, in spite of the fact they collected about seven times that amount from the motor industry.
Then, I should like to say a word about public buildings. Last year there was a lot of talk about public buildings and some debate concerning the west block. I am not going to say anything about that now because there is a specific item under which that can be discussed. Whether or not there is some responsibility in the federal district commission, I still think that a great deal of the responsibility for public buildings lies with the Department of Public Works. We have quite a collection of temporary buildings, but
Supply-Public Works they do not seem to be very temporary because they have been there for 15 years. There are some down on Mackenzie avenue. We are told that space is scarce, but you could take three of those temporary buildings and put one on top of the other and have a much better building.
There are civil servants working in these buildings, yet not one of the buildings has any provision for air conditioning. They are hot in the summer, especially the top floors, and not fit for offices. I think it is time the minister grasped the situation and did more than has been done in the past. There is no reason why these buildings should be left for another 15 years. I cannot blame this minister for more than the last couple of years in so far as this situation is concerned, or the deputy minister either. I ask the minister, when he is straightening up his department, to do something about those temporary buildings.
Then, there is the printing bureau. I cannot blame this minister for that, either. This building cost several million dollars, but when the location was chosen it was one of the worst blunders this department ever made. I do not think the blunder was made by the deputy minister or even the engineers. I believe the location was chosen by the then minister. He got paid off by a seat on the exchequer court bench, so he was very well treated for making one of the biggest blunders that has ever been made so far as buildings around Ottawa are concerned. The first year they had the thing sort of cleared out it looked more like a lake than a place on which to erect a building. If they had planted some fish in it and left them alone it would be a good tourist fishing place on the shore of the Ottawa river today. There does not seem to be any drainage, because this year the water has been backing up. The department will have to put in some new drainage system.
I also hear that some of the foundations for some of the machines are not holding up satisfactorily. I do not mean the foundations of the building, but some of the floors are not holding up well under some of the heavy machines. That is something that needs immediate consideration. I do not say you should erect a new building. The building is there. It was built in a sort of lake-swampy area. The mistake was made when that site was chosen. It was all right to build it on the other side of the river, but they could have selected higher and better ground for the building at that time. The building cost something over $13,500,000. I understand it is a long way from being completed. The department is going to have the problem of doing something
2898	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works with it. The deputy minister and the minister himself should take a walk over there and have a look at the place to see if they cannot straighten it out and make a better job of it and bring it up to date.
I have nothing else to say on that subject. Last year I did make some reference to patronage. So long as you do something for my riding I do not care how much patronage you use. So long as we get a little project built here and there we shall be satisfied. The building of things that are necessary is of interest to me. The little bit of patronage that is used by the department at times does gripe a little, but never mind, we shall stand the gripes if the minister will get busy and do the things he is supposed to do, and not leave them until next year or probably the year after. It has been the habit to make the surveys one year and start construction two or three years later when an election comes around. We do not mind if you leave it until next year, but we would like to have it this year. The minister has the money and everything to do it, and there is no reason to hold it up. At least get the thing in order so that the building can be commenced next year. Start now and acquire the little pieces of ground that are necessary, make the surveys and get things started. An engineer could go up there and do the whole thing in two or three days. We would like to have it built this year. We would have liked to have it last year.
I do not like to find too much fault with the minister's department in that respect because there is certainly a great improvement over conditions of eight years ago previous to the last two years. If you can do it, make the survey and tell us that we are going to get the building next year, even if it is an election year, and we shall appreciate it.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with some interest to the remarks that have just been made in reference to some aspects of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, with reference to such matters as the trans-Canada highway, and so on. As the discussion of these estimates proceed some of my colleagues will be discussing such matters as that, but I do not intend to make any particular reference to those aspects at this time. However, I should like to make a few comments upon what I consider to be important aspects of the general picture of the Department of Public Works in the life of Canada today.
I can readily understand that while a couple of years ago the minister was willing to make some statement at the beginning of his estimates on administrative plans which he
(Mr. Hodgson.]

proposed to carry out, and which I believe he has been attempting to carry out, at this particular time he is apparently loath to give us any comprehensive statement of the operations of his department, or of the place that it should hold in the life of Canada. As I say, I can readily understand the minister's dilemma at this time because it appears to me he has been rather effectively hamstrung by the general policy of the government of which he is a member. For that reason, he is probably at something of a loss as to what he might say if he were to make an initial statement. In my humble opinion, I feel the committee has cause to extend a great deal of sympathy to the minister. I might say that my heart bleeds for him because he has been left in a position where I am sure he hardly knows whether he is standing on his head or on his feet.
Perhaps to illustrate the point of that remark I might be allowed to refer briefly to the speech which was made by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, on March 20 when he brought down his budget. I feel that some statements that were made at that time illustrate the dilemma faced by the Minister of Public Works at this time. As reported at page 2327 of Hansard of March 20, the Minister of Finance said:
The blessings of an economy operating at a high level are pleasant indeed to a minister of finance but they bring with them new responsibilities for all of us. The objective should be to maintain a steady growth in economic activity without the process of expansion giving rise to inflation and instability. Consequently, in times like the present when private expenditures are expected to rise still further, the federal government itself has a special responsibility to see that its fiscal policies continue to be directed towards economic stability.
A little later on in his speech the Minister of Finance went on in effect to expand what he said as recorded on page 2327, and on page 2330, he had this to say:
In many fields the services provided by the federal government have to expand along with the increase in population and national production. I need only mention such things as the provision of inspection services of all kinds, customs administration, trade promotion, surveys, research and the provision of transportation facilities, for example. If these services do not keep in step with public need the expansion of the economy will itself be hampered.
Well, as I listened to the Minister of Finance making that statement I must say that I found myself rather in agreement with him, but a little farther on in his speech he made a statement which I feel does illustrate the dilemma in which he

has placed his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, because he said this, at page 2331 of Hansard:
The program of public works and other capital items for the coming year has been held down to immediate essentials. The main estimates which have been tabled indicate that the appropriations proposed to cover expenditures on public works and other capital items are down by nearly $10 million from the previous year.
A little later on he said:
In proposing small expenditures for capital purposes, the government is seeking to reduce the strain on the economy resulting from the very large increase in capital expenditures which private industry is planning to make during 1956.
It struck me at the time, and I still feel my impression then was correct, after having reread the statement, that the Minister of Finance could not have more effectively contradicted himself than he did in the last two statements I have read. On the one hand he says that in an expanding economy the need for public services and the provision of facilities for the public need to be kept in line with the increase in the general economy. On the other hand, he turns around and says, "We are reducing our capital expenditures so it will not put any strain on the economy". I think that illustrates the dilemma in which the Minister of Public Works finds himself when he attempts to provide for the needs of the Canadian people in so far as the services that come under the jurisdiction of his department are concerned.
The general statement of the Minister of Finance is borne out by the figures that are recorded on the summary of standard objects of expenditure because in the public works department', under the category of construction or acquisition of buildings and works, we find the sum of $89,980,000 listed as compared with $95,678,000 that was provided in the estimates a year ago.
Just to make it clear that the item for that particular department is not out of line with the general pattern that has been established by the estimates, I might point out that the total expenditure for all departments for construction or acquisition of buildings and works, excluding the items for defence production, national defence and civil defence, is $184,905,000 for this year as compared with $187,274,000 that was provided in the estimates of last year.
The same pattern is followed in respect of items for construction or acquisition of equipment both within the Department of Public Works and in the general pattern established by the total of estimates for all departments.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in this connection the government has not only effectively contradicted itself in such policies as
Supply-Public Works it has brought forward but it has made it clear that its policy is going to be one that will be continued into the future and there will be an unsatisfied back log of services for the people of Canada.
According to the Minister of Finance and and the figures he used, our economy is expanding by something like 5 per cent per annum. It would seem to me that in view of the minister's statement on page 2330 of Hansard to the effect that the federal government's services have to expand in many fields it would have been logical to have expected that in this year's estimates there would have been something like a 5 per cent increase in the amount provided for giving these services to the people of Canada rather than a quite substantial decrease in these items as I have pointed out.
I feel that this situation does point up the necessity of some policy along the lines of planning and investment boards which hon. members in this group have consistently advocated for the past number of years. What the Canadian people need is some sort of arrangement whereby, as the economy of the country expands and the population increases, essential government services are going to keep pace with that expansion and the amounts available for capital investment should be diverted in some orderly and rational manner so there will be an intelligent division between the amount's of capital expenditures that are made available for productive plants, and the amount that is being put into the production of services and conveniences for the people who live in this country.
In the city of Port Alberni, which is the largest centre of population in my constituency, there is a rather pointed illustration of what I have been talking about. I mention it at this time simply because I feel it does illustrate a situation which is repeated dozens and probably hundreds of times across the length and breadth of this country.
I recently had sent to me by a very prominent citizen of Port Alberni, who I happen to know has never been a political supporter of mine, a clipping from one of the local papers which showed a cartoon picture of the post office clock. As he pointed out, this clock is on top of the tower of a rather ancient looking brick structure that was put there in the year 1913, a year after the city of Port Alberni was incorporated. This clock has in effect made something of a laughing stock of the Department of Public Works and has caused many citizens in that community to view with some scepticism the effectiveness of the policies and planning of this government. This has come about owing to
2900	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works the fact that after a number of years during which the clock behaved erratically-sometimes it ran and sometimes it did not-the clock finally stopped altogether and the hands were removed. The clock now sits in the centre of the town as a sort of symbol of the archaic attitude of the federal government.
This particular cartoon shows a sea gull's nest on one of the top brackets of the tower. A young sea gull has suddenly become somewhat bold and is hanging down from the corner by his two feet. The mother sea gull is looking at her young one in a rather startled fashion, and the youngster says, "Lookit, ma, no hands!"
I know this does not represent the complete picture of what the department has in mind. I suppose the Department of Public Works plans some day to erect a new building, but the irony of the situation was pointed out to me by someone who, as I say, is a very prominent citizen. The clock sits there at a time when that community is growing by leaps and bounds and when something like $60 million is being spent in that community in the expansion of pulp mills and other industrial ventures.
This particular area along with some other parts of my constituency are part and parcel of the rapid expansion of this country and the buoyant economy about which the Minister of Finance spoke in such glowing terms in his budget speech. I do not doubt that the expansion in that area is far above what would be the national average. In spite of the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, as a symbol of the dilemma in which the Minister of Public Works has been placed by the government to which he belongs, is this old brick tower with the clock on top of it without any hands.
In taking part in the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Public Works I want to plead that he be given a chance to do the kind of job I think he could do if the general policy of the government would permit. The same situation applies, not only in the field of public buildings but in the planning for such projects as a highway system in Canada and many other things which most likely will be mentioned during the course of this discussion.
According to the budget presented by the Minister of Finance, the federal government has control of the fiscal and monetary policies of the country. The budget gave us a rather extensive and complicated survey of the growth of the country. It is obvious to me that there has been no real thinking in an effort to remove the dilemma of providing public services to the people of Canada proportionately to the general expansion of our


economy. Rather than face up to the problem, at this time the government are taking steps which will simply aggravate it. We are going behind.
Because of the lead that has been given by the federal government in connection with this particular aspect of providing public services, we find the same dilemma has percolated down to the lower levels of government, to the provincial and municipal governments. We boast about the wealth and prosperity of our country and at the same time ask hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens to live in a completely unnecessary state of hardship because of a lack of services which our productive machinery is quite capable of providing.
This is simply a perpetuation of the pioneer, frontier type of economy at a time when we like to boast about the great industrial productivity now available to us. Why should we have to continue to live like those people who went out and put up sod shanties on the plains when they were trying to establish an economic foothold in that part of the country? That sort of thing should have gone by the board long ago. I have been told that when I was two years old I lived in one of those sod shanties.
If all the things the Minister of Finance tells us about our economy are true, and I do not think any hon. member would deny that we have the productive capacity in this country, given a little intelligent planning, to provide public services to keep pace with our growth. We have the basic wealth to provide those services.
That approach is recognized in one field of activity carried on by this government. The items in the estimates covering the construction and acquisition of buildings and works by the defence production, national defence and civil defence departments this year total $199,965,000, which is an increase over the figure for last year which was $172,050,000. Those are the amounts to be voted in the field of national defence to provide some of the things which are provided in the civilian field by the estimates to which I referred earlier.
I think of a good illustration of how this is carried out by the Department of National Defence. During the course of my travels last recess I had occasion to visit one of the radar defence installations in the coastal area of British Columbia. I was most interested to see that in what had been virgin wilderness there had been hewn out what one could term a model community. That community was provided with a school of two classrooms, it had a hospital with a doctor in attendance, it had roads and all

the services that one would normally expect to find in the best developed town. That community had been created almost overnight in what had been simply rock and forest. The people in that community were being provided with a good level of community services. I could not help but contrast the situation there with the situation that prevails in some of the communities in my area and in a good many of the communities across this country which I have been able to observe.
It seems to me that if the government is capable of planning an organization and providing these services for this industrial plant, if you want to call a radar station that, it should be possible to carry forward the same sort of planning across this country in the civilian field.
I realize that as we proceed to discuss these estimates there will be many items which will involve particular discussion, some by myself and some by others of my colleagues. However, I felt that I wanted to attempt to give the committee a picture of the place which I feel the Department of Public Works should occupy in the life of the Canadian people.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose there is any greater challenge being faced by any minister of the government than that which the Minister of Public Works must face in trying to keep the Department of Public Works in step with the growing economy of this country. I for one feel for him. I would say that there is no job more important than to keep up with expansion, especially when it is at the rate that we have in this country today. We have immigration, defence and other problems that enter into the field to take from his dollar and add to his troubles. However, possibly part of the reason for his difficulty is the fact that governments before him, which were largely Liberal-at least for 50 years they were mostly Liberal-have accentuated the problem by not having looked after it properly in past years. No matter what he is doing to rectify the position today, we are going to find more and more of these problems arising, because our progress is so phenomenal that it makes it difficult for him to keep pace. If the hands of the clock that were referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are the least of his problems, then I am satisfied they will soon be looked after.
However, I find in my own riding, for example, that I have the trans-Canada highway crossing navigable streams, which calls for attention. On one occasion the minister mentioned to me that he thought we must
Supply-Public Works be having bridges all over British Columbia. He needs only to see the growth in that province and he will see that we certainly have the people that require them. Six major bridge constructions in the course of the present British Columbia government are more, I understand, than were built in the previous 20 years.


Mr. Goode:: How many of those are toll bridges?


Frederick George Hahn: So long as we can cross the streams, that is the important thing, as far as I am concerned. We have other problems, such as dredging problems. We have the problems of retaining walls, of breakwaters, of housing, of public buildings, just to mention a few. These are not just localized in my area but, I am sure, occur in many other ridings as well.
The policy of bringing in the estimates at a time such as this when we have certain resolutions by the minister on the order paper which will change some of our points of view, I am sure, might be somewhat improved if we heard a statement from the minister in respect to the intention of resolutions Nos. 10 and 11 on the order paper, and I am satisfied some of the remarks that are going to be made in the course of discussing these estimates might be changed. However, it is not my intention to deal with those resolutions.
Last year I brought to the attention of the house a certain policy which I thought was fundamentally wrong. I still believe it is wrong. That is the continued rental of buildings that cost more than $2,500 a year in rent to the taxpayer when we have to improve those buildings and spend money on repairing them as well. It is not my intention at this time to take up that problem, because there is a more appropriate occasion.
I do, however, wish to continue further my discussion with respect to a problem that arose earlier in the Department of Transport estimates, one which affects this department also. That is the question of co-operation between the departments. In order to illustrate my point it is necessary to bring in a local problem in my own area which is definitely affected by the Department of Public Works. We have in the city of New Westminster an antiquated structure which was built about 1897 and subsequently was repaired, known as the Queensborough bridge. The department has from time to time denied that it has any responsibility whatsoever for the building of that bridge. Even though it does cross a navigable stream, even though it is necessary for the city of New Westminster to get permission to build a particular
2902	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works type of bridge, we are continually told there is no federal responsibility for the building of that bridge, because we cannot prove precedent.
Now let us look at this matter of precedent, and I come to another problem. In the unincorporated city of White Rock, also in my own riding, there is a railway known as the Great Northern Railway, one of the major constructions in the continent, passing through that resort town. It passes along the beach, and there is a Department of Public Works wharf across the rail line. On the opposite side of that rail line is Washington avenue. Many years ago, when the wharf was built, a crossing had to be made from Washington avenue to cross the tracks to the wharf in order to get cargo on to the wharf. An application was made to the board of transport commissioners to put a warning bell there; and that was granted. At that time the board of transport commissioners ruled as a precedent that it was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works to pay for and maintain that bell.
Access to the wharf, however, was still difficult because Washington avenue is a fairly narrow road, and it had the mountain on one side of it and the rail line on the other. In order to make it more accessible, the people in White Rock, and the municipality of Surrey particularly, decided they would build an access road crossing Washington avenue which would make it possible to go along the edge of the mountain and come back up the other side and then down this fairly steep grade known as Martin street and leading right to the water. As a result of that, we had certain communications with the department, through the Department of Transport and otherwise, which denied responsibility by this same government. Here we have a case of precedent.
Just by way of illustration, I should like to read a letter from Mr. H. A. Young, the deputy minister, dated 13th April, 1955. Before I do so, however, I should' say that the old bell is worn out and it has now become necessary to replace it with a new one. Not only that, but it is also suggested that a cautionary light be placed there because, since the time of the passing of the order in council that made it necessary for the federal governing body to build this structure and have this bell placed there, White Rock has grown tremendously. Over 30,000 holidayers come there each Sunday to the beach, and that has been the average for many years. Every one of those people must cross that track and use that particular crossing. They are using that wharf also. So are the boat owners. The department recognized the value of that


wharf only a few years ago by putting out into the bay a monstrosity known as the breakwater, which is practically useless because it is too short. However, that remains for another discussion at another time. To come back to the need for the bell, and the precedent, I have here a letter, as I indicated earlier, dated 13th April, 1955, from Mr. H. A. Young, deputy minister, in respect to replacing this bell:
Our records disclose that the Department of Public Works undertook the construction of a public wharf at White Rock in 1914. Subsequently, a municipal road was built linking Martin street, in the village of White Rock, to the wharf approach. This road intersected the Great Northern Railway right of way, the municipality of Surrey receiving permission from the board to construct a level crossing at that point. In 1915 at a sitting in Vancouver, the board directed this department to pay for the installation and maintenance of a warning signal at the crossing. This order was complied with and the department has borne the annual maintenance costs since that date. Upon review, there would appear to be some doubt as to the department's responsibility in this matter.
The phraseology of that letter and the words "upon review" intrigue me because from time to time when we suggest a bridge there is no precedent that has to be reviewed. Apparently there is no need for a review. Even though New Westminster harbour has developed as it has, even though that Queens-borough bridge is opened 42 times a day, we still have this same Department of Public Works saying: We are sorry, but we cannot find a precedent.
I found a precedent with respect to the erection of a light at another place, so the department decides it is time to review the situation. Upon review it is found that an access road to this wharf was constructed and therefore it automatically becomes the responsibility of the municipality. That, Mr. Chairman, is what I mean by policy. There is a two-way policy. When it is good for me we will do it; when it is good for you we will question it. I think that should be taken into consideration by the government any time they start telling us about precedents.
Then there is a follow-up letter written by Mr. F. D Pratt. I have forgotten Mr. Pratt's official title but I believe he is in the executive branch of the Great Northern Railway. The letter is from Vancouver and is dated April 27, 1955. I should like to refer to a short portion thereof which reads as follows:
With due respect it would appear to me that the roadway crossing the railway tracks was placed for the sole purpose of giving access to the department's wharf, and that nothing further has transpired in the meantime to change the principles arrived in the original order authorizing the protection herein.

Therefore I would say it is recognized even by the Great Northern Railway that the responsibility should be that of the department. After all, if the wharf were not there there are better places for crossing the tracks. There is a crossing farther up the line for automobiles that can be used by those who transport motorboats or motors for their boats. They have another means of access, but it is necessary to have the bell because the crossing is there. The purpose of the crossing is to get to the wharf. Admittedly, 30,000 people use that crossing on a Sunday but if the crossing were not there undoubtedly another one would be constructed in its place.
The fact of the matter is that we have here a need for a certain degree of co-operation not just by the municipality, the railway and the Department of Transport but also the Department of Public Works. I have a great deal of correspondence on this matter. I do not intend to belabour the committee by reading all of it, but there was one other factor that interested me, the review of this situation. In looking into this matter I wrote to the municipal clerk of the district of Surrey, Mr. Livingstone, on January 24, 1956. I asked him four pertinent questions because I wanted to discover how the crossing had been reviewed by the Department of Public Works. I said:
In order to proceed further with this matter and to do it as expeditiously as possible, would you please let me know at your earliest convenience:
1. If the board of transport had a representative examine the crossing in question with a representative of the district of Surrey?
Mr. Livingstone replied under date of February 3, 1956, and his answer to the first question was as follows:
Yes. The board of transport had a representative examine this crossing on July 26 last year. Mr. C ,D. Midwinter, district engineer of the board's Calgary division made the inspection, and he was accompanied by Mr. Furiak, municipal superintendent of public works.
This was my second question:
Was there present another member of the Department of Transport?
Mr. Livingstone replied:
I do not know whether or not any other member of the Department of Transport was present.
My third question was:
Was there present a member of the Great Northern Railway Company?
The answer was:
Yes. I understand the signals engineer was at this inspection.
My fourth question was:
And finally, was the Department of Public Works represented, and if so, by whom?
Supply-Public Works
The answer was:
The Department of Public Works was not represented to my knowledge.
I question this type of action, Mr. Chairman. It was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works as determined in 1914 to erect this bell. There was a precedent, and now the department decides that it has no further interest in the matter even though they have maintained the bell until the present moment. The old bell is still in operation and definitely should be replaced as soon as possible. The summer season is beginning. The beach is again going to be used by thousands of people. People may possibly be injured or maimed. There was a death there a couple of years ago involving a young child who was crossing the tracks or on the tracks. There was no responsibility on the part of this particular department because the bell was in operation. However, the fact remains that it is somebody's responsibility.
This matter has been studied now for two years, and we are being told now that even though a precedent was established there is no responsibility as far as the Department of Public Works is concerned with respect to replacing the bell. As far as I am concerned, I take exception to that stand. We have a Department of Public Works which is undoubtedly doing its best to do what it thinks should be done or what it is pressed to do, possibly even for political purposes, although I should not like to charge this minister with that at this time and will not do so unless I discover that there is some real reason for an official of the department not being present at that meeting.
It would appear to me that if there was direction from the Department of Public Works here or from the Vancouver office that no one should be in attendance when the meeting was held then there must be some reasonable reason for that stand. As far as I am concerned, I can see no excuse for the department not paying the "full shot", if I may use that phrase, for the replacement of the bell. The precedent is there. It is established. The fact of the matter is that if Martin road were closed by the municipality of Surrey the crossing would still be there. That seems to be the only argument for it. Martin road was built after the crossing was constructed. It was put there for a purpose, to make access to the wharf much more simple. I think that in this particular instance the policy to break precedent is not very well founded.
There are many other problems that could be dealt with. I have one or two of a minor nature that do not appear in the estimates, but I do not wish to spend too much time

Supply-Public Works discussing them now. It might be that later on we shall find some more appropriate occasion.
However, there is one question that was dealt with when the dikes gave way in 1948 and 1952, when a certain amount of rocking was done along the Fraser river. In the Canoe pass section across from Westham island, there was a certain stretch of rocking that was not done because it was inaccessible.
I believe the B.C. Packers had a cannery at that point which made it impossible to try to do the rocking. However, that old plant has been torn down or is being torn down, and it is now possible to get to that point. We have lost a good portion of the foreshore there-I do not know exactly how many feet-but about 1,500 feet of rocking remains to be done. I would say that this work should not be left undone because in a couple of years it will cost us twice as much to do that rocking as it would now.
While I am on this subject of rocking, I wonder whether it would not be feasible, instead of using rock, to possibly use old wrecked car bodies that are available in the lower mainland. There are a lot of old cars there which the wrecking industry is not able to use. There is not a sufficient amount realized from them as scrap. I am given to understand that the municipalities have been able to arrange with these men that these car bodies be available for such purposes. These old cars would be serving a worth-while purpose if they kept the Fraser river from ravaging the lower mainland.
Added to that, I have just one other point I should like to bring to the minister's attention and that concerns the Boundary bay area. The wind and tide sweeps across to the north and hits what is commonly known as the Beach Grove resort. Considerable damage has been done each year, and it is getting progressively worse. Now, about 20 years ago on the United States side of the boundary a wooden retaining wall about 4 or 5 feet high was built. This has adequately taken care of the problem. It has been suggested that this matter be examined by the department with a view to discovering whether or not a program of continuing the wall to about half a mile past the Herd road to the north would be practical and save greater expenditure at a later date. The point is, Mr. Chairman, that we did not use these beaches years ago to the extent they are being used today. Our population was not nearly so great. Beach Grove has grown into quite a community at this time and the area does require some protection. During the winter months the wind and tides wreak a great deal of havoc in that particular area. The people have a right to expect some assistance.

During the Easter recess while touring my constituency I discovered that a great number of the inhabitants had done something about it. Some of them had gone so far as to put up their own cement retaining wall. However, it was not buttressed to any other wall, with the result that the whole area dropped back into the sea. I should like to have the minister make an examination there to see if something cannot be done, either by the department itself or in co-operation with the people in the community, to help them keep their homes and solve this problem.


Mr. Mclvor:: I am very happy indeed to take part in this debate, for reasons which I will illustrate. I belong to a large group of people who are very happy to have the Hon. Bob Winters as Minister of Public Works. He does not need any sympathy for the job he is doing, because he is doing his job according to the tools that he has used in his profession and which I used during several years at university, namely the square, the plumbline and the spirit level. Any one who uses these tools in public buildings, or even in the ideal way, does not have to back down or knock a bulge out of a wall.
There are two things upon which I congratulate the minister in the outstanding work that he has done. The first is that he has helped us to have a trans-Canada highway. I do not need to enlarge on that. He was very patient with us in Fort William and with the provincial government. Things have been cleaned up splendidly and we are going to have a national highway that will be a credit to Canada.
The second thing upon which I congratulate him is his housing plan. I recall that when he took over that work there were numerous difficulties. We had debates in this house, and I can see him standing up and demanding a vote on his present plan. He received almost a unanimous vote. I congratulate him on the way he is handling Central Mortgage and Housing. We wish him the best kind of luck and ask him to stick to building according to his plan.
Locally, we thank him and his deputies for doing something for us which was long overdue. I tried for about 10 years to have our dredging commence as soon as the ice went out. We did not get that. Sometimes we did not get our dredging started until the first of July. When these dredging companies get their contracts they start to make their outfits ready and this takes time. The change has resulted in our dredging commencing as soon as the ice goes out. I thank the minister and his deputy very much because this is an

outstanding improvement. We do a lot of dredging at the head of the lakes, and there will be a lot more.
I have one request to make which I believe would be in the best interests of Fort William and of Canada. The Department of Labour needs a better building for the unemployment insurance offices. At the moment they are housed in the old post office. Twenty-three years ago the late Dr. Manion felt this building was not fit for a post office and a large new post office was built. This building was left empty. The deputy minister gave me the job of renting it, and I had some job. The floors were heaved and the furnace was cracked; windows were broken and the walls needed decorating and painting. I tried to get the Red Cross to take it, but they would not look at it. I tried to get the home improvement people to take it over, but they would not look at it. Finally, a group came to me and asked that it might be taken over as a beer parlour. I was not very sympathetic. Then, a group came and asked if the Salvation Army could get it and through the deputy minister, the late Mr. Hunter, we rented that building to the Salvation Army for a dollar a year.
They did a great job. Major Flesher of the Salvation Army was a fine mechanic. He fixed up the building and for seven years they had that building. I do not know whether they paid the $1 a year or not, but that does not matter. Then the war broke out and the Salvation Army had to move out. It was my job to help the Salvation Army to find another building, and we did. The unemployment insurance people took over. It is a trap. I am sure the minister agrees with me that he wants the workers to be properly protected. They are poorly protected. Any engineer would tell you that you canqot enlarge the building; there is no place to add to it. It is there on May street, and it is not a credit to us.
I must say that I am not an outstanding builder. As I said, I spent seven years in construction work and I learned a little, how to figure out a blueprint and so on. We have an armoury there. It used to be the Prince of Wales hockey rink. It is a big building in the very centre of the city. The officials of national defence do not think that armoury is suitable; it is not safe, but it did not cost us very much in the first place to remodel it. That armoury should be taken over and a federal building placed there because of the need for unemployment insurance offices, and secondly, because the dominion government is paying about $33,000 a year in taxes that could be saved. The Department of National Defence officials
Supply-Public Works want a new armoury out on what we call the Chappies Limited ground, an excellent spot. It is a good place for an armoury. I recommend it highly because we need a federal building. I am not so sure that we need an armoury because there may not be war, but if any place in Canada needs an armoury it is a place like Fort William. I make this request in all honesty and sincerity.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot very well follow in the same tone as that used by the hon. member for Fort William because I am sitting in the opposition and he is on the government side of the house. Yet I think the things he said about the minister were well warranted. I would not go as far as he did, but I will say that the Minister of Public Works stands very high in my estimation as a minister.
I want to go back to where I left off last year and speak about the breakwater at Gimli. We have not made any headway there. The minister was kind enough to make arrangements for a meeting. Well, it took three months to get that meeting going, and when we did get it going it did not do us any good. At that meeting we decided that we would have a small delegation consisting of the chamber of commerce, the mayor of the town and different individuals, meet with the engineer. Well, that meeting has never taken place. It is about a year since I spoke to the minister about it. The meeting with the engineer was arranged and 21 people came from Gimli. It is a very important topic to those people. Some of them have put their life savings in their houses, and they are watching their back yards going, and the foundations of their houses going, and I do not know how far it is going to be allowed to go.
The next thing that happened was that I received a copy of my local paper and I found a full-page advertisement of the agreements with Gimli and with the different people. I do not know why the advertisement was placed in the paper.


Robert Henry Winters: Who inserted the advertisement?


William Scottie Bryce: I do not know, but the editor had this to say in an editorial note:
The agreements published by this newspaper last December appeared as paid advertising and are not to be construed as a reflection of editorial opinion.
I do not know how much it cost the department.


Robert Henry Winters: Is there any reason to believe that the department did it?

Supply-Public Works


William Scottie Bryce: Who would do it if the department did not? They were the only people who put up an argument. Perhaps the minister will find out. I will not say any more about it. Let the minister find out whether some individual paid for it, and if he did I will take back everything I said about the department. I am not going to say any more about it. Dr. Johnson was annoyed about it. He was the president of the chamber of commerce at that time. I should like to read this letter which appeared in the Selkirk Enterprise on Wednesday, February 8, 1956:
On December 29, 1955, one full page of your newspaper dealt with an agreement between the town of Gimll and the crown, concerning the Gimli shoreline.
This agreement was signed by our town council under the pressure of either sign or get no protection. Without the breakwater, our town would be practically under water.
The Gimli chamber of commerce, members of town council and ratepayers recently met with the district engineer in Winnipeg. The Gimli delegation maintained that this breakwater or shoreline is deteriorating rapidly, due to faulty construction. The government maintains if we had backfilled properly it would stand up. Individual ratepayers have backfilled at great expense to themselves and, even so, the wall is crumbling. There is no place for the water to go, once it comes over the wall, nor is there anything to break the force of the sheets of water against the flat wall in a storm.
Much negotiating has gone on, and the Minister of Public Works arranged the meeting in December inviting our ratepayers, etc. Despite the Gimli charges of faulty construction, the district engineer persisted in stating that the town of Gimli and the ratepayers had not backfilled. No answer was given to charges of faulty construction. For example, one ratepayer points out that behind his property the breakwater was anchored to a large cement slab under his fish shed. The foundation is now in lake Winnipeg. His loss he estimates is $600. Years ago in 1908 the federal government built a shoreline of wooden piles, the first of the Gimli shoreline. It lasted 20 years because wooden piles and rocks were placed out in front of the shoreline to break the waves and water did not build up behind the shoreline. This wooden edifice is cracking, sinking and shortly will crumble.
Despite these facts, we are told the story- "inadequate backfill". The district engineer agreed that our mayor had no choice but to sign the agreement-if he had not-Gimli would have been partially under water since 1951.
We feel that given a free hand and allowed to backfill, the engineer could have done the job. I am sure they felt it should be done. The agreement has been carried out by the town of Gimli and ratepayers. To "adequately backfill" this shoreline cannot be done.
The agreement published in your newspaper aggravated the people in Gimli. It was a "poor show" and I for one would like you to name the responsible party.
Surely a democratic newspaper such as yours will get behind the people of Gimli and bring forth justice before pettiness.
I cannot talk about breakwaters because I do not know very much about them; I am not an engineer. The breakwaters on the coast of Scotland always had outlets which


permitted the water to run back into the sea. This one has no outlets at all and you have only to go there and see the big waves going over to realize they would wash anything away. The shoreline there was backfilled. I have to believe what the people I represent tell me. They tell me it was backfilled and it has been washed away.
Perhaps there should have been outlets. I think perhaps the wrong type of breakwater may have been built; I say may have been built. There should have been outlets along there to let the water run back into the lake. There is nothing there but a solid wall. The waves come up and wash away any backfill that is there. I do not want to labour the point but I would like you to look into it again and see what can be done. These good people are not asking something that is unreasonable. They signed an agreement to the effect that they would keep it up but the thing was gone before they ever had a chance to keep it up. If you will look into it again I would be very pleased.
Down the lake a bit we have the town of Winnipeg Beach. I wrote to you about that and you were good enough to permit me to make arrangements with the district engineer. I met him in Winnipeg and discussed the matter and then I went back to the Winnipeg Beach council and told them that the Department of Public Works had no responsibility in the matter. The district engineer told me he had it in black and white that the town of Winnipeg Beach signed the agreement to maintain it.
I am going to read the minister another letter. I could not get anywhere. I came to the Department of Public Works for guidance in the matter because I did not know the facts. I told them that at the time. The letter I have in my hand is from Mr. L. E. Tapper, a councillor. I met him and the mayor before I came away and I got him to put it in black and white so I would not make any mistake. His letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Bryce:
Since receiving your letter of February 27, I finally got the information I believe is necessary.
It seems that the town, back in 1948, agreed "that it will assume the responsibility for the renewal of the walkway only and of all future maintenance and upkeep of same". This was as a result of certain work done by the dominion government and which was a continuation of certain work done in 1939.
It is true, therefore, that we undertook the maintenance of the walkway and kept it up. However, the extremely high water level of last year effected extensive damage and a lot of planking was washed away. The situation was aggravated due to the fact that the retaining wall built last winter by the dominion government, fell short of roughly 50 feet to where it should have ended and the water and sand came around the end and washed away the planking and damaged the foundation. Because of this lag

of 50 feet we find that work is in progress now and they are extending this wall some 250 feet and with extra reinforcement all the way through.
From the foregoing it is obvious that certain fault lies with the dominion government. The walkway has buckled in a number of places and I know for a fact that one particular small section has buckled at an angle of almost 45 degrees both right and left in a very short space. In certain spots new stringers and risers are necessary.
Now that the retaining wall has been extended it is an excellent time for the dominion government to come to our help and completely rebuild the walkway and planking. The damage is too great for us to suffer ourselves particularly since it is not our fault.
If the work is done early this spring as soon as conditions warrant, but long before the season opens, I am sure I could get an agreement passed by council for the future maintenance and upkeep. We feel very strongly about this as any temporary repair work would not only be expensive to us but would be thrown out money unless the job was practically rebuilt.
I might mention that I spoke to the local engineer (federal) who is in charge of the present project at the Beach and he tells me the men will be on the job another few weeks anyway as conditions this winter were not conducive to too much work being done so far.
Remember please, that this area is a great tourist attraction and people go there from all over the country and from a number of states. Unless something is done for us I know that people will stop coming. I am sure that the government does not want that to happen.
That describes the situation at Winnipeg Beach. The two big fellows are Gimli and Winnipeg Beach. There are many other little places along the lines which have sustained damage as the result of the big storms and high waters. I would like the minister to suggest to his engineers that they give some consideration to this.
I have only one other complaint and it is a matter which I took up last year. I refer to the different ways of messing by dredges and the Bradbury. It is still the same as it was. I think that should be straightened up; treat them all alike. There are two different systems. These fellows only work five days on the dredges and when they come home on Friday night there is still no allowance made for that. They are allowed $47 a month which amounts to about $1.54 a day. I put this matter on the record last year. I would like the minister to be good enough to look into the situation and see if he can correct it and make these people into one happy family.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, on March 14 and on April 9, 1954, I brought to the attention of the minister and the committee the matter of the construction of public buildings in Calgary; more properly I should say the matter of the non-construction of public buildings there. The answers I received at that time were very unsatisfactory but the responsibility rested largely with the previous minister of public works.
Supply-Public Works
At that time I expressed the hope that the present minister would improve the situation in regard to the voting of sums for public buildings and would see to it that something was done in connection with the matter, but unfortunately that has not been the situation.
I would just refer first of all to a discussion we had on April 9, 1954, in regard to a particular public building. The discussion is found at page 3971 of Hansard tor that date.
I asked the minister for what public building in Calgary there was a vote amounting to $150,000. He replied that this amount was required toward the construction of a public building in Calgary to provide improved accommodation for the Department of Veterans Affairs and other government services. I then asked the minister if this was the same building for which votes were passed in 1947-48 and in 1948-49 and whether something definite was actually going to be done in regard to the matter. At that time the minister replied:
The Department of Veterans Affairs has requested us to erect a new building on a site which is owned by them opposite the Colonel Belcher hospital.
It is our intention to proceed with the erection of a building on that site. The plans are not yet beyond the preliminary stage and I am not in a position to say when the building will be started.
Nothing was done in connection with that matter in 1954. In last year's estimates this same amount of $150,000 appeared as a revote. Once more nothing was done in regard to this matter. I notice that the vote has been dropped altogether in this year's estimates; it does not appear at all. In other words we have had an exact repetition of what occurred back in 1947, 1948 and 1949. The vote appears for two years, or in some cases three years, nothing is done in connection with the matter and then it disappears from the estimates book altogether.
The history of the past ten years as far as the erection of public buildings in Calgary is concerned has been a most unfortunate one. I went into it in detail at that time, but I shall just recapitulate what has happened. During the period 1947 to 1956 inclusive the amounts voted for public buildings in Calgary totalled $849,500; there were revotes amounting to $466,500, so that the votes in connection with which one might have expected something to be done would total $383,000. However, there was nothing like that amount of building done. Included in that total is this vote of $150,000 which was in the estimates for last year and which has now been dropped. If we subtract that amount we have left a total of $233,000.
As I say, there was a vote of $100,000 for this building back in the 1949 estimates.

Supply-Public Works Evidently it was put in there at that time for election purposes and as soon as the election was over the vote was dropped. As far as I can find out, without having the figures before me and having to depend only upon the books of estimates, the actual amount spent out of the $849,500 for public buildings in Calgary was $133,000 as a maximum.
I submit that this method of estimating and carrying on business is extremely unsatisfactory. It is the old business of holding out a carrot for a certain length of time, taking it away, putting it out again, taking it away, and so on. Nobody knows what the situation is, whether a building is going to be built, or what is going to happen. We have been dangled along in Calgary for ten years in regard to public buildings. Votes have appeared in the estimates at various times during this period and the Minister of Public Works has said that they were going to proceed with buildings, but nothing has started. This goes on year after year and then the whole thing is dropped.
This particular item was dropped after having been there for the last two years. It was dropped following 1949 after having been there for two years. I wonder if the government is ever going to build this building. There is no question of the necessity of a veterans building in Calgary. The offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs are scattered among four or five buildings. They have a few offices in the Michael building, a few offices in what used to be Garbutt's business college, a few offices in the Belcher hospital and so on. This makes it extremely inconvenient for the veterans and other people in Calgary who are forced to run around from one office to another. These offices are some considerable distance apart.
This must prove to be inconvenient and expensive as far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned through having to carry on business in that way. However, the great complaint is of the inconvenience and time lost by veterans and other people who must make use of these facilities.
In addition, there is a great need for office accommodation in Calgary for other governmental departments. The income tax branch and certain other offices are in the Traders building, an old department store. There have been complaints about the location of these offices, their inconvenience and so on. These complaints have been coming in for many years but nothing has been done. I wonder how long this sort of thing is going to continue and whether a definite provision is going to be made for a public


building in Calgary. I wonder whether construction will actually be started as long as this government is in office.
I might just point out, as I pointed out in 1954, that during this same period the amount voted for public buildings in Edmonton was over ten times the amount voted for public buildings in Calgary. I have not computed the actual amount spent in Edmonton but it must be twenty or thirty times as much. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the way the construction of public buildings in the province of Alberta is carried out.
I assume that in this particular case the estimates next year, immediately before the election which we are reasonably sure will come then, will again contain this item for $150,000, or it may even be for $1 million. It does not matter how much is put in as long as nothing is going to be spent. If you are the Minister of Public Works you might as well be a good fellow and put in an item for $5 million or $10 million. As long as nothing is going to be spent it does not really make much difference what figures are contained in the estimates book.
There is another public buildings project in Calgary which has received a great deal of attention. I refer to the new post office building. According to the Calgary newspapers, either the Post Office Department or the Department of Public Works had entered into negotiations for a site along the C.P.R. tracks. That was something over a year ago and we have had no further information on the matter. There is nothing in the estimates this year for that building.
I think the time is long overdue when the minister should put an end to this situation. Two years ago I began to hope that he would do so, but so far his record is no better than that of the previous minister so far as public buildings in Calgary are concerned. I should like to have him make some definite statement in connection with this matter before these estimates are completed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on. these estimates. Before proceeding with my few suggestions and observations, I must express my appreciation for the courtesy of the minister, his deputy and his various officials. I have always found them excellent in that respect.

Before I proceed, I have been asked to make an announcement which I think is very appropriate to these estimates. Yesterday the hon. member for Yukon made certain proposals that would involve a tremendous public works project if put into effect. I have been advised that the hon. member will appear in a national television broadcast in the near future in respect to that project. I certainly recommend that all hon. members take advantage of this opportunity to see on television such a photogenic personality who has such a commanding knowledge of his subject.
I must say that there is general satisfaction in our district with the construction of the public buildings in Nelson, Trail and Castle-gar. We are very pleased indeed-I am as well -even though I did not get an invitation in time to enable me to make arrangements to attend the opening of the Nelson public building. Anyway, it was very well opened. We are also very pleased at the construc-tipn of the Robson wharf, which is a very necessary wharf at the lower end of the Arrow lake, and to know the quite recently constructed Beaton wharf which was damaged is going to be reconstructed in the very near future. Various residents in certain localities have asked me to express their pleasure with the usual repairs and upkeep that have been carried on throughout the past year. When I was in the Lardeau area, which is a pioneer district, the settlers there expressed pleasure at the good work that is being done in the straightening of the Duncan river and the removal of driftwood. It is only fair to compliment the local foreman, who has undertaken that work without any direct supervision and has done a good job as a result of practical knowledge and lengthy experience in dealing with river situations of that type.
Having expressed those few compliments, I wish to make a few observations and suggestions. I can truthfully say that my employment with the Department of Public Works of Canada on one occasion caused me 15 minutes of the most extreme anguish that I have ever suffered in my life. On one occasion an engineer in charge of the construction of a wharf some few miles north of my home was taken ill. The district engineer, who knew me, said he thought I looked intelligent enough to replace him to carry on the construction of the wharf. While thus employed, I had just made arrangements for a case of dynamite to be put in the bottom of the lake to cut off some dolphins at ground level, when quite unexpectedly the steamboat Minto turned up around the corner. Although I waved frantically to the captain to inform him that it was dangerous to tie up, he 67509-1844
Supply-Public Works headed in and began to tie up to the dolphin. There was four feet between the case of dynamite and the bottom of the vessel's hull. I went aboard and told him what his vessel was sitting on, and 1 can tell you he backed up very gingerly, while I experienced a most unhappy 15 minutes.
Years ago the Department of Public Works of Canada had quite an establishment in Nelson. It had a district office, and several engineers worked from that office. However, owing to the decline in the amount of work required, these engineers were removed to the office at New Westminster and now in Vancouver. One clerk of works has been left in Nelson for a number of years. Since that time we have just had occasional visits from engineers from the office in New Westminster who now flit in and flit out of our part of the country like bats going in and out of a belfry. They are unseen, unheard and, to the great majority of people, unknown.
This is a very different set of circumstances from that which existed in the early days. When I was a boy the district engineer and the other engineers made a point of attending farmers' institute meetings and meetings of local organizations, seeking advice and discussing with those present certain problems in connection with wharves and dredging and things of that sort. Whilst very few of these people had engineering experience, there is a knowledge of local conditions that is gained as a result of living in a certain area, which is superior to the knowledge that a person may have with much greater technical training who flits in and out of the area on periodic visits. I understand there is some talk now of closing the Nelson office entirely in two or three years and concentrating all the administration in Vancouver. I think that would be most unwise, and I have been asked by a number of people in my district to enter a very strong protest against any such suggestion. The development of our district, in our opinion, warrants at least the part time attendance of an engineer in the district, an engineer who has some knowledge of the' situation and circumstances because he is-residing in the district and sees what is happening with the flows of water, river conditions and so on. The danger of floods and the increasing services that are required certainly demand that the office in Nelson should! be kept open and that more time should at least be spent in the district by some of the departmental engineers.
This spring, floods on the Columbia are presenting a great possible danger. All depends on weather conditions between now and 15th June. I suggest that an engineer could be stationed in the district, at least for the
2910	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works next month or so, for the protection not only of public property blit of private property. Owing to the great danger of floods in the near future-and there is a great danger because we have had an extremely heavy snowfall and, given the right conditions, we could have disastrous floods-I suggest that an engineer from the department should be kept in the district for the next month or two and that there should be co-operative planning to meet any flood danger, between the federal and provincial government, the municipal governments, private industry and civil defence in that area, to meet any possible flood danger. I think it is very necessary indeed, because we had one recent disastrous flood in 1948, and we know the danger of any flood can be considerably mitigated if there is planned co-operation among all suitable agencies to meet any situation. I mention this because this matter is of serious concern to many of the constituents I have the honour to represent.
For some years, various engineers in the Trail district have maintained that the blasting away of what is known as Rock island, south of Trail in the Columbia river, would do much to remove a bottleneck in the Columbia and lessen the possibility of floods in the city of Trail. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister and his associates, and they have examined this suggestion. They are not of the opinion that it would have the advantage that the engineers in the Trail district suggest. In fact, in a letter I received dated October 3, 1955, from the deputy minister, the following is stated:
This question has recently been investigated by officials of this department and, from their calculations, it is found that the cross-section of the Columbia river at the centre of Rock Island during flood season is 22 per cent greater than at a point 600 feet downstream, and 50 per cent greater than that at a point 600 feet upstream from Rock Island. It is, therefore, apparent that Rock Island is not a control point that would affect water levels at Trail which is approximately three miles and a half upstream from the island.
I must admit I am not competent to pass judgment on such a situation but the city council of Trail has asked me to ask the minister to have the situation again reviewed because a number of very highly qualified engineers differ with the opinions expressed by the minister's officials. Therefore I bring that question to his attention.
For some years I have been urging, at the request of a number of small communities in the lower Arrow lakes region, that a small float be built at Brooklyn. I can see the minister looking at me now and saying to himself, "Well, here is the same old song over again." However, I have been asked by

in Kootenay west in all my residence there. There are so few who come that I think it is about time the minister, deputy minister and senior officials should come into our district and observe the great expansion and growth and the things that are required to be done because of that expansion and growth.


Tom Goode: I sympathize with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. There are a number of British Columbia ridings in which the people would like to see the deputy minister or the minister himself. The minister would be very welcome in the riding of Burnaby-Richmond at any time. He did take the opportunity of spending some time out of a very busy day in my riding earlier this year when he spoke to a high school there. May I say to him that the compliments I have heard, not only on what he said but his appearance before that high school, are very much appreciated by the member who now has the floor.
I believe that the minister has brought to this department the experience he gained in the engineering field. I very seldom compliment ministers but I believe he has done good things for the department in changing some oi his officials. I believe that now we have a department administered on a business basis rather than a political one. Although this lack of politics in the department might be affecting my riding, it is good for the country as a whole and I appreciate what the minister is trying to do.
It seems that this is the opportunity for some of us to talk about our ridings, and I am going to talk about mine. I am not going to take very long to do it because I am quite sure the minister and deputy minister know my problems as well as I do myself. I try to bring them to their attention quite often. There is one matter I want to mention in connection with Steveston, British Columbia, and I want the minister or deputy minister to do something about it. Last year the government spent $560,000 on a fish basin. It was protection for the fishing fleet, and I have some 600 gill netters. We suffer in Steveston from southeast gales which have caused the sinking of many boats over the years. Before the fishermen had insurance they lost their all when one of these gales happened to hit that part of the country. The boats were driven ashore or against the piles of the canneries. This has all been changed now. The minister, in cooperation with the fishing industry and myself, spent a half million dollars on a very fine fish basin.
However, that created a problem too. Inside the fish basin are a number of canneries,

one of which is the largest fish cannery in the commonwealth. We find that because there is no flow going through that fish basin, Toredos, with which the deputy minister has had a long association, have entered that basin. In the summer time, the odour from the fish canneries is something that affects the town of Steveston. It is a very simple matter to change all this. All it needs is a small drain at high water level at the east end of the fish basin. The fisheries people have told the deputy minister about this and I have written about it a number of times. The engineers in the minister's department know about it. It is not something that is going to cost many thousands of dollars. It is going to be good insurance for the amount already spent. I ask the minister, quite sincerely, if he will have his engineers in British Columbia do something about that fish basin now, or both he and I are going to be deluged over the summer with letters and complaints about something that should have been done when the fish basin was first built. The minister knows that there has been a lot of investigation on the Fraser river in regard to the flow of water to the mouth. He knows of the silting problem that we have in my part of the Fraser river, which includes the mouth of that great waterway. He knows that on the south side of the river the rock work is completed to a height of 14 feet because it is the policy of the department to close in the Fraser to a narrow channel so that it can clear the silt out by its own current. That is true on the south side, but on my side of Richmond that is not true.
At the moment one tender is operating. The contractors are working on it. Two tenders have lately been accepted for further work, but as the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned this morning, quite properly, we who represent the constituencies on the Fraser river are worried about the flood threat this year when the pressure comes down. Many members from the interior of British Columbia will tell you-and I have seen it myself-that the snow in the interior of British Columbia this year is the deepest that has ever been known in modern history. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke will tell you that they have had more snow there than has been known for many years, and that is true in the watersheds of all the rivers. Conditions in Revelstoke do not affect the Fraser river, but the water around Quesnel does. According to the snow bulletin issued by the provincial government of British Columbia, the water content of the snow is 35 per cent above normal. It is not the snow
Supply-Public Works that worries us so much, it is the water content of the snow. It looks to me-and I have been so advised by the council of Richmond-* the probability is that if the water comes down in a rush, as it did in 1948, then the municipality of Richmond is faced with a flood threat that will cost this government more than the $5 million it cost them in 1948, and it is such a simple thing to obviate.
We have done a lot of work on the Richmond side to protect the territory that is below high water level of the Fraser at freshet time. But today the Brighouse area in Richmond that the minister knows about- he was through it this year-is sometimes four or five feet below high water level. We have protection, but not enough. The department has done well. They are building rock work on that part of the Fraser river that everyone is proud of, but they have not completed the job. It is no use putting rock work in Richmond if you do not tie up the end between Richmond and New Westminster because there is where the pressure is going to be felt. When you put the rock work there in Richmond it is not going to protect the municipality unless the job is completed. The time to complete the job is before the freshet takes place; the time to save federal money is before the freshet takes place and not after that time. It looks to me-and I am quite sure I will be supported by every hon. member from British Columbia-that the possibility of flooding this year is more pronounced than it has ever been in modern history. I hope that the engineers of the department, the minister and the deputy minister, will take what I have said today as being sincere, and I am quite sure that they will be advised by the officials of their department that every word I have said in regard to flood potential on the Fraser this year is true.
I ask the minister-and I know my request will receive sympathetic consideration-that an immediate investigation be made into the whole problem. If something can be done by the expenditure of $100,000 or $150,000 to obviate that whole flood potential there, then he will satisfy me and the people I represent, and save millions of dollars, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard quite rightly said just now.
I have to say one thing more to the minister before I take my seat. This morning the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned something about rented premises. I think he was speaking about post offices. He and I are in agreement to a certain extent. There is one phase of the matter on which I disagree with him entirely. He and I, and other members from the lower mainland,

Supply-Public Works have a rapidly growing population. When I first came to the house I doubt whether there were more than 50,000 people in Burnaby and Richmond. I might be exaggerating when I give that figure. Today I represent something in the neighbourhood of 130,000 people. Each one of our municipalities is growing. That is true in every location in British Columbia.
When I discussed the question of post offices with the minister some time ago he expressed some concern that rental premises should be taken in Richmond, and I had to advise him then that I did not know where the centre of population was going to be in that part of my riding. As hon. members perhaps know, the provincial government is building a toll bridge at Oak street. That bridge is going to change the whole business face of the municipality of Richmond. At that time I could not advise the minister where to put the post office. He quite rightly, in agreement with me, decided that we should rent premises for the post office until we could take a long view of the whole matter for perhaps four or five years, and then we would know where the centre of population was going to be in that municipality. If the minister will allow me, I take full responsibility for those rented premises. The premises are being built at the present time. I saw them during the Easter recess. It is going to be a nice building. The minister knows that the building will be rented to the federal government at a price per square foot that is much lower than any other rented building in British Columbia. He drove a hard bargain; he did a good job for the people whom I represent in this house.
I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that in some cases we should take a second look at rented premises, but I would not be prepared at this moment to suggest to the minister one of those occasions. He has done well in my riding and I appreciate it very much. If he will take a second look at this Fraser river situation to the benefit of the people whom I represent, then what I have said today will have been worth while.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief indeed. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister first of all the condition of a good many of the smaller buildings in the smaller places that are not suitable for the purposes for which they are used. I travel around the country a good deal, and very often I am quite ashamed of some of the buildings which are used as post offices, and so on, in the country. I have several places in my own constituency where something should be done. A year ago last summer I drew the attention of the minister

to the condition I found, for example, in Davidson, Saskatchewan, where the postal workers were working under conditions that resembled the Black Hole of Calcutta. It was frightfully hot, very congested, and there was very little ventilation. I hope the department will give some attention to this sort of thing.
I am very happy to see that in the estimates this year there is an appropriation of $25,000, which I imagine is for the beginning of a federal building project in Outlook. It is needed there as well, and I wish to thank the minister for including that amount in the estimates this year. I have been here long enough to know that an appropriation of $25,000 does not mean that the building is to be started immediately, but the very fact that it is there, will be kept there, and perhaps increased means that we shall eventually get a building that will be a credit to the department and to the government. There are many places like^ that across the country. The Department of Public Works should endeavour to improve those conditions wherever possible and as soon as possible. Of course, I know that those projects require the expenditure of considerable amounts of public funds. When I look at some of the appropriations for some other things in the country I think that more money could be found for projects of the description that I have in mind.
But what I really rose to say this afternoon is this. I know the Minister of Public Works is a member of the federal district commission.


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, he is on the national capital planning committee of the federal district commission. I should put it that way to be more accurate. And as such, of course, he has an interest, too. I know that what I am going to say now does not come entirely under this heading, but I hope he will bear with me for a moment. In this city today there are a large number of fire hazards in the housing of the people. I do not think the city of Ottawa is going ahead fast enough in the removal of sub-standard buildings. I do not think the city of Ottawa is doing enough zoning in the city to get rid of the sub-standard dwellings and various eyesores around the city. I am not going to say a great deal about that matter this afternoon because a committee has been established to deal with it. I am a member of that committee and I shall have a great deal more to say about it when the committee brings down its report.
I want to say to the minister and to the government that I think more has to be done

to remove sub-standard housing in this city for which the Department of Public Works is largely responsible in many ways in relation to its advancement and beautification. Through the Department of Public Works we are spending many millions of dollars in this city for the construction of public buildings. We are also spending millions of dollars on projects that are really municipal projects. I do not know of any other city in Canada where the federal government helps to build bridges across streets, builds sewers and pays for the removal of street car tracks and so on, as is done in this city. Consequently, I think the government should take some interest in the conditions which have resulted in the loss of many lives in this city during the past winter due to sub-standard dwellings that should be removed from the capital city.
I want to repeat the request I made before that the federal government should take the initiative in calling together the municipal authorities and the provincial authorities. These bodies, of course, have a more direct responsibility for property and civil rights than the government of Canada has. I would like a conference to be called in order to see what can be done not only here but elsewhere to remove these terrific fire hazards which have caused so much concern and suffering to a great many people and the loss of a great many lives.
I wanted to be as brief as I could but I did want to put on the record today that I think this government should take the initiative, particularly so far as the federal district region is concerned. I would go beyond that, of course, but if the government took the initiative in this region I think it would be setting an excellent example for the rest of Canada. After all, this is the capital city of Canada. The Department of Public Works is spending a great deal of money for the construction of public buildings and other projects to make this not only a beautiful city but a city containing buildings that will be suitable for the kind of work civil servants have to do therein.
I want to make that plea as briefly as I can this afternoon: first of all, in connection with the wider field, for an improvement in the conditions under which many public servants must work across the country; and secondly, I want to bring the matter of housing firetraps once again to the attention of the government and the house.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words while this matter is under discussion. I was amazed by the fact that almost every hon. member who rose to speak this afternoon complained that the minister was not spending enough money on 67509-185
Supply-Public Works projects in their constituencies. I want to tell the minister immediately that I have no intention of complaining because I think he has done a splendid job in the Bow River federal riding. In fact, so far as monetary value is concerned, I think the Bow River constituency will rank among the finest constituencies in Canada.
At the outset of my remarks I wish to support the statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond who remarked that he was of the opinion that the minister's good judgment was not affected by political or patronage considerations. I wish to support that statement because I think it is perfectly true. I have never found on any occasion that the minister's judgment was influenced by political considerations and I say that pointedly because I cannot say the same thing in relation to some of the other departments.
I do, however, want to say it about this particular department.
I said a moment ago that we had been rather fortunate in my constituency in having public works buildings built in the riding, but the federal government is not responsible for the construction of all of them.
I would like for a minute to show hon. members of this house how Banff is progressing, because Banff is the leading tourist attraction in Canada. I have in my hand a large photograph of the new post office that was recently opened in Banff, built by the provincial government, which is one of the finest buildings-


An hon. Member:: Post office?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sorry,
I should have said the telephone building.
I am going to make an equally complimentary remark concerning the post office. I do not have a photograph of the post office but perhaps the minister will send me one which I will have framed and hung in my office. The telephone building is beautiful and it is a worth-while contribution to the leading national tourist attraction in Canada.
I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have a splendid new post office in Banff. I received an invitation to the opening of that building. Unfortunately the invitation did not reach me until the day before the opening of the building and I would have had to have the wings of an angel to have reached there in time for the opening. So far I have not grown such wings; nevertheless, I will visit that building when I next go to Banff.


An hon. Member:: There are two kinds of angels.
2916	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Mr. Johnslon (Bow River): I was referring to the better kind. We need attractive buildings like this in Banff because, as I indicated a moment ago, it is the leading tourist centre in Canada. Other tourist centres are progressing and will probably be patterned after Banff.


Tom Goode: The hon. member should visit British Columbia.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have had some communication with the people in Banff regarding a suitable parking area at the new post office. Probably the minister will have a further look at the situation when the opportunity presents itself and see if more parking space can be made available for the people who visit the post office.
Another matter which I wish to draw to the attention of the minister is the erection of a federal penitentiary in Drumheller. It is my understanding, and in fact the information was made public, that three penitentiaries will be built in western Canada. I have been informed that the people of Drumheller have communicated with the minister in this regard and have pointed out to him the advantages of having a penitentiary located there.
Once again I am sure the minister's good judgment will prevail. Upon close inspection I am sure that he will find there is no better place to build a penitentiary than in Drumheller. It is an ideal location and is served by the railway. It has a first-class hardsurfaced highway which passes through Drumheller going from Calgary out to the Saskatchewan border. It is an exceptionally good agricultural area. I am sure the minister will be impressed when he examines the possibility of locating the penitentiary there.
This is not a case of asking for more money to be spent on public works projects. I am merely pointing out to the minister that a certain sum of money is going to be spent and it is just a matter of selecting the most suitable location. If the minister together with his engineers will examine this proposition carefully I am sure his good judgment will again prevail.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that we in Bow River have not very much to complain about. I am sure I am too modest to say that that is because I have been the member for that constituency and that that is the reason so many of these projects in Bow River have been developed.
There is another thing which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister and which I am sure will meet with his approval.
I refer to the need of a civic centre in Banff. In bringing this up I may be transgressing


upon the jurisdiction of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but I do make this appeal to the minister because of his exceptionally good judgment in such matters.
I believe it has been suggested to the minister that the cost of such civic centre should be financed partly by the people of that area. I take objection to that because I do not believe that the 2,500 people in Banff should be asked to carry fifty per cent of the financial burden entailed by the erection of such a building. If this building is of the type of other buildings that have been built in Banff, and I do not think it would be the desire of the minister or anyone else to have an inferior building, it will cost a considerable sum. I do not think the local people should be asked to finance such a large expenditure as would be involved.
This building should be of such a type that it will be an asset, not only because of the accommodation it provides but for its scenic appearance. This is a national park and this should be a national attraction. It is hoped that when the building is built it will be able to accommodate national conventions which would be something worth while. I would point out the urgency in respect to national participation. It should not be left to the local people to finance even a portion of the cost of such a structure.
I should like to hear the minister's comments on this. I am sure he has given this matter some consideration. I do not expect that there will be an item in the supplementary estimates this year, but if it is given the consideration it deserves I would hope to see an item next year to cover the construction of such a worth-while project as a civic centre in our leading Canadian national park.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with those who have spoken in congratulating the minister upon the improvement in his department since he has taken over. The political skulduggery in the department has not all disappeared so I do not want the minister to become too complacent. I believe there is some there yet.
I have been pressing the minister for some years for an annex to the post office building in Exeter. This is needed very badly. I notice there is an item of $50,000 to cover this and I hope that is not simply a book item. That building should be started and if possible completed this year. I should like the minister to indicate whether it will be gone ahead with this summer as it has been needed for some time.
In 1953 we understood that a post office building was to be erected in Hensall. The

site was supposed to have been bought and a building was to be erected and rented to the Post Office Department for ten years. However something apparently got into the machinery and the item disappeared and the result is that we still have no post office building. This lively town has grown considerably in the last few years and needs a post office building very badly. I ask the minister to remember this and perhaps next year we will see something for a post office building in Hensall.
Then I should like to say something about the post office in Brussels. That post office is a very good one and there is a lovely apartment upstairs. I have spoken to the minister about this and I do not blame him entirely for what happened. A family came to that town intending to build a house and they asked to rent the apartment which was the only one available with heavy wiring to permit the use of the equipment they had. The apartment had been empty for some years. I went to the minister and he very graciously consented to allow this family to move in until such time as their house was completed.
However, there were a few political heelers around there who did not want anybody else in this apartment when they could not get it themselves and these people were told to get out. They would have stayed for two months longer and as a result the department would have made another $100 if these people had not been asked to vacate. That is what I call political skulduggery and I do not think the minister should allow that sort of thing to happen. The department has been beaten out of $100 which they could have had. These people were good tenants and would have stayed until their house was completed. But they had to move out of the apartment and into their house before it had much more than a roof on it.
These are a few of the things I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. While I realize that his department is running much more efficiently than it was before his time, I think there is still room for improvement and the minister should not become too complacent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in his reference to the necessity for action being taken to overcome hazards created by slum dwellings which have taken such a terrible toll of life in Ottawa in recent months. I should like to have the minister reply, realizing that this is a national problem, and indicate why the national government should not give a lead by convening a conference with the provinces 67509-185J
Supply-Public Works and municipalities to consider the adoption of an effective slum clearance program throughout the dominion. Such a program would pay dividends in the way of saved lives and also in the reductions that would take place in insurance problems. I commend the hon. member for the suggestion he has made. I think it is a federal responsibility, particularly in Ottawa, which is our national capital.
I do not rise for the purpose of making a plea for extra expenditures in my constituency although I can think of many things I should like to have done. On this occasion I should like to deal with what the Department of Public Works has done in connection with the building of the dominion bureau of statistics building and the printing bureau building. I can think of no other institution that equals that printing bureau for spongelike efficiency in using up dollars. It has a record unequalled anywhere, I think, for expenditure that is difficult to justify.
However, I am going to speak of white elephants in general. In the expenditure of money by the Department of Public Works I would take it that a desirable end would be economy with efficiency. Some time ago I asked a question in connection with the dominion bureau of statistics building, and I found that it was completed in 1952 and occupied on January 14, 1953. Complaints had been received from those members of the civil service who occupied it because of its draftiness and also its general lack of heat. In consequence of those complaints, in a matter of only two or three years after the completion of this building, $82,900 was expended to cover storm windows additional to those provided for in the original agreement.
I do not know whose responsibility it was, and I should like the minister to explain. Was it a failure on the part of the architects or those who did the planning in the Department of Public Works, or was it a failure on the part of the contractors? In the past few days I have heard complaints regarding this building; not only that many of the employees there suffer from excessive cold in the wintertime, but that in the summertime they suffer from excessive heat and even in the wintertime, in the two wings, those who occupy those areas find themselves subjected to excessive heat up to 90 degrees, because of the necessity of overheating those wings in order to make possible a reasonable heating of the other portion.
The information I have is that the heating and ventilating system is inoperative, that the metal sashes and the general expanse of windows cause the building to be hotter in
2918	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works summer than the ordinary wooden temporary buildings in Ottawa. The humidity in the building is about 20 per cent, instead of the 40 to 50 per cent recommended for office buildings during the winter. The consequence has been a higher percentage of colds and other similar illnesses than should be justified, having regard to a reasonable application of modern heating techniques.
Since in the next ten years $100 million worth of government buildings are to be built in Ottawa, I would ask the minister what is being done by his department to investigate the failures that have been evident in the bureau of statistics building, so the same mistakes will not be made again. I would like to find out from him whether there is any co-operation between the department of public health and the Department of Public Works with regard to specifications such as these; the required floor space for desks, filing cabinets, etc., that should be allotted to each employee; what should be the maximum temperature and relative humidity, in winter and in summer; to what degree has an examination of this D.B.S. building shown that reasonable regard to the needs of humidity and heat were assured: and, if that cannot be done in that building, that the lessons that were learned in connection with the building of the D.B.S. will be applied in the other buildings that are proposed to be constructed in this city and elsewhere.
Which officials approved the standards for the D.B.S., and which persons drew up those standards? Were they done after consultation with health officials and architects constructing similar buildings in this and other countries? I think questions such as these deserve to be answered so that what has taken place with regard to this building will not be multiplied with regard to the other buildings the government has in contemplation or that future governments will build within the next ten years. What investigation has been made into this building to ascertain what improvements can be effected? Will the lessons that this building has taught be sufficiently learned that they will not be reincorporated in further buildings that will be erected?
These are questions that are large enough to deserve the consideration of the minister and his officials, for certainly there is no economy in erecting a building such as the dominion bureau of statistics and then within three years finding it necessary to expend a further $88,000 because of somebody's failure at the time construction was originally proceeded with.
Finally there is one other question I should like the minister to elucidate. I And an examination has been made in the United States,


and conclusions have been drawn as a result of the hearing of evidence, on the important question of whether it is not cheaper in the long run, in the building of administrative edifices, to build small ones to accommodate 300 to 500 employees, rather than large multi-storeyed buildings to accommodate many. After all, what the department must have as its target is efficiency plus economy. What are the lessons this department has learned in the last two or three years as a result of the building of the dominion bureau of statistics and as a result of the construction of the printing bureau, which certainly does give one some conception of the meaning of "from everlasting unto everlasting."
These are things that the house and the country have a right to be fully informed on, for certainly what took place in the building of the dominion bureau of statistics deserves an explanation and at least the assurance that there will be no repetition in the future, because money wasted simply means added taxation. I advance this in a spirit of fair criticism and I ask the minister, when he replies, to let the house and the country know that the recent mistakes, which are apparent to those who occupy the buildings to which I have made reference, will not be reincorporated and continued in the erection of other buildings, not only here in Ottawa but elsewhere in Canada as well.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Do I understand
that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate on the first item?


The Deputy Chairman:: There is no closing of the debate in committee.


Robert Henry Winters: There is no closing of the
debate. I would be very glad to wait until the hon. member had spoken, but it seemed to me we were getting down to a discussion of particular items. If we could dispose of the administration item we could make better progress with the appropriate officials here in our discussion of particular items concerning architecture and so on. Therefore if it is generally agreeable I will deal with the general discussion at this stage and we can then go on with the consideration of particular items.
At the outset I should like to thank all hon. members who took part in the discussion of the general item, especially, of course, those who were kind enough to speak so highly of the work of the department. I should certainly like to associate myself with them, because I feel that during the past year the officials of the department have done an extraordinarily good job of work at a time when the department was undergoing a reorganization which made their problems

somewhat more difficult than they otherwise would have been. It is gratifying to know that some hon. members at least feel that the reorganization work that has taken place has been to the benefit of the department and has reflected to the advantage of the country in the work the department has been trying to do.
I wish again to commend the critic of the official opposition on the manner of his approach to his job. This is the second year now that the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, has been the official critic with respect to the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and I welcome his comments as always. He dealt particularly with the trans-Canada highway. I think he was under one misapprehension in referring to the limit on expenditures imposed by the federal government. I think he had in mind that the $20 million shown in the estimates was the limit of expenditure that the federal government was authorized to make in any one year. That is not the case. The amount the department is authorized to spend is the statutory amount running to a total of $150 million. This is simply a matter of budgeting, and it does not impose a limitation.
The fact of the matter is we would be only too happy if the provincial governments could spend at least the amount for which we have budgeted, and if they could exceed that amount we would be happy and more than gratified to make the money available. My hon. friend referred to the standard of the highway as being somewhat minimum in the light of present traffic developments. I, of course, agree with him in that regard. The optimum standard specified in the agreement is a 24-foot paved top with 10-foot shoulders on both sides, and our difficulty has been to persuade the provincial governments to live up even to that standard. Most of them have advocated and insisted, in many cases with merit, that the road should be narrower having regard to the volume of traffic it will carry in anything like the foreseeable future.
The province of Ontario, for example, has insisted very strongly on a 22-foot paved surface despite our own views that a 24-foot wide paved surface would be much better. I do not believe in the case of Ontario, to which my hon. friend referred in particular, that the limitation is money more than anything else. Construction problems have been difficult and it has been a matter of decision with the Ontario government as to which highways they would assign priority.
The fact remains that they undertook by agreement with us to complete their portion
Supply-Public Works of the highway by the end of the current calendar year. This will not be done in Ontario, and it will not be done in any other province in Canada. For that reason we have a notice on the order paper now forecasting legislation which I hope will accelerate the pace of construction of the trans-Canada highway and conclude it on a date that I hope will be agreed upon before very long. Since the trans-Canada highway will again be before the house very shortly, perhaps we could defer a more detailed consideration of it until that time. That does not mean, of course, that I am not prepared to answer questions now, because I am if any hon. member wishes to ask them.
The hon. member also rather deplored the fact that the federal government was not spending more money in the field of highways. He referred to the large revenues the federal government is collecting from automobiles on the one hand and the relatively small expenditures we are making on highways on the other. There again I simply wish to remind him that the $20 million shown in the particular item to which he referred is not by any means the total of federal government expenditure on highways in this country. We are entirely responsible for all roads in national parks, for example, which is quite an item of expenditure. We are entirely responsible for highways in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, with the cooperation of the government there, and that normally involves a high level of expenditure. The federal government is solely responsible for the maintenance of the Alaska highway, which is another expensive example. All these things add up to considerably more money than the amount to which my hon. friend referred.
Then he mentioned the temporary buildings in Ottawa. May I interrupt my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to say how glad 1 am to see the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his place.


Mr. Green:: Thank you.


Robert Henry Winters: To revert to the question of temporary buildings in Ottawa, I think we all share the hon. member's desire that they be removed at as early a date as possible. Number 1 temporary building is scheduled to go just as soon as the trade and commerce building can be completed. We want the site of No. 1 temporary building on which to build the national library, and we hope that can be undertaken next year. Just as soon as accommodation can be provided to move other people out of their temporary quarters the temporary accommodation will be torn down, and that cannot come too quickly as far as 1 am concerned.

Supply-Public Works
The hon. member referred to the fact that we are now spending more of our votes than previously. That is true. In the past fiscal year we would have had quite a good record if we had been able to hold the position that we attained in the first three-quarters of the fiscal year. However, toward the latter part we were held up by shortages of materials, and for that reason we were not able to spend as much money as we otherwise would have spent.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni spoke about the dilemma in which he feels I find myself in trying to run the Department of Public Works. This is the first time it has crossed my mind that I was confronted with a dilemma. I feel that for some reason or other he believes that the Minister of Finance has imposed a limitation on the operations of the Department of Public Works, and that is creating difficulties for us. The fact of the matter is that when we were contemplating our estimates for this year we in the department took the view that the role of the Department of Public Works should certainly not be to go into the field and compete with private investment for money, materials or manpower if by so doing we would operate to the detriment of the general growth and development of Canada.
After all, our job is to provide services for Canada, and if Canada does not develop as it should we will not have the same need subsequently to provide services to the extent we would like. I think it is our job to aid and abet the development of Canada, and if by slowing down our program and giving private developers a freer hand it could be done more expeditiously, then I believe that is our role. I think we in the department are growing with Canada. I believe the best evidence of that is that in 1945 the total vote for this department was $23 million, of which $19 million was spent. The following year, 1946, the first full year after the war, the total was $29 million, of which $22 million was spent. Against that we place the amount shown in the estimates before the committee now, which is a total of $167,865,940.
The hon. member for New Westminster spoke of certain difficulties which he thought we were encountering. I assure him I see none of those difficulties. I feel we have a good staff in the department now; we have a good program, and we are operating within the framework of good government policy. I think whatever difficulties the hon. member may think he sees ahead of us can be readily overcome. The other questions raised were on particular items and perhaps we could leave them.
I can say to my hon. friend from Calgary North, who expressed some concern about


the building program in Calgary, that I too have been disappointed that we have not been able to get on with our program there. We have had difficulties of various kinds, including indecision amongst the different departments as to what accommodation was required and difficulties about the acquisition of a site. However, I believe that progress is now being made. We have selected a firm of architects and they are in the preliminary stages of developing plans. If we are able to iron out the difficulties that still obtain with respect to a site we have in mind, I would think we could start construction of a building next year. The reason there is nothing in the estimates now is that, as hon. members know, it is present policy of the department not to carry votes in the estimates unless there is a reasonable prospect that we will be able to put the work in hand during that particular fiscal year. It did not seem we could get on with the job this year so we dropped the vote, but that does not mean we have dropped the project.
Then a question was raised about these very serious fire losses, particularly in houses in the Ottawa area where I understand some 50 lives were lost during the past winter. It is doubtless true that some of the fires and some of the losses resulted from faulty wiring. Having that in mind, a question arises as to what should be done about it and who should do it. As both the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Prince Albert said, this is a matter that clearly falls within the jurisdiction of provincial and municipal governments. Through the agency of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who administer the National Housing Act, we can and do lay down certain standards for wiring and other particulars of construction. I think hon. members are aware that fire losses in houses built under the National Housing Act have been relatively minor. I do not know of any case in which lives have been lost in a building constructed under the statute.
We have endeavoured to create an awareness of this hazard. Officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Public Works, are working with the national research council, which is endeavouring to disseminate research knowledge and consciousness of this problem to all the municipalities. Our own dominion fire commissioner has been in touch with all the provincial fire marshals across Canada and later this year, in September I believe, there is to be a meeting on the west coast which will be attended by the deputy minister of public works. There will then be a full and

I hope fruitful discussion of this whole problem with a view to trying at least to create sufficient awareness of this very real hazard to reduce these very serious losses of life.
The hon. member for Huron asked about the building at Exeter, and I can tell him that tenders have been called. I would think before too long we would be able to award a contract for the additions and alterations there. The hon. member for Prince Albert raised questions about two large buildings in the Ottawa area, the printing bureau and the dominion bureau of statistics. The printing bureau is undoubtedly an expensive structure. It is a very large building and I think it is a good building. I believe when it is completed and fully occupied the hon. member will come to the conclusion that there is good utilization of space there. I think the site is good having regard to the purposes for which the building is used. I do not believe it has all the disadvantages which were attributed to it this morning by the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario.
In so far as the construction of the bureau of statistics is concerned, I can well appreciate that the hon. member for Prince Albert would raise a question as to why it has been necessary to undertake large expenditures on a building so recently completed. I raised the same questions he did. We had-when I say "we" it was before my time, but that does not remove the responsibility from me-that building designed by a competent firm of architects. It was built by a competent contractor. When you ask me just where the responsibility lies for the conditions which have required us to undertake additional expenditures, I am not in a position to pinpoint it. The deputy minister informs me we have had meetings and tried to assess the responsibility.
There is no doubt about it; we have learned lessons from this. There were certain defects arising from the windows, and they contributed to the uneven heating in the wintertime. I think the same condition contributed to some of the problems encountered in the summertime. The hon. member asked if we have learned anything from these conditions, and the answer is yes. I hope they will not be repeated. We have not had many instances where new buildings have required such extensive repairs. I will certainly do my best to see that it does not happen again.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister, was an endeavour made by the officials of the department or by any outside body to ascertain the reason for these defects that were found to exist in the statistics building?
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that was done, Mr. Chairman. The deputy minister had a series of meetings with the contractor and the architects, as well as officials of our own department.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister a copy of the report that was made? I understand there were two reports made in connection with the examples of the inefficiency-I hesitate to use the word, but I think that is the only word I can use-revealed by the examination that was made. Is it not a fact that there are two reports? If so, will the minister table those reports?


Robert Henry Winters: The only reports that have come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, are departmental reports from the deputy minister to me, or from one of the officials to the deputy minister; and those reports are, of course, privileged documents. If there is any other report that comes to my attention I shall be pleased to discuss it with the hon. member to see whether or not he would wish it to be tabled.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I presume we are still on the first item. Is that so?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes.


George William McLeod: I am sorry I was not in the house to hear the complete speech made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I presume he dealt with what is more or less a joint problem of the riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke and his own riding. I am sure from conversations we have had that he was dealing in some way with the question of dredging in the Arrow lake where the Columbia enters that lake. I believe the lake is his responsibility, and the town of Arrowhead and the land on the north is in my riding. I have a file from the board of trade in Arrowhead containing some correspondence they had with this department over the particular problem in that area.
I have talked this over with the hon. member for Kootenay West, and we have come to the conclusion that some dredging in the lake would widen the channel for the incoming water from the Columbia and eliminate the spreading action which it has at the present time. It is this narrowness of depth and the width to which it spreads that is the source of a lot of trouble in causing ice-jamming and ice-packing at the mouth of the river. According to advice from the board of trade at Arrowhead, I understand there has been some damage to the wharf there so far this winter, and further damage is expected this spring. We do believe that is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, and we think it should be-and I feel sure it will be-attended to.
2922	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
But the matter of erosion is just a little bit bigger problem. We understand that 35 feet of soil from the bank of the Columbia along the railway right of way into the town has already disappeared, and the whole question of erosion is quite serious. It is causing a lot of trouble to pole operators and sawmills. We took this up with the department. I have a very pleasant letter, ending with the regrets of the deputy minister that they could not see their way clear to spend as much money as their engineers had estimated it would cost to remedy the situation.
I am satisfied that the board of trade-and I know this from my own thinking-would not be justified in asking for the huge expenditure that would be required to take care of this matter. It would cost upwards of $500,000. I am satisfied that the people of that area are not expecting such a retaining wall, although as a permanent solution something along those lines may have to be studied and adopted. At the same time we are asking and hoping that the channel in the lake will be dredged and deepened to prevent this flooding by the river as it enters into the lake, which would eliminate or decrease the piling and jamming of ice and the erosion that takes place. Temporary measures will have to be taken.
I understand that the provincial department of agriculture set up some machinery during the last session of the legislature to make a study of river erosion in British Columbia. It is just in its initial stages, but I am satisfied that if or when this new department has been set up and is in operation in our province they will be prepared to co-operate fully with the federal department in seeking a solution to some of the problems.
While we have this letter refusing to spend the large amount of money which their engineers have claimed would be necessary, I should like to assure the minister that we are not asking for or expecting such a huge sum, but we do request that the whole question be looked at again and that the engineer get down to business with the people concerned there to see if some temporary and less expensive solution cannot be found to their problem. It is not only in Arrowhead. The Columbia river flows through the entire Revelstoke area, and there is a problem along its entire length. The whole thing will eventually have to be studied and some solution will have to be found to the problem of erosion. For the present we would request that immediate action be taken to find a solution to the problem that is facing the people in the Arrowhead district.
tMr. McLeod.]


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy this afternoon to hear so many worthy compliments paid to the Minister of Public Works, the deputy minister and his department. No doubt they worked well as a team in the last war, and they are working well as a team now. I hope later on to be able to say that I am as satisfied in Bruce as several hon. members have been able to say here this afternoon.
There are several projects in Bruce that we are vitally interested in. The reason I rise at this time is that a project I have in mind has not been included in the estimates that have been tabled. It concerns a proposed post office in Teeswater. I had a question on the order paper on February 17 of this year, and the answers I received were very satisfactory. What I would like to get across to the minister is this. I would ask him to bring down the supplementary estimate as soon as possible to permit the building to get started in Teeswater so it can be finished in 1956, as the answers to my question indicated.
That is the only point I wish to make at this time. I can discuss the other problems we have when the details of the estimates are before the committee.


Mr. Mang:: I want to take just a moment or two on this particular item, Mr. Chairman. I want to express the appreciation that the people from our area would want me to express to the department and its officials for the work it is doing in Qu'Appelle. We have no large cities; we have just small towns in our particular area, but through the years the services that have been rendered by government departments have grown. For example, a little post office which had perhaps a turnover of $300 in 1910 has a turnover today of $10,000; consequently the locations of the post offices have become woefully inadequate in many instances.
I wish to say that the department is cooperating in a splendid way in helping to meet the wishes of the people for better service accommodation. I should say, too, that in a small locality like ours where improved services are required, a local interest exists as to what type of building shall house the services. The department and its officials have been most co-operative in discussing local problems with the local boards of trade and interested citizens.
I might give an example of that. When the plans first came out for the new building to house the R.C.M.P. at Broadview, some people felt they were not in line with local thinking. Certain suggestions were made concerning minor but fairly important changes. We

were very happy that some changes were made at the request of local people. We have found the officials extremely co-operative in trying to meet the wishes of the people in the local community.
The minister has also been extremely cooperative. It was my privilege during the Easter recess to open a new public building at Kipling, the youngest town in Saskatchewan, and a beautiful little structure it is, indeed. It is not out of line with the size of the place. At first there were ambitious plans advanced by the local community calling for a much larger building. The department cooperated and we all got together and worked out the problems. While the cost of the present building is only a fraction of the original figure that was kicked around, if I may express it in those terms, the local citizens are very satisfied.
At the time of this opening the roads and highways were blocked, and there were walls of snow ten feet high. It was snowing and sleeting that afternoon. Despite the bad weather 400 people from neighbouring towns, including reeves, councillors and mayors, attended the opening. It was really a great tribute to the co-operative spirit which existed between the local community and the Department of Public Works.
I must say I was highly impressed by the officials who attended. They gave us every assistance in making the opening a worthwhile effort. I want to thank the minister for inviting me to officiate on his behalf on that occasion. The people in that area certainly appreciate the attention and the apparent interest shown by the department in serving that community.
Let me repeat that while we do hear certain criticisms of the department here and there, that sort of thing is bound to occur in any government undertaking. It seems that everyone has a licence to criticize the government in what it does. You always get a great many local, self-appointed experts who are convinced in some instances that they know more than the architect and the minister. In the main, however, we have experienced great co-operation from the Department of Public Works in my constituency.
I want to again express to the minister the great appreciation we have for his interest in our particular area. The minister and his department appear to realize that in our development through the years we have outgrown our existing accommodation. Our area dates in history from the 1870's. As I said at the beginning of my remarks there is a need for public buildings of the kind we are now getting.
Supply-Public Works
I wish to thank the minister once more for inviting me to officiate at the opening of the new building to which I have referred, and to again express the appreciation of this and other communities in Qu'Appelle for what is being done in that area.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I have just one matter to place before the minister. Does the Department of Public Works have any responsibility whatever in connection with the removal of Ripple Rock?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that comes under the jurisdiction of public works.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister explain to the committee the progress that has been made with that work? I cannot find any vote in the minister's estimates to cover it, and I am just wondering what provision is made for it?


Robert Henry Winters: There is a vote in the estimates, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member does not mind, I would prefer to deal with it under the particular item. It is found on page 485 listed under "Seymour Narrows- Towards removal of Ripple Rock, $1 million". Is that all right?


Howard Charles Green: Has the Department of Public Works sole jurisdiction over this work or is any other department concerned?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it is under the sole jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps when the vote comes up the minister could give the house a statement as to what progress has been made and when it is expected the rock will be removed.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to unduly delay the committee, but I neglected to ask a question having to do with the report of the Department of Public Works. I notice a considerable change in the report from the form in which it has appeared heretofore. I do not think the present report is nearly as informative. On page 50, in connection with buildings in British Columbia, it says:
Sundry repairs, renovations and improvements were made to the following public buildings under contracts having a value of $5,000 or over.
The report lists the repairs to the various buildings. I was wondering if the minister would care to outline why there is a change in the text. If we wished to obtain the information we used to receive we would have to put many questions on the order paper. This appears to be a brief or an abridged report.
2924	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Mr. Winters: The simple reason for that, Mr. Chairman, was to effect an economy without depriving hon. members of whatever information they might require. There was a duplication of information contained in the report and information of a similar nature contained in the public accounts. We felt we could achieve quite an economy by reducing the size of the report. This change made the report considerably easier to produce and gave us an opportunity to put it in the hands of hon. members at an earlier date and at the same time giving them the information that it was felt they required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
361. British Columbia. $6,495,000.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about this item. I should like to expand upon one or two suggestions I made earlier, and perhaps particularize some of my remarks of this morning. I said I felt that generally the progress made in supplying public buildings and other services has not been geared to the expansion of our economy.
In this connection I would refer specifically to the northern part of Vancouver island, which is one area in Canada which is growing with extreme rapidity. I mentioned that in the Alberni valley there are one or two areas where extensive developments in the pulp and wood products industries are taking place. I know the department has some property in Port Alberni for a new public building, but I felt I should raise this item specifically and suggest to the minister that in view of the rapid growth that is taking place, any plans the department may have developed should be expedited and accelerated to the point where at least in some measure they keep pace with the industrial growth of the area.
In the Alberni valley there are two cities, Port Alberni and Alberni. In both cities there exists an acute shortage of space, particularly in the way of post office accommodation. I mentioned this morning that the present post office building in Port Alberni was erected in 1913. I might say at this point that it is not now able to meet the needs of the Post Office Department, let alone those of other branches of the federal government.
There is a nice little post office building in Alberni which, if I remember rightly, was erected about 1938 or 1939, but here again the facilities available are not sufficient to meet the needs of the present population. The whole situation has been affected by the rapid growth that is taking place. If plans are being considered for the provision of


accommodation in this area I hope they will be accelerated in order to meet the present need.
While I am dealing with this subject I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the almost phenomenal growth which has taken place in Campbell River. I know the department has plans for a federal building in this centre which has developed from a small tourist, fishing and logging village into one of the major industrial centres on Vancouver island. Here again I would urge that if plans are being formulated, they be accelerated in order that the department may give attention to this particular project.
Those are the two points in my district where I feel that the time lag to which I referred earlier is most acute. I should like to emphasize the importance of a program for the provision of public buildings in these two areas.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, during the past year a building which was being used by officials administering the Veterans' Land Act was vacated and I understand that these officials were moved to the public building in New Westminster. A new addition to this building is now under construction. Could the minister indicate the circumstances under which these officials were moved, whether it was the policy of the government to have them moved into the building to which they were moved, or just why this was done? The lease on the building in which they had been accommodated was up for renewal. Were there any other circumstances having to do with their leaving the building?


Robert Henry Winters: As far as I know it was just a routine move. I do not know of any unusual circumstances.


Frederick George Hahn: Would the minister care to enlarge on my other question with respect to the development of the public building in New Westminster? As 1 understand it the present plans call for a portion to be built at this time and the demolition of the present post office, which will be rebuilt. Just what are the plans with respect to that building?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall get a report on that for my hon. friend.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I understand you are taking these items province by province and have slipped by Nova Scotia, but I just want to ask the minister one question. About two months ago I noticed an announcement in the press, apparently by the official project announcer, that there were plans under consideration for a new public building in Glace Bay, presumably to replace the present post office. Could the minister state whether any official consideration has been given to that

particular project, or was that announcement just the result of somebody's imagination?


Robert Henry Winters: What was the nature of the announcement?


Clarence Gillis: That there was to be a new public building in Glace Bay replacing the present post office. This would be quite a big project.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to see the announcement to which my hon. friend refers. We have nothing of a definite nature. We have been giving some thought to accommodation in Glace Bay, but we have not advanced to the stage where there is anything definite.


Clarence Gillis: Still under consideration.


Mr. Patterson:: While we are on this particular item I should like to call the minister's attention to the need for a federal building in the village of Hope, British Columbia. We hope it will become a reality. This matter was called to the attention of the postal department some time ago. It was brought to my attention first by a letter from the municipal clerk of the corporation of the village of Hope, dated July 31, 1954. The letter states:
Dear Sir:
The Hope village commissioners have instructed me to place before you the matter of a federal *building in Hope, in the near future.
The post office has been rather inadequately housed for years in various rented premises, and is about to be moved again.
The commissioners feel that with Hope's growth the last few years, consideration might be given to a government building. They would like to ask your opinion on this, and your assistance.
Yours truly,
M. G. H. Stuart,
Municipal Clerk.
Upon receipt of that letter, I communicated with the Postmaster General, the late Hon. Alcide Cote, and called this matter to his attention, pointing out that Hope was a very progressive town in the Fraser valley, having shown substantial growth throughout the past number of years, and at the present time has a population of approximately 3,000. New industries are in prospect for this area, and with these additional developments the area certainly will continue to grow at a very rapid rate. In reply 1 was advised that the Postmaster General could not recommend the erection of a building at that particular time because of the fact that arrangements had been made for rented premises, which they found were adequate for the present.
However, I should like to point out again today that Hope is a very progressive community. Certainly I feel that some definite consideration should be given to the erection
Supply-Public Works of a federal building in this locality. At the present time Hope is in need of further government services. Of course, as 1 have indicated, it is in need of additional postal facilities. The present facilities are now not sufficient to take care of the situation.
There is also need for a national employment service office, and this was brought to my attention in the past few weeks. At the present time the persons concerned have to travel a considerable distance to get to the nearest office, which causes considerable delay and inconvenience and entails considerable expense on the part of those who have to make a considerable number of trips to Chilliwack. Such a building could house this particular office and also a veterans affairs office, the closest one being located also at Chilliwack.
There is also the suggestion that they could possibly have a fisheries office there. I understand that previously one was located at Hope but it had been closed. At the present time the meteorological office is housed in very small rented premises in the village of Hope. Therefore I suggest that these conditions warrant the erection of a federal building. On behalf of the people of that community I would ask the minister and the government to give consideration to this matter, with a view to bringing in something along those lines, at least by the time the next estimates are introduced in the house.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster about the building there. The contract that is under way now is for the construction of the first portion of the work, that is, the building of a portion of the whole project which is on the property we acquired from the city. When that is finished the occupants of the present portion of the building will move into the new building, and the old building will be renovated.


Mr. Regier:: I have long waited for this item of the estimates to come before this house. I was very pleased last fall to receive from the department an invitation to attend the laying of the cornerstone of the new so-called $10 million post office in the city of Vancouver. I notice that the city of New Westminster is also getting a new public building. I am not going to criticize that. I think these progressive cities of British Columbia are well worth the investing of substantial sums of money.
However, I should like to call to the minister's attention that this house some time ago had a debate, rather limited because of the application of the rules of this house, in which by means of a resolution we were asking the federal government to take advantage of

Supply-Public Works every possible opportunity to promote the decentralization of industry. I should like to submit to the minister that the business of the federal government is the greatest business that now exists in the Dominion of Canada. Before this government attempts too strongly to advise industry to decentralize, it should do some decentralizing of its own enterprises throughout the country.
What I have reference to is the tendency to consolidate and establish huge centralized sections of various departments of government in some of the major cities. I could speak for hours on the subject of the evil effects such a policy will have. However, I am going to limit myself to making only a few remarks on it.
Whilst I am glad that a city the size of New Westminster, with a population of some 30,000, is getting a new public building, I should like to ask the minister when the 78,000 people in Burnaby will be considered a large enough population to deserve a public building. It has been asked for on a number of occasions. Just before the 1953 election there was an item in the estimates for that purpose. I do not know whether or not that was only to enable the Liberal candidate to win re-election to this house. However, since the election it is to be noted that that item has disappeared from the estimates, and I would very much like the minister to give us a little information on what progress, if any, is being made. I do not complain at all-


Tom Goode: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman has created some suspicion in this house that an amount was put in the public works estimates to allow me to be re-elected in Burnaby-Richmond. I hope he will assure the house that the impression I got was not correct.


Erhart Regier: I noted the hon. member entering the house while I was speaking. I do not think he followed my argument completely. I was asking the minister for information as to why this item for a public building for Burnaby was in the estimates in that election year and has since been taken out of the estimates. It has not been revoted, and I have seen little headway being made since that time in putting up a public building in Burnaby.
I know the minister takes the attitude that he will not put up a public building unless he is asked to do so by some particular minister on behalf of some particular department of government. In other words, if the Postmaster General would ask him to put up a public building in Burnaby he would do so. However, I feel he should also know the utter IMr. Begier.]
chaos that has existed for several years now in the Post Office Department, and the Postmaster General is not yet well enough acclimatized to his new responsibilities to know whether or not a place such as Burnaby is actually in need of a post office building.
The people there resent the discrimination. They do not like all these things centred in the major cities surrounding them. I know that public buildings have been erected in some relatively minor places. I believe White Rock and Cloverdale have new public buildings. I noted that the hon. member for Fraser Valley put in a plea for a public building at Hope. In addition to the 78,000 people in Burnaby who want a federal public building erected, there are also some 4,000 people in the city of Port Moody who are in need of a public building. Recently the people of Port Coquitlam put forth considerable effort to get a public building. The city council there, with the support of various ratepayer organizations and the board of trade, asked for the erection of a public building to accommodate not only the post office but other departments of government as well.
They feel that these departments should be decentralized. There is not much personal contact between unemployed men and the officer placing men in employment if the men are lined up for several blocks before they reach the official. We believe that if more unemployment offices were set up throughout the country more efficient service would be rendered to the unemployed, because the officers in smaller offices would be in much closer touch with the needs of employers in the area and would have a much more personal knowledge of the particular occupations that the unemployed would be able to fill.
I have not done so before, but at this time I should like to make a plea to the minister to consider seriously the problem of when is the time to award public buildings to rapidly growing suburban areas in the fast developing regions of Canada. I have attempted to find out from various officials in the minister's department exactly what are the conditions under which a public building will be agreed to by the department. I find there is no set or fixed rule. Each case is decided on its own merits, and when you attempt to find out what the merits are that warrant a public building you run up against a wall. You cannot find out. You think maybe if there is a Liberal member for the district that will help bring about the erection of a public building.
I can assure the minister that I found that was not the case even before he became minister. The people of my riding elected a Liberal member in the year 1940 and then

re-elected him in 1945. He is now Minister of Fisheries. In 1949 they elected the hon. gentleman who is now the member for Burnaby-Richmond in what used to be his riding. Yet after all these years the needs of the people have not been met. Therefore it is obvious that party patronage is not the deciding factor, and I should like to compliment the department on that fact. The people back home felt that electing a Liberal for all those years did not get them a public building, so why should they not vote for something else for a change.
I hope the minister can give us some indication of exactly what is the deciding factor with respect to when a community can obtain a public building. Is it only on the basis of a request from some other department of government, or are there any other factors that I have not yet been able to discover? When places like White Rock and Cloverdale are provided with public buildings, when I hear a plea made for a public building for a relatively small city such as Hope-and I am sure the hon. member for Fraser Valley feels keenly that Hope should have a public building-I should like to know under what conditions some 78,000 people can expect to obtain a public building.


Mr. MacLean:: I should like to revert briefly to item 353 in order to take this opportunity to ask the minister to report briefly on the progress made in the construction of the federal building in Charlottetown and when it is expected it will be ready for occupation.


Robert Henry Winters: At the end of March 81 per cent of the building had been completed and paid for. The target date for completion is September 27, 1956.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could I ask the minister about the item of $100,000 for Saint John? I presume that is for the new customs building. Would the minister say what progress is being made?


Robert Henry Winters: I can only tell my hon. friend that the plans for the building are proceeding very well. We have an estimated date by which we hope to be able to call for tenders. That is around the latter part of this year. I have November of this year as the target date. I would not want the hon. member to feel I was binding myself to that date because there are too many variables between now and then, but we are hoping to go to tender somewhere around the end of the present year.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate the statement of the minister and I should like to express my thoughts with respect to the replacement of
Supply-Public Works the old building. I used all the adjectives I could use in the last two years but once again I urge all haste in replacing the old building. During the Easter holidays I took my life in my hands and walked around the old building in Saint John. While half of it is roped off, it is a danger and an eyesore to the whole community. One of the gentlemen there at the time pointed out to me a piece of the ledge that had fallen off the building and had just missed the arm of the collector of customs by two or three feet. Therefore it is not only an eyesore but we may be losing valuable civil servants if something is not done.


Tom Goode: I hesitate to enter the debate twice in one day, but I think an explanation is due the house with regard to the amount of $75,000, of which the present minister knows nothing. That was done under the former minister, and I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam should be straightened out on the matter. He is quite right in saying that $75,000 was put in the estimates. That was the amount arranged to purchase certain properties in the southern part of Burnaby close to his present boundary, and the money was to be spent to buy the land for a federal building. As soon as these people found out that the federal government was going to purchase the property the price went up overnight to $160,000. I suggested to the minister at that time that the purchase not be made and the amount was taken out of the estimates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister two questions under this item, which I understand has to do with British Columbia public buildings. Can he inform the house when he expects the public building at Trail to be completed, and also the public building at Castlegar?


Robert Henry Winters: The target date for the completion of the building at Trail is March of 1957. The target date for the completion of the building at Castlegar is in August of this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I could have permission to revert to one of the items which I understand was carried while I was attending the estimates committee?


William Alfred Robinson: Was the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rising on resolution 361?


Erhart Regier: Yes. I should like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond for the information he has given this committee. I still have not had an answer from the minister, and I should like to point out to him we now have a new city hall in a central location in Burnaby and it is a very beautiful
2928	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works building. I should like to ask him if there is any hope of his department purchasing a site in that vicinity within the foreseeable future. Unless he takes action soon he is apt to find that he will be paying many, many times the amount of money for which that site for a future public building could be purchased today. Have we any reason to hope that there will be a reappearance of this item which vanished from the estimates a few years ago?
I was hoping the minister would mention Port Coquitlam, because the department owns some lots there. These lots have been an eyesore for quite a number of years. They are in the centre of the city, and the federal government does hot even keep the place clean. They are used for a garbage dump, and the mayor has often appealed to the federal government to do something about the lots they own, to either put up a public building or sell the lots to someone who would turn them into an asset for the city. I should like an answer as to what we might reasonably expect him to do in Burnaby within the foreseeable future, as well as what his plans are in connection with the lots the department now owns in the city of Port Coquitlam.


Tom Goode: I should like to speak once more in regard to the public building in Burnaby. I support the hon. gentleman in his request. The Minister of Public Works has been in that part of the country. He knows Burnaby and knows there are 75,000 to 80,000 people there now and will be 125,000 before many years have gone by. I share the consternation of my hon. friend when he says he does not understand why we are not receiving recognition. I understand that the Post Office Department will have to requisition this building. We want two offices in the building, one for war veterans allowances and one for unemployment insurance. My hon. friend and I are going to keep calling for this until we get an appropriation in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I had to be in attendance in the estimates committee, so item 358 slipped through while I was there. May I be permitted to ask the minister two questions?


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


Robert Henry Winters: I do not mind the hon. member reverting to the item if he is simply going to ask one or two questions, but I would not like to have a debate opened up on an item that has been passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am in the hands of the committee. The only reason I ask is because I was out in the estimates committee.


Robert Henry Winters: Is it just a matter of asking one or two questions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: All right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us when he expects the new Winnipeg post office building to be completed? My second question is, can the minister assure us there will not be an interruption in employment on this building next winter as there was this past winter?


Robert Henry Winters: The chances are, Mr. Chairman, that the building will be completed before we get fully through another winter construction season. But if that is not the case, then I should like to feel that I can assure my hon. friend there will be no interruptions. I think he knows to what extremes we went to avoid interruption there during this past winter season. In answer to his specific question, we feel that the building will be fully completed and ready for occupancy by February of next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister might take one more question which arises out of that answer. Has any decision yet been made as to what the government intends to do with the old post office building on Portage avenue?


Robert Henry Winters: A final decision has not been made, Mr. Chairman, but we think it will be declared surplus and turned over to the crown assets corporation.
364. Unforeseen improvements, $900,000.


Howard Charles Green: The particulars in connection with this item are given at page 469 of the estimates, and I notice that last year there was a vote of $1 million but the actual expenditure, together with an estimate for the last three months, totalled $350,000. Why is it necessary to put in a figure of $900,000 this year? [DOT] It would seem that there is some excess in that. As I understand it, this is a general item to cover improvements that are not foreseen at the moment. It would appear that this figure of $900,000, even though it is $100,000 less than last year, is in excess of what is required.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I am told we borrowed against that vote from time to time considerably in excess of the $350,000 shown. The vote was very useful in that way. I do not know whether $900,000 will be too much this year. It is a matter of contingencies, and I can assure my hon. friend it has been very useful on occasions.


Howard Charles Green: Then the figure of $900,000 in this vote is, in effect, a fictitious figure? The vote is used by the department for borrowing money for some other purpose entirely?


Robert Henry Winters: It is a matter of protection against unforeseen events, such as storm damage and things of that nature. It is an estimate of what we might require. There is no way of determining with any precision just what will be required. I hope we do not need any of it.


Howard Charles Green: It is past five o'clock anyway, so perhaps the minister could look into that further and let us have a more detailed statement when the estimates are again under discussion.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know what more I can give, but if there is anything more I will give it.
Item stands'.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for the second reading of Bill No. 166, to incorporate the Signature Loan and Finance Company, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, it is nearly three weeks now since I was interrupted in the middle of a sentence by the winged chariot of time, and since I have an aversion to leaving sentences hanging in mid air I would like, with your permission, to finish that sentence.
On looking up Hansard of March 27 I see that I was dealing with a suggestion offered by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) that the objections that were being made to this particular measure were of a type that could be equally well made against such an investment as that in the Aluminum Company of Canada, and I was suggesting that such an analogy was completely false and completely misleading.
Now you may say, sir, that the objections to this bill have been based on the ground that it is a foreign company; but I submit to you the fact that it is a foreign company is merely an aggravation of the situation with which we disagree. To draw an analogy between a foreign investment such as that made by a company like the Aluminum Company, which comes into the productive enterprise of this country and increases the wealth production of the country, and an organization such as is envisaged in this bill, which is coming here merely, as I said earlier, to batten on the misfortunes of the Canadian people, is I think a very misleading thing to do.
Private Bills
I do not think it makes a great deal of difference, sir, whether it is Canadian racketeers or foreign racketeers who get into this particular business, but I do think this house should give serious consideration to the evident state of affairs in this country which provides a happy hunting ground for just such organizations as this, whether they be foreign or native. And rather than providing an opportunity for another organization to profit by the misfortunes of the Canadian people, we should be examining very carefully our responsibilities toward the Canadian people to see why it is there are apparently a growing number of our fellow citizens who are obliged at one time or another to take advantage of the lending facilities of those companies, even at the outrageous interest rates they charge. I suggest, sir, the very fact that those companies are able to operate and find customers within the Canadian community for loans at interest rates of 23 per cent and 24 per cent per annum indicates very clearly that there is something radically wrong in our economy.
It is not so very many years ago, sir, when it was commonly accepted that it was a very serious state of affairs for people to get into the hands of moneylenders. Various pieces of legislation were introduced to attempt to control that situation, and lending institutions had their powers to set interest rates very greatly curbed. But I suggest to you, sir, that the ability of companies still to charge 23 per cent and 24 per cent indicates that we have not gone nearly far enough. I would therefore support wholeheartedly the motion of my colleague from Regina City (Mr. Ellis) that this bill be given the six months' hoist.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the government take a very serious look at the situation in Canada which is apparently enticing those corporations to come into our country to batten, as I say, on the misfortunes of Canadian citizens. It is merely an aggravation that this is a purely foreign company coming here, not, incidentally, to lend foreign funds to Canadian citizens but, if it follows the practice of existing companies in this field, to borrow Canadian money from Canadian banks to lend to Canadian citizens, and to take the profits from those transactions outside this country. Therefore, sir, I support this six months' hoist and very seriously recommend it to hon. members.


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, together with another very similar bill has been discussed by my colleagues on a number of occasions now. I think they are to be commended for bringing this matter forcibly to the attention of the Canadian public. We are not so naive as to think we can outvote the supporters of the government

Private Bills
if they are inclined to support this bill or any other bill in the house, but we have a duty and a privilege to bring to the attention of the public any legislation we feel is tending toward dangerous ground. The number of bills that have appeared this session dealing with finance companies and lending institutions generally, including legislation proposed by the government itself dealing with lending, is really amazing. One begins to wonder just what the end is going to be.
This particular bill is an attempt to incorporate a new finance company. It is interesting in several respects, but to me it is most interesting because of the appearance again as one of the directors of a gentleman by the name of Duncan Kenneth MacTavish. I want it clearly understood sir, that anything I have to say about this gentleman is not meant to be derogatory or critical of him as a person. I have no personal knowledge of this gentleman whatever. All I know is of his connections.
On looking through the various finance bills that have appeared here, and the small loans companies generally, I find that this gentleman appears with monotonous regularity as a director of those companies. One begins to wonder how he has attained this great ubiquity in the finance world in Canada. If one links that up with the fact that he is the president of the national Liberal federation, then one has reason to wonder whether, in addition to the attempt that has been made by various Liberal leaders in this country recently to establish a one-party system in politics, they are not trying to extend that into the economic field.


Mr. Bennett:: Is that not awful?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I heard someone across the way say, "nonsense".


Colin Emerson Bennett: I said, "Is that not awful?"


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I beg your pardon; I thought I heard the word "nonsense". Of course we are so used to hearing "nonsense" from across the way that I was leading up to a reply to it.
There is a danger, a very definite danger, when the president of a political party of nation-wide importance finds himself director, chairman, vice-president, and so forth, of a great plethora of financial institutions in this country. Without saying anything derogatory about this gentleman himself, as I said, I think we should know, this house should know and the country should know, what some of his financial connections are.
I have before me an excerpt taken from the Financial Post. This was in 1955, and may not be right up to date. If he has in the

meantime divested himself of any of these positions, of course that will have to be taken as understood. However, according to this report, Mr. MacTavish is quoted as being connected with the following firms: chairman of the Jubilee Brewery Company.


An hon. Member:: We have heard that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Someone across the way says, "We have heard that". I am putting this on the record because, as a matter of fact, when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) stated some of the business connections of this gentleman, he did not mention the ones I am now mentioning. This is in addition to the list which is already on the record. He is chairman of the Jubilee Brewery Company; president of Bestec (Canada) Limited; president of CKOY Limited; president of W. D. Morris Realty Limited; president of Primco Limited; vicepresident and director of the Holden Manufacturing Company Limited; of Instruments Limited and of the Metcalfe Realty Company Limited; secretary and director of Pitney-Bowes of Canada Limited; member of the executive committee and director of the Southam Company of Canada Limited; director of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the Crown Life Insurance Company, Gatineau Power Company, Ottawa Car and Aircraft Limited, Associated Screen News Limited, and New York Capital Fund of Canada Limited. That is really a good one; New York Capital Fund of Canada Limited. I would like an explanation of that.
He is also a director of Personal Finance Company of Canada, which now seeks to transform itself into the 'Beneficial Finance Company. He is a director, too, of Quality Records Limited, Textile Improvements Limited, Triarch Corporation Limited, British American Bank Note Company Limited, R. L. Crain Limited, Holt Renfrew and Company Limited, Sylvania Electric (Canada) Limited and the Royal Trust Company.
That is a very impressive list of firms with which to be connected. One begins to wonder why it is that this same gentleman is asked to appear as director, chairman or vice-president, etc., of all these different companies. Surely it is not simply because he is capable and efficient. Regardless of how capable and efficient he may be it is not because he could give his personal attention to the direction, in a business sense, of all these different companies with which he is connected; that, of course, would be physically impossible. It makes one wonder whether or not an attempt is being made by means of these interlocking directorships to have a friend in court, to have a gentleman

available who happens to be president of the national Liberal federation of Canada as a sort of insurance.
One can well imagine how very convenient such an arrangement might be. Let us take the operation of the average finance company. What do they need? First of all, of course, they need money, so Mr. MacTavish, as director, can go to the Canadian Bank of Commerce or he can go to the New York Capital Fund of Canada Limited, the Royal Trust Company or the Crown Life Insurance Company in order to ask for funds.
Another thing these companies require and which it seems to me they use to an excessive extent is publicity and advertising. Mr. MacTavish therefore finds himself a director of the Southam Press; very convenient. He is also a director of Associated Screen News Limited.
Perhaps finance companies require good business locations, the most advantageous locations in a city. Mr. MacTavish also happens to be vice-president and director of the Metcalfe Realty Company; also very convenient.
Perhaps at times they might even wish to provide a little music and light entertainment, possibly at the time the national Liberal federation is having a convention in the city of Ottawa. Well, Mr. MacTavish is vice-president and director of Instruments Limited. I suppose that would be very convenient, too. When it comes to refreshments it is perhaps most convenient of all, because Mr. MacTavish is chairman of Jubilee Breweries. He is also a director of Quality Records Limited. In view of this arrangement I think it might be appropriate if the Liberal party were to have a theme song. It might well be the "Beer Barrel Polka", because recent developments indicate that brewery companies are rather closely connected, finance-wise, with the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, and I have no doubt that the same obtains right across Canada.
These are some of the considerations of importance. I think the Canadian public will be well advised to heed the advice that has been given in this house by several of my colleagues, and particularly in an excellent speech given the other day by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-


An hon. Member:: We will be really hard up when we have to go to you fellows for advice.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -when he drew attention to the excellent service that can be provided in the small loans field by the credit union movement in Canada. I think if this government wanted to do something really constructive and useful in the way of providing
Private Bills
cash to people at a reasonable cost it would do something to promote the credit union movement by assisting it in providing the facilities and services it has available.
There is a world of difference between the way the credit union operates and the way these finance companies operate. We now have plenty of figures on record to indicate that even with a very small capitalization, and usually with foreign capital, the finance companies can come into our country, borrow money from the chartered banks and insurance companies with which they are interlocked in their directorships, and then use that money which they get at a low interest rate to lend out at interest rates running as high as 24 per cent. The profit goes back to the shareholders of the companies concerned. A great proportion of it goes back to the United States and performs no service to the Canadian people.
The credit union movement, on the other hand, because it belongs to the members of the society and because it is based on service to the community and is a non-profit organization which is designed to serve the community, operates in a totally different way. The money left in surplus is distributed amongst the people who make use of the facilities in the form of dividends, and by cutting down the final interest rate that keeps the money in the community and helps to build it up. It is the most efficient and human way in which to solve our financial problems.
I think this house would be well advised to turn down this bill and go forward with helping the credit unions develop their facilities for financing.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, although my colleagues have covered a great deal of ground in discussing this legislation there are still a few comments which I feel should be made.
First of all I would like to commend two of the hon. senators for the extremely constructive comments they made while this bill was before the other place. I refer to Senator Croll and Senator Horner. Senator Croll quite correctly drew attention to the fact that the taking over of the small loans field by large United States corporations presents a serious threat to our economy. I am sure all hon. members are agreed that you cannot improve economic conditions for the people in the lower income brackets by encouraging them to divert an increasingly larger percentage of their total income into interest payments to loan sharks. When people are so desperately in need of goods that they feel obliged to pay 26 per cent per annum in order to get the things which they cannot get with their limited resources, they are merely postponing an evil day.

Private Bills
The last annual report of the superintendent of insurance draws to our attention the control exercised by two major United States small loans companies now operating in Canada which do about 85 per cent of the business in this field. The remarkable growth of these two United States companies in the last four or five years is certainly alarming, and we now have another United States company coming into this field. It is indeed disturbing.
I find that this is an extremely profitable field as indicated in the superintendent's report. The small loans companies started out in 1950 with earned surpluses of $3-9 million, and these have gone up to $6-6 million. That is the net surplus, the cream they have been able to skim off the poor Canadians who feel obliged to go to their offices to get further and further into debt and pay interest at the rate of 26 per cent. This has enabled these companies who report to the superintendent to increase their net. The amount of capital stock has likewise increased during that period, and the total assets of these companies, owned and controlled 85 per cent by United States principals, were as follows:
1950		 $ 61,000,000
1951		 79,000,000
1952		 87,000,000
1953		 99,000,000
1954		 111,000,000
The last year for which returns are available is 1954. I submit that this alarming development which has been brought to our attention by the superintendent and also by Senator Croll should give us material for consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member referring to a debate in the other place? If so, I am afraid I did not rise quickly enough to point out that he is not in order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I merely mentioned that this matter did receive critical attention by two senators in the other place. When we consider conditions in the world today, where there are serious economic problems, where usury has developed, I think the extent to which it has developed in Canada poses a very real problem. I was interested In reading a speech delivered by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) in 1949 after he had returned from a trip to China. He described most vividly the poverty he found in that country, and he said that while there he had obtained a much different outlook as to the purpose of Chiang Kai-shek who at that time was considered to be quite a hero. The hon. member pointed out that he had never seen poverty of that nature any place in the world in

which he had been. One reason for the upheaval in China was the fact that interest rates of 26 per cent had climbed to 46 and 50 per cent. When the poor people of any country find themselves in the position where they have to pay such fabulous interest charges it is a matter of national concern.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) referred to a memorandum which the Department of National Defence felt necessary to distribute to troops across the country in connection with this particular problem. The department pointed out that the Bank of Canada had reported that consumer credit had increased from $959 million in June, 1950, to $2,090 million in 1955. This was the total of charge and instalment accounts, loans, purchases of household goods, personal loans and small loans. Those who were responsible for the preparation of this memorandum had made a careful study of the situation and had observed the disturbing effect upon the morale of the troops because of problems that arose when members of the army, air force and navy found themselves in the clutches of these sharks, as they have been described by other hon. members who have spoken. It was pointed out quite accurately that people who were getting $200 a month should not get into debt so they have to pay an interest rate of 26 per cent in order to bridge the difference between what they are getting and what they think they would like to get.
Some of these companies making these fabulous profits have gone to a good deal of expense to insert advertisements in daily newspapers and periodicals which reflect upon the intelligence of hon. members of this house. They have made disparaging remarks about the credit union movement. While I was home at Easter I attended the annual meeting of the credit union of Sturgis. This organization has been kind enough to help me out from time to time when I have been in financial difficulties. The performance of this organization is considerably different from the performance of these large United States corporations which are fleecing poor Canadian people to the extent I have mentioned.
The credit union at Sturgis has been in operation since 1939. They now have a membership of 300. The members deposit their money with the local secretary when they are in funds, and then when credit problems arise the credit committee decides who are worthy to be granted loans. Since this credit union was established they have made loans totalling $414,924. They do not have to charge 26 per cent interest. As a matter of fact, not only do they make loans to their members, they provide insurance so that if the person obtaining a loan has the misfortune

to pass out of the picture before the loan is repaid the debt is written off. By using a small percentage of their net earnings they provide this insurance feature so the families who are left will not have to worry about discharging their debts.
I suggest that we would be better advised to be using some of our resources to encourage organizations of this type which are trying to combat the small loans companies. These companies spent a total of $1 million or more this year to try to convince people that they are their pals, that if they will only come to them they will be able to arrange trips to Florida and so on. Such advertising is misleading. One senator referred to this as being very much like the narcotic drug habit.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We should be concerned about granting further concessions to outside capital to come here and place our people in the position where they must pay 26 per cent interest in order to provide large dividends for men like the president of the national Liberal association and others who live south of the border. Therefore I hope that the six months' hoist which has been proposed by this group will have the support not only of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) who is absent today, but of all members on the other side. I would stress the fact that this is not a political matter, it is a matter of economics.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall vote against this amendment, and I think I had better say just a word as to why. This is a measure asking for the incorporation of a Company under well recognized practice. It is, I am advised, the invariable practice in these cases that these bills go to the banking and commerce committee, where the matter can be discussed. That seems to me to be in accordance with common sense and also in accordance with fairness.
We have been discussing this here in what appears to me a rather one-sided way, with no opportunity for the applicants to state their case. If the matter goes to the banking and commerce committee I think, as I said a moment ago, it will be in accordance with common sense and fairness, because there both sides will be represented. The applicants will be able to come and state their case. Those who are critical will be equally able to state their case. That seems to me as it should be.
In voting against this amendment I do not consider that I am voting in favour of the details of the bill. I consider myself entitled to discuss the matter when it comes before the banking and commerce committee, and
Private Bills
what I am voting for is to send the matter to the banking and commerce committee where, as I say, it can be discussed in what seems to me the proper manner.
Before I sit down I might point out that this matter has been before the other place, which followed the usual practice of allowing those who are making application for incorporation to state their case before the recognized parliamentary tribunal, shall I say, namely the banking and commerce committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very much disappointed to hear the statement by the hon. member for Greenwood as to the position the Conservative party is taking in this regard. I think it should be obvious to all members of this house and to all fair-minded Canadians that an interest rate that amounts to over 26 per cent a year is a disgrace to Canada, that it imposes a tremendous-	,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I rise on a point of order. My understanding is that we are discussing the incorporation of the company, and not at the present time the question of interest rates at all. That may very well come up. There is a bill in which it will come up, but I suggest that what we are discussing now, and the only thing we are discussing now, is a measure to refer the incorporation of this company to the banking and commerce committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course we are not discussing that either. We are discussing whether this bill should be given the six months' hoist, whether or not the bill should be killed. I am suggesting that the bill should be killed, because unless it is this company then will be given the same right that has now been given to other small loan companies, namely to charge an exorbitant and extortionate rate of interest of over 26 per cent a year.
Because we are thoroughly opposed to such a high and burdensome interest rate, and because we feel that this action will likely strengthen the institutions that are charging this exorbitant rate, we in this group have fought against this and other measures and hoped that we would convince members of this house that action should be taken to reduce the interest rates.
Surely we as members of parliament should not take the attitude that has been suggested, that we should give approval to the principle of the bill because that is the fair thing to do, because we can discuss the details in the banking and commerce committee and we can hear both sides, with the suggestion being made that the banking and commerce committee will give very fair and unbiased consideration to the representations

Private Bills
that will be made before it. We know from past experience that the committees of this house have a majority of government members on them.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Is that not proper?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not arguing against that. I am just stating it as a fact. The government has a majority of members on the committee. The government members almost never, if ever, oppose government policy-not Liberal members, anyway.


An hon. Member:: Why should we? That is why we are here.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said a few weeks ago, "Boys, you will have to toe the line." He did not need to say that. They have been toeing the line for years. But he suggested to them that there should be no deviation. There has been ,no deviation, and there probably will be no deviation.


An hon. Member:: What about your own party?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is only fair to say that when this bill goes to the banking and commerce committee, the government members will support it completely. Even if the hon. member for Greenwood or any members of his party decide at that late date that this company should not be incorporated their hands will be tied, because there is nothing they can do in the banking and commerce committee in the face of that kind of situation to change the provisions of this bill.
So I suggest that the Conservative party should have made a stand on this question. Particularly we would like to have seen them supporting the move to prevent further companies from getting into this field to carry on these high rates of interest and, more particularly, a move by the Conservative party to have the interest rates reduced.
The Liberal party is in favour of high interest rates. Even the move they made was a creeping step in the direction of an almost imperceptible reduction in interest rates. The Social Credit members had one speaker, I think, in this whole discussion or perhaps one or two others. They are probably going to vote with us, but there was no will to fight. They did not get in and help us. They just sat it out enjoyed the discussion and said, "We are not going to vote the wrong way. We are not going to be caught voting the wrong way, but we are not going to get in and wage a real scrap to get the interest rates down."
The attitude of the Conservative party, of course, should not be a surprise to anyone. It is precisely the same as the Liberal party,
(Mr. Argue.]
to help big business, to help the wealthy people through small loans companies to continue to fleece the ordinary Canadian.


George Clyde Nowlan: I had not intended to say anything in this debate, but since a reference has been made to the Conservative party and since my hon. friend purports to judge and to look into the mirror and read it, I just wish to say that the Conservative party-and I assume all parties in this house-believe in the rule of law.
As I understand it, the rule of law has been well established in this country for many years, at least on this particular practice, namely that corporations seeking incorporation under a dominion charter, unless they come under the dominion Companies Act, come to this parliament and present their bills. Then they are given an opportunity to be heard, and the machinery set up for that purpose is the banking and commerce committee, to which this bill is going to be referred.
At this late date I certainly do not wish to see here the totalitarian control such as we have seen established in other parts of this world. I do not want to see the House of Commons adopt that practice, decide without trial and without judgment and say, "We condemn you without a hearing." Frankly, with respect, I think a great deal of this discussion about iniquitous interest rates has been completely out of order because we are dealing with the incorporation of one company and not with the general principle of this matter.
When the time comes for us to discuss that matter before the house we shall be prepared to take our stand on it, but we are not going to take the position-or at least I am not going to take it-that when the citizens of this country or any other country come before the parliament of Canada in accordance with the long established practice of the house, which has been in effect for 50 or 75 years, and when they present their bill, we will deal with it without a hearing.
If the attitude of the Conservative party is that these people should receive a hearing in the banking and commerce committee, it is one I am proud of and am prepared to stand by. I know nothing about this bill or the proponents of the bill. The committee may decide on this bill one way or the other. It may be that when it is reported back to the house the members of the house, myself, your party, any hon. member, will decide to take a certain position, but certainly we have not reached the stage in this country yet, and I hope we never will and I do not think we will-certainly if the Conservative party is in power we will not-where men are going to be tried and condemned without a hearing,

without a trial, and when the old established usages and principles which have made this country great and which we have inherited are going to go down the drain.
With all due respect I think it is much better to follow those principles than to have "Daddy Argue" or anyone else taking the child by the hand and saying, "This is not good for you. We know best; we are not going to let you do it." For that reason I am going to vote against the amendment and for the bill.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Conservative party is most revealing. It has been stated now that they will never again vote against the second reading of any bill-


George Clyde Nowlan: If you want to read that into it, go ahead.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: -for fear parliament would become a kangaroo court. I think we might refer to the incidents of last year when the Conservative party took a definite stand with respect to the defence production measure, and when they did get definite results.


Mr. Fulton:: This is a private bill.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think the statement of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) that he knows nothing about the legislation before the house is just as revealing, because we have had a debate on this matter in the private members' hour-


George Clyde Nowlan: I rise on a question of privilege. I did not say I knew nothing about the bill. I said I knew nothing of the proponents or sponsors of the bill, which is quite a different thing.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The fact still remains that we know enough about the functions of these loan companies in the field of supplying credit to the Canadian people that the members of the opposition at any rate should be well aware of the implications of these high interest rates so far as the Canadian public are concerned. If we are to be an effective opposition I think we should do everything within our power to prevent the continuation of this type of legislation.
I just want to say that I am in complete accord with the remarks that have been made by my colleagues in advocating a system of credit utilizing our credit unions which are set up in such a way as to deal fairly with the needs of the Canadian people without putting undue financial pressure on them and without charging the exorbitant rates of interest charged by these loan companies. I too am making one last appeal to those members
Private Bills
of the official opposition who some day want to occupy the seats of government to show some initiative now and support us in our effort to prevent the incorporation of this company.