1956-04-20

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That pursuant to thfe resolution of the house passed Wednesday, April 18, the special committee on research consist of Messrs. Bourget, Brooks, Byrne, Coldwell, Dickey, Forgie, Green, Hahn, Hardie, Harrison, Hosking, Leduc (Verdun), MacLean, Mcllraith, Murphy (Lambton West), Power (St. John's West), Richardson, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stuart (Charlotte), and Weaver.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I answered orally question No. 326 asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) concerning orders in council passed since January 1, 1955. Later on the orders of the day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me whether I could say if any, and if so how many, secret orders in council passed prior to January 1, 1955, are still in effect.
I stated then that I would take the question as notice, because I did not remember that there were any and that I would have a check made. I have had that check made and I wish to say that there are none in effect at the present time. The one I referred to in the house on March 26, 1953, depended for its validity upon the Emergency Powers Act; and when that act expired the order in council ceased to have any force or effect.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: May
I ask a supplementary question? How many orders are there that have not been published and what is the difference between an order in council that is not available for publication and a secret order in council? What is the distinction between them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Orders in council that are published are those that are required to be so published under the Regulations Act. The others are summarized and the summary is tabled, I think it is each
month. If any order that is not published is asked for and is not a secret order, it is available to those who ask for it. The publishing of all the orders in council and all the treasury board minutes would, I believe, be a very voluminous and costly undertaking. I think it was on the hon. member's suggestion that this summary of orders in council was made available, and that has always been made available.
I do not know of any question that has arisen about any order. I explained, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, that there were some orders which we felt, in delicacy to other countries whose affairs were concerned, it was preferable not to make public but arrangements could be made to allow them to be seen confidentially by any hon. member who was interested.


John George Diefenbaker: It was of those I was inquiring. I am not asking for publication of all and I know what the arrangement was. How many are there of those orders in council to which the minister referred at the end of his last statement? How many are there that, because of their delicate nature or because of their relationship with other countries, are not publicly available and are only available confidentially to those members who ask for them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I believe I would have to make a personal examination of the orders to ascertain that. We endeavour to avoid any suggestion that we are trying to keep any orders in council secret, so if any order is asked for and if the officials find it would come within that category, they would probably mention it to me and I would try to make it available if it were at all possible to do so without creating suggestions of discourtesy to other governments.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of his answer to me regarding secret orders in council passed prior to January 1, 1955. I understood from what he said this morning that none of these is still in effect. Can he tell the house what happened to order in council P.C. 3486 of July 4, 1951? That was a secret order in council which I am sure the Prime Minister will recall. Was it repealed, was it spent or what happened to it?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My memory is not sufficiently faithful for me to be able to remember by number an order and what it contained, but I will have a look at it and if the hon. gentleman wishes to have the information as to how it ceased to be in effect, I will try to get it for him.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I promised to answer this week a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The question was as to whether steps will be taken for the continuation of all certifications under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, regardless of changes of union name that may result from the merger of the two congresses. While some aspects of this matter are still under consideration by my department, I can make the following reply.
If all that is involved is a change in name arising out of the merger, and no change in the union entity is involved, it is considered that this matter of a change of name can be dealt with without difficulty under the existing provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act by application of the interested union to the labour relations board for an amendment of the order of certification.
There is, however, a further question which arises as to the status of local unions directly chartered by either of the two labour congresses which have been certified as bargaining agents under our act.
It is planned, I understand, by the new congresses to have new charters issued by the new congress to these congress chartered local unions. The question has been raised as to whether the procedure which the new congress proposes to follow will have the effect of extinguishing the entity of the original union and the establishment of a new union in place thereof, or whether the entity of the old union will be preserved under a new name. This is the point which is still getting consideration.
However, my officials advise me that this matter raises no problem of any consequence under our federal act as there are only 15 of these congress chartered unions which have been certified under the federal legislation. The view of my officials at this time is that this matter is not one which will require legislation, but I will report on this point later.


I should add that this situation raises a larger and more serious problem in the case of some of the provincial boards where many certifications have been issued to such unions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask of the Minister of National Defence or, in his absence, his assistant, a question of which I sent him notice yesterday.
To what extent is the Department of National Defence prepared to contribute to the draining of that unhealthy slough, known as Hudson bay slough, adjoining the R.C.A.F. property outside of Saskatoon?


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliameniary Assisiani to ihe Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say whether the department is prepared to contribute or not but I can say that this matter has been under consideration for a considerable length of time and as yet no decision has been reached.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the parliamentary assistant aware that the existence of that slough is largely owing to the fact that the run-off and the drainage that are coming down are from the R.C.A.F. residential property and the training field?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I was not aware of that fact, Mr. Speaker.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister's officers at Niagara Falls accord every assistance for the return of the 12 residents of Blenheim who appeared on television in New York? Nine of the 12 are landed immigrants. The reason for the request is to ensure that no immigration obstacle will prevent them from returning to be married simultaneously as planned.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since there are 12 people involved here, perhaps I can transgress the ruling that you have made and say that it gave me the greatest possible pleasure to give each one of those individuals a letter signed by myself which I am sure the immigration officer will take account of when they return.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Radio reports this morning indicate that an ore ship has sunk in the St. Clair river and will probably block navigation. Can the minister give the house a report on the incident?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am among the few members of this house who do not listen to the radio in the early morning. I may say I use my time for more profitable purposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What do you have for
breakfast?


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am unable either to confirm or deny the report the hon. member has just mentioned. I shall have to make inquiries about it.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State if he is in a position to tell the house when we may expect to receive the report of the royal commission appointed to inquire into the operation of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act and the Trade Mark and Design Act?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question. I will have to get in touch with Chief Justice Ilsley in order to find out, and then I will be in a position to give the hon. member the information a little later on.



QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ON ORDERS OF THE DAY

['Yes, I have concluded.\nOn motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question arising out of the answer given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill) a moment ago to the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Perhaps my question should be directed to the house leader; I am not sure. I understand there is some prohibition against putting questions to Your Honour, but this is the second time the minister has referred to some rule he alleges Your Honour has established. I was not aware that Your Honour had changed any
Inquiries of the Ministry rules that we have, so may I ask either Your Honour or the house leader what rule it is and whether in fact it has got to the point where rules are being written without the house being aware of it?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of what my colleague said was that he was referring to a ruling you gave on the question of the nature of questions on orders of the day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is quite clear, then, that this matter of the admissibility of questions is to be disposed of in accordance with the rules of the house and not in accordance with the whims of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has no
whims.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour or to the Minister of Transport or to the Prime Minister?


Mr. MacDougall:: Good boy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the government now in a position to assure the house and the country that the government-owned Canadian National Railways will go along with the recommendations made recently by the government-appointed conciliation board?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, Mr. Speaker, since my name was mentioned first I will give my answer to that question. I have received only a brief acknowledgment of the receipt of the report of the conciliation board from the railway management. I have not received from them any other letter or word.


An hon. Member:: No telegrams?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further question of any one of the same three gentlemen? Is there any consultation taking place between the government and the Canadian National Railways regarding this matter so that a strike may be avoided?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I might say for the Department of Transport that the Minister of Transport and the Canadian National Railways are in constant communication on all matters concerning the general good of Canada.

Supply-Public Works SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
364. Unforeseen improvements, $900,000.
The Chairman:: May I advise hon. members that they will find this vote on page 60 of the blue book on estimates and the details commence at page 469.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when the consideration of public works estimates ended on Friday last we were dealing with this particular item, and I pointed out to the minister that while the vote this year is $900,000, the details found at page 469 indicate that during the fiscal year which expired on March 31 the sum of only $350,000 had been spent. I asked why it was necessary to have a vote for the present fiscal year in the amount of $900,000 and in his reply the minister indicated that this particular vote is used for what might be described as a drawing account from which the minister could draw in order to supplement other votes. That seemed to be a rather strange procedure. I am wondering if it would not be possible to cut down this vote for the present year.
I would point out to the committee that the public works estimates contain other votes of a similar nature designed to give the minister a source from which he may draw if there should be unforeseen expenditures required. For example, one such vote is vote No. 391 which reads:
To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $750,000.
It will be noted that that particular vote is $350,000 more than it was last year. With provisions such as that in the estimates for unforeseen contingencies surely there is no need to ask for such a large amount under item 364.


Mr. Winters:: I spoke briefly to this item just before we concluded our study of the estimates last Friday. This vote is required to cover works of a structural nature for which there is no specific appropriation but which cannot be charged to the maintenance votes under the allotment "Repairs and Upkeep'', such as installation of new elevators, ventilating systems, construction of small additions, fire escapes, etc. and major repairs such as strengthening foundations, support walls or floors and construction of roofs. Those are items that cannot be specifically foreseen when the estimates are prepared.


As to whether or not the amount is too large, I think the best evidence I can give is the expenditures in different years which were as follows:
1951-	1952	
$1,180,0001952-	1953	
937,0001953-	1954	
740,0001954-	1955	
897,000
Fortunately we did not have to spend as much last year as in other years, but since this is in the nature of an unforeseen expenditures vote I thought it would be good insurance to carry it in this amount. If experience develops as we go along to show that we do not need it, we shall certainly reduce it because it is not my intention to carry in the estimates items which are not required. Based on past experience and the figures I have quoted, our best estimate was that this amount is required.


Mr. Brooks:: I am just wondering if this unforeseen item might not apply to New Brunswick. Looking over the estimates I find that the amount being allotted in New Brunswick for public construction is one-third of the amount allotted in Newfoundland, less than one-third of what it is in Nova Scotia and only $5,000 more than what it is in the province of Prince Edward Island, which has only one-fifth the population. The same thing was true in 1955-56 and I am wondering why it is that New Brunswick is getting what I might term such poor treatment in the matter of construction and improvement of public buildings over the last number of years.


Robert Henry Winters: As is the case in every
instance, there are different ways of interpreting figures. I could refer to the last column on that same page and cite the fact that the reduction in Nova Scotia is $1,085,000, whereas the reduction in New Brunswick is only $369,000, and ask the question why Nova Scotia is getting such a bad deal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We did not have much to reduce from. That is the reply to that question.


Robert Henry Winters: You have quite a substantial project under development in Gagetown, which is construction of a very large magnitude but not carried in these estimates.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is for all Canada.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think there is any real evidence to support the statement that New Brunswick is getting a bad deal. If the hon. member had been here the other day- perhaps he was-he would have heard me reply to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and tell him that next year we hope to have a fairly large amount in the estimates for a big new building in Saint John.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: May I ask the
minister a question with regard to the item for Unforeseen Improvements? I should like to know whether or not the minister is giving consideration to the erection of penitentiaries in western Canada, as I mentioned the other day, and is he giving consideration to building one of these at Drumheller, Alberta?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for penitentiaries.


Charles Edward Johnston: I indicated the other day some of the advantages Drumheller had over some of the other places.


Robert Henry Winters: I recall the hon. member's
remarks.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I should like to ask a
question pursuant to that raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The question in my mind in regard to this cushion fund, if I may call it that, is this. When extra money is needed in that way, when something unforeseen arises, is it entirely within the rights of the Department of Public Works itself to determine what is to be spent? Does it have to go beyond the department?


Robert Henry Winters: The treasury board.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It goes to the treasury board just as any other item, and is subject to the same scrutiny?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask one other question. I suppose there are ways of getting money when an emergency arises- we have heard of Governor General's warrants and so on-and one does not want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but a million dollars is quite a substantial sum of money. Is the minister satisfied in his own mind that the knowledge that this collateral fund is there does not make it easier for expenditures to slip through than would otherwise be the case?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think so. There is evidence that we try to bring the vote within the limits of what is required. The fact is that it is reduced this year from $1 million to $900,000. If we find we need less next year we shall ask parliament to vote less. I do not think there is any lack of scrutiny because there is a lump sum for unforeseen expenditures. The same regulations are required to be met before it may be spent, as is the case with any other vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What machinery has the government for taking care of cases where it
Supply-Public Works
actually turns out that more money than was needed has been voted? I know that actually less is spent, and it has to be revoted, but I think I might say I have known cases where it was discovered there was going to be a surplus and where there was considerable activity shown in taking steps to spend that money. I suppose, in a way, that simply cannot come in detail to the department, but perhaps my question should be this. To what extent is the department able to review expenditures as they go and to reach a conclusion itself as to whether there is extra money which need not be spent?


Robert Henry Winters: We have quite a rigid regimen of scrutinies. First of all, we have our survey of estimates; then we have the contract awards; and then we have the knowledge as to whether or not the lowest bid is in line with our own estimate. That is the first element of control we have after we call tenders. Then we have our own treasury officers and we have treasury people in the department assigned to us by the Department of Finance. They scrutinize all these matters. Then before they go to treasury board they must come forward for the deputy minister's approval and my own signature, and I endeavour to scrutinize them. The hon. member might be surprised sometimes to see the extent to which we scrutinize these items and the number of times they are turned back for review and, many times, for alterations. Then they go to treasury board. I think my hon. friend has heard it rumoured that treasury board is a fairly tight-fisted body.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have heard exactly the opposite.


Mr. Mclvor:: I have good reason to think that the check-up is thorough. A contractor in Fort William put in a tender for dredging. This man was the lowest tenderer but the deputy minister thought that he was too high. He has not got the contract yet and he is still investigating in order to cut down the contract. There is therefore close scrutiny.


Howard Charles Green: Did I understand the minister to say that if any money was spent under this vote 364 for unforeseen improvements, that expenditure had to be subject to approval of the treasury board in each case. From his answer to the hon. member for Greenwood I take it that is the case. One would think that the department could draw on that fund without going to treasury board particularly as in such items as item 391 there is specific provision made that expenditures are made subject to the approval of treasury board.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: No. We are subject to government contract regulations and the terms of the Financial Administration Act. Amounts above certain limits as spelled out in the government contract regulations and the Financial Administration Act must go to treasury board under this vote, regardless of the way it is specified here in the estimates.


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether this would be the right item under which to speak about the matter I have in mind. It is sometimes hard to determine under which item discussion should take place. I am referring to what might be called an unforeseen development and it is certainly, in the city of Sarnia, not because of the St. Lawrence seaway project. Some dredging had to be done in order for boats to navigate. Is this not the proper item?


Robert Henry Winters: No. It would come under harbours and rivers which we shall come to very shortly. This vote applies to the building construction branch.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I imagine this is the point at which this question might be raised. I have been informed that certain modifications have taken place at Douglas port of entry in the past few days. I could not find it in the estimates for last year and I was just wondering whether the minister could indicate exactly what is being done there and why?


Robert Henry Winters: At what point?


Frederick George Hahn: At Douglas port of entry, just across from Blaine.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I could get some information, if we have any, and give it to the hon. member at another time. I have not that information before me now.


Mr. MacLean:: I have a general question. I think perhaps I can ask it on this item. It is with regard to public buildings generally. What is the policy of the government with regard to the naming of new public buildings after individuals? Has there been any change in policy in this regard? Is it going to be regular policy to name every large public building after some individual?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Surely, that is not a proper question under this item.


Mr. Tustin:: Possibly the minister will recall that last year I brought to his attention the fact that it was necessary to modernize or renovate the post office at Napanee. At that time I understood him to say that he would have a look at that proposal. Whether he has taken a look or not, I am not sure; but I know that nothing has been done to


date. I just want to bring the matter to his attention again. It is necessary that the post office at Napanee should be modernized on the interior. The area around that part of my constituency is developing quickly. I feel that the staff in the post office are doing an excellent job under existing conditions. How they are able to keep pace with the work, under the conditions under which they are obliged to work, is something that is beyond me. I should like to urge again that the minister take a look at the situation. It would not be an expensive job. In this unforeseen improvements vote I think he would have enough money to do it.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that this item of unforeseen expenditures applies to buildings right across Canada, or to buildings outside of Ottawa in any case. I would consider that my question was in order.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I think you are quite right.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I clarify this matter. This is an item of unforeseen expenditures, certainly; and I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Greenwood pursued the matter in an eminently proper manner. I am not certain that an item of this kind gives an opportunity to ask questions about particular public works, although I have allowed some latitude in that respect. I think most hon. members would agree that it does not open up the question of the policy of the department with regard to the naming of buildings or similar matters of policy. Surely in committee we must adhere to the strict rule of relevancy. I feel that I have granted a good deal of latitude on this item.
(Translation) :


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, since we are on item 354, I wonder if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) or his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Bourget) could tell us if any starting date has been set for the construction of the Quebec post office?
(Text):


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, there again I do not think that matter, by any stretch of the imagination, could be discussed under this vote for unforeseen improvements. If the construction of a public building in Quebec were to be discussed in these estimates, it should have been done under item 355 which was passed a week ago.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I just waited until this time because having changed sites which is an improvement for the city of Quebec-


Robert Henry Winters: It is not an unforeseen
improvement.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It -certainly was an improvement because it is exactly what I suggested last year in the month of June and the Department of Public Works agreed only this year, after the city of Quebec and many organizations in our city had asked the minister to do it. Therefore, so long as it is an improvement, I am asking the minister whether the date has been decided for the starting of construction of the post office in Quebec city.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. And I am asking the minister if he will refrain from replying to that question, which certainly should have been asked under the proper item last week.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have a try at this particular item now and see what success I have. "Unforeseen improvements" I am hoping will cover the type of expenditure that is involved in inscriptions on cornerstones or in erecting plaques in public buildings after their completion. I do not see how you could foresee and call for in the tender the erection of a bronze plaque.


Robert Henry Winters: I do think that is backtracking on the vote. After all, there were opportunities under vote 350 which was the general administration item for this branch. There were opportunities under the vote in each province to discuss these matters fully. We had a full discussion last Friday and I do not think it is quite fair to the committee to endeavour to use this vote for general discussion of these items which are really matters of policy.


Mr. Lennard:: Then what about item 366?


Robert Henry Winters: That is harbours and rivers. I should be glad to have any item of policy and general administration on harbours and rivers discussed on that item but I think it is a mistake to go back to an item that has already been carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is an unexpected restriction. I thought the minister was quite pleased to disclose anything with regard to his department.


Robert Henry Winters: I am at the proper time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This would be an unforeseen expenditure after the completion of a public building. It is not restricted to one province but is general across Canada, so on that basis I should like to get some information.
Supply-Public Works


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I can only request the hon. member to read Hansard on Monday and he will find, from the example of his colleagues the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra and the hon. member for Greenwood, the manner in which this item might properly be discussed.


Mr. Small:: This will probably come under the heading of unforeseen expenditures and unforeseen improvements affecting public buildings. It started with the question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough when he was complaining about the viewing galleries erected in post offices. I am asking the Minister of Public Works to review this situation and do something about having them removed. The reason I am asking to have them removed is that there is quite a feeling against having them. This is unforeseen. You could probably run into-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In fairness to other members whom I have interrupted I am afraid I must now interrupt the hon. member for Danforth. The series of questions which hon. members-Will the hon. member please resume his seat? The questions which have been put recently by some hon. members, I think most members will agree, should not by any stretch of the imagination be discussed under this particular vote. I would ask hon. members to adhere strictly to the rule of relevancy by which we are bound.


Robert Hardy Small: Pursuing this remark, and it has some relevancy to it because it may involve litigation in regard to the installation of these galleries. Now, the Minister of Justice-


Robert Henry Winters: This, I submit again, does not come under unforeseen improvements and there is nothing in the hon. member's argument that could properly be considered as concerning an unforeseen improvement. I do not mind considering any of these items at the right time. There is the order paper, there is orders of the day and there were the items considered last Friday. Hon. members have had a good opportunity to consider these matters, and I think it would be a great mistake and would be unfair to all hon. members of the committee to open up a general discussion at this stage.


Robert Hardy Small: I wish the minister would hear me out so that I can explain the matter, and then I will probably agree with him. What I have in mind is this. When certain matters in regard to the Criminal Code were being discussed and the minister was talking particularly about sex deviates, there was a particular clause that came up in regard to peeping Toms, and there was a fine in connection with it.

Supply-Public Works


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must, without any hesitation, rule remarks of this kind out of order on an item of this kind. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Nicholson:: I was going to say that I missed this item last Friday because of an important committee meeting, and if we are going to open up the whole matter I should like to discuss the Saskatchewan portion of the business.


Frederick George Hahn: I was going to suggest, if I may do so, that I could not hear the minister's reply in respect to this item and possibly if he were in a position to restate it-


Mr. Byrne:: Unforeseen.


Frederick George Hahn: Are you answering for the minister?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you very much. If the minister could restate his explanation, perhaps we would be in a better position then to ask our questions properly.


Robert Henry Winters: My explanation was that this vote was required to cover unforeseen items of a structural nature for which there is no specific appropriation, which are not provided for in any other vote and which cannot be taken care of under maintenance votes or under repairs, upkeep and that sort of thing.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Such as a building falling down.


Robert Henry Winters: These things include the installation of new elevators, ventillating systems, the construction of small additions that are not provided for under other votes; major repairs, such as strengthening foundations, support walls or floor reconstruction; things that cannot be foreseen at the time the estimates are made up.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Do you include a change of lot?


Robert Henry Winters: There was nothing unforeseen about that change of lot, as the hon. member well knows.


Mr. Michener:: I suppose the test would be whether the repair or construction was of an emergency nature and could not wait for the estimate in the next year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: In looking over these expenditures we should find they were all of that character, something of immediate urgency and necessity about them, and I take it fairly small in amount. I have been looking at the expenditures under this item as they appear in the public accounts, and just by way of illustration I wonder if the

minister has information on the expenditure on the dominion public building in Toronto, $10,286, which appears on page W-45 of the public accounts. What would the details of that be?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not that before me now but I can get it and give it to the hon. member if that is satisfactory.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the minister, in his definition of unforeseen expenditures, has brought me right within the scope of this particular item because he said it related to additions to buildings that could not be foreseen and on which tenders could not be called. It is precisely that point I was raising, and I was going to suggest to the minister a means of saving money in the future for the people of Canada because I was going to refer to these bronze plaques on public buildings.


Robert Henry Winters: They are not unforeseen.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How could that be foreseen prior to turning over the building erected by the Department of Public Works to, say, the Department of Veterans Affairs or some other department? Will the minister let me know whether all these items are arranged beforehand or do they come in later?
If the minister is not going to answer, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will see that I am in order on this because it is definitely a question of saving money. I should like to know under what circumstances these bronze plaques are attached to public buildings across this country, and on whose authority that is done, whether by the Minister of Public Works or the minister of the department for which the building is erected. I would suggest that a saving of money could be effected in respect of some of these commemorative plaques that are put on buildings. I am hoping that when the public buildings in the city of Winnipeg are completed in the near future some care will be taken with regard to the nature of the plaques that are placed on those buildings, if they are considered necessary. I, for one, do not consider them necessary in public buildings, particularly if they are used for the purpose of putting up the names of ministers and deputy ministers, people who enjoy a little brief authority but do not necessarily need to have their names recorded for the benefit of posterity. If these people deserve recognition in a public way, that could be done in some other manner. In time, perhaps we could erect statues to them on the grounds of the parliament buildings. Why should public money be used to put in large print the names of ministers and deputy ministers? I hope this will not be done in the addition

to the veterans' hospital at Deer Lodge and that it will not be done in the new post office which is being erected in the city of Winnipeg.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am going to
recommend to the hon. member who has just spoken, as I did to hon. members a few minutes ago, the reading of Hansard on Monday, and I am sure he will agree with me that the remarks he has just made-although admittedly he started off somewhat ingeniously to justify his remarks under this item-were not in order under this particular vote. From now on, I am sure hon. members will wish me not to allow the latitude which I have allowed to date but to insist on a strict adherence to the vote itself.


Frederick George Hahn: Can the minister indicate to us how much the repairs to the elevators in this building have cost in the past year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is not an item under "unforeseen", Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Are all the elevators going to break down?


Robert Henry Winters: We provided votes in the estimates of last year for the repair of elevators and the installation of new elevators. The fact of the matter is I have not the detailed information before me because the officials who deal with such matters that have already been discussed and carried are not here this morning.


Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac):: In view of the definition the minister has just given of unforeseen expenditures, will he say if the installation of the television equipment at Peterborough was an unforeseen expenditure at the time the plans were drawn? If not, how does he explain the fact that after the building was erected large alterations had to be made for the installation of television? Why was it not put in at the time the plans were drawn if it was not unforeseen?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In view of the remarks I made a few minutes ago, I must say I do not consider that a proper question under this heading.


George Stanley White: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the minister has already said that these expenditures cover matters that could not be foreseen at the time. In this instance the plans were drawn and there was no provision for television. The building was erected and then at a large expenditure of public money expensive alterations had to be made to install television. Why does that not come under this item of unforeseen? This was something unforeseen.
Supply-Public Works
Can the minister explain why at the time it was not put in and this large expenditure of public money saved?


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I am under a misapprehension. I understood the hon. member to say that this equipment, or whatever it is, had already been installed. Therefore, I did not see how it could possibly come under this vote which, as I understand it, is a vote for unforeseen expenditures in the future. Now, if I am under a misapprehension on that, of course-


George Stanley White: I understand it is being installed or will be installed in the very near future. Perhaps the minister will say whether or not this expenditure in Peterborough comes under this vote?


Robert Henry Winters: It does not come under this vote, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: In the details of this item to be found at page 469 we find that the vote is divided as follows: $300,000 for Ottawa and $600,000 for other than Ottawa. Last year the expenditures under the same vote were $350,000. Can the minister tell us how they were divided as between Ottawa and outside Ottawa?


Robert Henry Winters: For this vote?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: It is divided, Ottawa $300,000; other than Ottawa, $600,000.


Howard Charles Green: No; I am asking for the same information concerning the moneys spent last year.


Robert Henry Winters: The moneys spent?


Howard Charles Green: Last year there was $300,000 allotted to Ottawa and $700,000 outside Ottawa. I would like to know what the actual expenditures were, divided in that same way?


Robert Henry Winters: The figures as at March, 1956, at Ottawa, $99,082; outside of Ottawa, $198,547.


Mr. Regier:: Can the minister explain why he needs this item at all? If we follow the usual custom of having supplementary estimates before March 31 of next year, would not all of these items that he thinks he may need this money for be covered in the supplementary estimates? Could he not very well leave them before the supplementary estimates come before us?


Robert Henry Winters: No. For one thing, the supplementary estimates will be compiled very shortly now, but there will be that period between the time they are compiled and the time we vote moneys in the next fiscal year.

Supply-Public Works
There is quite a gap there, and there is no opportunity of getting funds from any other parliamentary vote.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we cannot get information apparently on this vote for the future it would be quite fair for the minister to give us the expenditures for the past year.


Robert Henry Winters: I did that, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Exton Lennard: In detail?


John Alpheus Charlton: We can see them here, $300,000 for Ottawa and $700,000 for outside Ottawa, but I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that only $350,000 was spent. In the year 1954-55 $878,000 was spent, but there appears to be quite a difference between the $350,000 spent last year and the $900,000 asked for this year. If we cannot get information-and it is obvious that we cannot get information on what is going to be an unforeseen expenditure next year-then it should be our right to get the expenditures that the $350,000, as shown in the estimate, was spent in the previous year.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that is quite a fair question. I have a breakdown. It is quite a long one. If hon. members would like me to read it I shall be glad to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Robert Henry Winters: Here is the list for Ottawa: Archives building, site improvement, $16,573; postal terminal, repairs to masonry, $5,046.07; parliament hill ground, parking area, $5,300; mines and technical surveys, improvement to grounds, $9,200; north of the mall and river front, parking areas, $6,800; parliament building, improvements to plumbing, $12,849; No. 8 temporary building, parking stalls, $6,700; central heating plant, new elevator and penthouse, $6,958.80; central heating plant, renewal of roof, $6,605.40; total of contracts, $75,672.27. Encumbrances issued for amounts under $5,000, $23,410.11, making a total of $99,082.38. Outside of Ottawa: there is a public building at Bonavista, Newfoundland, drainage, $24,988; public building at Bonavista, Newfoundland, landscape development, $12,731; postal terminal, Montreal, Quebec, new built-up pitch and gravel roof, $8,125; marine stores building, Quebec, Quebec, pipe tunnel installations, $11,410; customs, Pigeon River, Ontario, water supply, $12,949.77; customs warehouse, Phillipsburg, Quebec, asphalt paving, $7,977.54; Chown Duilding, Kingston, Ontario, new elevators and alterations, $13,918; customs and immigration, Kingsgate, British Columbia, water supply, $17,424.66; Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, automatic sprinkler system, $15,000; 150 St. Paul street, Montreal, repairs to stone-

work, $16,097. That is the total of the contracts for which that amount was used last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers engineering branch-
365. Branch administration, including district engineers, staffs and related expenses, $2,381,423.
Robert Henry Winters: 
Howard Charles Green: What was the original cost?


Robert Henry Winters: About $150,000.
On February 20 Captain Dale-Johnson was suspended from his duties. On the same date the Department of Transport was requested to carry out a preliminary investigation. This investigation found that the Hilunga was properly manned and equipped at the time of the accident and that even with the wind increased to 50 miles per hour she behaved well. The inquiry found that the stranding was caused by an extraordinary leeward drift due to a wind of gale force acting on the high superstructure. The incident was, in fact, a grim reminder of the rapidity with which weather conditions can change on that part of the coast. In this particular case it took only four or five hours for a quiet, pleasant passage to change to the difficulties of a howling gale in low visibility. The weather experienced was in accordance with warnings issued by the meteorological service but the change took place somewhat sooner than the forecast predicted. The master set his course at a distance from shore which he considered ample to take care of any drift but in this he was mistaken. In the falling snow with radar ineffective in such a sea, the first indication the crew had that she was too near shore came when they felt a bump as though a log had been struck.
The investigation also revealed that this accident was a straight case of an error in judgment on the part of the master of the vessel in deciding to go outside the coastal islands instead of following the long and tortuous inside passage to Prince Rupert and across the eastern shore of the Queen Charlotte islands.
3126	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
In view of this finding the Department of Transport have informed me that they did not consider it necessary to hold a formal and more detailed investigation. They assumed that any disciplinary action which might be taken would be taken by the Department of Public Works. I might add that Captain Dale-Johnson was a man with a good record up until this particular incident. It has been decided that his punishment should consist of a two-month suspension. It is our expectation that the Hilunga will return to service on July 1 of this year.
Now, I think that I might report on the situation with regard to Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. As hon. members know, we have been engaged at the request of the Department of Transport in considering and implementing improvements to this harbour to prepare it for its role under the terms of confederation as the Newfoundland terminus for the Canadian National Railways vessel William Carson.
In this connection the Department of Transport engaged the services of Messrs. Coode and Partners, British consulting engineers, last year. As a result of their report which was made last August 15, coupled with our own judgment, the government decided to implement at once a two-point program. The first of these consisted of the construction of a breakwater approximately 600 feet in length which would extend from Graveyard Point to West Baldwin Rock. A contract for this work was awarded on December 9, 1955 to Tidewater Construction Company Limited, New Glasgow, N.S., at unit prices totalling approximately $186,600. This work is well under way and is approximately 35 per cent completed. It is expected that the breakwater will be finished by July 1.
The second decision was to have the national research council construct and conduct studies on a hydraulic scale model of the harbour at an estimated cost of $70,000. This model will be operated by personnel of the national research council and the Department of Public Works. Our aim in erecting it is to study whether the harbour [DOT]will be satisfactory with the addition of the new breakwater or whether further improvements may be necessary. I can report that a necessary extension to the hydraulic laboratory of the national research council to house this new model has been finished and that the model itself has been completed.
Preliminary studies and the collection of additional information at Port aux Basques itself have also been finished. The final adjustment now has been made to the machine which will simulate waves. It is


estimated that the model tests will start in early May and that some results will be available sometime this summer. Once these studies have been made we will be in a better position to judge the situation with regard to Port aux Basques.


Howard Charles Green: I thank the minister for his
statement on Ripple Rock and the Hilunga, but I am afraid he has not the complete story with regard to the use which has been made by his department of the Hilunga. As I understand it, under the terms of her licence she could be used only within 15 miles of the coast and there was a further restriction that she must not go on a trip which was more than 100 miles from port to port, and in the definition of "port" was included a channel under five miles in width, that is a channel under five miles in width would constitute a port.
Even if that vessel had gone right up opposite the northern tip of the Queen Charlotte islands and then had gone across, the distance from port to port in a trip of that kind would be over 100 miles. Therefore she should not have been sent to the Queen Charlotte islands in winter.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I am told by
the shipping people, that the port to port distance on that trip is over 100 miles. There was absolutely no justification for sending that vessel on that trip even though the skipper was told to go away up many miles beyond the regular route to a point across from the upper end of the Queen Charlotte islands and then down the shore of the Queen Charlotte islands to Skidegate.
The licence permitted this ship to go to the Queen Charlotte islands during the summer, but apparently a year ago this skipper was ordered to go to Skidegate in the winter. He went to one of the minister's officials in the office in Vancouver and complained that the ship did not have a licence to ply in those waters in the winter but he was told to go ahead anyway. He made the trip to the Queen Charlotte islands in the winter a year ago against the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act on instructions from one of his senior officers in Vancouver.


Robert Henry Winters: We have no evidence to support that.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there was evidence to that effect given at the inquiry.


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly from my information that is the case. Then after that incident of a year ago this year he was ordered again

to go to Skidegate in the winter. Having been forced to go a year ago, he went again this year. I think the minister indicated the date on which he left Vancouver and the date on which he was due in Skidegate and if he will check those two dates he will find that the skipper was not given time by his senior officers to go the long way around the northern route to get to Skidegate. The only way he could possibly have got to Skidegate within the time allotted was to do exactly what he did do, that was to try to cut across to the southern tip of the Queen Charlotte islands.
I am not saying that there was anything like criminal negligence on the part of the minister's senior officers in the office at Vancouver, but I think it is sufficient to say that these men do not understand shipping. They are not in the shipping business, they are in the public works business. They do not appreciate how important it is that ships of the dominion government should comply with the law just as carefully as ships of a private company.
They wanted to get this ship up to Skidegate at a certain time. Apparently it had to go there to act as a hotel for men who were doing some surveying in connection with the dredging. In order to do that they just said to the skipper, "You take your ship over to the Queen Charlotte islands." They paid no attention whatever to the fact that it was midwinter and that these seas are particularly dangerous in midwinter.
I am afraid that this practice of not following the shipping laws carefully is all too prevalent in government departments other than the Department of Transport. Other departments have their own vessels and I presume they do not like to be told by the Department of Transport what they should do in certain cases. They like to run their own show in the way in which they think it should be run.
I suggest that the real fault here must rest, not upon the shoulders of the skipper who nearly lost his life when the accident occurred-it was a miracle that he and other members of his crew were not drowned, as I do not think there has been a more spectacular rescue than the one in this particular case-but rather upon the shoulders of the officials in the office of the department in Vancouver. I understand the minister to say that the suspension of the captain has been lifted and he has been put back to work.


Robert Henry Winters: As of today; he was suspended on February 20 for two months.


Howard Charles Green: He has lost his pay for two months and I think under the circumstances
Supply-Public Works
that is unfair. I submit that the master should be given his pay for the two months. Let the minister concentrate on making some changes in his office in Vancouver so that in future public works vessels will comply strictly with the shipping laws of Canada. As a matter of fact, the government's own vessels should be much more careful to comply with these laws than any other vessels. The government vessels should be setting an example instead of trying to get away with things, as was done in this case. There is absolutely no justification for this ship being sent to the Queen Charlotte islands in winter. The minister mentioned, for instance, the inside passage. I think he is confused in that. The inside passage is not between the mainland, of British Columbia and the Queen Charlotte islands.


Robert Henry Winters: I am not confused. I know where it is. I have a map before me.


Howard Charles Green: The inside passage is in the nature of a series of canals right up direct to Prince Rupert. Those canals are well within the mainland. They are not right out on the open ocean; they are well inside. That is the way the passenger vessels go to Prince Rupert. It is a marvellous natural canal route. It is what is known on the west coast as the inside passage. Apparently this little ship was never ordered to go around through the inside passage. The way she had to go was off the main shore, that is, right through the Hecate strait. It is a ridiculous way to send her, in any event, quite apart from the question of going across directly to the Queen Charlotte islands. It is obvious to me that this is a mistake made in the minister's own Vancouver office by landlubbers who do not understand the importance of complying with the shipping laws.
This thing has ended happily as far as lives are concerned, though it has cost the dominion government some $85,000 plus whatever will have to be spent to rent another ship. Although there is that expenditure, there have been no lives lost. I hope that now the minister will see that the captain is given his pay for the whole period and that in addition the minister will instruct his officials, not only on the west coast but in every part of Canada that they may be serving, that they must comply strictly with the shipping laws of Canada. If that is done it is extremely unlikely that any more of the minister's vessels will be involved in an accident of this type.


Robert Henry Winters: There is not much more I need say on this, but there are one or two points. I do not wish to leave the impression that we have many of these accidents; we have

Supply-Public Works
not. We have a great many boats operating, and seldom do we have an accident.
In spite of what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, about the ship being required to operate outside the limits of its waters to get to Skidegate channel, that is not the case. The Department of Transport branch of steamship inspection, have concurred and confirmed that the ship could go from Vancouver to Skidegate and still be well within the limits of the waters in which it has permission to operate.
The fact of the case is that the captain made an error in judgment, which was found in the inquiry. I do not wish to reflect unfairly against the captain. We have decided what the degree of penalty should be. The fact of the matter is that the mistake turned out to be a very costly one. Happily, it did not cost lives, and that is, I think, as the hon. member has said, the result of a most miraculous rescue, but it has cost the taxpayers of this country a considerable amount of money. I agree with him to the extent of saying that we must ensure that every possible step is taken to see that these accidents are avoided. But I did want to state that side of the argument, that this boat could have gone on her assignment and stayed well within the limits of waters in which she had been given authority to operate.


Howard Charles Green: Not in the time limit she was given to get there.


Robert Henry Winters: There was no time limit.


Howard Charles Green: She was told to be there at a certain time.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not the case. The Hilunga was given no time limit to reach her destination. She went there to provide accommodation for the men, as my hon. friend has said, but also because she carried sounding equipment necessary to measure the dredging.
There is also no evidence to support what the hon. member has said about the instructions received from officials of the Department of Public Works in the office in Vancouver, which would seem to leave the impression that the captain was told to do something which was beyond the terms of his orders imposed by his licence. There is nothing in support of that. I think this case has been thoroughly considered, and I believe the penalty imposed is a fair one. The captain up to this time has had a good record of performance, and I see no reason why he cannot continue that good performance in the public service.


Howard Charles Green: The distance from Triple island to Rose Spit at the northern end of the

Queen Charlottes is 22 miles. The distance from Rose Spit to Skidegate is 90 miles. That makes 112 miles, which is over the 100-mile port-to-port limit. That very fact alone indicates that the ship should not have been sent to the Queen Charlotte islands in the winter.
As a matter of practical common sense, I am sure the minister will agree with me that it was ridiculous to expect that the ship should go for that long distance away up to the north and then down around again to the south. Why send her to the Queen Charlotte islands at all when there had to be a trip of that kind undertaken, if there was to be even an attempt at compliance with the Canada Shipping Act? It just did not make sense, and the vessel should never have been ordered to the Queen Charlotte islands anyway. I think the minister, on reflection, will agree with me that that is where the mistake was made. It should not have been sent there. I hope that the minister will give some further consideration to the treatment that has been meted out to the captain, and also that the minister himself will make some inquiries to find out whether this captain did not complain a year ago that his licence did not extend to a trip of that kind.


Mr. Barnett:: While we are on the subject of the Hilunga, there are one or two points I should like to raise in this connection. One thing that occurs to me, as a result in part of the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, is that perhaps it would be desirable that we have either a statement from the Minister of Public Works as such or a general statement in respect to the policy regarding government vessels. It would be appropriate that we have a somewhat clearer statement of policy than the minister gave in his remarks, in regard to the delineation of responsibility as between the master of a vessel and the engineering staff of his department as such.
I have a hearsay impression that in matters respecting the navigation of a vessel the master has an authority which is an overriding one. That is only hearsay knowledge on my part, and it might perhaps be valuable, in view of the case we have before us, that some clear-cut statement as to the actual understanding on that matter by the minister and by the government should be given.
The other point that I had in mind should be raised was in respect to the minister's reference to the meteorological warnings which were available to that vessel. My understanding is that the point of departure from the north end of Vancouver island was Bull harbour. That is the location of one of the stations of the Department of Transport. I am slightly puzzled, in view of the remarks

made by the minister to the effect that there was some warning of a storm in the offing. I believe he made a statement to the effect that the storm arrived a matter of three or four hours more quickly than had been anticipated. This is a matter of some considerable concern not only in this particular instance but in the general matter as to the reliability of the weather forecasting services on the Pacific coast. I made some reference to this matter when the estimates of the Department of Transport were under consideration a while ago. I wonder whether the minister could elaborate a little bit more on just what information the captain of the vessel had with respect to storm or gale warnings, where he obtained them, and as to why, if those forecasts indicated that a storm was in the offing, the vessel did not decide to lay over in Bull harbour rather than setting forth as she did.


Robert Henry Winters: I think the responsibilities of a captain on his own ship are obvious. In the fact that he is in the employ of the Department of Public Works there is nothing that alters his responsibility. Once he leaves port of course he is fully responsible for his operations and the safety of his crew. As to his knowledge of the weather, he received the usual reports by radio. I do not know whether he had anything beyond that. However, it is true that he knew there was a storm in the offing. Had he set his course in the manner that one might think he would, he could have laid over-as the hon. member has said- when the storm was approaching. But the storm came at him at an earlier time than was predicted and sooner than he expected. It came up rapidly.


Mr. Garland:: I should like to get this discussion back from the west coast into Ontario, particularly into the important district of Nipissing. I wish to speak about a matter that is of real importance at home and has been for many years. I refer to the proper control or attempted control of the water level of lake Nipissing and the related problem of the overflow from lake Nipissing into the French river. This problem was partially-solved in 1949 and 1950 by the construction of a spillway that would, in the case of emergency, lower the water level of lake Nipissing, particularly during the spring runoff. A real problem is presented on the lake there. It is a large, shallow lake. A great deal of damage can be done to lakeshore properties if there is high water accompanied by even a strong wind. As I say, the problem has been a real one for the last 40 years.
There are many varying interests around the lake and on the French river. Not all want the same water level maintained. But
Supply-Public Works	.
in the time that I have been the representative of the area I have attempted to bring practically all of the varying interests and factions together in order to try to decide on some common ground upon which all could be agreed. That was done and the matter has been working out fairly successfully since then with the assistance of the engineering branch of this department.
One of the things which the people at home always felt would be helpful would be having on the spot in the area someone who had to do with the control of the water level. That, of course, was not possible until last year when this branch was reorganized and a suboffice was opened in North Bay. That was the office which the minister visited last winter on his visit to our area. Now everything is going along well. I believe the matter has been well handled in the past. However, there is some thought of transferring the control of that lake to another department of government. I would hate to see that sort of thing done. The matter is now under control. It is being well looked after and well managed by the people who have done it all down through the years. If I can get it, I should like to have from the minister the assurance that this situation as it exists now, with the engineering branch looking after that particular area, will continue "as is".


Robert Henry Winters: I can give the hon. member the assurance that the level of the lake will be looked after as well as it is being looked after now. Whether the control will continue to rest in this department or be transferred to the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I am not sure at this stage. Discussions are going on. There is some logic to support a transfer to the water resources branch which looks after such matters on a nation-wide basis. But wherever the ultimate authority rests, I can assure my hon. friend that there will be the same diligence as there is now in looking after the interests of the local citizens. I thank him for bringing this matter to my attention.


John Richard Garland: Having regard to those discussions that are now taking place and those that may take place in the future, I should like the minister to give the most careful consideration before changing a situation that is now obviously satisfactory. That is all I have to say on that matter.
There is another matter that has been of some concern I suppose for the last 40 years also in my district, namely the use-[DOT] and in some cases the improper use-of rivers for the driving of logs in the spring during the spring drive. I should like to ask the

Supply-Public Works
minister what protection, if any, there is for the public against the improper use-let us assume that it is improper-of these rivers for this particular purpose.


Robert Henry Winters: In reply to my friend the hon. member for Nipissing I think I can say that that is a matter that would come under the control of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and there would be the protection provided by that statute. I would need to look into the particular instances of infringement of the statute in order to be able to tell him more specifically just what the nature of the protection is and what can be done to have the citizens observe the terms of the statute. Perhaps if my hon. friend would tell me the specific instances he has in mind, I could deal with the matter a little bit more directly than I am now able to do.


John Richard Garland: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. This is exactly the situation as the minister has outlined it. For the last 40 years various firms have been using the Sturgeon river for floating their logs down into lake Nipissing. At the present time, as in the past, some of the companies are co-operating and doing this in a way that will cause the least inconvenience to the public and to the tourist resort operators along that important river.
Now, sometimes as I say there is cooperation and intelligence used, and sometimes there is not. Sometimes there is a complete disregard for the navigation interests of the river. There always seems to be a problem, and this has continued for 40 years. Members of parliament, the chamber of commerce, the mayors, the town councils, all seem to be running around in circles on this particular problem. Usually, of course, it ends up with a member of parliament who makes representations to the minister. The minister then goes to his engineers and the engineers go out, but by that time either nature or the company concerned has taken care of the problem and so another year goes by.
I should like to know just what teeth there may be in this Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have looked it up this morning and in the interpretation section under "work" we find this:
"Work" includes any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock . . .
And so on. Then it goes on to say that it includes any structure or device, whether similar in character to the foregoing or not, which may interfere with navigation.

Then later on under the heading "General" we find this:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water-
Then it goes on to mention any other thing by which any obstruction or obstacle is caused. Now, it seems to me that is fairly complete. While it is true that this act is the responsibility of another minister, the Minister of Transport-


Robert Henry Winters: That part is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works.


John Richard Garland: Yes, the carrying out of it or permission for construction of those things or the removal of them, that is within your department.
I should like to have this problem solved for the people of my area. It is a very real problem. We are dependent to a great degree on the tourist dollars that are spent in the area. Last year we had a situation where two firms used the river for the purposes I mentioned earlier. One of them did it in a way that was indeed commendable. They avoided week ends, holidays and so on and their logs were moved down the river with the very least inconvenience to the people who were using the river for boating purposes, the transportation of tourist supplies and tourists. In so far as the other firm was concerned the contrary was true. I stepped into the thing, perhaps needlessly or improperly, but I was quite concerned. I hoped that perhaps if we got around a table we could discuss this thing. I got in touch with the officials of the chamber of commerce, the mayor and representatives of the two companies. We had the fullest co-operation promised by the one company that has always co-operated anyway. The other company listened and assured us that the same co-operation would be forthcoming, but that has never transpired.
Now, I do not want to let this continue. I want to approach this problem in an honest way. If we have any responsibility, if there are any teeth in the legislation, I want the provisions of it carried out and the problem settled. There is no point in allowing it to continue for another 40 years. If we have no authority, if we have no jurisdiction, if there are no teeth in the legislation, let us be honest and say so. I would appreciate hearing any comments the minister can make about the problem because it is a needless and annoying one. It arises from the careless disregard of one organization. I do not say that in any unkind sense and I do not know the principals of that organization at all. But if there are any teeth in the legislation it should be implemented so that the tourist

operators and the people who use the Sturgeon river will not have this sort of problem in the future.


Robert Henry Winters: I will examine the circumstances, Mr. Chairman. I am not aware of the details now.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, item 365 of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, dealing with harbours and rivers, gives me an excellent opportunity of again asking the government to be kind enough to undertake, with the least possible delay, works which have been requested long ago by myself in the house on several occasions, as well as by the Quebec municipal council, the Chamber of Commerce and all the important public bodies of the old capital.
I want to refer once again to those two rivers which have been mentioned so often previously in this house, so often in fact that at times it seemed that we could detect their smell, rivers which need to be cleansed and deepened or canalized with the least possible delay and for many reasons. But, Mr. Chairman, even though there would be only one reason, that is to safeguard public health, I believe it would be very important since public health is our most precious asset in Canada.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there is at present and that there has been for some time a conflict of jurisdiction as far as the responsibility for those two rivers, located in the city of Quebec, is concerned. Here in the parliament of the nation, the federal government contends that it is a provincial responsibility, while elsewhere the contrary is upheld. Some people go so far as to say that it is a matter that concerns the municipal authorities. I do not intend to argue that point. However, there seems to be a conflict and nothing seems to have been done to define the jurisdiction in any concrete way. People are still mixed up on the matter, but one thing remains, Mr. Chairman, and that is that the health of the people of Quebec is constantly endangered.
I have often mentioned in the house the foul smells which cover the whole city and constitute a grave danger. I want to emphasize again here that between these two rivers, in the heart of the city of Quebec, the most important playground has been laid out, where underprivileged children, whose parents cannot afford to spend the summer outside the city, can enjoy themselves and where, I readily admit, they are sheltered from the dangers of traffic. But, unquestion-67509-198
Supply-Public Works
ably, they are exposed to perhaps an even greater danger, that of infection from some virus emanating from these open sewers, and which could impair their health for the rest of their lives.
This seems to be a very important point, and I urge the government, on the eve of general elections, to act on a kindly impulse. I do not ask them to settle this whole problem this year or next. However, I do ask them to show their willingness to take the necessary and urgent steps required to put an end to this situation which has existed in the city of Quebec for more than a quarter of a century and which, unfortunately, has never been corrected.
Mr. Chairman, the municipal council of the City of Quebec-this is for the information of the hon. members of this house-has decided, at the end of last month I believe, to spend $350,000 for the diversion and improvement of a part of St. Charles river. There would be no point in trying to conceal the fact that the Quebec municipal authorities are aware of the necessity of such a move, to protect the citizens of Quebec. Needless to say, the city of Quebec surely lacks the means to finance such an undertaking. Where will she get the money? It is not for me to discuss the point but we all know that the city of Quebec is at present in financial difficulties and that this new burden would inevitably fall on the shoulders of the Quebec taxpayers who, I think, are already overtaxed.
As I was saying a moment ago, I wonder if some means could not be found, on the eve of an impending election, to include a substantial vote towards the sanitation and deepening work which appears to be necessary in the case of the St. Charles river, a river which at all events, comes under federal jurisdiction.
I would very much like the city of Quebec to be as attractive as Ottawa is at this time, when we look at the splendid Rideau canal which cuts across this capital city.
The St. Charles and Lairet rivers are little better than sewers, as I have already pointed out. They are a disgrace to the capital of my province. I would hope that serious consideration will be given to correcting this state of affairs, apart altogether from the matter of jurisdiction which, in any case, has not been settled yet.
Should the federal government decide to offer a substantial grant so that this work

Supply-Public Works
could begin-which would be a fine gesture on its part-who knows but that other authorities would not be ready to follow its lead?
The city of Quebec has, on its part, shown a willingness which could properly be called remarkable, and the ratepayers of Quebec would be only too happy, I should think, to welcome such a step on the part of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), and especially of his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Bourget) who probably knows more about this matter, in fact, that anyone here.
It is not a case of blaming anybody in particular for the fact that this situation has not been remedied yet. Let us forget about the past, let us only look to the present and, especially, let us look to the future and the health of our children, especially those of the city of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, having dealt with this matter, I would now like to speak about one which has already been raised in this house two years ago, I believe. It has to do with the award of certain contracts.
Contracts have been awarded to companies of questionable solvency. I have reference in this regard to a contract of close to $500,000 awarded for the widening of the wharf at Riviere du Loup, in the constituency of Temiscouata. Mr. Chairman, let me at once reassure the hon. members sitting opposite; this is no personal attack against anyone in this house. Neither the Minister of Public Works, nor his parliamentary assistant, no more than the present member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent), is to be blamed for that situation. I want to be fair to everyone.
A contract for the widening of the wharf at Riviere du Loup was awarded to a Canadian company, the subsidiary of a British company operating under the name of Marples Ridgway Canada Limited. The work was completed last year. It is not a bad thing that this happened a little before the by-election in that constituency, but that was probably mere coincidence. As I was saying, the work was completed, it was approved by the federal government engineers, and what happened then? Unfortunately, I repeat, unfortunately, on December 3 last, the newly constructed section collapsed by some 15 feet, so that it was necessary to condemn the wharf. Federal government engineers were rushed to the spot and I believe they have been there ever since, if not permanently, at least periodically, to make the soundings
[Mr. Dufresne.l
required to determine how the works could be repaired. However, what is even more unfortunate is that, two days after the collapse of that new part of the wharf, the company which had been awarded the contract, also collapsed in a spectacular bankruptcy amounting to $638,320.61, causing the loss of considerable sums of money all across the country and also in the area concerned, i.e. the Riviere du Loup area.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, before the committee rose at one o'clock, I was saying that the Marples Ridgway Canada Company Limited, which had built

or, at any rate, widened the wharf at Riviere du Loup, collapsed two days after the wharf itself had done so, in a $638,320.61 bankruptcy.
Mr. Chairman, the suggestion I would make today is to recommend to the government that all contracts be at least awarded to responsible firms. Some might say that the department has no knowledge of the solvency of the company which secures a contract. But it seems to me that inquiries should be made to find out if a company being awarded a contract can fulfil it without causing many people, subcontractors and even workers, to lose large amounts of money they cannot afford to lose.
Here we have a situation where the Canadian people, because the government failed to take necessary precautions, will lose close to a million dollars, not to mention the extra work of the engineers who have been making soundings since last fall. And that is not all, for the new construction will probably cost as much as the amount which has already been lost, that is about half a million dollars. Therefore the widening of that wharf will cost a pretty penny, over a million dollars whereas, with a little more foresight, it would probably have been possible to save $500,000.
As I said at the outset, I am not blaming anybody at this time. I am only mentioning these things as I think it is my duty to bring them to the attention of the committee. The same thing happened two years ago, and I remember there was quite a discussion in this house at the time. It seemed somewhat

identical, and I would not like it to occur again, if possible.
In addition to this loss of more than a million dollars incurred by the government, the Department of National Revenue lost a further amount of $6,000 after deductions; the provincial treasury experienced a loss of about $15,000; and what seems to me somewhat difficult to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that the company that went bankrupt two days after the collapse of the widened wharf left a considerable list of creditors. I have the list here. It contains five full pages of people claiming the amount just mentioned. Moreover, what seems to me unaccountable is that, according to my information, last year this company obtained contracts for about a million dollars from the government of Newfoundland, and for many hundred thousand dollars in the province of Ontario. This seems to jibe, for most of the creditors on the list are from Newfoundland and Ontario.
I know some of the people in the Riviere du Loup district, Mr. Chairman, who certainly cannot afford to lose the money due to them. I have been told that the subcontractors have sent in their statements to the department. Unfortunately, I understand the government's policy, and I know that the government has no responsibility as regards subcontractors, but only to the main contractor. However, I am stressing the fact that steps should be taken to ascertain the solvency of companies to which quite imposing contracts are being awarded by the Department of Public Works.
There is also another point upon which I want to draw the attention of this house. The company to which I referred did not start to operate in Canada before November 1951, and its incorporation, according to the information I obtained from the Secretary of State, dates from February, 1954. It is, therefore, obvious that when the company was awarded the contract for a wharf at Riviere du Loup, it was already in financial straits. It shows how important it is for the government to enquire into the solvency of firms to which contracts are awarded.
I hope, for the benefit of the working people of the district, that they will be able to resume work as soon as possible, and that the government will make it' possible for those subcontractors to recover some of their losses.
I have only one more word to add, Mr. Chairman. I see from this year's estimates that a considerable amount of money is being 67509-198$
Supply-Public Works
allotted to Quebec harbour. I feel very happy about it. Quebec harbour is one of the largest, in this country. All the largest trans-Atlantic ships bound for the old country pass through it.
Adequate repairs were long overdue on the wharves along our harbour, as these wharves had become to a certain extent like the rivers I mentioned, a disgrace for the harbour of Quebec, one of the oldest in Canada. I should like the hon. minister, or his parliamentary assistant, to tell me whether repairs are to begin soon, because in some districts of Quebec, particularly the one I represent in: this house, the unemployment situation is rather alarming. I trust also that the horn minister and his parliamentary assistant will accelerate the work being done on those wharves and make sure that repairs are carried out as fast as possible, not only to improve the harbour of Quebec and help the economic situation in my city, but, more important still, to provide necessary jobs for workers badly in need of them.


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer briefly my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) and to congratulate him on the way he has conducted his argument. Frankly, he has been more reasonable this year than in past years. Perhaps he is improving from year to year!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have changed my method to see if it would get better results.


Maurice Bourget: I think that he has proved in this way that he agrees, to a certain extent, with the policy we have followed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I see that my hon. friend seems to try to anticipate the meaning of my words. I never stated, under any circumstances, that I was supporting the government's policy. Besides, it seems to me that the speeches I delivered in this house speak for themselves, and point to the contrary.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, that is not what I meant and, naturally, we don't expect the hon. member for Quebec West to support our policies. However, I wanted to point out that I based my statement on what he said this morning, i.e. that we should put aside the question of "jurisdiction" or responsibility, and set an example. If I remember correctly, when he dealt with the same topics last year, he said the matter was one of federal juris-

Supply-Public Works
diction. That is why I took the liberty of saying that he now seems to accept our point of view.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I would like to set a matter straight. At the beginning of my remarks, while speaking on the matter of jurisdiction, I stated that there did not seem to be unanimity of opinion on this point. However, speaking for myself, I believe that the St. Charles river, which is navigable practically all the way, comes under federal jurisdiction, and I stand my ground.


Maurice Bourget: At any rate, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to discuss this angle during the whole afternoon. But if my hon. friend wishes to revert to the matter of the sanitation of the St. Charles and Lairet rivers, I shall not repeat the arguments we put forth last year in that connection. However, my hon. friend must have noticed, as I have, that even in the city of Quebec there are people who share our point of view in connection with jurisdiction. In fact, my hon. friend must have read the item published in VAction Catholique of March 23 last, entitled "The Problem of the Lairet river". There was some reference in this article to a forum held in Quebec city, where -.the chief topics under discussion were the causes of the contamination of the Lairet river, and its consequences from a sanitation point of view, together with the means that should be taken to remedy the situation. In addition, I wish to draw to his attention an important fact, which shows that we are right; as the outcome of that debate, the conclusion was arrived at that the sanitation of the Lairet river was a municipal responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the people of that district who are forced to put up with those foul smells, but my hon. friend must admit that is not a matter within our jurisdiction. He very well knows, especially since he comes from the province of Quebec, That this subject is quite "touchy" in our part of the country.
Many times, he has charged the federal government with encroaching upon provincial autonomy. Well, I hope that once and for all he will understand that such a situation is not due to a lack of co-operation on the part of the federal government and, I insist on that point, I hope that he will no longer charge the member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent), who is the right hon. Prime Minister of this country, with indifference since,
(Mr. Bourget.]
at all times we have shown our good will by trying to help, as much as possible within our means, in furthering works which were necessary for the improvement of certain conditions not only in the province of Quebec but in the whole country.
As far as the St. Charles river is concerned, my hon. friend says that it is navigable. Even if we admit this, Mr. Chairman, I must say that since my appointment as a parliamentary assistant nearly three years ago, I do not remember any occasion where the department has received requests for improvements there pertaining to navigation. And this is the only field where our jurisdiction extends. I do not believe that my hon. friend for Quebec West could remember any request made to the Department of Public Works for the improvement of navigation on St. Charles river. Well, I hope he will stop blaming us. I can understand his request but I urge him to send it to the proper authorities.
It is not for me to decide whether it is the city of Quebec or the province which has jurisdiction in this field but I know very well that the question is not our responsibility. I therefore do not see why the hon. member insists on bringing up this problem even when the people concerned recognize that the question comes within the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Does the parliamentary
assistant share the opinion that the matter comes within municipal jurisdiction?


Maurice Bourget: As I was saying just now, it is not for me to say who is responsible, whether it is the city or the province. These are sanitation works which come under the jurisdiction of municipal or provincial authorities, but not under that of the federal government. I am also convinced that my hon. friend would be among the first to disapprove if we undertook works which do not come under our jurisdiction.
The situation seems clear to me. I do not know if I am putting it clearly, but in my own mind, at any rate, everything seems quite clear. As recently as yesterday evening, my hon. friend abstained from voting on second reading of the bill amending the Trans-Canada Highway Act. Why? I hope that he will not insist on that point. About the St. Charles and Lairet rivers we are in no position to do anything at this time. While I am no constitutional expert, I fail to see

that the federal government has any responsibility whatever in this matter. I hope therefore the question will be considered settled once and for all.
My hon. friend also spoke about-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the parliamentary assistant allow me a question?


Maurice Bourget: Of course.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have no intention of dealing with the constitutional question, but may I be allowed to offer a suggestion?
The federal government often makes grants here and there, to the city of Ottawa, for instance. I wonder whether it would not be possible to do as much for the city of Quebec, in consideration of the large amount of tax-exempt federal property to be found there?
Moreover, the federal government could specify that the amounts so granted should be used for the deepening, not the sanitation, of the St. Charles river. The question of sanitation concerns the Lairet river, but the matter of deepening concerns the St. Charles river. If the St. Charles river were deepened, though it may not please my hon. friend, it could remain navigable as it once was, on its whole length, as my hon. friend well knows who is perfectly familiar with its history. Some years ago, the St. Charles river was navigable but is no longer so because it was completely neglected, nobody knows why.


Mr. Boisvert:: That is not a question, it is a speech.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am here to make suggestions. If it annoys the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), it is of interest to the city of Quebec, his home town. Anyway, he could busy himself with something else. However, my concern is with the city of Quebec.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Quebec West wishes to offer suggestions or to request grants, I do not think he is now appealing to the proper department. He could make his suggestions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) when his estimates are taken up. As far as our department is concerned, I do not think that we could grant subsidies to the city of Quebec for such works. However, I do not object to taking the matter up with the minister after consideration of the estimates, but I do not believe we could grant such subsidies.
Supply-Public Works
My hon. friend also dealt with another matter, i.e. the contract awarded the Marples Ridgway company for the Riviere du Loup wharf.
Well, my hon. friend knows that in every case when we award a contract we do it by open tender and that the contract is awarded to the company with the lowest tender.
In the case of the Riviere du Loup wharf, the contract was awarded in 1954 to the Marples Ridgway Company Limited. I think I am safe in saying to my hon. friend that all necessary precautions were taken before the contract was awarded, both from the point of view of the financial responsibility of the company and that of its technical ability to do the job. Moreover the minister was telling me a moment ago that Marples Ridgway Limited had previously done some jobs to the satisfaction of the department. It is only after these precautions had been taken that the contract was awarded in 1954, to the amount of $295,253.
On December 2 the foundations collapsed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Was there not another
amount later on?


Maurice Bourget: No.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The following year?


Maurice Bourget: I am told there was not.
On December 2 the foundations collapsed on an average depth of 4 feet, not 12 or 15 feet as my hon. friend has indicated. According to the reports which came to the department, the collapse occurred on an average depth of 4 feet-it may have been more at certain points but the average was 4 feet. On December 5 the company went bankrupt. Works and payments were stopped then.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The work was not completed at that time?


Maurice Bourget: No. I wish to point out to my hon. friend that the work was not completed at that time. While the total amount of the contract was 295 thousand and a few hundred dollars, as provided in the original contract, the value of the work carried out by the time it was stopped aggregated $240,375.26. So far, the company has received in payment the sum of $196,021.92. There is therefore a balance of $44,353.34 still due for work carried out by the company. Moreover, there is a retention of $21,545.13 on this payment, and we have also kept the security deposit furnished with the tender.

Supply-Public Works which amounted to $27,500. Therefore we still have a total of $93,398.45 for paying the creditors and completing the work.
We are just now investigating the cause of this collapse, and, at the same time, considering how we should go about completing the project. As I have been told this morning, we also are considering the claims submitted to the department. The claims received to this day amount to $19,562.05.
I now want to tell my hon. friend that it is not only because of the contract carried out at Riviere du Loup that the company went into bankruptcy, but following its operations throughout the country.
Now I do not think it could be said today that anybody lost any money, because, as I have stated before, claims are now being investigated and, moreover, we have in hand an amount of $93,398.46.
I hope I have given my hon. friend all the information he needs on the question that was discussed this morning.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Will you allow me a question? With regard to those nineteen thousand and a few hundred dollars-


Maurice Bourget: Would my hon. friend allow me to clear up a point. About the Newfoundland contract, I must tell him that it is not under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department or, indeed, of the federal government-I mean the contract that Marples Ridgway Limited had in Newfoundland.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is all right, and I want to draw to the attention of my hon. friend that I had not specified that it was a federal government contract. Would my hon. friend ;ell me if a decision has been reached with respect to the vote of $19,562.05 which we are now considering? I have not been told if such a decision has been reached. Have the subcontractors who claim this amount any hope of being paid to that extent?


Maurice Bourget: As I said before, the claims we now have under consideration amount to $19,562.05.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Have the claims been paid?


Maurice Bourget: No final decision has been reached yet in this respect.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works will recognize that with a $638,000 bankruptcy, even if the government holds $93,000 to pay the creditors, it does not represent much in the dollar for those who have to take a loss.
[Mr. Bourget.1


Maurice Bourget: I wish to submit to my hon. friend that this is not the fault of the Department of Public Works.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I do not blame the federal government. I only recommend that additional measures be applied, apart from those mentioned by my hon. friend, in order to prevent the renewal of such deplorable actions.
(Text):


Mr. Herridge:: I crave the minister's attention for a microscopic portion of time as compared with the previous speakers. I rise only because the minister has maintained a quaker-like silence with respect to my representations under the first item. I wish to bring to his attention again the fact that there was a considerable staff in the Nelson district years ago and that in recent years the department has been satisfied with a clerk of works. Now there are current rumours that the office in Nelson is going to be disposed of.
I have been asked by representative organizations and people to point out that there is a greater need now for the maintenance of the office in Nelson than at any time in the riding's history, owing to the large industrial and other developments. I do urge that before any action is taken in this direction the minister have the question thoroughly reviewed and the situation understood.


Robert Henry Winters: I can answer that right now. The district office at Nelson was closed in 1923 or 1924. All of British Columbia is looked after through the Vancouver district office. We have a maintenance supervisor residing at Nelson and reporting to the district engineer at Vancouver, and there has been no suggestion that this office be closed, in so far as the maintenance supervisor is concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased to hear that, because it is more than ever necessary that the department have a representative on the grounds in the district.
Now I should like to know the minister's reaction to my proposal that the department would loan its dredge and give some advice as to where to locate the wharf at Brooklyn, and what it would be willing to do with respect to a community effort to construct this wharf.
I am going to consolidate my few remarks in order to save the time of the house. I

want to say a word or two about the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I understand this act has been on the statute books for many years and that there are two departments that have responsibility for administering the act: the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. Judging, from my experience and observations in recent years, the act needs a thorough overhauling because changed circumstances and developments have created new problems. I find on some occasions there is some doubt as to the jurisdiction of the various departments.
I understand that the Department of Public Works builds the wharves and then hands them over to the Department of Transport to administer them; but under certain circumstances such as those existing in a number of places in my constituency I do not think the present procedures are satisfactory. That is why I suggest that there should be an overhauling of the act. I know it is not possible for the Department of Transport to have sufficient representatives to oversee the damage to all wharves at all times. On that account there are violations of the law, and sometimes there is damage to wharves that is not reported for some time. I can think of wharves at the present time as to which, if the damage had been reported as soon as it occurred, the cost of repair would have been considerably lessened.
That is why I suggest there should be some change in procedure. I suggest that in isolated districts it would be wise to make some provision for the R.C.M.P. to supervise and keep an eye on wharves and public facilities of that sort, and that in other more isolated districts it might be wise to get the postmaster to report to the Department of Transport. I think that sort of thing is required.
I have one other suggestion to make with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. From my personal observation the section of the act that has to do with pollution of navigable waters by sawdust, slabs and things of that sort has not been enforced throughout the years. That was not a serious problem when we had only a small amount of industry in the district, but I think those sections of the act should now be enforced. Even in recent years I have seen large areas of our lakes covered with a coating of sawdust that has been dumped in the lake by sawmills; and in recent years I have seen large areas of the lake covered with slabs which are a hazard to navigation, particularly to small boats.
Supply-Public Works
I suggest that some consideration should be given to co-operating with the provincial game department of British Columbia. The provincial game department have tried their best throughout the years to enforce the provincial laws having to do with the pollution of waters, particularly pollution by sawdust, slabs and things of that sort. So far as the Department of Transport is concerned, I think it has been completely dormant. With the great increase in industry and therefore the greater damage that might be done to our fish and the greater hazard to navigation, particularly to small boats, I suggest that this section of the Navigable Waters Protection Act should possibly be revised and that arrangements should be made to see that it is enforced to the public good and common advantage.


Mr. Enfield:: While we are on this item 365 relating to the general administration of harbours across the nation, there are a few remarks I should like to make about the policy of administering the expenditure of money in a particular area, namely in the Toronto harbour area. In talking of the Toronto harbour commission and about harbours generally I realize that there is a certain amount of overlapping as between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. What I have to say will, I think, be of interest to the minister, and perhaps the suggestions I have to make may in time bear some fruit.
We have in the city of Toronto a harbour commission which administers the expenditure of money from the department. I think this year we have some $300,000 in the estimates for the Toronto harbour commission. It is composed of five members, one of whom is appointed by the federal government. The Toronto harbour commission has, as I say, responsibility for the works in the Toronto harbour, but they are strictly confined to Toronto city. As all hon. members know, we now have superimposed over the whole of Toronto metropolitan area an organization known as the metropolitan Toronto corporation. Its responsibilities cover all aspects of existence and life in the metropolitan Toronto area, including transport and allied matters. At the same time the Toronto harbour commission which administers the funds provided by the Department of Public Works still has within its jurisdiction only the now narrow confines of the city proper, the old city of Toronto.

Supply-Public Works
The area, as we know, contains about 1-| million people-that is the metropolitan area -and it has a vast potential in so far as its extension and expansion is concerned. The lake front, for example, of the metropolitan area is some 28 miles in length, only a small part of which covers the actual city of Toronto area. It has been my view for some time now that the harbour commission's power should be extended to cover the whole 28 miles of lake frontage. In other words I feel that we should have a metropolitan Toronto harbours commission.
My reasons are as follows. First, we can expect a great increase and development in the use of the metropolitan Toronto lake front. I know the expansion we expect through the St. Lawrence seaway will not have a terrific impact on all 28 miles of lake front, but my point is that if we are going to develop that harbour properly, if we are going to take full advantage of any expansion that might come about, then the Toronto harbour commission should at least have jurisdiction to look at and examine the whole 28 miles of lake front area-because there is no telling just what might be done best to develop that area-rather than be confined merely to the narrow city bounds.
For example, we have heard many rumours -whether or not there is anything in them I do not know-that the area around Port Union which happens to lie in my constituency provides somewhat better natural harbour facilities than does the city of Toronto harbour. It might well be that the Toronto harbour commission should be looking at that as an alternative to spending more money on developing to a greater extent the harbour that we have at present. In my opinion, Toronto harbour is not a particularly good natural harbour.
There are other navigational difficulties which face the Department of Public Works and which dictate a broader scope for the harbour commission. That is my second point. I am thinking of the dredging work they carry on. A great part of this $300,000 which we will see later in the estimates is for dredging work that has to be carried out annually in the Toronto harbour. Each year silt is deposited in a particular part of the harbour called the eastern gap, which is an important entrance to the harbour. That requires the constant expenditure of money to keep it clear for shipping. I remember that Professor Griffiths Taylor, a rather famous geographer at the University of Toronto, had a favourite theory based on what

I think were good grounds, namely that the silt that plugged up the eastern gap was carved by the lake currents from Scarborough Bluffs.
You will see now, Mr. Chairman, that I am getting down to a rather selfish part of my representation. It can easily be argued, Mr. Chairman, that the silt from Scarborough Bluffs which is taken by those currents and dropped off in eastern gap, thus creating a difficult situation in Scarborough, is part and parcel of the same problem. We in Scarborough have been making representations for many years now to the effect that the federal government should assist in doing something to help stop the erosion of Scarborough Bluffs, and at great risk I again raise the question in this connection.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Scarborough Bluffs all went into the lake last year.


Frank A. Enfield: One hon. member says that Scarborough Bluffs all went into the lake last year. May I say that there is one Scarborough bluff left over, in any event, and I am here endeavouring to do my best to explain the problem to the house.


John Borden Hamilton: There are quite a few other bluffs around.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not all wet yet.


Frank A. Enfield: Up until now our representation has fallen on deaf ears as far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, and perhaps rightly so. They look upon it as a local matter affecting private property in the province. I believe, however, that on my explanation, we can find good legal grounds for bringing it within the jurisdiction of the federal government by relating it to the expense of maintaining the harbour of the city of Toronto.
I believe there are several spheres of activity of the Department of Public Works, for example along the St. Lawrence river, where they built retaining walls to stop the banks from caving in, which would justify my submission. The department justifies this work on the basis of assistance to navigation and the fact it is necessary to maintain good navigational conditions in the river. I believe that on that basis we can make a good case to bring the problem of Scarborough bluffs also within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is that point I want to make for the minister's consideration.
There has been some concrete work done on this problem. The residents, in cooperation with the township of Scarborough, have built what they call groynes which extend out into the water and help stabilize the shore line. The groynes go out some 50

to 60 feet into the water and are about one and a half feet wide at the top, in the shape of an inverted T. They are not very expensive. I think the cost of installing one groyne is approximately $6,000. Actually, if we had about 10 or 15 groynes constructed at the present time, it would go a long way towards assisting in this present problem, the problem being that houses along the bluff are falling into the lake as a result of the constant erosion that is taking place.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that outlines the problem as far as I can at this time. I think it would be interesting to hear from the metropolitan Toronto corporation itself as to its attitude towards the extension of the Toronto harbour commission to cover the whole of the metropolitan area. I believe it is as certain as I am standing here that if we do not look ahead and take cognizance of the problem that will arise in the future development of this area, and take steps to organize and prepare for it now in an effort to take full advantage of the potential development, we are going to regret it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I can understand, after hearing arguments from all sides of the house, that the minister must be a no man as well as a yes man. What I have to say in connection with this item 365 concerns an administrative problem of which the minister is aware but I think we should put it on the record because there have been other arguments made respecting proposed changes in the act. I am none too familiar with the act but I know the minister and his departmental officials are familiar with it so I am just going to relate the circumstances which I believe justify my suggestion that the act should be revised, and without delay if I may be so bold as to say that.
I believe the minister knows what I have in mind so I shall be as brief as I can. Within about 10 miles of Sarnia, in fact near my own place, Mr. Chairman, we have what is really a river. In the summer it plugs up with about five or six feet of sand. Going back a few years the departmental engineer in London had pictures taken of the mouth of the river showing the quantity of sand which prevented the flow of the water into the lake. This resulted in the water backing up and flooding the land. As a matter of fact at that particular time it was necessary for the farmers who grew sugar beets to ship by rail instead of by truck because of the nematode disease. The truck method of shipment would be apt to spread the nematodes to other areas. I quite appreciate the minister's attitude because, after all is said and done, he must interpret the act as it is 67509-199
Supply-Public Works
drawn, with all its various amendments, and for that reason I am suggesting a change.
Some time last year the township council started a project of building groynes on either side of this river projecting into the lake in order to stop erosion and make a harbour for fishing boats and other craft, including tourist boats. I might say that never before in this house have I asked for one penny that was not for a self-liquidating project.
I do not think it is fair for any member in the house to ask that money be spent here and there, because after all it is the taxpayers' money. If the time comes when the labour situation becomes worse, I know there will be a flood of public works by the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government in an endeavour to take up the slack.
Now, this would be a self-liquidating project. As I understand it, the act does not authorize the minister to give the council a permit because they have already started this project by installing groynes which are too short. They do not go out into the lake far enough to give protection to the boats. Inasmuch as the council has already started the work, I understand from the minister that he cannot give a permit to complete the work. I think, as I have explained to the minister, the council would like a permit in order to get some financial assistance. I am going to be frank about that. Without a permit they cannot get it. If the act is so rigid, and so ancient there is no leeway in a matter that does not involve a principle to any great extent and which would afford a great deal of relief to those people who live along the shore, including the fishermen, then I hope the minister's advisers will consider an immediate revision of the act. In the past people who have started such projects have somehow or other obtained permits. In many cases they did not even get permits, but if they wanted to get provincial assistance I think it was necessary for them to get a federal permit and comply with the act.
Now this Navigable Waters Protection Act is a federal matter, and we are concerned about it. We are concerned that the procedure be legal. There are other groynes along the lake. If the project could be completed it would afford the fishermen along there a measure of protection. God knows they are hard enough up today owing to the lamprey menace. If the project could be completed some of the fishermen could find refuge in this particular area for their fishing craft. That in itself is something worth while.
With respect to the other matter I mentioned a minute ago, we are not very far from

Supply-Public Works
Detroit. As I said earlier, it would be a self-liquidating project. I can safely say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to hon. members, that if we could get a permit it would afford many people from Detroit the opportunity to anchor their boats or yachts, as the case may be, and provide us with a considerable amount of United States dollars. As hon. members know, our tourist business has not been too bright in Canada. It has been rather one-sided. I am not going to deal with it because it does not come under this particular item. I simply mention it because, as I said, this would be a self-liquidating project. I am hoping that the minister will seriously consider it this year in time to have the act amended before the session closes, so the permit can be granted and the work completed by fall because there is a fishing season in the fall as well as in the spring.
I do not intend to take up a great deal of time on this item. Unfortunately I was away the other day when an item respecting the federal building in Sarnia came up. If the minister will comment on it I shall be glad to hear him.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I can only say that there is an amending bill which has already been introduced into the other place. I presume it will be dealt with in a short time and then come before us for consideration. I am not sure it will go as far as the hon. member would like, in line with what he said just now, but it will certainly give us much more authority to deal with the type of project he has in mind than the present rather inflexible statute. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it would be proper for me to discuss beyond that a bill that is in the other place now.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Would the minister like to comment on my last sentence?
I know I am out of order, but I refer to the federal building in Sarnia.


Robert Henry Winters: I think that is a matter' under a building construction vote, Mr. Chairman. It would be going rather far afield to comment on it now. I will speak to the hon. member privately, or if he will seek another opportunity to bring it up I shall attempt to deal with it.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, earlier today one hon. member suggested that he would take only a miscroscopic bit of the time of the minister and the committee at this time. I do not intend to make that same promise, but I do have three problems, and I should like to bring them to the attention of the minister and ask him to comment if he has any information to give with respect to them.

The first is the question of the breakwater that was built at White Rock in 1953. Undoubtedly that breakwater had a purpose when it was built. I am satisfied that the people in the White Rock area are wondering now what that particular purpose was, because apparently it is not doing the job it was intended to do. For instance, I have the report of the board of trade of White Rock. It is not too long, but I do not intend to read all of it. It reads in part:
The following list comprises owners of boats that would anchor at White Rock if suitable protection was available. The boats are now anchored at Blaine, Washington, New Westminster and Vancouver.
The list consists of some 40-odd names, some of which the minister and one of which the committee will recognize. The report closes with these two sentences:
The Semiahmoo yacht club of 150 members has approximately 40 boats under construction or on order from manufacturers.
This is over and above some 50 or 60 boats and owners that are listed. I continue with the quotation:
During , a storm in October, 1954, five craft that were moored behind the breakwater were severely damaged due to the inadequate protection and two boats tied to the float had to be moved as water was too rough.
The report is signed by L. Young and O. Matt. It does seem to me that a breakwater which cost us well over $100,000, as I understand it, was intended to give boats that would moor behind it some measure of protection. I am not blaming the minister, but possibly sufficient foresight was not taken. Was it the intention to follow up this particular structure by adding more to it or do some other engineering work within the region to afford the boat owners the protection they have the right to expect? It does seem to me most unfortunate that they have to moor their boats at Blaine, Washington, at New Westminster and at Vancouver harbour, particularly in view of the fact that the locality concerned is a summer resort, and many people like to leave their boats there during the summer months and in the fall season as well, and use them whenever they are needed.
I should like the minister to comment on this question and outline to the satisfaction of myself and the community the intention of the department with respect to this particular breakwater. Is it the intention to leave it as is and say, "Well, we put so many thousand dollars down the drain"? Is it the intention to carry on and do something specific with it? What are the plans? I do not think sufficient thought was given at the time

the breakwater was put in to warrant the expenditure at that time unless something further was intended.
I have two other questions that relate to another locality. I mentioned one on an earlier occasion. I refer to the protection required by those who own homes in the Beach Grove area along Boundary bay. The wind and the tide come sweeping across the bay and, in the winter months particularly, wreak a great deal of havoc on the homeowners in that locality. All that the citizens in that community ask at this time is that departmental officials be sent out to assess what needs to be done in the area and make certain recommendations. Have recommendations been made to the department in this respect? Perhaps the minister can inform the committee whether it is his intention to have anything done in that particular region.
I have one other problem. I brought it to the attention of the minister earlier in this session. I refer to the question of rocking at Canoe pass. The river is working toward the banks of the dikes, and it would require an expenditure of some $12,000 to finish that part of the Fraser that was not done following the floods of 1948 and 1952. As I explained earlier, the cannery which was located there has been torn down, which makes it possible for this work to be done. Those are the three specific problems other than the major one with which I have dealt many times, the harbour at New Westminster, with which I do not wish to deal at this time.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the breakwater at White Rock, I understand that is a very old structure.


Frederick George Hahn: It was built in 1953, just prior to the election.


Robert Henry Winters: There must be another one, then. The one I have in mind was built some time around 1902. I thought my hon. friend was asking me to tell him what the department had in mind when that breakwater was built. If that was his question I simply cannot give him an answer to it.


Frederick George Hahn: I was interested in the one built in 1953.


Robert Henry Winters: I will have to look into the breakwater which he says was built in 1953. We have no plans for doing anything further on it at the present time. In connection with Boundary bay and Crescent beach, the situation there-


Frederick George Hahn: Beach Grove, not Crescent beach.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no knowledge of any project at Beach Grove. I have some knowledge of the requests made at Crescent beach.
67509-199J
Supply-Public Works


Frederick George Hahn: Perhaps I could explain that a bit further. There is no project at the Beach Grove area at this time. The Americans directly to the south of us have a retaining wall to the boundary but we have no protection for the Canadian home owners in that area. The resort is being used much more than it ever was, and the fact is that there is quite a growing community in the area itself. There are well over 300 residents at the present time. They would like some assessment of the situation and possibly an arrangement whereby they could even share in it to give them the protection they feel they have a right to expect, similar to the protection their American friends have directly to the south.


Robert Henry Winters: So far as I know that is entirely a local and provincial responsibility. I do not know of any protection that is required because of navigational interests, and there is no federal responsibility that I can determine.


Frederick George Hahn: Would you care to comment on the rocking at Canoe pass directly opposite Westham island? The project is incomplete.


Robert Henry Winters: We will have to study that. We have no project there now, Mr. Chairman.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Hahn: I take it that the minister and his staff will study it.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one short question in connection with the speech made by the hon. member for New Westminster. I wonder if the minister will now refer to his officials the matter of the Steves-ton fish harbour. Will a drain be constructed there?


Robert Henry Winters: I have a note on that here. That is the Steveston cannery channel?


Tom Goode: Yes, it is a fish harbour.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. This matter has been under study by the fisheries research board of Canada and the Department of Public Works, and at the moment it is under study in the model operated by the University of British Columbia. Many suggestions have been advanced and they are all being tried on the model. This is a much more complicated problem than would appear on the surface, but it is expected that an answer will be available some time this year.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, after my three false starts I was beginning to think there were several other ridings that must have in them some of the bluffs to which the hon. member for Scarborough referred.

Supply-Public Works
As a matter of fact, Mr, Chairman, I had not thought it possible to speak on this item in the terms in which the hon. member for Scarborough spoke. Perhaps he used a bluffing system on the minister in connection with his remarks. It occurs to me, too, that perhaps I may be excused if I deal with the same subject at this time.
Throughout the whole Toronto area we are very much interested at the present time in any plans for development which are going to assist in providing the best inland port that can be found anywhere on the North American continent. I think a word of congratulation might be due to the administration of the Toronto harbour commission for the work that is being carried on there at the present time. I have referred on other occasions to the fact that a great deal of vision is going to be required in this matter or we are not going to keep pace with the development of the shipping which is going to go through the new seaway. We are vitally interested in that. Unless the facilities for handling cargo is improved we are of course going to lose business to other ports.
I say that, sir, because we have a wonderful natural harbour, but I think to a certain extent we are restricted in the dock area we have on the mainland side. I think we will have to look to the future. Although many residents of what is known as our island area would consider it unfortunate if the character of that area were changed, if Toronto is going to develop to its true potential as a result of the seaway it may be necessary for the dockage area to be extended there, too.
While I am on that point I might say that we have heard a lot about the use of the tunnel to the island. I know that the minister will probably say that that is a matter for the Department of Transport and it does not come under his department, but if proper provision is going to be made for the facilities we require then I think the Department of Public Works in liaison with the Department of Transport might go back to the old records somewhere around the year 1911 and look up an undertaking which was given concerning the provision of federal funds for that project. It may be vitally important to the development of that area.
There is one other vital concern at the present time. The metropolitan area of Toronto is a new creation. It is experiencing great difficulty in carrying out all its necessary expansion features. I feel that there may be a slight note of difference of opinion creeping in concerning the administration of

the harbour area. I think this is of tremendous importance to the department, because it is spending money to provide dockage facilities.
As I say, there is a slight difference of opinion creeping in, in connection with the administration and the wishes of the metropolitan Toronto area. There is some very valuable property there which if it is not administered in the proper manner may become a blighted area. I think the value of the money that is being put into docks there may be seriously depreciated thereby. I am thinking about the proposed plans for super highways which will run through the area. If some of the plans are approved, then I believe we may find that the area immediately adjacent to the area provided for warehouses and offices for that type of business may become similar to those which one sees in New York, and their real property value would be depreciated.
These problems arise, sir, because there are little differences of opinion in connection with other matters.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would mind if I were to interject at this point. I am sure the hon. member means to be in order, and he probably believes he is quite in order. The actual harbour administration in Toronto is under their own statute which federally is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. It does not come within the scope of jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, except to the extent that I am the tradesman who builds wharves wherever I am asked, subject to appropriate approvals. I have nothing to do with the administration and operation.


John Borden Hamilton: I shall be only a couple of minutes more on this. I have attempted to be just as much in order as the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I related my remarks to the fact that the minister is responsible for the spending of this money, and that if in the background there was not close liaison between the Toronto harbour commission and the Toronto metropolitan officials many hundreds of thousands of dollars may be spent without any value being obtained in return.
I shall close this phase of my remarks quickly by saying that these things come up because we may have instances where the harbour commission will license people to do certain things with land, and then there is a throwback in connection with the operation of the immediate area at the dock. The same thing may apply to other remarks I am going

to make, because here again it is an administration item and the minister may very well say that it comes under the Department of Transport.
The metropolitan council has been called upon to pay a quarter of a million dollars for protective work in connection with the harbour police and lifesaving activities in that area. Perhaps the minister will say this does not come under his department, but these things are required because certain facilities have been provided. It always comes back to the same point. I recall what the hon. member for Charlotte said, that when somebody wants to spend money you cannot economize. I always think the only way we will get true economy is to have the people who spend the money collect the money. Until we reach that point in connection with our various expenditures, municipal, provincial or federal, we will always have this situation.
I think the true responsibility is not that of the municipality. A quarter of a million dollars must be spent for this purpose by the municipality when it needs money for the building of schools and other items. This type of protection is needed for facilities provided by the federal department. Taking it from the tax source picture, there just is not a base to provide for it. Whether it is a responsibility of this department or of the Department of Transport, I submit that the time has come for a change in the method of handling these expenditures.
As far as the facilities generally are concerned, I submit that there should be better access provided to the lake. I believe one of the hon. members from a Toronto riding has a question on the order paper dealing with this. There seems to be a continual difficulty in connection with the providing of proper access and the dredging of the channels. If that comes within the jurisdiction of the minister I think he might take a look at the problem.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two matters I should like to bring up. I have been badgering the officials of the department about one matter and perhaps I could badger the minister a little bit more in the hope of getting some action. I refer to the breakwater at Northwest bay north of Nanaimo. The department has spent a considerable amount of money there, but I regret to say that it is money down the drain because they have not completed the job they started.
A rock fill was built, and from the end of the rock fill a log boom was placed running to the reef further out in the bay. To my knowledge that boom has had to be
Supply-Public Works
replaced twice. It becomes waterlogged and the first storm drives it out, and the whole project is then completely useless. There are a number of settlers with boats in that area. When the log boom was put in it looked as though this would be a safe harbour, and an oil company put in a float and a fish company also placed a buying float in this area. However, they have since been taken away due to the failure of the department to build a breakwater in such a way as to ensure continual protection in that little harbour.
When one looks at the east coast of Vancouver island he might think there were endless safe harbours all the way up the coast. The map seems to suggest that, but as a matter of fact they are very few and far between. After you leave Nanaimo going north there is literally no adequate small boat harbour until you get to Courtenay. There is of course the project which has been commenced at the mouth of French creek, and I see according to the estimates that something is to be done at Deep bay. But these are both in the future. I do not think the French creek project will be of any great importance to commercial fishermen.
It is the commercial fisherman whom I have in mind in connection with the Northwest bay project. I have contacted many of them, and they tell me they had hoped to use this as their seasonal base but found they could not do so. At one time they had hoped that they might be able to use Nanoose bay behind the breakwater, but unfortunately at low water the breakwater encloses only the smallest of puddles in which it would be most difficult to get more than six boats. It is mainly for the protection of the C.P.R. transfer dock for the car barge, but as a small boat harbour it just simply does not exist. I urge the minister to look into this project to see whether it would not provide a suitable site, and complete the job which was begun some years ago.
I should like now to turn to another project which has been in the air for a long time. I had hoped that after the visit of the minister to Nanaimo last year perhaps this would have been gone ahead with. I refer to the assembly dock in Nanaimo. It was perhaps unfortunate that when the minister was there only one boat happened to be at the assembly dock, but I can assure the minister that at almost all times there will be three or four deep-sea vessels lying in the stream waiting to get in to load lumber. I do think this is a project which should be proceeded with. I understand there has been some difficulty with regard to the interest of the provincial authorities, although I have not been able to get to the bottom of that in

Supply-Public Works
my correspondence with them. I should like to see some move made in this connection.
There is another matter in connection with Nanaimo harbour which I think should engage the attention of the department. I have mentioned this once or twice to the departmental officials. I realize it is a rather difficult project to take hold of. I refer to the future of what is sometimes known as Commercial inlet in Nanaimo harbour. Some time ago a commercial firm in Nanaimo began to dump rock in this area. Complaints were made about this, which I brought to the attention of the department, and for a while I believe it was stopped. Now I understand there are plans on foot to seriously consider filling in a large part of this inlet and using it as part of a through highway around the waterfront of Nanaimo. I would urge the minister to look at this project very carefully before giving his consent to any such filling in of navigable waters.
This small harbour could, if properly handled, be not only an extremely useful small boat harbour on the east coast of Vancouver island, but it could also be an extremely pleasant spot there right at the edge of the city of Nanaimo. It comes right up close to the main street of the city. Properly .developed, it could become a very pleasant .and useful adjunct to that area. It will require, however, to have some dredging of mud; not natural mud but mud that was dumped there many years ago when some building was going on in the city of Nanaimo, when much of it was filled in. There have been a number of illegal fillings in that little inlet, which have been got away with because no one has made a proper formal complaint about them.
I should like to urge the minister to have his department investigate quite thoroughly just what is going on with regard to Commercial inlet in Nanaimo and what plans may have been produced. I have had some sketches sent to me of what is proposed to be done but I have not found out whether or .not it is something that has been approved by the federal government-I do not think it ;has-or whether it is some purely local business firm's scheme. However, it is certainly something that should be looked into before we have the destruction of that little inlet, the complete destruction of something that could be very valuable in that part of the Island. These are matters that I hope the minister and his officials will take under consideration in the very near future.
Just before I sit down, I want to urge the utmost speed in the extension of the dock at Nanaimo because it is very badly needed indeed. I believe the minister himself

observed the crowded condition of the present dock when he was there. If he had been there at any other time he would have seen also the crowded condition of the roadstead, with the deep-sea vessels waiting, sometimes for four or five days, to get into that dock.


Mr. Lusby:: I should like to ask the minister for some information with regard to certain matters, or perhaps I should say his views on a certain matter. I think my inquiry can properly be made under the present item. It relates to the proposal for reestablishment of a ferry service across Minas basin in the province of Nova Scotia. I think the minister has a considerable knowledge about the proposal.
Going back a little, I might say that there was a ferry service across there previous to the early 1940's. It was operated by the Dominion Atlantic Railway, a subsidiary of the C.P.R., with the assistance of a comparatively small subsidy, later discontinued, from the federal government. At that time the ferry operated between three ports, Wolf-ville and Kingsport on the southern side of the basin, and Parrsboro, in my constituency, on the northern side of the basin. At each one of these ports there was a wharf which, in addition to being used by the ferry, was used for general wharfage purposes. The subsidy, as I say, was discontinued in the early war years, and consequently the ferry service was discontinued. There is now a strong movement on foot, both in my constituency on the northerly side of the basin and in the Annapolis valley region on the southerly side, for the re-establishment of a ferry service.
Under the old service the ferry could operate only at the top of the tide, and the tide there has a rise and fall of some 30 feet. It is felt that under present conditions a ferry which could operate only once a day would not be adequate and would not by any means fill the need that exists. It has therefore been proposed that a shorter route be established between West Bay, which is just outside Parrsboro, across to a spot called White Waters, which is near famous cape Blomidon on the other side of the bay. Perhaps I should say it is really the Minas channel. The distance is approximately 7 miles, and the ferry could probably shuttle back and forth at intervals of two hours. However, in order to do so it would be necessary to have terminals extending out far enough to afford deep water at all stages of the tide. As the minister knows, a fairly strong movement is afoot of late for the re-establishment of this service.
Of course, the two termini that are now suggested are in the province of Nova Scotia. The ferry does not fall within the category of an interprovincial ferry or one operating

between Canada and some other country. Therefore, of course, certain questions of jurisdiction arise. The cost of the terminals would undoubtedly be very considerable. I believe there have been some estimates made, and they run as high as $2 million.
It should be pointed out, of course, that if these terminals were constructed they would also serve the purpose of general wharfage for general shipping. I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that this ferry would be operating between two provincial points; yet having in mind, of course, the fact that these wharves could be used for general purposes; and having in mind also the fact, which I think is true, that such a ferry would be of very great service to both the areas on the north side of the basin and those on the south side, would the minister give us his views briefly with regard to possible federal participation in such a project, particularly with regard to possible participation in the cost of building these terminals?


Robert Henry Winters: I am well aware of the interest of the hon. member for Cumberland in this project. In fact I think he has been one of those who has endeavoured to co-ordinate the actions of other people who are interested in restoring the service that was at one time provided by that ferry, namely the Kipawo, which was discontinued during the war.
The situation is as the hon. member has stated it; that is, it is an intraprovincial operation, and therefore the federal government's interest is not a prior one. The tides in that part of the country are very extreme, and to build wharves that would enable this ferry to operate at any time of the day on a regular schedule would be very expensive indeed, running to something of the order of $2 million, as the hon. member has suggested.
I understand that the particular ferry the local citizens have in mind could be had for something of the order of $60,000, and that they are contemplating a subsidy from the federal government to operate it economically. The federal government normally tries to consider projects of this nature in the light of an investment from which there is some prospect of having a return flow to the taxpayers of the country.
The committees that have been formed have written me on various occasions. In each instance I have asked them if the provincial government has indicated that it is prepared to sponsor such a project and to what extent it is prepared to participate in it. I have stated my views as well as the position the federal government must take in the light of the fact that this would be an intraprovincial ferry. I have not heard the
Supply-Public Works
views of the provincial government expressed, nor have I any idea of the extent to which it is prepared to go into a project of this nature. I am afraid that until we do, and until we have had some request made of us through some official channel by the provincial government, we cannot contemplate undertaking expenditures of the order of magnitude involved.


Mr. Bell:: I should just like to add a few words, perhaps by way of advice to the minister and his department. I respectfully suggest that the minister and his department should reappraise their policy with respect to breakwaters along our coast. Two or three years ago there began at Lorneville the construction of a small breakwater which was to greatly benefit the fishermen. But through a tragedy of errors-lack of co-operation between the engineers of the department and private engineers, lack of acceptance of advice in the area, and various other reasons-there grew what we know down that way as the fiasco at Lorneville.
I have been all through this matter with the minister and I do not wish to carry on any further with it, except to say that now in the new breakwater or the new work that is being carried on at Negro point we fear- and a great many people around that area are of the same opinion-that we are getting into the same piecemeal, broken-up mess. They come along with their plans for this breakwater. They add a few more rocks and a little bit is carried on further. I do not know for certain whether the engineering department are in with definite plans in this respect.
I suggest to the minister that there is definite need for a policy with respect to these breakwaters. The minister and his department should decide-I have no quarrel with where the decision to build those breakwaters should come from-the ones that are necessary in order of importance, stick by their decision and carry through in an efficient manner and build them. Otherwise I can say without any fear of contradiction that there is a complete lack of confidence in the policy of the department with respect to these important wharves and breakwaters that are necessary to our fishermen. I merely leave that suggestion with the minister and his department. I may have something to say on particular items later, where I think the minister will probably agree many of these matters should be brought up.


Mr. Hees:: When this item was opened up the minister read to us the latest instalment in that comedy of errors known as the Port aux Basques harbour fiasco, and he told us the government has decided to go ahead and

Supply-Public Works
build the breakwater to take the place of the natural breakwater which was by error blown up and destroyed.


Robert Henry Winters: That is not correct. I think the hon. member knows that.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the minister if he would perhaps give us some information that we were not able to get last year. Last year it was really impossible to get much information on this sad -story because the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works were passing the buck back and forth, and were recommending that we speak to each department at different times. It was therefore extremely difficult to get information.


Robert Henry Winters: He makes up a good story, this man.


George Harris Hees: As this sad story is a year older now, perhaps the minister can tell us more about it this afternoon.


Robert Henry Winters: If you stick to the facts, I will.


George Harris Hees: I should like to know why that original natural breakwater was destroyed. It was destroyed against the advice of people who had used that harbour in Newfoundland for many years. The minister shakes his head. May I tell him that he has a great many people in Newfoundland to convince that his story is true. The story I have heard time and time again in Newfoundland, when I was there-


Robert Henry Winters: I will tell you one thing. You did not convince many people in Newfoundland.


George Harris Hees: We are not doing badly, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: How could you do any
worse?


George Harris Hees: Certainly the government has won no friends and certainly it has made itself a laughingstock in Newfoundland over this comedy of errors, this fiasco that I am talking about. I can tell the minister this. When he next goes out there, if he is in a group of people and things are lagging a bit-suppose conversation is a bit dull-all he has to do is to mention Port aux Basques harbour and the ferry and the place will be filled with laughter in no time at all.


Robert Henry Winters: I can get a laugh easier than that.


George Harris Hees: They cannot understand how the federal government could have made the number of errors it made; blowing up the natural breakwater and now finding that they need a new breakwater; putting one back;

creating a scale model in order to learn what the people in the area could have told them a long time ago. If these statements are not true then I should be glad to hear about it from the minister, but they have been repeated over and over again to me by people in Newfoundland. To them it is almost unbelievable that so many mistakes could have been made by one group of people on one project.
Now almost a year has passed since we were here last year and were unable to get the story of why this breakwater was demolished and this new breakwater had to be built, perhaps the minister at long last can give us the whole story. Perhaps I am wrong. I am simply repeating what I have heard over and over again in Newfoundland from Newfoundlanders. They would be interested to hear that this story which they tell is not true. I ask the minister to bring us up to date on the last chapter of this very sorry story. I shall be very interested in what he has to say.


Robert Henry Winters: What does my hon. friend want to know? What question does he wish to ask?


George Harris Hees: I should like to know the answer to three questions. Why was that natural breakwater destroyed? What was the cost? And on whose authority and advice was it done?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is simple. The question should not be "why was it destroyed?" The question should be "Was it destroyed?" My answer is no; there was no natural breakwater destroyed.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister say this new breakwater that is now being built is not to replace any natural breakwater that was demolished?


Robert Henry Winters: That is what I say, Mr. Chairman.


George Harris Hees: Then there are a great many people in the maritimes, and particularly in Newfoundland, who are going to be greatly surprised to hear that, because that is not the story they tell.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think the truth surprises maritimers.


George Harris Hees: Then perhaps I can go a little bit further in this matter, and ask this question. Was nothing that could be construed as a breakwater demolished?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


George Harris Hees: This breakwater that is being built is something that is replacing nothing?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right. It is further improvement.


George Harris Hees: As to the work that has been done in the harbour so far, what has it consisted of?


Robert Henry Winters: The work that has been done in the harbour so far has been the dredging of a channel by the Department of Public Works and the building of a dock by the Canadian National Railways. The channel was dredged by the Department of Public Works at the request of the Department of Transport and on the line recommended by the Department of Transport. We were just the agency carrying out the dredging as specified. Subsequent to that work being done and to date we have done what I said this morning and what' the hon. member has referred to as the last episode, I think. We have started a breakwater and it is about 35 per cent completed.


George Harris Hees: I should like to thank the minister for the information he has given me. What was the reason for the ferry not suiting this harbour after it had been built? Why could the ferry not be used? Why has it been impossible to use that ferry in that harbour?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not the one to answer all those questions. I would think my colleague the Minister of Transport will be able to deal with the matter. I hope my hon. friend will not accuse me of passing the buck.


George Harris Hees: There goes that old ball again.


Robert Henry Winters: I have nothing to do with the operation of steamships except those of the type of the Hilunga. I hope my hon. friend will believe me when I say that. I understand that the ship draws more water now than was anticipated when she was designed. However, the channel was dredged with adequate clearance, and I am not sure that is a determining factor. It is a fact that the harbour is quite exposed. My hon. friend indicates that' he was there-and I presume he was- and has seen the harbour, which is quite exposed. Years ago-and they do it still- the fishermen from my home port of Lunenburg operated into and out of Port aux Basques. It was always regarded as quite an exposed harbour under certain conditions of wind and sea. The people responsible for the operation of the ferry thought the harbour in its present form was a little too hazardous under all conditions of weather for it to operate on a regular schedule. They asked us to take steps to improve the harbour further.
What we are doing now is trying to determine what further improvements are necessary to make the harbour the type of harbour
Supply-Public Works
the Department of Transport and Canadian National Railways officials deem to be safe under all conditions of weather, so as to enable them to operate a steamship service on schedule.


George Harris Hees: I understand that when this ferry was tried in the harbour there was found to be more surge in the sea than was expected.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, the ferry was ever tried in the harbour. I do not believe it has ever run into Port aux Basques.


John Borden Hamilton: Is there further dredging to be done now?


Robert Henry Winters: The next phase, as I mentioned this morning and could have said again but omitted to do so, is that we have at the moment set up a scale model of this harbour at the national research council. It is just about ready for operation now. The machine that simulates the waves has just been calibrated. We hope that by the middle of summer we will have more information, and based thereon we will be able to judge whether further dredging or further improvements are needed beyond this breakwater which is in a well advanced stage of construction right now.


George Harris Hees: When does the minister expect to have the highway built from Port aux Basques that is really to complete this operation?


Robert Henry Winters: To where?


George Harris Hees: I have read the clause in the confederation agreement, whereby a ferry, which as I understand it, would carry automobiles, must operate into that harbour and a highway from there to Corner Brook must be built. Is that not so?


Robert Henry Winters: That is not so, sir. The highway to which my hon. friend refers is that portion of the trans-Canada highway between Port aux Basques and Corner Brook. This is a provincial responsibility, and we are prepared to go ahead under the trans-Canada highway agreement as fast as the provincial government wishes to go. I must say the provincial government is making good progress in completing that section.


George Harris Hees: Is that part of the trans-Canada highway?


Robert Henry Winters: It is part of the trans-Canada highway.


George Harris Hees: If it is part of the trans-Canada highway, then why all the mystery about this? I asked the minister when the highway, in which the federal government is participating, this trans-Canada highway from Port aux
3148	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
Basques to Corner Brook, would be completed. He said there was no such highway.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member asked me when the highway specified in the terms of the confederation agreement from Port aux Basques to Corner Brook would be completed. There is no such undertaking on the part of the federal government in the terms of union.


George Harris Hees: It is part of the confederation agreement which I read this morning and which I should like to show the minister. This was quoted in the house during the debate last year, a debate on the matter with the Minister of Transport, which I read.


Robert Henry Winters: I think my hon. friend has in mind the trans-Canada highway.


George Harris Hees: But that is part of the highway which is to be completed according to the confederation agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister has said that there was no removal of a natural barrier in the breakwater. Did the dredging which took place necessitate the building of the breakwater?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think so. That is my own observation, and that is supported by the report we had prepared by the well-known engineers from England, Messrs. Coode and Partners. We felt that we should get the best consulting engineers available to give us their views on this project. This firm of consulting engineers made a survey of the harbour, and in their report they state that in their opinion the dredging that was done had made no appreciable change in the condition of the harbour.


John Borden Hamilton: Are they the same firm that was consulted before the dredging took place, or was any firm consulted?


Robert Henry Winters: They were not consulted before the dredging took place.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if I could take the committee west and north for a few minutes. I should like the minister to talk about Churchill. His colleagues in the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Transport are helping to make it one of the most important centres in Canada. I wonder if there are any plans for any engineering services in connection with the extension of harbour facilities at Churchill? I understand we are to have a record volume of grain moved out of there this year, and it is hoped an increased volume of goods will come in. The limited character of the facilities will


probably present some difficulty. Can the minister indicate whether any engineering plans are under way for the extension of Churchill?


Robert Henry Winters: This department has no engineering plans under way. Perhaps my hon. friend would care to direct his question to the Minister of Transport, who has jurisdiction over the national harbours board. He may be able to give him more information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I, like my colleague the hon. member for Broadview, am quite surprised to hear the minister say that nothing that can be described as the clearing away of a natural breakwater has taken place. I am not setting myself up as a harbour engineer but I have been several times to Port aux Basques, and my recollection is of going out a fairly long, narrow channel.
I take it also that the minister is aware that there was a conference on this matter last September among the various departments, the Department of Transport, the Department of Public works, experts from the Canadian National Railways and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I must say a press report of that conference does not seem to bear out exactly the description of the situation which the minister has just given us. The press report, which I find at page 2238 of Hansard tor March 16, 1956, said this:
Great was the satisfaction of the ministers that the British expert had confirmed their belief that the dredging operations at Port aux Basques had not ruined the harbour.
That does not seem to speak very well for what has been done. I repeat, I am not going to set myself up as a harbour expert, but again I am expressing tremendous surprise at what the minister has said.
The second thing I want to mention is this. Having regard to the present situation, I mean if you consider the situation of the Bluenose and the Carson at the moment-the Bluenose apparently gets into trouble by rubbing off its propellors on the wharf at Yarmouth, and the Carson finds that she cannot lie quietly enough at the berth at Port aux Basques-I was somewhat disappointed in what the minister said this morning. He said, as I recall, that there was to be a breakwater some 600 feet long. Then he described the model which was at the national research council and upon which I gather experiments were being conducted with a view to seeing what further structural efforts were necessary in order to give the required protection.
Again let me ask the minister, is this breakwater being built in some entirely new place? Am I to understand that nothing has

been done to remove any natural protection which the harbour had? I am confident that has been stated in the house, but I am not able to put my finger on it at the moment. It is very unfortunate the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is not here. He knows so much more about it than the rest of us. I put that question again. What does the minister say regarding this reference, which certainly does not sound as if everyone were happy about what happened-I shall read it again-
. . . that the dredging operations at Port aux Basques had not ruined the harbour.
As I understand it, the minister goes much further and says there were no dredging operations which in any way injured the harbour. Is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not want to make a play on words.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not, either.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not want to give any impression that I am saying one thing and meaning another. If I remember correctly, it was I who assembled the meeting to which the hon. member referred; therefore I am pretty well aware of what went on at it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was the occasion for holding the meeting?


Robert Henry Winters: To get all the parties together to determine what action should be taken to provide the further protection needed to make this harbour the sort of harbour into which the Canadian National Railways would wish to operate their boat under all conditions of weather and on schedule.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Had there been a previous conference of that kind?


Robert Henry Winters: Previous to what?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Previous to the meeting of those parties.


Robert Henry Winters: There had been discussions prior to that, yes. What is the hon. member getting at?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, I am getting at this. The project had been under way for, I suppose, a good many months, perhaps some years. I presume there had been conferences before; in fact, I think a year ago we were told there had been. I believe at that time there was a discussion as to where the responsibility really lay as between departments and as between the outside experts who, I think, had been consulted at that time. I would like to ask the minister where the responsibility really lay and what was the situation which the people assembled at that conference were to meet. Was it a situation
Supply-Public Works
of unexpected failure, or was it merely the development of a plan which had reached a certain stage that needed further discussion?


Robert Henry Winters: The situation we were required to meet, or the situation that faced us at that time, was this. Here was this ship that was intended to operate into Port aux Basques. The Canadian National Railways officials said they did not wish to operate the ship into that port because they were not satisfied that under all conditions of weather they could do so safely and meet their schedule. So we met to decide what further action should be taken to make it the sort of harbour they wished to have. We were dealing with something in the future, and we evolved this plan of action.
There seems to be the impression here that this breakwater is being built to replace something that was removed. That is not the case at all. This breakwater is built in an entirely different place at the mouth of Port aux Basques harbour. It is intended to protect the harbour of Port aux Basques, to give some further protection that has never been there before. My hon. friend asked whether the dredging that has been done has ruined the harbour. I say in reply to him again that the report of the experts retained to give us an opinion and to suggest what should be done said that in their opinion the dredging that was done had no appreciable effect on the condition of the harbour, and that is my own view.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That, of course, is a very conservative statement as compared with what I read from the press. The press said that the British expert had only gone as far as to say the dredging operation at Port aux Basques had not ruined the harbour. Perhaps this discussion should be set aside until we have seen the report to which the minister referred. Could we have that report?


Robert Henry Winters: It was a report to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the hon. member could ask him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He is not in his place. Can we get the report before this item is finished?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not going to undertake to table a report prepared for the Minister of Transport; no.


George Harris Hees: One last question, Mr. Chairman; in preparing this harbour was any island or were any reefs, or anything of that kind, which protected the harbour in any way, destroyed?


Robert Henry Winters: My hon. friend is trying to prove in some way or other-


George Harris Hees: Trying to get some information.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, but for the purpose of proving that something was done that has destroyed the value of this harbour. There was dredging done in the harbour. A channel was dredged from the outer harbour into this new dock that was built. Rock was removed when the channel was dredged. It was all below water. No surface rock was removed to my knowledge, and I think I am correct in saying that. The engineers confirm that I am correct in saying that. To that is added the statement of the English firm of consultants, and my own view, that none of that dredging had any significant effect on the harbour at all.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, as a representative of one of the smaller but main municipalities in the best riding in the dominion, I should like to say 1 am very glad that the minister and his deputy are widely travelled men. We should be looking forward to their improving their knowledge and education by visiting our county of Bruce some time in the near future. In the opinion of some we are small, but we have a wonderful county. We expect that our population will increase greatly in the next two decades.
Because the population of the county is going to grow by leaps and bounds many of the larger municipalities are having difficulties in various ways and some of them are beginning to call for help from outside their own municipalities. If there are such conditions in those municipalities we should smarten up and not try to grow any more. It seems to me that it has been very hard to do anything about decentralization. I shall not use Mark Twain's remark which has been often quoted.
This federal government have been delinquent in doing anything about it. They are not the only government that have been delinquent. Some provincial governments have also been delinquent. In fact at the present time I am sorry to say that one of our provincial governments has brought in legislation having to do with piping water from localities which are ideal for industrial purposes into larger inland centres. If those centres remained at their present size they would be better places for the labouring people to live in than if they became larger. If it ever happened that any government has to pay subsidies on such work I for one would strongly oppose it.
In Bruce county we have, as I said recently, a great shore line, and we are looking forward to an increasing population. Kincardine has been negotiating with the Department of Public Works for over 30 years for a proper harbour. In my opinion the present Minister of Public Works and his deputy are astute
[Mr. Hees.l
businessmen. I do not believe they take a political view in any of their decisions and, therefore, I believe we shall obtain some satisfaction in the future when the minister and his deputy realize that the people in Bruce are very sincere. If we were not sincere we would not have petitioned this government for over 30 years for a harbour at Kincardine. If we were not sincere the Department of Public Works would not have such a large file on the matter, which even includes plans that have been drawn on three different occasions.
With the deep waterway being constructed at the present time, if the minister will give this serious thought I think he will find that Kincardine is a logical place for a haven harbour to be built. Estimates have been made as to the cost of the harbour, and the actual cost could be more or less than what is estimated. Foresight will have to be exercised in the spending of large amounts of money.
I would suggest that within the next 12 months the department and its advisers should concentrate very thoroughly on the matter of locating a haven harbour at Kincardine to handle the increased shipping on the great lakes. This is not a local project only, because it concerns people who live within a radius of a great many miles in this very fertile district. If this request is not acted upon within the next short while it may be too late.
I think the minister would do well to have a talk with the chairman of the Gordon commission; he could probably get some advice from Mr. Gordon. If the minister were to seek advice I am satisfied that it would be along the lines of the advice I am giving him at the present time.
I understand that the department's plan of administration is not to spend any money except for commercial purposes. On the peninsula there are many small communities whose only commercial line is the tourist trade. Many of these people need a few dollars spent there to facilitate the handling of those tourists who come to stay for the summer. I would ask the department to look into that matter and to consider the fact that the tourist business is the whole commercial life of a great many of the people of the peninsula. By spending a few dollars there the ability of the local inhabitants to earn a livelihood will be increased.
In concluding my remarks I wish to point out that the Department of Public Works has cut down its expenditure this year. Perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it has been cut by between $5 million and $6 million; am I right?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Approximately 50 per cent of the amount of that decrease is made in the items for harbours and rivers in Ontario. If the same thing should occur next year perhaps the minister will consider spending approximately $2,500,000 on the construction of the harbour at Kincardine. If he and his officials were to do this, I am sure they would go down in history as being farsighted, and perhaps their action would justify the erection of one of the plaques which we heard criticized this morning.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, in speaking about the breakwater at White Rock earlier today I mentioned that it was constructed in 1953. I see on page 426 of the estimates for 1954 an item concerning White Rock which reads as follows:
White Rock-Breakwater and floats, $152,000.
White Rock-Wharf and breakwater repairs, $34,500.
The report of the Department of Public Works dated March 31, 1954, at page 72 says: White Rock
A quarried rock breakwater 250 feet long, having a crest width of 10 feet and a crest elevation of 19 feet above local low water, was erected under contract with the Coast Quarries Limited. Approximately 28,920*2 tons of rock was placed in the work. The work was completed.
The present minister was the minister of public works at that time. I do not wish to take too much of the time of the house, but in view of the fact that we have a specific ruling which does not permit us to go back and discuss an item once it has been passed, I feel it is necessary for the minister to give us a complete statement before we pass this particular item.


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to convey to the minister and to the members of his staff a message that was given to me because of the quick action that was taken on the dredging that was done at Wheatley harbour this spring, when fishermen found that they were not able to get in or out of that harbour. At the same time I would like to convey to the minister the request of the fishermen of that area for an extension of the harbour facilities. They find that the harbour that was originally constructed will not accommodate the number of ships that are presently passing in and out of that harbour. In view of the increased business I would like to recommend, on behalf of the fishermen, that the harbour be extended as soon as possible.
I wish to deal with one other point: Erieau. At the present time the fishermen have no place to tie up because of the leases that have
Supply-Public Works
been cancelled. They were formerly accommodated on the property belonging to the C.N.O. railway. Last spring the leases were cancelled and through the district office in London a survey has been made. I trust that the minister and his staff will give favourable consideration to the request that has been made by the fishermen operating out of Erieau.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be very glad to look into it in the meantime.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, returning to the matter of Toronto harbour, which was touched upon by the hon. members for Scarborough and York West, I might say that some two years ago I asked the minister to investigate the erosion on that part of lake Ontario which is in Danforth riding. He said at that time that no consideration could be given to it unless it had to do with navigation; that to be considered a matter must constitute a danger or peril to navigation.
The hon. member for Scarborough has spoken about the difficulty which comes about as a result of the Scarborough bluffs. He made some reference to the bluffs going out and said he was probably the only bluff left. Perhaps I could correct that statement for him by saying that he is not the big bluff he thinks he is but he belongs to a party which is the biggest bluff.
To get back to the problem in the Toronto area, however, the hon. member brought out the fact that the old area that was in the city of Toronto proper, governed and controlled by the Toronto harbour board, is going through a period of transition. Toronto has had added to it Scarborough, New Toronto, Long Branch, Mimico and Etobicoke. In other words it embraces the area from the Etobicoke river to Rouge river, and is now known as metropolitan Toronto.
With regard to the problem of navigation, I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the sand and other material coming from Scarborough Bluffs constantly creates ledges and bars or fills up the eastern gap and thus constitutes a danger to navigation. Considerable dredging will have to be done. The hon. member for York-Scarborough said there would have to be some enlargement or some revision of the Toronto harbour board in order to administer the area which has been mentioned. The period of transition is the time to bring up these matters, as it should take some considerable time to effect this change.
I think the department should give some consideration to the shore line of lake Ontario. Expenditures are made by the Toronto harbour board, on which this government has a representative, but they pertain only to

Supply-Public Works
repair work and dredging with the perimeter of the harbour, which includes Toronto bay and what is left of old Ashbridge's bay in which there are three or four turning basins. The shore line of lake Ontario running from highway No. 27 or beginning at Long Branch to the eastern limits of Scarborough would be approximately 30 miles, and very little attention has been given to it. Serious attention must be given to that particular shore line running from Fallingbrook avenue to Cherry street or the eastern gap. Lifeguard service in this area is augmented by voluntary organizations.
The hon. member for Greenwood will remember the cut which used to run from Ashbridge's bay to the lake, but this area has been filled in by the Toronto harbour commission. More serious consideration will have to be given to this particular shore line with the building of the new seaway. As the hon. member for York-Scarborough has mentioned, the Rouge river at Port Union should provide harbour facilities and a haven from storms, and the old Ashbridge's bay cut should also be used for that purpose.
Representations have been made to me to have something done about the old Ashbridge's bay cut being made into a haven and brought into operation. The Toronto harbour board should be approached so the necessary cooperation can be obtained. This is part of their job, to look after this area, and at the proper time we will make representations to the government through the harbour board.
As the hon. member for York-Scarborough has said, something will have to be done immediately with regard to that portion of the shore to which he referred. Every time here is a slide at Scarborough Bluffs more sand and silt is pushed into lake Ontario and then is carried by lake currents into the eastern harbour and in time creates sand bars and ledges. Such silt gathering there becomes an impediment to navigation in lake Ontario.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure sufficient has been said in this chamber to acquaint hon. members with the fact that the mighty Fraser in British Columbia is not only a great boon to us but also brings to us a number of very vital problems. I have referred to this matter on other occasions, especially with regard to the erosion problem which we have in Fraser Valley constituency. At the present time I am thinking of the matter more from the standpoint of navigation in the section of the river below the village of Hope.
In many of these sections the river, instead of being confined to one channel, is finding its way into other channels, while in other

sections it is cutting back until it is running almost at right angles to the normal direction of the flow. It would seem to us that a long-range plan to confine the river to one channel should be developed, such plan to be realized by dredging and by filling in or blocking undesirable sloughs and channels that are to be found in some sections of the river. I submit that some effort should be made to straighten out some of the bad points in the river. We realize that this would involve a considerable amount of work under an overall plan, but when we consider the work being done just to take care of emergency situations I think it would be advisable to work out some over-all plan for the solution of the problem.
The particular section of the Fraser river to which I have referred is used to a considerable extent by tug boats towing log booms from logging camps in the Fraser canyon, in the upper Fraser valley and in the Harrison lake area. A considerable volume of scow traffic is carried into and out of Harrison lake on the Fraser and Harrison rivers, having to do mostly with construction work and the carriage of logging machinery and supplies. There is also some movement of heavy equipment up to Rosedale and Hope.
According to the information I have, during the past year 130 million board feet of logs were towed from Harrison lake down to Harrison river, into the Fraser just opposite Chilliwack, and then down the Fraser to the lower mainland area. From the Hope area and the Fraser canyon there were 70 million feet of logs towed from about 14 different logging camps. About 10 million feet of those were bundled logs from the canyon, and it is expected that when this particular type of operation has been proved it will be used to a much greater extent.
The future use of the river is of vital concern. Already a number of companies have indicated their interest in the use of the river for the transportation of manufactured products. Inquiries have been received from companies which already have plants in existence, while in other cases new plants would be established if transportation by barge were available or could be carried on in this section. With the trend toward the greater utilization of wood products, local manufacturers in that area are at a serious disadvantage in not being able to have a market for chips and other salvaged wood products because of the high transportation costs. I have a list of the companies which are interested in using the river for transportation purposes.

There are a number of sections in this river which constitute trouble spots. When I refer to the dredging of the Fraser river I am not referring to the entire length of the river from Hope down to the sea. The river bottom is a series of deep holes and shallow spots, and the channels are created where the shallow spots occur.
I could give a list this afternoon of some of those trouble spots, but I do not think it would be necessary or of particular value to us at the moment to discuss them. I would just point out that the Cheam area on the C.N.R. is one of the most difficult and most important spots. Here the river makes a right angle bend and is still*cutting back into what will eventually be, if the process continues, an S-turn. In this particular instance it may have more to do with flood prevention than with actual transport problems. So I just call this to the attention of the minister to indicate that there are certain sections of the river that we feel should be attended to, in order not only to take care of erosion problems but also to facilitate the transportation of products down the river.
I would also call attention to the fact that in the neighbourhood of the new Rosedale bridge a serious problem obtains, in that there is a bad cross current that makes it extremely difficult to tow the logs between the piers of that bridge. At the present time I understand there are two barges employed on the Fraser and Harrison rivers in the Hope area and below Hope. The Fraser River Dredging Company is using a river bulldozer, and the Scuffler Dredge Company is using a drag bucket.
I am given to understand that last year representations were made to the federal Department of Public Works in Vancouver over the fact that the dredging equipment was occupied in the Harrison river during the early fall, when possibly it could have been used to greater advantage in the Fraser. The thought has been expressed that dredging in the Harrison river could and should be done in the spring and early summer, leaving the equipment for use in the Fraser at a time when it would be more effective; that is, in the early fall and winter. At that time the department stated that moneys were not appropriated early enough in the year to make an early start possible in the Harrison. This is very important as far as my particular riding is concerned, and not only my riding but, of course, all the industries that are located in that section and those in the lower mainland area that obtain their supplies of products from up the river.
Last fall I spent some time in going around looking over the various river problems with
Supply-Public Works
different delegations. My attention was directed to a situation in the Matsqui prairie area, where river bank erosion is still causing a very serious condition. It is expected that if it is not remedied it will not be very long before the dikes themselves will be in danger from the action of erosion. The situation at Albion has been brought to the attention of the minister on a number of occasions, but mostly in connection with requests for river bank protection work, but here again it has been suggested that river dredging would possibly be a solution to the problem. The end of, I believe, McMillan island has been cut off by the action of the current, and now the current is being directed right across the river to the north side, where it is causing severe erosion problems.
I think the consensus of opinion is that the only satisfactory solution to the problem in this whole area is a channeling program. In fact that view has been expressed on quite a number of occasions at great length. So we would request that when the minister and his department are considering all these different problems and working out their different projects, they give consideration to a survey of that whole section with a view to working out a long-term program, or I should say an extensive program, that would take care of this situation, assist in the prevention of flood conditions and also provide transportation facilities on the Fraser river from Hope down to the sea.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was going to wait until we came down to the item in regard to Ontario, but everyone else has been speaking today, and it will not take me any longer to say what I have to say now than on the item on Ontario.
I wonder if the minister could tell me about what has taken place at Bayfield. Last fall the department were demanding that buildings be moved away from the waterfront because they were going to put up a cement abutment as a result of the breakwater caving in or being undermined. They were dredging that portion to put up a breakwater, and this building was in the way. The man had had this building for about 30 or 40 years. It was built a long time ago, and it would be very difficult to move without tearing it down. However, I got in touch with one of the minister's engineers in London, and they agreed to put skids under it and try to move it back without much difficulty. I have not heard what happened, and I wondered if there was anything in the estimates for the work done there.


Robert Henry Winters: There is no item in the estimates.

Criminal Code


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Could they go ahead with this work without having an item in the estimates?


Robert Henry Winters: If it is a small amount it does not have to show up specifically in the estimates. If we can deal with this matter when we get to the particular item, I shall have more information before me at that time.


George Harris Hees: May I call it five o'clock?
Progress reported.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou):: May I ask
the unanimous consent of the house to revert to routine proceedings?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Has
the hon. member unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose, I understand, of filing a committee report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Fourth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


STANDING ORDERS
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I wish to present the first report, in English and in French, of the standing committee on standing orders. I shall move concurrence on Monday next.


CRIMINAL CODE
John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of Bill No. 167, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move second reading of this bill I wish to explain immediately its purpose. The purpose is set out in the explanatory note, which reads as follows:
The object of this bill is to provide that when a fine is imposed under the summary convictions provisions of the Criminal Code (part XXIV), there shall be mandatory action taken by the court to assure, subject to certain reservations,-
To prevent any unfairness of any improprieties taking place.
-that a warrant of commitment shall not issue for imprisonment forthwith of the person on whom the fine has been imposed, because of financial inability to make immediate payment.
The bill consists of amendments to the Criminal Code which was amended some

years ago, in particular section 694. Section 694 reads as follows:
694. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every one who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
And subsection 2:
(2)	Where the imposition of a fine or the making of an order for the payment of money is authorized by law, but the law does not provide that imprisonment may be imposed in default of payment of the fine or compliance with the order, the court may order that in default of payment of the fine or compliance with the order, as the case may be, the defendant shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than six months.
*
Over the years I have belonged to that group of people who believe that our law in respect of the imposition of imprisonment in lieu of the payment of a fine is not only antiquated but is also unjust. When the amendments to the Criminal Code came before the house I endeavoured to convince hon. members-and on a number of occasions I have argued in favour of such an amendment -of the need for an amendment which would provide that instead of a person being summarily liable to imprisonment because of his inability to pay a fine, an investigation should take place into his financial position, and that imprisonment should not be arbitrarily and mandatorily imposed. When the matter was discussed during general discussion on the amendments to the Criminal Code some years ago an amendment was agreed to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) which was to the following effect:
(3)	A summary conviction court may direct that any fine, pecuniary penalty or sum of money adjudged to be paid shall be paid forthwith or, if the accused is unable to pay forthwith, at such time and on such terms as the summary conviction court may fix.
That section as amended has not generally been acted upon. It is not mandatory. Many a man is sentenced to imprisonment today in default of a fine simply because of the fact that his financial position makes it impossible for him to pay his fine, or his poverty prevents him being able to do so. The purpose of the amendment is to make it mandatory, having regard to the action of the court-subject to the reservations I shall mention-that a person shall not be imprisoned in the event that he is unable to pay his fine but that an investigation shall take place on the part of the magistrate and in that case time shall be granted to enable that person to pay his fine, either by instalments or otherwise.
I start by making the general admission that, as is known by Your Honour and by members of the legal profession, there are

many magistrates who grant extensions within the meaning of the new section which was brought into effect some two or three years ago. But those who actually grant extensions are in the minority. It is much easier-and much less difficult and trying administratively -when a fine of $5 and costs is imposed, if immediate imprisonment be ordered than if an extension be granted within which the individual may make payment of the fine and costs.
During the years I have practised law, during which I have handled a large number of defences and a considerable number of prosecutions, I have seen-as I think have members of the bar generally-too many cases in which decent, respectable persons whose only fault is their poverty, find themselves unable to pay a fine and are then incarcerated in prison in default of payment. Whether that prison term be 10 days or 30 days, the individual who cannot pay his fine is stigmatized for the balance of his life. No matter what that individual may subsequently endeavour to do in order to erase that term of imprisonment, ever and anon it makes its appearance.
Indeed, since I introduced this bill on first reading, I have had a number of letters from persons across Canada whose only offence was a petty one for which a fine was a reasonable and suitable punishment. However, because of their inability to pay that fine they have suffered terms of imprisonment and have subsequently found themselves detrimentally affected in consequence of that period of imprisonment. On many occasions I have been shocked to see coming before the courts men who have committed offences which any of us might have committed-petty offences such as breaches of municipal laws, traffic offences and the like-and whose inability to pay the fines has meant imprisonment and forever the mark of Cain in consequence of that imprisonment.
I doubt whether there are many Canadians who realize the march to the jails taking place in our country, in a considerable measure due to the fact that we still maintain imprisonment as a mandatory alternative to the payment of a fine except within the limitation mentioned a few moments ago, when I set' out the power that exists in the court to direct a payment on terms. It is there in the book, but it is seldom used.
How many of us realize the extent of this march to the jails within Canada? The figures are not up to date. What I have before me is the Canada Year Book for 1955, and that tells the story. In 1952 the number of persons admitted to penal institutions in Canada
Criminal Code
amounted to 99,163. In 1951 it amounted to
99,062. The number is now over 100,000 a year. Most of the offences of these people are offences punishable by jail sentences, but the turnover is indicated by these statistics. In 1952, 87,917 were admitted to common jails and 87,763 were discharged. In other words, the large proportion of the 100,000 Canadians who go to jail every year spend a comparatively short time there. The figures in 1951 were approximately the same.
Why is this? Why is it that our jails are loaded down as the penal institutions of few other countries are? Compare our situation with Great Britain. Making all the allowances that are often made, why is it that in proportion to population we have three and a half times as many people in our penal institutions as has Great Britain? Well, one of the reasons, and the major reason, is the fact that more than 40 years ago in Great Britain they abolished this system of mandatory imprisonment for non-payment of fines. In this country, in our administration of criminal justice for minor offences, we are 50 years behind the times, although the situation revealed by the Williams case indicates that red tape and faulty administration play too important a part in the administration of justice. In so far as minor offences are concerned, no serious change has been made in the Criminal Code in more than 50 years.
Why have not the advances in modern penological experience been incorporated within our laws to the extent they should? Only recently a great speech was made on this subject in another place by a former member of this house. He set out the very serious degree to which in the administration of our criminal jurisprudence, rehabilitation of the individual plays so small a part that recidivism claims some 76 per cent of all those who at one time or another receive prison sentences. When an individual receives a prison sentence for his inability to pay a fine, too often that is the first step along the road leading to recidivism and the almost continued occupancy of a cell.
Why is it that knowing the benefits that have accrued from the operation of the law in Great Britain, passed as I said 42 years ago, a similar amendment to our law has not been brought into effect? In Britain this matter came before the House of Commons in April, 1914. I am not going to read the debates. They are to be found in English Hansard for April 15, 1914, and in subsequent volumes. This provision became law on August 10, 1914, just after Britain entered the first war. Read the list of those who spoke in the British House of Commons. It is almost a Who's Who of subsequently great

Criminal Code
people in the annals of Great Britain. There were some, however, who used the same arguments in opposition to this amendment as I have seen referred to in the press. One is that if imprisonment in default of a fine were removed it would be an encouragement to those who are poor to commit crimes. Another argument is that it would increase the number of crimes; that the poor would have an incentive.
It is said that there are circumstances under which there should be no extension of time for the payment of a fine, and I can envisage some of those circumstances. In order to cover those circumstances I have placed in part of the amendment words which will give to the court the right, for any special reason, to deny to the individual any extension of time. One of those reasons may be the nature of the offence. It may be that the individual is a repeater or it may be that for some other good and sufficient reason the fine should be paid forthwith, regardless of any excuses advanced by the individual. In those cases the magistrate shall have that power, but shall be required to note upon the warrant of commitment the reason an extension of time for payment was not granted by the court.
I mentioned a moment ago that one of the reasons there has been little change in the number of cases in which an extension of time has been granted as a result of the amendment of two years ago is that it is not mandatory that there be an investigation. It is purely a voluntary section giving to the court the right to grant an extension if and when it feels like doing so. What did Britain find in 1912, the last year in respect of which statistics were available? There were 80,000 British people who went to jail because of their inability to pay fines. The bill was introduced by the secretary of state for the home department, Mr. Reginald McKenna, and he pointed out that of the 80,000 who were committed about 13,000 paid their fines in whole or in part after commitment, and the rest were imprisoned until the conclusion of their sentences. He and others associated with him pointed out the injustice inherent in imprisonment because of poverty.
Among those who participated in the debate, sir, were some men who subsequently attained greatness: Sir William Anson, a name to conjure with in the legal world; Samuel Hoare; Joynson-Hicks; Robert Har-court; Hamer Greenwood, and others. Then, when you come to the vote, sir, on July 20, 1914, among those who voted on that occasion-and apparently it was not a party vote- were Sir John Simon; Sir Stanley Buck-master; Augustine Birrell; H. H. Asquith; Stanley Baldwin; and Ramsay MacDonald.

All these men were at the time either nationally or internationally known. All subsequently became such, and every one of them supported the amendment of 1914.
That amendment to the law is to be found in "Public General Acts, 1914", chapter 58. In general that has been the law since 1914. The change that came about when it was brought into being was a very marked reduction in the jail population of Great Britain, which has continued to be the case ever since in respect of minor offences. The amendment which I move is in large measure incorporated in the act of 1914, changed only in certain particulars which the British people found necessary to change on the basis of their experience.
Finally a further act was passed in 1935, called the money payments act, which is to be found in the 14th volume of Halsbury's Statutes of England, second edition. Ever since the British people changed the law in this regard it is specific in so far as offenders under 21 years are concerned. They cannot be imprisoned because of their inability to pay a fine. Go to our jails and penal institutions, sir, and see something of the change that has taken place in recent years. See the number of young offenders, many of them there because of offences for which a fine was a fair and reasonable penalty. Since they were unable to pay the fine they had to suffer the penalty of imprisonment and a lifetime stigma that no future good conduct can eradicate.
I endeavoured to secure the statistics for Canada. I wrote to the various attorneys general of the provinces to find out how many persons in the jails of each of the provinces during the period of five years were imprisoned because of the inability of the offender to pay a fine. Interestingly enough, outside of two provinces none of the attorneys general or their staffs had any available data on the subject. The province of Ontario had a composite picture, but not complete in itself. The only province that had a picture approximately correct was the province of Quebec. The attorney general wrote me on April 7 and said this:
It is impossible to supply you with the exact figures. However, I have had a quick study made, in order to give you approximate numbers. The results are as follows:
1951	
approximately	2,4301952	
approximately	2,6651953	
approximately	3,0351954	
approximately	3,1501955	
approximately	2,825
I want publicly to pay my tribute to the deputy attorney general of Quebec for furnishing that very important information, in which is clearly indicated the degree of

seriousness inherent in the imposition of fines which the individual cannot pay.
On the face of it I cannot see any serious argument that can be advanced against this bill. It has been weighed in the scales of experience in Britain. Similar legislation has been passed in a number of states of the American union. The statistics reveal that, whether in consequence of the change of the law or not, the number of young offenders has been greatly reduced wherever a similar law, or an analogous one, is in effect. Why should we not in this House of Commons, without regard to party consideration, try this plan, give it a trial for a year or two? Something must be done to meet the accelerating degree to which our young men are finding themselves in prison and, following their release, again returned to prison. Imprisonment, because of the failure to pay a fine, causes resentment in the heart of the individual upon whom that fine is imposed that is not easily erased.
I have on my desk a letter from a man in Toronto who tells his story. It could be multiplied and is multiplied to the knowledge of lawyers in every part of the house. In August this man received an increase of $3 a week in salary. It was a Saturday. He became intoxicated and was picked up by the police. It was not until Tuesday that sufficient money was raised to pay the remainder of his fine, then unexpiated and unearned. He lost his job, and whenever he has made an application for a position since he has been faced with the fact that imprisonment came to him under those circumstances eight or nine months ago.
The British people have found in their experience that the amendments of 1914 have paid tremendous returns in good citizenship. I do not know why it is, but I sometimes feel that in the field of criminal law and procedure we in this nation are far behind the advances made in other nations with similar backgrounds and traditions.
We had the Archambault report. It made many recommendations, some of which have been implemented. At the present time a commission is sitting which indeed may have already made a report. This commission is composed of distinguished jurists and lawyers. I do not endeavour to anticipate what that report will be, but I do say that anyone with any knowledge of our criminal courts knows that too often our measures of punishment are indeed measures that open the portals of a life to almost permanent wrongdoing.
I mentioned the Williams case, which is a tragic example of the kind of mentality that
Criminal Code
exists. Here a man 20 years of age, never before having committed any crime, commits a series of crimes within a period of six weeks and is imprisoned for 28 years. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice spoke of the means being taken to rehabilitate him. He has been in prison now for five years; yet when a nationally known magazine such as Maclean's sets out the facts, undenied and undeniable as they are, the processes of our administration deny the application of ordinary principles of justice.
We did not have any difficulty, sir, in finding a means whereby the views of the Supreme Court of Canada could be ascertained in the Coffin case. The means used was an order in council under the Supreme Court Act. By no stretch of the imagination was an order in council ever conceived to be the means whereby the Supreme Court of Canada could receive the power to do that for which it did not possess the power. If it could be done in the Coffin case, could it not also have been done in the Williams case?
If the present Penitentiaries Act and the Ticket of Leave Act and the law respecting parole cannot be applied in the Williams case, is this not the type of case in which action could be taken to submit to the court the question as to whether or not the infamy of a 28-year sentence, so unreasonable and dissimilar from that imposed in other cases, is in keeping with the highest traditions of justice within our country?
I am shocked when I read the record of the Williams case and compare it with the case of another young man 26 years of age who went on a crime rampage and staged six armed hold-ups. The second young man was able to secure the services of an eminent counsel, and he received a sentence of six years' imprisonment. The Minister of Justice says nothing can be done about the Williams case, but that it is receiving consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I have been following the hon. gentleman's argument for some time, and I thought perhaps he was going to draw some parallel between the last two cases he has been discussing and the question of payment of fines in summary conviction cases.
I must tell the hon. member for Prince Albert that he is causing me a bit of worry because some of his remarks have come very close to being critical of the courts and judges who imposed the sentence, although I think it was his intention to criticize the law that enabled that to happen rather than to criticize the courts. However, I must say I find it a little difficult to relate the Williams case to the payment of fines upon summary conviction.

Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was
merely illustrating by an outstanding current example something of the rigidity that characterizes the administration of our criminal law today. When you say I have cast reflections on the courts, I point out to you that every time a counsel appeals against a sentence by a lower court he always points out the salient errors. Incidentally, when he appeals against a sentence the number one ground is that the sentence given shocks the conscience and for that reason is appealable.
I simply used the Williams case as an example of what I have been trying to point out today, and it is this. Let us try to change our criminal law in those regards which are covered by the purview of the bill before the house to the end that we shall not, because of rigidity in our administration, fail to make those changes in the law which experience in other countries and which common sense would dictate as necessary.
Britain found 42 years ago that 80,000 persons were going to jail each year because of their inability to pay their fines. The law was then changed. Extensions of time for payment are not generally given today, excepting within the restricted area which I mentioned earlier in my argument, and which must be in the law to ensure that no one shall take advantage of the opportunity to commit an offence because he realizes that his poverty will prevent him from going to jail if he fails to pay his fine. Britain found that this change in the law emptied the jails.
We should consider the terrific cost of our jail system in Canada today with eighty-nine or ninety thousand Canadians going into jail each year and approximately the same number being released. My submission is that we in parliament have a responsibility to give serious consideration to the need for legislation like this to be incorporated in our law; for certainly if we preserve only 100 individuals in this country from receiving the stigma of one term in jail, and as a result they are able to pay their fines afterward and are saved from becoming recidivists, this bill will have indeed achieved everything which I am hopeful it will achieve.


Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of justice is too important to any country to be allowed to deteriorate. It is therefore necessary that a country should constantly review its justice, its laws and the procedure of its courts. Bill No. 167 attempts to remove what I believe might be termed a discrimination as between the rich and the poor in the case of summary convictions. I believe it should have and that it will receive the support of all thinking members of this house.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
The principle of this bill is to permit any accused person who is unable to pay a fine imposed, because of his financial position, to be granted a period of time in which to pay that penalty. In modern life it is quite natural that some people shall have wealth while others have not. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Prince Albert, who has introduced this bill, at times it is difficult to obtain immediately the money required, and the result is that the person who is unable to do so finds himself faced with the disgrace of imprisonment. Surely it is wrong that a poorer person should be compelled to suffer the disgrace of a prison term while wealthier citizens are able to escape. The fact that such a thing exists in Canada is not good for Canada's reputation. In the meting out of justice Great Britain has found it advisable to remove this injustice, which indicates that Canada has been a bit slow in bringing about this change in our law.
I do not know of any ground upon which anyone could oppose this bill. Perhaps someone will say that it would be difficult to arrange instalment payments, that this would place the court in the position of a collection agency.


An hon. Member:: Get a loan from a finance company.


George Hugh Castleden: It might be a more logical operation for a finance company. Surely no one would contend that this should be turned over to one of these new finance companies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Jail might even be better.


George Hugh Castleden: Jail might be preferable. If anyone were to advance the ground that the extra administrative work would be a burden upon the Department of Justice, it would be a poor ground for opposition to the adoption of this type of legislation. If it will bring a measure of justice, if it will remove discrimination, then surely it is to the good. If extra work is to be imposed upon the Department of Justice, surely that small extra burden would be a small price to pay for this improvement in our standards of justice.
I am quite sure that in thinking it over hon. members will decide to support this bill. I think the hon. member for Prince Albert has done a signal service in introducing this bill and attempting to contribute to an improvement in our standards of justice.


Frank A. Enfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few brief remarks on the principle of this bill. It is certainly a bill which any young lawyer would find interest in dissecting. I have no doubt but that this bill springs from the humanitarian impulses which so often motivate the hon. member for Prince Albert. The picture

[DOT]conjured up by the old Dickensian story of imprisonment for debt, when we were told of how Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller were lodged in jail for not paying money that was owing, is certainly much different from what is the case today. We have advanced far from the days when a person could be imprisoned for a civil debt.
I think probably this bill springs from the situation where a debt is created in the form of a fine imposed by a magistrate. It is a debt to the court which, as has been pointed out, in some cases cannot be paid. In introducing the bill the hon. member for Prince Albert referred to the section under which a magistrate finds his jurisdiction in matters of this kind. If the house will bear with me I should like to refer again to section 694 (3) which reads:
A summary conviction court may direct that any fine, pecuniary penalty or sum of money adjudged to be paid shall be paid forthwith or, if the accused is unable to pay forthwith, at such time and on such terms as the summary conviction court may fix.
I imagine that what the hon. member for Prince Albert objects to in the present law is the use of the word "may" in that section. He would like to have it made arbitrary that the magistrate examine the possibility of time payments rather than the permissive stipulation in the present section. The question, then, is if this change in the section is made and we adopt a bill similar to the one proposed, will it have any practical impact upon the situation. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member say that he did not think magistrates were very prone to grant extensions of time for the payment of fines, and I think he said that in the majority of cases they did not grant any such extension.
I have not had too wide an experience in matters of this kind, although I have done some work in magistrates' courts. Perhaps because of the short passage of time I have not risen to the exalted heights on which the hon. member for Prince Albert finds himself when appearing in court, but in my short experience I have found that magistrates are often very humane in their outlook. This clause gives them freedom to take all circumstances into account, such as inability to pay and so on. I wonder if it is necessary for them to have that freedom.
I realize that there is a terrific problem in the administration of justice at the magistrate's level, certainly in large metropolitan centres where the magistrate, particularly on Monday morning, is faced with a tremendous number of cases. Anyone who has been present in court at that time will realize the problem. These people come before the magistrate charged with minor offences. There is
Criminal Code
a tremendous number of charges of drunkenness, in many cases a repetition of previous charges. The magistrate and the crown attorney have a list of previous convictions, and in many of these cases the sentence is $5 or five days. Quite often the accused person will just march off, sometimes gladly, to the cell.
I do not know, but it seems to me that the Quebec statistics which the hon. member for Prince Albert quoted must have included a number of cases of that type, where the magistrate would be faced with a tremendously difficult problem. He made a good attempt to obtain figures from the other provinces as to the number who were in prison because of their inability to pay fines, and it is unfortunate that there were not more figures forthcoming. It is rather hard to canvass the situation intelligently and reach any sound judgment unless you know exactly what the situation is in that respect.
There is another point. I think this section certainly should be made more use of if the other officials in the court apart from the magistrate would raise the problem of the inability of the accused to pay the fine. So often in these courts the accused has no one to speak for him. There is no counsel acting on his behalf, and the case is tried very quickly in this log jam of cases that faces the people administering justice in this country. Before the accused knows what has happened the case is finished. Often I feel that other court officials, such as the crown attorneys, could take a little more time perhaps to point out to the accused that it is possible to ask for time in which to pay their fines.


An hon. Member:: Is that not all the more reason why time should be given?


Frank A. Enfield: That is a good question, of course, and I am not arguing that such a bill is unnecessary; but at the same time I am arguing that under the code at the present time provision is made for those administering justice to give time for the payment of the fine. I am just wondering what practical impact this bill will have on that situation. Let us examine that a little further. Section 694A of the proposed Bill No. 167 sets out the conditions under which time might be granted. It reads:
A warrant committing a person to prison in respect of non-payment of a fine adjudged to be paid by the court shall not be issued forthwith unless the court which passed the sentence is satisfied that he is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fine forthwith, or-
Then there are two conditions:
-or unless, upon being asked by the court whether he desires that time should be allowed for payment, he does not express any such desire, or

Criminal Code
unless the court for any other special reason expressly desires that no time shall be allowed.
I do not think the member who introduced the bill examined too thoroughly the last phrase in that sentence. This section would give the magistrate a way out of even putting the question. In other words, he need not go into the question if for any special reasons he expressed the desire that no time should be allowed.


John George Diefenbaker: The warrant of commitment must contain the reason, so that the question as to whether it was reasonable can be reviewed by the appellate court.


Frank A. Enfield: It may be that I do not fully understand the wording of the section, but it seemed to me that this condition rather milked the section of any new or practical effect it might have. Obviously, before you adopted such a measure something like that would have to be very carefully gone into. It is interesting to note, in a further examination of the present section of the Criminal Code, a case quoted on page 685 of Snow's Criminal Code of Canada, sixth edition, which is the latest edition. This is the case of Rex v. Mackie (1944). The judge in the case indicated the following:
A fine is payable forthwith but if the accused is unable to pay forthwith the justice or magistrate may direct that the fine be paid at such time and on such terms as he may fix . . .
The statement goes on:
It is always the duty of a court when imposing punishment to take into consideration the circumstances in which the crime has been committed. There is no rule governing a uniform punishment for particular crimes.
It seems to me that the judge in that case was trying to point out that it is always the duty of the court to take into account the ability to pay the fine. Therefore, with any sort of effective representation at all, an accused has the advantage of this law that is already in existence.
Again we run into the old problem of the constitution. If you produce a law here in this house, which is in turn administered by the provincial house, they of course have complete control over the administration of justice in the province. I would submit that
as the law presently stands-and I submit this very respectfully-the province has the power if it wants to tighten up in this particular situation. I submit that it already has the power to do so under the existing law. As has been said, it may be that the administration of justice is too rigid in the province. Perhaps that is something in which many of us can agree.


An hon. Member:: In some they might be more lenient.


Frank A. Enfield: I really would not know the answer to that question, as to whether or not there has be'en any more enlightened attitude in any particular province. I imagine it varies greatly from province to province. I put those considerations forward for the benefit of the house. I think it is now six o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for York-Scarborough concluded his remarks?


Frank A. Enfield: Yes, I have concluded.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall start on Monday with the Trans-Canada Highway Act in committee, then take the housing resolution; then second reading of the agreement with respect to income tax with the Kingdom of Denmark; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and then the resolution in my name with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
364. Unforeseen improvements, $900,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 23, 1956