1956-04-27

BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Viau.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Lefrangois (Laurier):: I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Public Works. The first one is this: Has the Minister of Public Works had any correspondence or other communications with the government of the province of Quebec concerning the landslide which took place in the town of Nicolet in the fall of 1955?
The second one is this: If in the affirmative, would the minister consent to table such communications?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, there has been an exchange of correspondence. Some of it has been on a personal basis and as such is not producible; but any other correspondence I shall be glad to produce, subject to the usual reservation that I shall first inform the government of Quebec.



REPORTED WITHDRAWAL PROM GATT AND RENOUNCING OF EMPIRE PREFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked him on Tuesday? It is recorded on page 3209 of Hansard and is as follows:
May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his attention has been called to reports from Ceylon that the government of that country is considering withdrawing from GATT and also denouncing the system of empire trade preferences. Has the department formed any opinion as to the effect this may have on Canada's trade interests?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have a reply to that question. The Associated Press item, which was in the Ottawa Journal of April 23, in which
the minister of industries in Ceylon is reported as having stated that he will reexamine the GATT and preferential tariff obligations of Ceylon, has now been brought to my attention. It is likely that if the Ceylon government has any specific proposals to make in this connection they will inform us officially. In the meantime we are asking our high commissioner in Colombo to report fully on this matter. Until we have more complete information it will not be possible to assess the effect which this might have upon Canada's foreign trade.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF LIST OF EXPORTABLE COMMODITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the Canadian government has in mind the extension of the list of commodities that may be exported to the U.S.S.R. in view of the added commodities that were announced yesterday by the United States government and I think also by the British government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian list will be expanded to the extent that the United States list is expanded. Our system of area export permits is somewhat different from the United States system in that we do not require a licence for every specific commodity. We issue licences for a group of commodities, none of which are strategic. The relaxations announced in Washington do not affect strategic commodities and many of the commodities on the new list were already on our list as permissible for export. However, I can assure my hon. friend that we will make such changes as will make our list as broad as the United States list.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister this question? Is there not some discretion exercised by Canada as to the removal of articles from the strategic list? Have we always got to follow what the United States does?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, and it has
not been our practice to follow the United States. As I have said, our present list is considerably broader than has been the United States list. The United States is really catching up to our present practice, although we may need to somewhat extend our list.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the speech given by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) in Montreal yesterday, in which he called the naming of the new C.N.R. hotel in Montreal an appalling blunder of Mr. Gordon and in which he declared that his views were shared by all the other Liberal members on the island of Montreal?


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Provincial election.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think my position in this matter is already known, and I shall refrain from any comment on the speech by the hon. member in question.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I wish to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Can he advise the house when the Salk vaccine will be available in sufficient quantities for second inoculations and also the approximate date for the booster inoculations?


Mr. F. G. Roberison (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made many announcements on the situation regarding the production of Salk vaccine, and I feel there is nothing more I can add on this occasion to what he has already said.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government reconsidering at the moment the question of whether or not to raise the tariff on skim milk powder and cheese?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a number of other agricultural bodies attended on me yesterday to make representations to that effect, and I will of course give consideration to what they said.



METHOD OF PROMOTION IN PROTECTIVE SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question. This may not come directly under his department but I think the minister will be particularly interested. My question has reference to promotions in the protective service of the House of Commons. In making promotions in the protective service is preference given in the matter of promotion to veterans with active service in the first and second world wars over members of the protective service who have had no military service? Does the time spent in military service count towards seniority in the protective service?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, this matter does not come directly under my department. The members of the protective service of the House of Commons are employees of the House of Commons. I am not positive but my understanding is that although they are employees of the House of Commons they enjoy the same privileges as other civil servants. My understanding of the veterans preference in the civil service is that preference is given to veterans with respect to entering the public service but that so far as promotional competitions within the service are concerned the veterans preference does not apply any more. I believe that is the position with regard to the civil service.
As to the second part of the question, as to whether military service should count in determining seniority in the protective service, I shall have to inquire about this matter. But there again I should like to point out that under the Civil Service Act military service does not count in determining seniority but it can be counted for superannuation purposes, and the date of seniority depends upon the date of entry of the servant into the public service.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-CANADA'S SHARE OF WORLD MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general disappointment which is felt over the recent international wheat agreement, has the Minister of

Trade and Commerce anything to report with regard to what we may expect in view of the decreased sales anticipated? What are the markets we may expect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any general disapproval of the wheat agreement.


William Earl Rowe: I said "disappointment".


Clarence Decatur Howe: The international wheat agreement was negotiated by a group of department officers with the help of six farm advisers, the latter being the presidents of the principal farm organizations of western Canada. The representatives of the farm organizations recommended the agreement. I have no reason to believe that they are disappointed. Of course, the only disappointment there can be is that the United Kingdom have decided not to join the agreement. It was hoped that they would join the new agreement. On the other hand, Argentina and Sweden, which are important exporters, have joined the agreement for the first time. To that extent its value has been enhanced.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the reports appearing in the papers, is it true that we can expect about a 30 per cent decrease in our share in the world's market for wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; that is not true. It is true that the quantities within the agreement have been decreased by 30 per cent. But in the past year we have done far more business outside the agreement than we have done inside it. The value of the agreement lies in the fact that the exporters and importers of many countries have decided that a range of values for wheat between $1.50 minimum and $2 maximum is reasonable. I think this will be a valuable agreement affecting the price of wheat.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to give the Minister of Public Works notice of this question. Perhaps he can answer it for me next week. Has the minister received any intimation that the government of British Columbia are planning a change in the route *of the trans-Canada highway to include the Oak street bridge?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: Only through the columns of the press, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can answer the question I asked him yesterday.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet able to answer my hon. friend's question, but I think I might take advantage of his rising now in order to ask him to elucidate it to some extent. Yesterday he asked:
Has any consideration been given to amending the Canada Evidence Act so that microphotographic film would be taken as proof of records of municipal governments?
An amendment to the Canada Evidence Act would affect only criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and other matters respecting which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. This would not affect the general run of lawsuits in which matters coming under provincial jurisdiction are concerned. The hon. member is clear on that point?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; I am clear on that point. What I have reference to are matters coming before the exchequer court here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Matters coming before the exchequer court and in criminal proceedings?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right; and in criminal proceedings.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have not received any
request for such consideration for some considerable time. I am having the department check back to see whether we have had any request. When that check has been made I will reply later.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I just say this. Because certain departments of government were microfilming their records, a couple of municipalities asked that this be done and that this government take the initial step in amending the Canada Evidence Act. Then the province might do the same.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I think the point the municipalities might well consider is whether, for the few occasions on which their records would be required in criminal proceedings or in civil proceedings in the exchequer court, they would want to go to the expense of installing a system of this sort for all their records.

Supply-Public Works


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then in regard to the records of the federal government and the different departments, what is being done in case any of those records have to be brought in by way of microfilm? What is being done in regard to that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, "government," under the Canada Evidence Act and within that section thereof which has to do with the use of microfilm, means "the government of Canada or any province of Canada and includes any department, commission, board or branch of the government." Where it is advantageous and where some economies can be made by having and using this type of film, there would be some sense to their doing so. But as for a municipality microfilming its records just to avoid the prospect of having some of them produced in a criminal or exchequer court case, I should not think they would want to do this; for the cost would be far greater than the savings would be.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Sirricoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Harbours and rivers engineering branch-
365. Branch administration, including district engineers, staffs and related expenses, $2,381,423.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, there are two problems that I have to bring to the minister's attention briefly and I am going to do it under this administration item. The reason I am doing it is that, so far as the minister and I are concerned, it is a matter of unfinished business. There are two matters upon which we have been corresponding for some time. I was rather surprised when this year's estimates were introduced to find that there was nothing for the two very important projects I had brought to the attention of the department.
Another thing upon which I should like to advise the minister is that there is a great deal of interest in Cape Breton in these two particular problems. Of course, he being the minister in the cabinet representing the province of Nova Scotia, I know he is sympathetic, and there must be other influences behind the scenes which prevent him from doing something he otherwise would very much like to do. The first item concerns the improvement of the harbour in the town of Glace Bay. The minister's files will indicate that the board of trade and other bodies in that town have been actively bringing to his attention the need for improvement in that harbour. One of the main reasons that I think something should have been included, at least in the supplementary estimates this


year, is that the town was rather badly hit by the closing of several coal mines which created a lot of unemployment.
As the minister is well aware, the town of Glace Bay is as far east as you can go; it is right on the Atlantic seaboard. The coal industry has been the main upkeep of the town over the years. It is now on the wane. In order to maintain the investments in the town in the form of schools, churches, and so forth, something else is needed and something has to be done to rehabilitate and maintain the town itself. This project that I am talking about, the expansion of the wharf and the details of how it should be done, have already been given to the minister's department, because I have press reports that indicate the board of trade are alleged to have brought to the attention of the department the need to expand the pier. One of the best ways that I can see of providing something for that town at the present time is by providing better facilities in the harbour to build up the fishing industry. There are two fairly large fish plants established on the waterfront there. About 10 years ago the department did a very good job in expanding the facilities that were there and reconstructing a new pier. It appears that the pier has not been extended out far enough. Another 600 feet should be added to it.
As the minister is also well aware, the largest swordfishing industry on this continent perhaps operates out of the town of Glace Bay. The swordfishermen from the minister's end of the province, from Newfoundland and from other sections, gather there for a couple of months in the year during the swordfishing season. Probably 200 or 300 boats are in and out of that harbour. The harbour is not adequate to handle them. If the minister had included something in his estimates this year it would have been an indication that the government realized the need of doing something in that part of the country.
It is all right to talk about bringing in new industries and to do this and that, but that is all in the future. The town of Glace Bay has transportation difficulties. It is not even on the main line of the C.N.R., although there is a coal company railroad that connects with it in Sydney. I am sure the minister will agree with me that an expansion of the fishing industry is something that is badly needed. It would not require the spending of very much money to extend the pier another 600 feet. If the harbour farther up at what they call the cove were dredged it would provide anchorage. It should be about 16 feet deep. I think it is

about six or seven feet now. Dredging and deepening the cove of the harbour to about 16 feet would provide anchorage for many ships. When they unload at the piers they could get out of the way, go up the cove and anchor overnight. There is no need of my labouring the point; the minister is fully aware of it.
There is another point I should like to mention for the minister's information. Over the years much dredging has been done in the harbour. If the pier were extended another 600 feet much of the dredging would be done away with. The coal company has dumps where they dump the slag and refuse from their mines over toward Table head where 1-V colliery is located. A strong tide runs through there and a lot of the dirt and refuse is carried into the channel of the harbour when the tide flows in and out. Of course, the logical thing would have been to remove the dumps years ago. If that were done a lot of the dirt and refuse would not come into the harbour, but it has not been done. If you extended the pier out another 600 feet you would prevent that waste from the dumps coming in; it would go out to sea instead of coming into the harbour. I am reasonably sure that because of the economic situation in that particular area and the recognition of the fact that it is a town in which it is going to be difficult to locate anything to take the place of coal because of the location of transportation facilities there are good railways and that sort of thing, of course, but it is not the
kind of town which could attract industry___
there is a possibility of maintaining that town and its investments if the harbour improvements I am suggesting are carried out by the minister's department. Perhaps it is not too late even now to include something in the supplementary estimates.
The second point I would like to mention again concerns a project at Port Morien. I am certain that I have the wholehearted support of the Minister of Fisheries in these two projects. The one I am going to speak of now has been unfinished for about two years. As the minister knows there is a breakwater at Port Morien in the Morien basin. Now, Port Morien is a thriving little village with a population of approximately 1,600. There is a fish plant and a lobster factory at that point. The factory does some canning of lobsters on a small scale.
The breakwater there is another project that was built after the war. It did bring about a great improvement at that point but it is inadequate to handle the fishing industry around the Morien basin. For two years I have been urging that something be done and
Supply-Public Works I know that the fish operator at that point has written much correspondence expressing how anxious he is to obtain some improvements there. If the breakwater were extended it would enable larger boats to fish out of that point and it would provide shelter for them after they unloaded their fish at the pier.
The two projects I have mentioned are not big projects. It amazes me when I hear discussions about more money being spent for technical aid for underdeveloped countries. I am not objecting to such expenditures but I do believe that charity should begin at home. We have here an opportunity of doing something for people who have been taxpayers over the years. These are displaced coal miners and this is an opportunity to rehabilitate them by improving the fishing industry. The difficulty in obtaining half a million dollars for a project that is going to create new wealth in Canada and maintain wealth that has already been established amazes me.
We are big-hearted; we can pick up a power plant in Ontario and ship it over to India, and rightly so, and we pat ourselves on the back and say, "What a great contribution we are making to world rehabilitation". There is great difficulty, however, in getting something done for our own people in communities such as the one I have been describing. The people in this community are going to be taxpayers and if their income is improved the Minister of National Revenue will receive more money.
I should think it would be a great source of pride to the Minister of Public Works if he were to carry out the suggestions I made with regard to Glace Bay harbour and Port Morien. If he were to go down there in a couple of years' time he would see what a difference a small expenditure would make to the two communities I have mentioned. It would assist in building up a Canadian industry which is becoming extremely important on this continent.
Without labouring the matter any further,
I would like the minister to tell me definitely before we conclude this item what his department has in mind in relation to these two projects.
I have received letters from the minister. He said the matter was considered last year on the estimates and that it is going to be considered for 1957-58. I have heard that story for two years and it is rather discouraging that nothing has been done. When you get some encouragement about these two projects you inform your people that it is in the hands of a very capable minister who is very much interested in Nova Scotia and its future and you pass on the encouragement you get to the community and everybody is

Supply-Public Works waiting for some improvement. When the estimates for 1956-57 come out you look carefully through the book and find that there is no mention of it. Your own people will say to you, "You did a nice job for that minister; he was a great fellow last year but he certainly forgot you when he was writing the book." I trust that the minister will take a look at these two projects. The amount of money is not great, but the benefits to that community, Mr. Minister, I can assure you, will more than pay for the slight expenditure that the government may have to make. I know that everything is earmarked, that there are always many places where money is earmarked and is not used that year. By a little juggling and a little switching, you might be able to find a little more in the estimates this year and you might be able to re-sort it and put it to use in a part of the country where it is very badly needed.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I might say a word in reply to my hon. friend from Cape Breton South. I have exchanged a considerable amount of correspondence with him and with other citizens about both these projects. He knows, too, it is the policy of the department not to include provisions in the estimates for any one year unless we are reasonably certain we can spend the money in that year.
We have both these projects under consideration. They have not yet been planned to the point where we thought we could implement the plans this year, but I can again tell him that we are actively concerned in planning both these projects and, subject to the approval of the treasury board, next year I hope it will be possible to carry something in the estimates. I have told him that in correspondence, and so I am not telling him anything now that he has not known before.


Mr. Nowlan:: I should like to say a word on the same matter to which my hon. friend from Cape Breton South referred a moment ago. I would not attempt to emulate the artistic description that he gave of the book that was written, but I can read a chapter that is exactly the same as he has said. Perhaps the minister will tell us about this before the item passes. I think there was an item in the estimates some years ago for the construction of a breakwater at Whale cove in Digby county; and that item appeared one year and then was dropped. I have had some correspondence with the minister since, and he said that there were borings to be made, and he suggested that they would be able to go ahead with the construction of this breakwater on obtaining
[Mr. Gillls.l
the results of these. I have heard nothing more about it and I thought that possibly the minister could tell us what the plans were with respect to that particular item, before this item 365 passes.
I was not here the other day when the minister's estimates were being discussed. I had an opportunity this morning of glancing briefly over the discussions that took place with respect to the expenditures on the works proposed at Port aux Basques, in Newfoundland, in connection with the ferry from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. When one reads that discussion, not having been here to get inflection of the voice or the human touch in that debate itself, the reading of it leaves a sort of atmosphere of unreality about the matter, which I think should be clarified before this item finally passes. I think that what the committee wants to know and should know is when the minister expects to have these public works completed at Port aux Basques so that the William Carson can operate on the schedule that was originally planned. I realize that may involve something of a crystal ball, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the only one who professes to have one.


Robert Henry Winters: He said he had loaned it.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is possible that the Minister of Public Works can borrow it. There are obviously two stages in the Port aux Basques development at the moment. There is the construction of a breakwater which, as I read it, the minister says is about 35 per cent completed. I should like to know when that work will be done. That is a fair answer to give.
Then the crystal ball part comes into the fact that apparently some department, or a combination of transport or public works and the C.N.R., are not satisfied that this breakwater may serve the purpose and they have constructed a working model of the harbour which will be tried out this summer to ascertain whether further expenditures will be necessary. I think the minister should be able to tell us when this ferry can operate in that harbour. That is the pertinent question. Will the breakwater be done this summer and, if it proves satisfactory, will the Carson operate there immediately afterwards? When will that be? If, as a result of the working of the model, it is found that the breakwater is not sufficient, will steps be taken immediately to go ahead and carry out such other constructions as may be necessary at Port aux Basques, or will that project be abandoned and possibly Argentia or some other port used?
I take it from reading the Hansard of the other day that all was well in Newfoundland

and that everybody down there was very happy about the situation. That is not the way one reads it, in the press anyway. The reason I mention Argentia is that I noticed in the Ottawa Citizen of the the 11th of this month a report that the Newfoundland fisheries minister said in the legislature that he was going to lead his riding out of confederation if this ferry did not operate out of Port aux Basques and if it continues to operate out of Argentia. So apparently he is not too happy about the situation, and the minister would not say that he was a hostile critic of this government. There is the emphasis there.
One of the St. John's newspapers, the Daily Star, the other day commented on this whole question and this does not suggest sweetness and light. It said:
It is a mad scheme which never had an atom of common sense applied to it.
That is a fairly stringent criticism to make of matters of expenditure which have already amounted to $21,760,000, in which you need a soothsayer with a crystal ball to tell us how much more can be spent and, even after it is spent, whether the works can be used. The other day the minister was probably trying to, shall we say, hold a cloak over other people rather than himself, in an explanation on this which, I should say, has confused the matter more than it was before.
Someone suggested-I think it was the hon. member for Broadview-that the dredging of the natural breakwater there had caused some of the difficulty. The minister indignantly repudiated that and said that that had nothing to do with it at all. Then that was qualified slightly when he told us that he was responsible for the setting up of, shall we call it, the committee of inquiry, something similar to a court martial that we would have in the army except that there was no one to shoot in this case. They set up a committee of inquiry of the Canadian National Railways and the departments of public works and transport. They retained a leading engineer from Great Britain to deal with this matter. According to the minister- though we have not the report in front of us -this engineer said the work of dredging, as I understand it, and in the words of the minister, had had no appreciable effect on the harbour. I do not know how you spell that word "appreciable". I suggest it should be in capital letters. If you take that out it changes the context, of course. I am sure the minister would not want to imply that the dredging was useless. I am sure that what the minister must have meant was that it had no appreciable damaging effect, that
Supply-Public Works it did little appreciable damage to the harbour, because if you take the other interpretation the whole expenditure was wasted. When a particularly experienced engineer is retained by this government to come over and meet this committee and consider the matter, I think that is the most stringent statement one could expect.
As I said, how do you spell that word "appreciable", and what do you mean by "effect"? If you mean damage, that is an admission. Perhaps the St. John's newspaper to which I referred said, "Thank God, you have not destroyed the harbour entirely." Although it was a slightly euphemistic and perhaps apocryphal one, yet perhaps it was not too far out of the way. This is the situation, Mr. Chairman, as it currently appears today. When the hon. member for Greenwood asked the minister last Friday about this committee he said that he was responsible for setting it up. He was asked why and he said it was to get all the parties together and to find out what action should be taken to provide the further protection needed to make this harbour the sort of harbour into which Canadian National Railways would wish to operate their boat. That is what the committee was set up for, to find out what action was necessary to make this harbour the sort of harbour necessary in order that the Canadian National Railways would operate this boat into the harbour.
The minister, Mr. Chairman, comes from a thrifty province. The people in his own constituency are very thrifty, cautious folk. I am sure that down there he has heard many times the maxim about locking the door after the horse is stolen. I think that is the position in which the minister now finds himself. You set up a committee to inquire what should be done to make this harbour the sort of harbour into which the C.N.R. will want to operate the boat after spending $11,500,000 in constructing the boat-millions mean nothing in this case- and incurring total construction costs of over $21,760,000. After all that is done you set up a committee to decide what should be done to the harbour so that the C.N.R. will finally decide to operate its boat there.
If there is a more fantastic story than that I should like to hear it. The minister's explanation the other day to the hon. member for Broadview, an explanation in which, as I said, the minister was possibly trying to defend someone else, was that the dredging had nothing to do with it. Then what did cause this fiasco? Surely we are not dealing with imbeciles. Surely we know that the experts of the civil service are all trained and able men. But we are now faced with the
3344	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works situation that nothing which was done construction-wise created this ridiculous situation, so what did do it? Who was responsible?
Since the dredging was not responsible tor the situation why is it that now, after all this money has been spent, we find that the Carson plies back and forth like a ghost ship across the water carrying no cars or passengers and a little handful of freight at an operating cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars last year and the big piers at Port aux Basques cannot be used? The minister says that it is ridiculous to suggest that the dredging has anything to do with it. I say that the government looks ridiculous, or someone for whom the minister is perhaps unfortunately responsible because if the dredging did not do it, what did? If the minister were employing a person who created a situation like that he would fire him summarily without notice and probably sue him for damages as well.
Then we are told that, in addition to having appointed a committee to study the situation and to find out what has to be done, in addition to having brought engineers from Britain and spending millions more on the breakwater, we are now going to make a working model of the harbour. We have got the machinery in the model calibrated so that the waves can play back and forth in the tank this summer, and perhaps some time they will decide what makes Port aux Basques harbour work or tick.
That is the situation, Mr. Chairman, and I think it was not helped the other day by the minister's statement. It is one which certainly requires a more definite statement than we received from the minister. The people want to know when these errors will be over and when the minister believes the harbour can be put into operation and the Carson resume its normal operations, assuming (a) that the present breakwater is all that is required and, (b), if it is not. Of course, the latter, as I said, involves using a crystal ball, but would the minister give the undertaking that if the breakwater is not sufficient we will proceed immediately to construct such other works as may be necessary to salvage this investment or else say frankly that the thing will not work and start a regular scheme of operations somewhere else.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a speech that I think my colleague might have been justified in classifying as an emotional appeal.


Mr. Green:: You give us an emotional answer.


Robert Henry Winters: I dealt with this matter on the basis of facts, and facts, as I understand them, are something you cannot alter. The hon. member with his legal training may try to alter the interpretation that one puts on facts but the facts remain the same and unalterable. The facts as I gave them when this item was before the house a few days ago and as I gave them last year have not changed. There is nothing I can add or take away from them because they are facts. There is nothing anybody can add or take away from them regardless of what sort of language the hon. member uses in trying to cloak the facts and give them another atmosphere. It just does not happen. The people of Nova Scotia are used to dealing in facts and I am quite willing to have them judge the situation on the basis of the facts I put before them. The hon. member can make as many statements as he likes of the kind he has made here and also throughout Nova Scotia, which I know he has done. They are always interesting and entertaining but they add nothing to the situation and fortunately they take nothing away from the situation.
I think that the advice I have received on this matter and on which we have acted is as sound as anything I have heard from the hon. member today, and I am quite satisfied that if he were in my position he would do the same thing. We are bound by the terms of confederation to operate this service into the harbour of Port aux Basques and we want to make sure that the harbour is a safe harbour under all conditions of weather so that this steamship can operate on schedule. This service is not something that may be operated only when the weather is suitable. The C.N.R. wants to operate a scheduled steamship service and to do that they must have reasonable assurance that they can get the boat into the harbour under almost any conditions of weather.
The hon. member said that I come from a seafaring part of the country. That is true. I come from a seafaring family. My father has been one who has operated into and out of Port aux Basques. I think, without going further into that aspect of the matter, the hon. member can take my word for it that the harbour has always been an exposed and difficult harbour. But it is true that we are bound by the terms of confederation to operate a service into that harbour and we are taking what steps seem to be indicated, based on the best advice available anywhere, to make the harbour the sort of harbour that will fulfil the requirements that the operators of the ferry are seeking.

We are building a breakwater. That will be completed, as I said, around July 1. I hope that statement does not add to the confusion that the hon. member said I created here last week. We are also building a scale model of the harbour. The hon. member sought to ridicule that sort of approach to the problem. Personally I do not ridicule it. I think we should do more building of scale models before we undertake capital structures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not do it before?


Mr. Hees:: Why did you not do it before?


Robert Henry Winters: I think there is money to be saved in that way and I think there have been lessons learned which can be applied to good advantage in the future. I do not hesitate to say that, and that is why we are taking the action that we are taking now.


Mr. Harkness:: It is a little late though, is it not?


George Harris Hees: Why did you not do it in the first place?


Robert Henry Winters: The works that have been done will all contribute to the benefit of the harbour.


George Harris Hees: This sounds like the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Robert Henry Winters: It certainly does not sound like the hon. member for Broadview.


George Harris Hees: No, we are straight and to the point.


Robert Henry Winters: I will say this to the hon. member for Broadview, that if I had made statements in the house as inaccurate as the statements he made when these estimates were before the house last Friday I would not wait to be asked to resign. I would volunteer to resign. I have stated the facts of the situation as I know them. If there are any specific questions the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings would like me to answer I would be glad to do so. He asked about the project at Whale cove on which we have had correspondence. I can tell him that is in the planning stage and we hope to bring it forward when the estimates are under consideration next year.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have two specific questions. The minister told us that the breakwater will be completed some time in July. Subject to the tests of the working model, shall I say, proving that the breakwater is sufficient, is it the expectation that the boat will be put into operation shortly after July on this later
Supply-Public Works schedule? My second question is this. I am not sure whether or not the minister gave us this information. What will be the estimated cost of the projects which are now being carried out in the harbour, including the breakwater and anything else there?


Robert Henry Winters: The cost of the breakwater will be about $186,000. The Canadian National Railways said at the time we held the meeting-it was not an established committee and I did not say it was a committee; I said that a meeting was assembled in my office to discuss this matter-that after the breakwater was built they would run the ship into Port aux Basques on an experimental basis in order to see whether the breakwater does achieve the improvements that they would like. If then it is decided on the basis of their own findings coupled with the findings on the scale model which my hon. friend seemed to ridicule-


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Robert Henry Winters: -to proceed further then we will set about building the other protective works that are considered to be necessary.


George Clyde Nowlan: But at least on the scale model, or have you other definite works in mind now in addition to the breakwater?


Robert Henry Winters: We have no other definite works in mind. We will await the findings of the scale model and I presume the Canadian National Railways officials will have some views after they undertake the experimental runs following the completion of the breakwater.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I say just one other word. I do not want any misunderstanding on the record with respect to this matter. I certainly was not ridiculing the idea of a scale model as such. What I was perhaps sarcastic about, and I think justifiably so, was the construction and the operation of a scale model after $21 million had been invested without such a working model. That is what strikes me-as I think it strikes all the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-as something which at least should create a smile. I do not think the people take the matter quite as philosophically as the minister would seem to suggest. He speaks about his own family and seafaring people there. I think the record shows that every seafarer virtually who had experience with that harbour had warned not perhaps the Department of Public Works but one or other of these Siamese twins who twist uneasily one against the other in trying to deal with this matter-I refer to the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works-that the harbour was not

Supply-Public Works fitted for this type of craft. Surely it was always an exposed harbour. A smaller craft would have worked there satisfactorily and would have been entirely satisfactory to the people of Newfoundland. But somebody creates a terrific structure first-builds an ark-and then afterwards tries to create a harbour in which it can be used. That is the plan as to which one is not only sarcastic but which one could ridicule and I think justifiably. I certainly think the minister is wise in building the scale model and I hope it is a project that he will insist will be done on every other occasion in the future so that he personally will not be responsible for another such fiasco as that one.


Robert Henry Winters: In reply, Mr. Chairman, I can only say that I will allow the hon. member to deal in sarcasm and I will endeavour to deal in facts. I will add this as a fact. The money that has been spent there would have been required to be spent in any event regardless of scale models or any other studies made on the harbour.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister is now indulging in prophecy and soothsaying, not in facts.


The Chairman:: Order. Before the hon. member for Kootenay West introduces what I believe would be another subject, I wonder if I might say a few words at this time with regard to the conduct of this debate. We must remember that in committee we are governed by standing order 59(2) which states as follows:
59. (2) Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
We are discussing resolution 365 which deals with salaries in the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works. I realize that in his opening statement the minister introduced a number of subjects which come after this item and which are specifically mentioned in the estimates at a later date. This debate therefore has taken a very general turn. However, in view of the specific terms of the standing order I should not like it to be taken as a precedent for future occasions. For instance, we have been discussing Ripple Rock. Under our rules I believe that discussion would more properly take place on the specific item where that is mentioned. Similarly we have been discussing Port aux Basques. Hon. members will find an item on Port aux Basques. I believe it is under resolution 372. In view of the minister's opening statement I did not rise earlier, because the debate can take place under this item if all hon. members so agree. But because of the standing order, I thought I should rise at

this time to point out its terms to hon. members and to suggest that I felt most hon. members would agree that our debate could be conducted in a more orderly manner if we attempted to deal with these matters under the specific items as they appear in the blue book. I am sorry to take up this time but I thought I should make those observations.


Mr. Herridge:: In view of your remarks,
Mr. Chairman, and the policy of this movement always to build an orderly society, I shall not follow the disorderly example of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings but will speak on the appropriate item.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I did not think
that I indicated in any way that the debate had been disorderly. As I take it, by agreement, we simply conducted under this item a debate which in other circumstances hon. members might have agreed to conduct under the specific item.


Mr. Hodgson:: That is an example of the


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I
have a question which I think is pertinent to this specific item. Can the minister explain why his staff of supervisors of office services has increased 500 per cent from 2 to 10 in these estimates despite the fact that his staff of clerks, stenographers and typists has actually decreased?


Robert Henry Winters: What page is the hon. member reading from?


William McLean Hamilton: Page 470, the one which is in question at the present time.


Robert Henry Winters: During the year we consolidated some of our operations and in many offices we now have the engineers and architects together. This is an upgrading of some of the personnel in order to provide a general office supervision in these consolidated offices.


William McLean Hamilton: wonder whether the minister could explain that answer just a little bit? It has always been my impression that you consolidated in order to increase the efficiency of your administration, to reduce staff and, perhaps above all, to put more people under the supervision of one individual or one supervisor. After all, that is the whole basic principle of consolidation. You move people together in order that they can be supervised more adequately. But what do we find here? We suddenly find that we have consolidated and that, as a result of consolidation, we have 10 supervisors where formerly we had only

two. Now, quite frankly I had expected to see the minister rise and say he had opened some additional offices across the country and therefore he needed a supervisor in each office or something like that. I did not expect to hear him say he had consolidated and therefore needed more supervisors. I wonder if he would give us perhaps a little more adequate information on this score and particularly in view of the fact that his office staff, clerks, stenographers and typists, has actually decreased in number while his supervisory staff has increased 500 per cent.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have asked the personnel people to let me have an answer to that, and I shall have it in a few minutes.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 365 carry?


William McLean Hamilton: No,
could we stand the item until we get an answer and perhaps go on to the next item.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the hon. member for Comox-Alberni desire to speak to item 365?


Mr. Barnett:: Yes. I have one or two matters 1 should like to bring up under this item if it would not inconvenience the minister. Probably we could deal with these while his advisers are getting an answer to the other question. As a matter of fact I have been waiting to raise one or two questions in connection with Ripple Rock, but in deference to your suggestion I shall defer that.
There is one matter that involves the general administration of this branch rather than any particular item which I should like to bring up at this time. I refer to the general plan or design which is being followed, at least in the province of British Columbia on the coastal area, for the construction of the approaches to some of the fishing floats which are being installed there from time to time. I have had this problem brought to my attention, and perhaps the minister might be able to give some information on this subject. The problem which some of the fishermen on the British Columbia coast have brought to my attention arises from the fact that some of these approaches are quite long and go out over a gently sloping beach to deep water. They are being built in a manner which makes them not quite wide enough to allow for the passage of a motor vehicle.
In none of these places would there be any heavy motor vehicle traffic, but situations do arise where fishermen wish to move heavy nets or remove the engine from their boats for major repair or transport fuel to
Supply-Public Works their vessels, and it would be a great convenience to them and save a great deal of backbreaking effort if they were able to take motor vehicles out over these approaches to carry whatever they wanted to move. As the members of the committee know, I am not an engineer but from my observations it would appear that the type of construction which is being used would be quite adequate to carry the ordinary motor car or truck. Most of these approaches are being built on good piling, either driven piles or piles on concrete block bases, and the joists and timbers underneath would appear to me to be adequate for that purpose. It does seem that the increased cost involved in adding another foot or two to the width of these approaches would not be substantial.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would be interested if the minister could give the committee some statement as to why it has been the policy of this branch to design these approaches in this particular manner, where the approaches are primarily for use in approaching fishing floats rather than a wharf-head which is designed for steamer service and where the approaches are wide enough for motor vehicle traffic.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, there has been no over-all policy that is applied to all approaches to these floats. We try to consider each one on its merits. I do recall the hon. member spoke to me about one some time ago.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, I did mention this problem to the minister. I was wondering whether he might have some information on the subject. While I did mention a specific project that was in contemplation, I also mentioned that I had observed a number which had been designed along similar lines and I had been led to assume there may be some general policy in respect to the plan or design of these approaches. I thought it might be useful if we could have some general clarification of this matter rather than a discussion of one specific project. This matter goes beyond that.


Robert Henry Winters: We consider each case on its individual merits, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is one other matter upon which I should like to say a few words. I am not sure that I necessarily expect the minister to make a statement in reply but I would be happy if he could do so. This is a matter to which I referred during the discussion of these estimates last year and I believe the year before. It arises out of the fact that, so far as my observation goes, there appears to exist an almost complete impasse in the relationship which exists between the

Supply-Public Works federal Department of Public Works and the provincial department of public works in British Columbia in respect to any form of co-operative arrangement in places where some form of co-operative arrangement could very well effect substantial savings to the taxpayer.
The minister may recall an individual case in last year's discussion concerning the question of harbour protection in respect to the operation of a ferry between Hornby island and Denman island. Also this same problem has arisen in respect to the crossing between Campbell river and Quathiaski cove on Quadra island. This summer I came across an example of the same sort of thing where all that appeared to be involved, at least so far as the people in the locality were concerned, was a small piece of sheet iron. I do feel some definite attempt should be made to work out closer liaison between the engineering branch of the federal department and the provincial department. I am not attempting to assess where the main responsibility for this situation exists, but I do know it is one thing which has caused more exasperation on the part of residents of such communities as Van Anda and Blubber Bay than any other single item. They feel they are caught in a complete run-around because when they go to the federal department they are told any action is the responsibility of the provincial department, and when they go to the provincial department they get the opposite answer. As far as I am concerned most of the matters involved are straight matters of fact, of common sense, of business co-operation and of the effecting of economies through joint action.
A little earlier in the discussion the minister referred to his appreciation of the value of facts of a situation. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that here is an area of operation which does affect the life of a good many citizens of British Columbia and a careful appraisal of the facts of the situation by the minister's department and by the corresponding department of the government of British Columbia could bring about some desirable results.
If the minister has any comment to make on the matter I would be very glad to have it from him.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no great profound
knowledge to communicate on this business of co-operation between provincial and federal governments in this field of public works. I think the co-operation is pretty good. We each have our own spheres of activity but our relationships are quite close. There is quite a constant flow of correspondence between

me and the minister of public works in British Columbia. Sometimes there are projects that one government might be reluctant to acknowledge as being within its jurisdiction and it takes a little time to resolve matters such as that but generally speaking there is pretty good co-operation.
On the question raised by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, who pointed out the fact that there has been an increase of eight in the number of supervisors of office services, I told him that came about as the result of consolidations, and that is true. There have been some reclassifications as a result of those consolidations. If he will look further on the same page he will find there has been a decrease of six in the number of clerks, grade IV, and a decrease of two in the number of principal clerks. That means there has been a decrease of eight. Eight people have been reclassified in those district offices where there have been consolidations with the result that there has been an increase of eight supervisors of office services but not an increase of eight bodies.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Are
they doing the same work as heretofore?


Robert Henry Winters: No, they are not, Mr. Chairman; their work is in the nature of that of a manager of the combined office.


William McLean Hamilton: We
then seem to come back to the original position. We have consolidated and in the process of consolidation we have 10 managers where we used to have two; is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there is no increase. As I have said, it is a reclassification rather than an increase.


William McLean Hamilton: It
seems to me, Mr. Chairman, it might take a very careful examination of the minister's office operations which we are not in a position unfortunately-and I say "unfortunately" advisedly-to give here in this house. It seems to me it is a most peculiar situation. It was obvious from the rather lengthy time it took to answer the question which was asked in the house, which will not appear on Hansard,, of course. It was obvious from the time it took to get an answer to that question that no study has been given to this particular situation at all which, on the face of it, is an unusual one. When we look at the minister's estimates, as has already been pointed out, we find that the amounts for which he estimated last year were almost invariably greater than his expenditures. If there were such careful search for economies and a reduction of expenses and careful administration which

this government claims so proudly and so publicly to be doing, it seems to me that items such as this should be investigated more carefully by the government and not brought to the house in this particular form which is so inexplicit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
367.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,499,100.
Howard Charles Green: This item covers maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works in connection with the dredging done by the department. The minister will recall that two or three years ago dredging was undertaken in the first narrows, the entrance to Vancouver harbour. I believe that work was finished some time last year. In addition to that dredging, it was understood that there would be a scale model set up- another one of those models about which the minister spoke a few moments ago-I think to test the effects of this dredging on the currents in the harbour. I think it was further understood that eventually a second stage would be undertaken for further dredging of the entrance to the harbour. Can the minister tell us what progress has been made on that scale model and whether it is still the intention to do further dredging work?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, in April, 1953, an interdepartmental committee on engineering studies of Vancouver harbour and possible improvements to navigation was established by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and financed by the national research council. The Department of Public Works, the national research council, the national harbours board, the Department of Transport and the University of British Columbia were all represented.
The studies resulted in report No. MH-52, dated December 30, 1954, "Analysis of Tides and Currents in Burrard Inlet" by Mr. W. D. Baines, division of mechanical engineering, national research council. The report is now being studied by the various government departments. No action has been taken yet toward the implementation of the recommendations in the report.
The most spectacular recommendation would be to close the second narrows and construct a lock to permit vessels to pass this point. This action could reduce the velocity to zero and at the first narrows to 1-8 knots. The present maximum velocities at these two points are 6-3 knots at first narrows and 6-8 at second narrows.
The dredging of the first narrows now being undertaken by the department is in keeping with the recommendation of the report but is
Supply-Public Works not on the scale recommended. That matter is still under further study.


Howard Charles Green: Am I to understand there will be further dredging work done in the harbour and that the government is considering the possibility of locks being installed at the second narrows?


Robert Henry Winters: I certainly say it is included in the report and that the whole report is under study; but what will be done further I am not in a position to say until the studies have been completed, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: Is the report in such shape that it could be tabled in the house?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not sure that the report has not been tabled, Mr. Chairman. It may already have been tabled. It is a report' to my colleague, and I shall ask him about it.


Howard Charles Green: I do not believe it has been tabled or I would have known about it. If it has not been tabled would there be any objection to tabling it? I ask that because our harbour is vital to the progress of the city of greater Vancouver and in fact to the whole of British Columbia. Great interest has been taken in it and I think the report should be tabled so the public would know what has been recommended.


Robert Henry Winters: I would think that would be all right but it is subject to the concurrence of my colleague to whom the report is submitted.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, during the past two or three years it has been my privilege to draw to the attention of the house the problem of dredging on the Fraser river. The minister is quite familiar with the problem and I do not intend to devote this period to discussing it. I would like the minister to outline for us now, if he could, exactly what is being planned in the way of dredging on the Fraser river during the ensuing year.


Robert Henry Winters: Annual dredging to maintain navigable channels is required: (1) for ocean shipping New Westminster to the sea; (2) for coastal tugs and log rafts, North Arm; (3) for tugs and log rafts Sumas to Hope and also in the Harrison river. During 1955-56 (1) and (2) were carried out by departmental plant and by contract dredging. Departmental dredges Nos. 303 and 305 operated at various locations between the mouth of the river and New Westminster and removed 780,183 cubic yards. Contract dredging at Annieville channel and in vicinity of Searle elevator amounted to approximately $272,000. (3) was carried out by equipment employed on a rental basis. Two outfits have been used for

Supply-Public Works various periods each summer for the past several years including 1955-56.


Frederick George Hahn: Is the minister satisfied that the new dredge which has been put into operation is adequate to serve the purpose for which it was designed in respect to keeping the channel free of silt?


Robert Henry Winters: I am satisfied on that point, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to deal for a few moments with the modest dredging requirements of Kootenay West, and I can assure the minister that I shall present my argument in a most restrained manner. I do so because of changed circumstances on the Arrow lakes.
I have discussed this to some extent with some of the minister's officials but in view of the changed circumstances I am somewhat afraid that an engineer who has possibly emigrated from Ontario to British Columbia might not be fully acquainted with the past circumstances and the current needs.
This dredging on the Arrow lakes was commenced about 55 years ago by the federal government to make it possible for the passenger ships of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the stern wheelers, to go between the upper and lower lakes and it has been carried out continuously throughout the years because it was necessary.
Now, some of our people are afraid that because this passenger service has now ceased .-there is no passenger service from one end of the Arrow lakes to the other; there are two services, one on the upper and one on the lower lakes but there are no passenger vessels going through the narrows-the departmental officials may come to the conclusion that dredging is not required in the narrows. As a matter of fact, it is required as much as ever. Where there is a lessening of passenger traffic there is an increase in the use of the narrows by tugs and as a matter of fact most of these tugs have a deeper draught than the former stern wheelers that were running up and down the lakes. These tugs tow logs, haul ore and barges and things of that sort.
These bars shift almost every year. Years ago the minister's officials used to conduct quite a comprehensive survey of the whole narrows and take levels and so on. I do not think there has been as much expended in that direction in recent years but because of the shifting bars and the continual washing in of the banks of the Columbia into the centre of the river in the narrows between the upper and lower lakes, annual and constant dredging is necessary.

I urge the minister to make certain that there is a thorough investigation of the situation and the needs of the lumber companies, mining companies and other industries before considering the suggestion of not providing in the estimates for dredging on any portion of the Arrow lakes.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated because I thought the minister might want to make some comment on what has just been said. I rise now to ask if the minister might consider giving a very brief resume of the planned program for dredging in Prince Edward Island for this season.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might give that information when we are on item 374, which is the harbours and rivers engineering branch detailed by provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
368.	Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $379,150.
James Alexander McBain: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one question. I think it was back in the year 1952 when the public works dredge No. 117 sank in Port Stanley harbour resulting in the loss of the life of the captain and one of his crew. Could the minister advise me if that dredge has been replaced or if any consideration is being given to replacing the dredge which sank?


Robert Henry Winters: May I answer that when we are on the item under Ontario?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Graving docks-
369.	Maintenance and operation, $979,200.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this item has to do with graving docks. I notice in the details on page 476 there is a notation to the effect that the appropriation for the Prince Rupert drydock is no longer required. As you know, that drydock was sold.
Has the government any plans for establishing a drydock in Prince Rupert? I mention that because I notice further down on the list of estimates provision is made for dry-dock subsidies, one being the Burrard dry-dock in North Vancouver and the other the Saint John drydock in New Brunswick. Would the government be willing to pay a subsidy for the operation of a drydock in Prince Rupert or are there any other plans in contemplation which would lead to the reestablishment of a drydock there?
There have been great developments in northern British Columbia. Prince Rupert is the terminus of the Canadian National line across central British Columbia and certainly

there should be a drydock in that city. In my opinion it is a great tragedy that the former drydock was sold. Has the government any plan that would lead to the establishment of a new drydock there?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this is something about which the present chairman knows a great deal. He has been very keenly interested in the developments there as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). We were very sorry to see that drydock leave Prince Rupert. It was operated under an arrangement with the Canadian National Railways, and they felt that they did not have enough use for it to merit the very heavy expenditures it was costing. There did not seem to be anybody else available who was interested in taking over the drydock, and it was thereupon sold. To the best of my knowledge, there is no action on foot now and none contemplated to replace the drydock at Prince Rupert.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure the chairman will* endorse my remarks. Would the government give some consideration during the coming year to plans which might lead to the reestablishment of a drydock in that city?


Robert Henry Winters: The government is always ready to give consideration to any proposal. I do not know that there is any proposal before us by anybody. A marine railway was once discussed, but I have not seen anything of it for some considerable time now and, as I have said, I know of no proposal to replace the old drydock at Prince Rupert.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Item 370 agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
371.	Maintenance and operation. $336,643.
Mr. Pearkes:: With regard to item 371, I notice in the details as published on page 478 that provision is made for a bridge over a canal and a causeway connecting the city of Kingston with the village of Barriefield. I was wondering whether any representations have been made-and I feel quite certain they have been made-from the city of Victoria regarding the Point Ellis bridge. This bridge spans an arm of the Victoria harbour and connects the capital city of British Columbia with the important naval base at Esquimau. This bridge has been a hazard to navigation for a great many years. There are now signs at both ends of the bridge that all vehicles must stop before they go on to it and they are allowed to proceed across this rather long span at only ten miles per hour. The result is that a great deal of military traffic comi/ig from Esquimalt will have to go 67509-213
Supply-Public Works by other routes if it has to reach Victoria. It has to go around by the trans-Canada highway, the new highway that is being built.
Citizens of Victoria and the district of Saanich have really become exasperated at the long delays in getting anything done regarding the construction of this bridge. A vote was taken and a bylaw was passed recently as a result of the plebiscite, authorizing the city to proceed with the construction of a new bridge. I noticed that there is a substantial sum provided, $136,000, in the details under general items. I also understand that the city of Victoria and other organizations have made representations to the minister for a grant towards the completion of this bridge.
There is a very definite federal responsibility connected with this bridge because it is used very extensively by naval and military vehicles. There is no doubt that any funds which the minister could provide out of this general grant would be used this year. He has expressed some reluctance about making available money that is not going to be used in the current year. There is no doubt that a start would be made on reconstruction of this bridge during the coming year, and I hope, without making any sort of emotional appeal but making a very practical appeal, that the minister will say that there is the responsibility on the federal government, that there is the need to have this new bridge and that assistance from federal funds is essential. Could the minister tell me whether there have been representations made, as I feel certain there have been, and, if so, whether the dominion government will be prepared to assist in the construction?


Robert Henry Winters: There have been representations. The former mayor of Victoria saw me on one occasion with the member from Victoria, and I think he subsequently saw the Minister of National Defence. I was obliged to tell him then that the government does not consider it has a responsibility there and that the provision of an adequate bridge is a local responsibility.
I am well aware of what the hon. member has said about traffic and the navigational aspects, but they are not enough to involve the federal government in financial participation. We are quite prepared to examine the navigational aspects and give those approvals which are necessary and which we can under the authority of the Navigable Waters Protection Act give to authorize a bridge being built in an appropriate manner and in an appropriate place, but there is no obligation upon the federal government to participate financially.

Supply-Public Works


George Randolph Pearkes: And therefore there will be no funds forthcoming?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I assume this is the proper place to mention the subject about which I wish to speak. It has to do with the construction of the bridge on the Kicking Horse river at approximately mile 4 in the Yoho park.


Robert Henry Winters: If the hon. member would not mind, we could discuss that later when we are on the estimates for the development engineering branch. It is a bridge on the route of the trans-Canada highway.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would that be item 382?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps since it is a matter of particular interest it could be discussed on item 387, dealing with the trans-Canada highway.


Charles Edward Johnston: Whichever item you wish to discuss it under is satisfactory to me.


Robert Henry Winters: Item 387.


Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with bridges. The minister will remember that in former sessions we have had discussions about the Marpole bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river.


Robert Henry Winters: This deals with maintenance and operation of bridges.


Howard Charles Green: I think this is the only vote on which that could be discussed. It has been discussed on that same item in other years.


Robert Henry Winters: Item 382 would be more appropriate, but I do not object.


Howard Charles Green: I am rather surprised to find there is no vote in these estimates for at least the sum of $400,000, which I understood the dominion government was prepared to contribute towards the cost of a new bridge over the north arm of the Fraser. The minister will remember that the original plan of the dominion government was that there should be a new lift span placed in the old Marpole bridge. The provincial government was unwilling to undertake a change of that kind-and, I think, quite rightly so-and insisted on building a modern high-level bridge, to be known as the Oak street bridge. At first the dominion government took the position that no contribution would be made towards this Oak street bridge. I discussed it in the house in 1954. I refer to page 6774 of


Hansard of June 25 of that year. The minister's parliamentary assistant was handling the estimates at that time, and at that page I find the following:


Mr. Bourget:: I think the amount of $400,000 has been offered to the province to build the Marpole bridge, but I am informed that they want to build the bridge at Oak street.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: So far, I do not think-[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean then that unless the provincial government agrees to this ridiculous scheme of simply putting a lift on the old Marpole bridge, the dominion government will not make any contribution at all?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that they will probably make the same offer for the Oak street bridge.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion government will pay $400,000 on a new bridge on Oak street?


Maurice Bourget: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
Last year the minister made a statement on the same question to be found at page 6416 of Hansard for July 19, 1955. There I find the following:


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean the government will pay $400,000 if there is no toll only on 'the subsidiary bridge which will go from the main bridge to Sea island?
In other words, the new bridge has a main span and then a side span off to Sea island.


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


Howard Charles Green: In other words, if the toll is only on the main bridge-*
The main bridge as distinguished from the bridge over Moray channel.
-that would not prevent the $400,000 being made available to the provincial government; is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right, yes.
The following day the premier of British Columbia was reported as having stated that the provincial government was prepared to accept the $400,000 contribution offered by Ottawa for the new highway bridge across Moray channel between Lulu island and Sea island.
There does not appear to be any vote in these estimates and I am wondering whether that agreement still stands. In other words, is the dominion still prepared to pay the $400,000? If so, why is there no vote in the estimates? The bridge is now well under way and I do not know whether or not the provincial government has been assured that the $400,000 will be forthcoming. It would be very helpful if the minister would clarify the situation.


Robert Henry Winters: The situation is that when we were compiling the estimates I wrote to the minister of public works of British Columbia and told him that the $400,000 was still available on the basis we discussed but that if he did not intend to take advantage of the arrangement in the then oncoming fiscal year I would not carry the ampunt in the

estimates. He agreed there would be no need to carry the amount in the estimates this year.	.


Howard Charles Green: Is there a definite agreement between the two governments that the $400,000 is to be paid by the dominion?


Robert Henry Winters: There is no definite agreement on that. The only agreement is that we have undertaken to pay $400,000 under certain conditions but they have never taken up that offer.


Howard Charles Green: Exactly what are the conditions today under which the dominion will pay the $400,000? This matter is of vital importance to the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia because if the dominion does not pay the $400,000 the people are going to have to pay that much more in the way of tolls.


Robert Henry Winters: The conditions are the same as they were last year.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us exactly what the conditions are under which the dominion government will now pay the $400,000?


Robert Henry Winters: The conditions have not changed since we reviewed the item last year. The British Columbia government undertook to build the Oak street bridge on which they said they would charge tolls. They then undertook to build another bridge -I was going to call it a secondary bridge- from Lulu island to Sea island. That bridge would cost something in the order of $1 million. It would be a low level bridge and, as I understood the situation, the British Columbia government did not intend to apply tolls. I told the minister of public works of British Columbia that if that were to be the case; if they would build the bridge, have it toll free and ask for our participation to the extent of $400,000 the money would be made available. That is the basis I outlined to the committee last year and that is still the basis.


Howard Charles Green: So if the provincial government is prepared to build that bridge and refrain from charging tolls on traffic using the bridge over the Moray channel the dominion will contribute $400,000?


Robert Henry Winters: That is a correct understanding, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Robichaud:: I should like to ask a question of the minister and I think this is the proper item. On two or three different occasions I have brought to the attention of the house the unfortunate situation of the residents of Shippigan island with regard to 67509-213i
Supply-Public Works communication with the mainland. Can the minister tell us if at any time he or his department has received an official request from the premier of New Brunswick or from the department of public works of that province for financial assistance with respect to the construction of a bridge to link Shippigan island with the mainland?


Robert Henry Winters: To the best of my knowledge there has been no request from the premier of New Brunswick or the department of public works of New Brunswick.


Mr. Montgomery:: If such a request is made, will the department give it favourable consideration?


Robert Henry Winters: I think the hon. member knows the position we have to take here with regard to hypothetical questions.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Does this bridge fall within the jurisdiction where the dominion makes contributions or do you consider that it comes specifically within provincial jurisdiction?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not examined the matter, Mr. Chairman, because we have had no request that I have seen. However, to give an offhand opinion I would think that it would be a matter within the scope of provincial jurisdiction since the bridge is entirely within the confines of the province.


Frederick George Hahn: The minister's statement that the bridge is entirely within the confines of the province of New Brunswick causes me to rise to ask whether that is the basis upon which all bridges that are built by the Department of Public Works are built at this time.


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member well knows, there are many considerations. We have already contributed to some 40 or 50 bridges in the province of British Columbia along the route of the trans-Canada highway.


Frederick George Hahn: I am thinking of bridges not on the trans-Canada highway. Let us take the Jacques Cartier bridge as an example. What causes the federal government to participate in the building of such a bridge within a province when it is not on the trans-Canada highway?


Robert Henry Winters: The Jacques Cartier bridge, the illustration used by my hon. friend, was built by the national harbours board across the river in Montreal. It is a toll bridge. There were other considerations there.


Frederick George Hahn: It was built by the Department of Public Works?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it was built by the national harbours board.

Supply-Public Works


Frederick George Hahn: I have another question. It follows one I put to the minister on March 26. On that day I asked the minister a question respecting the Lulu island bridge. The question, which is to be found at page 2590 of Hansard, reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which I sent him earlier this day. In view of the urgent necessity of calling tenders immediately to replace the Queensboro bridge, is the minister in a position to indicate whether the department approves the plans which have been submitted by the city of New Westminster for replacing the present bridge with a new one?
At that time the minister indicated that if the city followed the proper procedure of advertising the proposed bridge in the newspapers and inserting an advertisement in the Canada Gazette for a period of one month the matter would be considered. I asked that question on March 26. I understand that on the following day the city complied with the regulations. I wish to know now whether or not the plans as submitted have met with the approval of the department and whether the city has permission to go ahead and build a new bridge to replace the Queensboro bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: The plans have not come before me for approval and therefore the project has not yet been approved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-[DOT]
372.	Newfoundland, $2,260,601.
Mr. Bell:: I wonder whether I could ask a question only by way of information on the statutory item that immediately precedes item 372 with respect to Saint John Dry Dock. I understand the back history of the subsidy here and I do not wish to go into the full details of it. But could I just ask what the new plans are with respect to the payments that are going to be made until 1959? I understand that the old 35-year subsidy plan expired in 1954 and that they are under some new system under which the amounts are far less. I am just wondering how that is determined. Is it determined with respect to future works or plans and will this subsidy end in 1959 or are we to have a continuation of the subsidy as long as the drydock at Saint John maintains the requirements having regard to the other essentials that are necessary for the subsidy?
rMr. Winters.]


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, we have now extended the agreement to January 1, 1959, with anticipated payments over the period from now to January 1, 1959 totalling something over $95,000.


Thomas Miller Bell: It cannot be exactly the same agreement because the amount is considerably less. The old method of subsidy gave us a payment of $247,500 each year-certainly each year in the last few years-and now that amount is reduced to $165,000. As I say, I know the old 35-year statutory agreement expired, but I am just wondering what the new arrangements are and why the amount is so much smaller.


Robert Henry Winters: The situation is as the hon. member says, Mr. Chairman. The old agreement expired and this is a new agreement on a reduced basis.


Thomas Miller Bell: I take it that the new agreement is not nearly as beneficial as far as the annual subsidy is concerned. If that is the case, may I ask the reason?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand it is based on the moneys required and it is in relation to the amount Saint John Dry Dock itself spends there.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate the fact that certain conditions are attached to that payment but am I to take it that the reason this amount is so much smaller is that the works within the drydock itself and the works planned over a given period are far less than what has been going on under the old 35-year plan? I am only looking for information because I do not think the arrangement is as harsh as it appears to be on the surface.


The Deputy Chairman:: I think I might perhaps point out to the hon. member that I think it is customary to permit, by courtesy, the odd question on the statutory items as we pass them because that is when they come to the attention of hon. members but that it is not to be expected that the minister or his officials will be prepared to answer offhand questions based on statutes which are not involved in the estimates. A debate on the merits of that statute itself, of course, could hardly come under the estimate item.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether I could just have given to me an indication of the position or place where I can obtain the information. I have looked up the public accounts and I cannot find the new details there. If you will only tell me where I can go to look for this new agreement, that will satisfy me. I am only seeking information. I am not criticizing or ridiculing anybody.


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that. I will be glad to give the information to the hon. member.


Frederick George Hahn: I have a further question in addition to the one I asked earlier of the minister with regard to the Lulu island bridge. From his answer am I to understand that since the plans had not been drawn to his attention and since he has not been asked to give approval to them and that since the month's date of expiry has passed, the plans are definitely not approved and will not be approved because of the objections that have been raised?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for New Westminster that we are now on item 372 dealing with the acquisition, et cetera of works in Newfoundland. Perhaps he did not realize that we had passed the preceding item on which he raised that question, but it has been passed. However, I will undertake to tell him this. I think his question about Lulu island should have been asked under item 382 in any event. When we reach item 382 which deals with matters of policy, his question will be permitted. For orderly debate at the moment I think we should stay with item 372 which deals with items in Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
373.	Nova Scotia, $2,532,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: I wish to deal with item 373 for one moment. There are two items there in dealing with Nova Scotia. One is in connection with Tiverton. I know the minister has had some correspondence with respect to it. I am glad to see the item which reads "Tiverton-towards wharf repairs". I hope that "towards" is a euphemistic expression which will result in wharf construction. It is one of tremendous importance to the fishermen in that area. I know the minister has had some correspondence and petitions with respect to it. I know he will give it very careful consideration.
The other matter having to do with the [DOT]Nova Scotia item is in connection with Yarmouth bar-the bar being a sand bar-that is part of Yarmouth harbour. I wonder whether the minister could tell us just what is going on in Yarmouth harbour. I understand the Bluenose has had to interrupt its normal schedule because of some obstructions which are alleged to have been found there. I am told that surveys have been carried on. I presume they are being carried on by the minister's department rather than by the Department of Transport. I wonder whether the minister can tell us at the moment just what the situation is with respect to Yarmouth harbour.
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: As to the first item, namely Tiverton, I may say that I had some correspondence with my friend the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. We intended to do some work on the present breakwater. There was a petition from the fishermen asking us to seek another location. We are still investigating that matter as a result of the petition and other representations.
As to Yarmouth harbour, some question was raised as to whether the dredging that was carried out-


George Clyde Nowlan: Will that be an emotional question?


Robert Henry Winters: -was adequate to meet the requirements of the Bluenose. She had fouled her propellers somewhere and went to the dry dock to have them looked at and checked. It is not at all clear where this ship fouled her propellers. It is not known whether she fouled them in Bar Harbor or on the Canadian side. However, in order to make abundantly sure that the dredging in Yarmouth harbour was all right we swept the entire area that was dredged. There was one small area-one that was difficult to detect-at which there had been some silting since the dredging took place. It was not of any serious consequence. The engineers of the department are satisfied, as am I, that it was not at that spot that the propellers fouled. But in any event, that particular silting has now been removed. But it was not a serious silting.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no further work that you are proposing to do as a result of this
sweep?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
374.	Prince Edward Island, $925,000.
John Angus MacLean: On a previous item I believe the minister said he would make a brief statement concerning the dredging program for Prince Edward Island when this item was under consideration. In addition to that, since I am on my feet I should like to ask him to say something about the program planned for Wood Islands. I presume it is in connection with modification of the harbour so it will accommodate the new ferry which is being built now. Perhaps he might also say a word specifically about Point Prim and Rustico. I notice there is nothing in

Supply-Public Works the details here concerning any project at Rustico harbour, but what I have in mind was the program that was under way there to make it feasible to build an ocean highway to connect the two sections of the national park.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked first about the program of dredging in Prince Edward Island for the forthcoming year. Listed on page 481 of the estimates book there is shown an amount of $37,000 for dredging at North lake; but in addition to that we propose to carry out dredging in Prince Edward Island at Wood Islands, to which I shall refer again; Launching (outside); Murray river; Panmore island; North Cardigan; Cardigan bridge, Rustico little harbour; Egmont bay; Skinner's pond; Launching (inside); Poplar Point and Basin Head.
At Wood Islands the situation is that the present dock is designed to accommodate a vessel with a 38-foot beam and the new ferry, which is to be in operation perhaps sometime late in 1956 or early 1957, will have a beam of 54 feet and a free board of 6 feet 5 inches as compared with 4 feet, 5 inches for the Prince Nova now in operation. The present ramp is placed to accommodate the present boats and would not be suitable for the proposed new ferry.
The traffic has developed in quite a substantial way there and during 1953 a total of 80,486 passengers, 21,072 autos and 6,816 trucks were ferried. There is, therefore, need to carry out some work to accommodate the larger volume of traffic. Construction of a span on the west side of the existing pier and three cellular steel sheet pile piers to protect the berth for the new ferry are contemplated. In addition a new loading ramp will be required as well as wharf lighting and improvements to the water supply system.
At Point Prim the amount that is shown in the main estimates on the same page to which I referred is required to construct an extension to the wharf and an isolated rubble mound breakwater to provide better berthing facilities for the fishing fleet as well as protection from storms while at anchorage in the harbour. It is proposed to construct a 240 foot extension to the existing wharf with creosoted timber cribs 20 feet by 40 feet joined by 20 foot spans; the outer 120 feet to be at a 30 degree angle east from the line of the main wharf. In addition, it is proposed to construct an isolated rubble mound breakwater 90 feet long and 30 feet wide.
At Rustico harbour our plans are not yet in a final stage and we are still planning what we are going to do; that will be given more consideration later.


John Angus MacLean: Will the minister say when it is hoped to have the work at the islands completed? I suppose it will be completed in ample time to accommodate the new ferry.


Robert Henry Winters: The work is not yet under contract; it is a two year program and we expect to have it completed next year.


Mr. Nicholson:: I find that Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been left out this year. I wonder if the minister could explain how it is there is nothing for Manitoba and Saskatchewan in view of the $15,000 last year?


William Alfred Robinson: The item that I called was resolution No. 374 which deals with Prince Edward Island.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry, I thought you were taking them all together.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
375.	New Brunswick, $2,125,000.
Thomas Miller Bell: I have three questions which, as I indicated to the minister last Friday, I have been saving for this particular item. First of all, I should like to inquire about the large item of $600,000, I believe it is one of the largest items in the estimates for the maritimes, regarding Courtenay bay. What are the ultimate plans for Courtenay bay? Is it just a matter of continuing with the dredging or is there some plan the department has in mind for this large item? There has been considerable discussion in the city at various times regarding the possibility of making more wharves available in the Courtenay bay area, and plans have been drawn up by the board of trade and others in this connection. I wonder if this work is being done with that in mind or is it just routine dredging?


Robert Henry Winters: This is not done with any future expansion in mind; it is just to take care of the current needs.


Thomas Miller Bell: My second question deals with the Negro point breakwater which I mentioned last Friday. I mentioned that this breakwater had been allowed to deteriorate, and my question is, are we going to just continue to pile rocks on this breakwater every time a hole appears or is there some farsighted program for this breakwater? Should it be extended to Partridge island or should it be cut off shorter than it is? What is the policy regarding this important breakwater which extends across the mouth of the whole harbour?


Robert Henry Winters: The program is to maintain the breakwater as required. There is no program now before us for expansion. This year we intend to place cover stone to provide repairs to the outside face and the top

to a small portion of the breakwater. Tenders have been received for this work and a contract has to be awarded. We expect that will be done in the near future.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I just ask a question with respect to the practice in public works, for example in a case where you are repairing a breakwater. There is an , amount of $25,000 laid aside: would one contract be given for that and would there be a completion date? The reason I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that members are bothered all the time with telephone calls. About once a week a truck goes by with a load of gravel and everybody wonders where it is going, who the contractor is who has another bit of government patronage. I wonder if the minister could state what is done in that respect, because nobody knows what is happening. If there were a general announcement that a -contract had been let and there was a date connected with it, the name of the contractor, then I am sure better relations would result and I am sure it would also save the members concerned a lot of trouble.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the practice is to invite tenders and award a contract as a result of public tender calls. The department now publishes a list of awards of contracts every month, so it is a matter of public notice and in most, if not all, the contracts we award there is a termination date. The whole thing, therefore, is a matter of public notice.


Thomas Miller Bell: What amount is generally considered to be the level at which there has to be a formal announcement? I appreciate the fact that a lot of small repair work is done which it is not necessary formally to announce, but would an amount of $5,000 or $10,000 be too small to announce?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. We do not normally
announce public contract awards because we have so many. There is a great multitude of them. I do not think the public generally is interested in them. As a matter of fact we have not found a very keen public interest in the lists we do publish from month to month. But amounts under say $25,000 are not published in the general list of contracts awarded.


Thomas Miller Bell: My third question concerns that old bogey of the Lorneville breakwater. There has been considerable discussion of the breakwater inside and outside the house. I was down to Lorneville last year. I had to get most of my information first hand by looking over the situation. May I review for a minute what has happened, Mr. Chairman? A new breakwater at Lorneville was decided on a few years ago. Plans were
Supply-Public Works inaugurated for the new breakwater and I must say they were quite extensive. The thing looked as if it was going to be most worth while. Through some error in judgment of the engineers either inside or outside the department they failed to take the advice of the local people and I suppose they failed to make all the necessary investigations. I was interested a few minutes ago to hear the minister say in connection with Port aux Basques that everybody knew the difficulties of the harbour; that is, everybody who had experience. This is another example of about the same thing. Everybody in Lorneville knew the difficulties there, the type of ledge and the type of shore that the pilings would be driven into.
In order to bring the matter up-to-date, over two years ago the breakwater caved in and it presented an almost impossible engineering task to do anything with it as it stood. After considerable time and, I suppose, some investigation it was decided -and the minister answered a question to that effect last year-that the breakwater would be built over or sidings put on it. The point I am getting at is, I went down there at Easter and I saw the side that is being put on the breakwater. It is really just a float along the breakwater. I talked to some of the fisherman down there and they feel that as far as the department has gone it is satisfactory but it is not enough. It should be extended out farther. More work needs to be done on the breakwater. I want to know whether this is the end of the work and what is to be the final outcome of the breakwater at Lorneville?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this is a
breakwater that was constructed I think some time back in 1952 or 1953. When I became minister I learned that there had been an uneven settlement. It was brought to my attention by the hon. member for Charlotte. I called together the engineers of the department and asked them for a report as to why there was an uneven settlement and they told me that although borings had been taken they did not tell the whole story of the bottom there. We then engaged the services of a consulting engineer, Mr. McCulloch, and asked him to make a report on it and tell us what he thought should be done. He did that. As a result of that we have been doing some work on the breakwater.
The report recommended that no additional weight should be put on the bed of the harbour at this place as there are layers of unstable material. In 1954 a light timber pile structure was constructed for wharfage

Supply-Public Works purposes in the area protected by the damaged breakwater which still fulfils its intended role as a breakwater. That work was completed in December, 1955 and we are waiting to see what further settlement there will be before we undertake any further work.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate the difficulties and I appreciate what the minister has said. I certainly do not know who was the first actually to bring this to the attention of the minister but I can say it was common knowledge of everybody in the maritime provinces about five minutes after it caved in. Whoever was able to get to the minister first, I suppose, was the one who brought it to his attention first. This is a serious situation for the fishermen who are involved in this area. 1 would simply end by urging the minister to continue the work. This matter should not be treated as finished for one minute. I am not going to question the minister further. I never have been too pressing with the minister about just what ought to be done there because I realize there are a lot of difficulties and I realize that someone who is responsible erred. I am simply asking him to continue to watch the situation down there because it is not satisfactory the way it is and the fishermen are not satisfied today. Everything that went into the original breakwater has gone out the window. There is considerable criticism of everybody from the bottom right up to the minister himself. I leave that with him. I hope he will continue to give it his consideration.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have a question on the wharves on the Saint John river and its tributaries. The minister probably knows that about 25 years ago those wharves were taken over by the federal government. At that time there was considerable traffic of river boats up and down the river. This has more or less ceased. There is quite a tourist traffic of United States yachts, tugboats and other boats going up and down the river. Those wharves are in a very bad state of repair. As a matter of fact, many of them are practically useless. Have the engineers of the department reported on the condition of the wharves on the Saint John river and its tributaries? I know it is not possible to keep up all the wharves that were used before, but it does seem to me that certain wharves might be picked out so that boats going up and down might know that there was a certain wharf at a certain place that could be used. Possibly this matter could be looked into.


Robert Henry Winters: I will do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

377.	Ontario, $5,146,500.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to ask a question about the dock or wharf that was promised in 1953 at Hawk lake in Haliburton county.


Robert Henry Winters: I was not aware that anybody had promised a wharf there, but the situation is that the necessary lots have been purchased by the Department of Public Works for the construction of a wharf. We have recommended to treasury board to authorize the construction of the wharf during this coming summer. There is not a specific item in the estimates because a large amount of money is not involved and the work can be done from the general vote for miscellaneous works.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It will be built this summer?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.	.


Mr. Cardiff:: Last Friday I asked the minister about some work that was being done at Bayfield and at that time he did not have the figures before him. Can he tell me what has taken place?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, at Bayfield we have a project under way in the harbour to extend a marginal wall. Mr. Cassel had two buildings on the site of this work, a shed and an old ice house. He did not hold a licence of occupation and paid no rental. Last fall Mr. Cassel removed the buildings from the site so that construction could go on. He is making application to the Department of Transport for a licence of occupation of the site where his buildings existed before. We have already stated that we would have no objection to his getting such a licence after the work is completed.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Do you know to what extent the work has progressed?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told it is somewhere in the order of 40 per cent completed.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: During the last several years requests have been made for some repair work to be done at Port Albert. So far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned I do not think it is very important but there is a natural harbour there. In its present condition boats are unable to get into it because of the sand bar which lies across the mouth of the river, and requests have been made for a short extension of the pier. The pier is now almost covered with sand and I am told that this is an exceptionally good place for boats to run under cover in case of a storm. The fishermen fish out of that port and this work is extremely necessary as far as they are concerned. It would not cost

a great deal of money but this improvement would be of great advantage to the fishermen who fish in lake Huron.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, item No. 377 which deals with Ontario also lists Manitoba and Saskatchewan following which there is a zero. I wonder if the minister could explain why the item shows over $5 million for Ontario and nothing for Manitoba and Saskatchewan this year. Could the minister say whether requests for an appropriation under this item have been received from various places in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, particularly from Churchill, Beaver lake and some of the northern lakes?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, these items are intended to provide funds for dredging that is required. The hon. member should be gratified that no dredging is required in Manitoba or Saskatchewan for which funds were necessary in this vote.


Mr. Stanton:: Mr.	Chairman,	could the
minister inform me what is the nature of the construction of the wharf at Rockport?


Robert Henry Winters: What is the nature of it?


Hayden Stanton: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know what the hon. member means.	We	have no	project	at
Brockville.


Hayden Stanton: I am sorry. I said Rockport, not Brockville.	An	amount of	$45,000	is
shown in the estimates for Rockport. The details can be found on page 484, about the middle of the page.


Robert Henry Winters: The amount of $45,000 for Rockport is required for the construction of a wharf. The existing wharf serves the general public	and	the Department	of
National Revenue. The congestion at the wharf is very great. The public and customs traffic must seek landing space at neighbouring private wharves. As a result of this customs officials have to leave their offices and go to the private docks concerned in order that the boats can be properly examined. It is the intention to construct a new wharf for public use and to turn over the existing wharf for the exclusive use of the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue.


Hayden Stanton: Is.it the intention of the department to invite tenders for that construction?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. Tenders are due on the 2nd of May.


Hayden Stanton: I understand that tenders have already been invited?
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that is right.


Hayden Stanton: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister inform me if there have been any further conversations between the customs at Gananoque and the department with regard to enlarging the wharf at Gananoque for the convenience of the customs?


Robert Henry Winters: There have been discussions but the matter has not yet come to my attention for any action.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few observations about the harbours on the north shore of lake Erie that border along the riding of Elgin. I am very pleased that about a year ago the minister found time to make a trip to visit the harbour at Port Stanley. I am sure that he made observations of the conditions of the inner harbour there at that time. I hope that some of the work in the inner harbour, which is provided for in this vote, will take place this year. The vote last year was $502,000 and this year it is $300,000. Could the minister tell me how much of this has been carried over from last year and how it will be spent?


Robert Henry Winters: It is expected that when the accounts are in we will find that out of last year's vote we spent a total of $224,500.


James Alexander McBain: Was that for pier improvement work entirely?


Robert Henry Winters: The contract was in the amount of $325,420 with the Cementation Company (Canada) Limited. Approximately 45 per cent of the work on the timber substructure and 5 per cent of the concrete super-structure have been done at a cost of $129,500.


James Alexander McBain: Is it expected that they will complete that contract this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


James Alexander McBain: Could the minister tell me if provisions had been made for improvements to the east wall of the inner harbour?


Robert Henry Winters: As my hon. friend has said, the total amount voted is $300,000. That will be applied to complete the contract with Russell Construction Limited for dredging, $160,000, and also toward the contract with the Cementation Company for repairs to the west breakwater, $140,000, making a total estimated requirement of $300,000.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Chairman, I was in consultation with the minister's staff a few weeks ago. I hope I was properly informed at that time that there was an item provided for the east wall breakwater in the inner harbour.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I am told that we have also provided for the construction of 150 feet of the wall inside the harbour.
Mr. Pallet!: I notice that under this item there is provision for the expenditure of $800,000 for the harbour at Port Credit. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that this rounds out the transportation facilities in the county of Peel, my riding. I suggest that this riding may be unique in that regard. In the one riding we have the four modern means of transportation in considerable quantity. We have the Malt-on airport, which is one of Canada's better known methods of facilitating air transportation; we are crossed by the two transcontinental railways, with many lines; we are traversed in many places by the best highways in Ontario. Now this harbour is going to provide us, we hope, with a very satisfactory means of transportation by water.
In this regard, I hope the minister will be sure that this harbour, when completed, will be a model harbour. Port Credit is a model community in other regards, and it would be most fitting that the harbour take the aspect of the village of Port Credit and the rest of the county and fit in so that this will become a little jewel on the great lake of Ontario.
This is 1956, and there is a wonderful opportunity to make this harbour a show-place. It has the best natural shelf on the great lakes. It is located between those rival cities of Hamilton and Toronto. There is every opportunity to show to the people of the world what the department can do in the spending of money in this modem age. I urgently urge the minister to be sure that this harbour fits in with the general tone of the community and that it will be something to which our children will be able to point with pride as an example of modern architecture, modern construction and a modern approach to a harbour.
When the harbour is completed, there is something that might be considered by the minister. We are rather jealous of our local rights in our county, and we would like some day to have a harbour commission administering the harbour. But I shall leave that until a future time.
As far as questions are concerned, I wonder if the minister would tell me how much was actually spent last year and how much it is actually proposed to spend on the harbour in this fiscal year.


Robert Henry Winters: The amount spent last year was $300,000. This year we expect to spend $800,000.


Mr. Charlton:: I should like to point out to my hon. friend from Peel that there is another harbour probably just as important as
[Mr. McBain.l

Port Credit, and that is Port Maitland. I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of what has been accomplished there and how much of last year's appropriation was spent.


Robert Henry Winters: Last year $5,000 was spent. This year we estimate that $29,000 will be spent.


John Alpheus Charlton: Most of the money that was provided last year was not spent, and the amount for this year is not going to be increased in compensation for the amount that was not spent last year. I am sure we appreciate even this small amount being spent in Port Maitland, because I wish to point out that it could be a very important port. The Grand river empties there. It could be an important port on the great lakes.
I know the minister has been asked to do something about the small wharf at the town of Dunnville to accommodate tourist boats and yachts from the United States and other parts coming into that little harbour and going up the Grand river. Each year they hold an annual meeting there, which probably 40 or 50 United States yachts visit, and there is practically no accommodation there for them when they wish to tie up. I wonder if the minister would give consideration to doing something, even in a small way, to make it possible for these United States boats to be tied up there in a respectable way at least.
I wish to thank him for the two shore lights that were put in at Nanticoke Creek last year to aid the fishermen.


James Alexander McBain: As my colleague, the hon. member for Peel, has dealt with the possibilities of Port Credit harbour, I feel I should continue a little further and point out the possibilities of two of the finest harbours on the north shore of lake Erie, Port Burwell and Port Stanley. These harbours are served by excellent rail facilities connecting the five major railroads from Port Stanley to St. Thomas and London. I refer to the New York Central, the Chesapeake and Ohio, the Wabash, the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways. These are all main line railroads. Port Burwell is served by the C.P.R. and connects with the main lines of the C.P.R. and C.N.R. at Woodstock.
By motor transport, these ports are served by two excellent highways connecting eventually to No. 2 and No. 3 highways and also the dual highway No. 401.
In this area big industrial expansion is inevitable. I would ask the minister to give consideration to an over-all planning program so that these harbours of Port Stanley and Port Burwell will have improvements and

extension work completed to meet the needs of industry that may desire to locate in these areas.
The fuel business, in both oil and coal, is expanding rapidly at Port Stanley. I would refer to one company alone that has storage capacity at the present time for 27 million gallons of oil; and an additional tank is planned this year for a capacity of five million gallons. Last year Port Stanley imported over 200,000 tons of coal. We have rapidly expanding grain transit business there. This year they expect to have, I believe, 26 silos for carrying a capacity of 200,000 bushels. The minister visited this port last year. From this port left the first boatload of soybeans ever exported from Canada to England.
We also have here a lift bridge. I am sure the late Hon. Mitchell Hepburn, who was then premier of Ontario, had foreseen the future expansion of Port Stanley, along with the federal Department of Public Works. They jointly provided a lift bridge for future expansion at Port Stanley. When a storm occurs the boats have to go up under the lift bridge and tie up to willow trees. Sometimes the harbour becomes so rough that they cannot take a chance

I am referring especially to the fishing boats-to remain in this harbour. I hope the minister will give consideration to a little improvement above the lift bridge to provide somewhat better accommodation for these boats to tie up when storms arise.


Mr. MacKenzie:: 
Robert Henry Winters: The contract has been
awarded, the work has been started and we expect it to go forward this year.


Mr. Anderson:: I should like to ask the minister what the department has in mind for the harbour at Port Dover this year. Some weeks ago the engineers from London were down there. It is proposed to establish a ferry service to Erie, Pennsylvania, this year. In order to do that a certain amount of dredging work has to be carried out. I think soundings have been taken and perhaps estimates have been drawn up but I have had no inkling as to what the department has in mind.
67509-214J
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Nothing has come forward for my consideration but I will be glad to keep in mind the remarks of the hon. member.


James Alexander McBain: Is the minister in a position now to answer the question I asked this morning regarding the dredge that sank at Port Stanley?


Robert Henry Winters: Dredge 117 sank at the entrance to Port Stanley harbour while at work there in May, 1952. Subsequently several attempts were made to raise it. In 1954 it was partially raised and moved into an abandoned ferry slip on the west side of the west pier at Port Stanley. It is not intended to replace this dredge. Since 1953 another departmental dredge has been assigned to work in the harbour of Port Stanley and other harbours in the area. Dredge 117 has been sold through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
378.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $120,000.
Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to this item of $120,000. I notice on page 485 it says "item not required for 1956-57". I wonder what progress is being made there and to what extent development is taking place.


Robert Henry Winters: This item is required to extend the existing bank protection at Waterways approximately 160 feet upstream. We have had some problems acquiring property but we expect to go forward and spend at least $10,000 this year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice there is money being spent at Aklavik in the north. I thought that town was being moved to another site. If so, why are we spending money there?


Robert Henry Winters: This is for the wharf at the new site.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
379.	British Columbia and Yukon, $3,493,500.
Mr. Simmons:: Is it proposed to proceed with the construction of the seaplane float at White Horse this spring in line with representations made by the White Horse board of trade last year?


Robert Henry Winters: I think that is a matter that still has to be cleared with the Department of Transport. I am not sure that they have asked us yet to build a seaplane float there.


Howard Charles Green: In the details to be found on page 485 there is reference to a vote for a fishing harbour in False Creek at Vancouver and also to the sea wall around Stanley park in Vancouver. Can the minister tell us

Supply-Public Works whether the first vote will complete the fishing harbour? I am also somewhat concerned because the vote for the Stanley park seawall indicates that it will complete the work. My understanding is that the wall is far from finished and I am wondering why the words "to complete" appear in the vote.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, with respect to False Creek, the amount in the estimates is towards completion of the project. It will not finish the project, which it is estimated will cost somewhat more than the amount shown in the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: When will that harbour be completed?


Robert Henry Winters: We expect that it will be completed in the early summer of 1957. With respect to the other project, the sea wall at Stanley park, the words "to complete" appear here because we have notified the board of park commissioners of Stanley park that we will go forward with this work this year but that hereafter it will have to be regarded as something beyond the scope of our responsibility.


Howard Charles Green: Why has the department decided now to stop that vote? An amount has been voted for quite a few years and the project was undertaken in the first place to complete a sea wall around Stanley park. That work is far from finished, and I do not understand why the dominion government should now withdraw its support.


Robert Henry Winters: There has been no question of that. The sea wall was undertaken to prevent erosion because of navigation. This will complete the protection of that area where erosion can be considered to be attributable to navigation.


Howard Charles Green: What was the reply from the city to the proposal that the dominion would not pay anything more?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not recall that we have had a specific reply. I understand they accept the position as being a reasonable one because our job is limited to protection against erosion where the erosion is attributable to navigation or where it endangers navigation or where it is attributable to some federal government structure. When we get outside the terms of these definitions then the erosion- is not a responsibility of ours within the framework of this department.


Howard Charles Green: There is navigation on all sides of the park that are bounded by the sea, and I would hope that the department would look into the situation again. I do not know just how they decide that, at a certain point, navigation does not cause erosion. There are boats operating on all sides of the park.


Robert Henry Winters: We have looked into this very carefully, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, on the departmental administration item I urged the minister to look into the situation at Arrowhead where the Columbia enters the Arrow lakes owing to the urgent necessity for the building of a 'breakwater and necessary dredging to turn the direction of the river. I am not going to repeat the remarks I made at that time. They are in Hansard. However, I should like the minister to tell the committee if he will have this matter thoroughly investigated. It is a most important question to the people who live along the Arrow lakes and to some people who live in the constituency of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. While I am on my feet, I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that in 1930 there was a rock and brush mattress built near Burton in the narrows. It was built because the department built a dam and turned the direction of the river and on that account occasioned erosion of the east bank of the river thereby washing away farm land. That mattress cost several thousand dollars and it has remained in fairly good condition up to the present time. But when I was going down in the boat recently I noticed that one corner of the mattress has now been lifted. The expenditure of two or three hundred dollars will repair that mattress and save a great deal of damage that may occur in the future.
Another matter I wish to mention is this. I am going to ask the minister if he will inquire into this question of straightening the Duncan river and removing log jams. There was a practice some years ago, I understand, of turning $1,000 or $2,000 over to the game department of the provincial government and letting the matter go at that. I think that was a most unsatisfactory arrangement. I should certainly like him to have his officials look into the arrangement at the present time. In making that statement I am expressing the opinion of the long-time residents of the district. I am going to conclude by saying this, Mr. Chairman. I may say that I do not take up the time of the house at great length on the estimates. I will focus the minister's attention on the importance of our problems by telling him that the Kootenays are the Garden of Eden where there is the highest primary and industrial production per capita in Canada and the greatest possibility for expansion per capita owing to the vast wealth of natural resources. Because of these conditions I think special consideration should be given to the needs of this district.


Frederick George Hahn: In the estimates at page 485, in the details I notice a reduction of some $60,000 in the cost of Fraser river dredging and in the item "Fraser river-towards improvements" a reduction from $869,000 to $324,000 this year. I wonder whether the minister will explain the reasons for the reductions.


Robert Henry Winters: Dealing first with the questions raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West, I may say that the Arrowhead chamber of commerce recently requested an investigation to determine the cost of construction of a diversion wall near the Canadian Pacific railway track at Arrowhead. An investigation was carried out and the work is estimated at $500,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is absurd.


Robert Henry Winters: The effectiveness of the wall is very doubtful as regards relieving erosion problems. On March 15, 1956 the chamber of commerce were advised by the deputy minister that this project would not be undertaken. This seems to be a natural erosion problem and is somewhat connected with the flooding of adjoining property. A further investigation is now being carried out by the district engineer as to ways and means other than the proposed diversion wall which could be effective in this case.
On the matter of snagging at the Duncan river I may say that the situation there is not quite as represented by the hon. member when he said that the Department of Public Works annually has turned money over to the provincial government to do snagging on the upper Duncan river. On the upper reaches of this river, when it has not been possible to do the snagging with our own forces and equipment, contracts have been given to do the work. There is no record of the Department of Public Works ever providing money to the provincial government to do this work. Snagging on the upper Duncan river is done by contract when our forces are fully committed elsewhere.
As to the Fraser river, we have had large votes here last year and in preceding years but we did not spend the amounts that were provided. Last year one item was $310,000. We have not been able to spend the other amount provided. This year the funds being requested are in line with the work we think we can do. We do not propose to leave anything undone there.


Frederick George Hahn: How much was spent last year on the Fraser river development itself? You say you did not spend all of the $310,000 last year. How much did you actually spend last year?
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I meant on the other item of $869,000. We did in fact spend the $310,000. Against the $869,000 we spent a total of $545,000.


Frederick George Hahn: And you are anticipating cutting that item down to $324,000 in this ensuing year?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Frederick George Hahn: Where do you expect to bring in the special economy?


Robert Henry Winters: I can tell the hon. member what we have in mind there. We have four projects which total $324,000: To complete the Garry point bank protection, $192,000; Lulu island bank protection, $66,000; operation of Fraser river model, $50,000; and for our annual survey $16,000 for a total of $324,000.


Frederick George Hahn: As to the river itself, I was interested to hear the minister's response to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he said that the only place where a sea wall is built is where the erosion is attributed to navigation. That brings me again to the question that I raised the other day with respect to the region on the Fraser river known as Canoe pass. That is a river channel and it is used today by river boats and other boats. I would ask him to have some examination made into that region in order to discover whether or not it would be possible to complete the rock work that needs to be done in that particular region. I understand there is a length of only about 1,500 feet that has to be completed. I would also ask him to have the matter examined into to see whether it could not be done.
Then I wonder whether the minister is in a position to answer the question that I raised last Friday on the estimates when I was referring to the breakwater at White Rock. At that time I indicated that the breakwater had been built in 1953, although actually it was built in 1954. He thought it was built in 1902. Would he care to elaborate at this time?


Robert Henry Winters: As to White Rock, a new breakwater 200 feet long was completed in 1953. This new breakwater was built to provide facilities together with floats and so on not only for existing navigation but to provide also for future needs. It has been under observation ever since. Our latest reports are that the greater local traffic which was expected has not yet fully materialized. We are holding the extension in abeyance until a better picture can be obtained as to the use to which the facilities are to be put in the future. Our officials report that there

Supply-Public Works exists sufficient protected area behind the breakwater to accommodate the boats using the facilities at present.


Frederick George Hahn: Just while we are on that topic, may I say that I appreciate the minister's point of view and the fact that his officials would indicate that there is sufficient breakwater there. But if he asks them to have another look at the situation, I think they will probably discover that the reason there is sufficient is that the boats which should ordinarily use that breakwater today are moored at Blaine and at the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver. I feel that the expenditure we had on that occasion of some $152,000 is one that is completely lost unless it can be of some use to the people in the area. I am satisfied that the people in the district feel otherwise about it. I do not understand the attitude of the government with respect to that particular breakwater, in view of the fact that it was built for a purpose and that it apparently is not being used for that purpose. Now, I should like the minister to have his officials examine into the reason why it is not being used. I am satisfied they will discover it is not being used because it is useless.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to say I was pleased to hear the minister's explanation and to note he is having the matter investigated further. I can see now there is a misunderstanding and that is the reason for the vast discrepancy between the figure given by the minister's engineers and the figure I suggested. They have in mind a lengthy breakwater, and I am very glad to hear the minister is going to have the matter investigated further. I think it is definitely the responsibility of the department because the breakwater and dredging are necessary to prevent the silting up of the approaches to the wharves and the silting up of the navigation channel, as well as to prevent the inflow of large ice floes in the spring which make navigation very difficult in the early part of the year.
I mentioned also that I never like to be wrong. I said that, as far as I knew, that money was turned over to the provincial government. I was not sure. I do know the provincial government employees did the work, and I am quite correct in that.


Frederick George Hahn: I did not get a reply from the minister with respect to the protection that is required at Canoe pass. I was wondering if you would have the matter examined in so far as the effects upon navigation are concerned on the Fraser river between West-ham island and the mainland1, and ascertain whether or not that 1,500 feet of rock work could be done in the ensuing year?


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters, some of which I have mentioned on other occasions and not received replies, about which I should like to ask the minister now. Possibly I did not receive a reply because of the large number who were seeking information. But I have noticed the great ability of the minister's advisers today to supply even minor details, so I should like to list a number of items. I believe the minister will agree with me that the government has often advocated the decentralization of industry. I know it is only natural for the manager of any business or department of government to resist any further decentralization because the natural growth of the department always enhances the stature of the office held by the individual concerned.
In connection with this matter of harbour control and harbour management I am wondering whether the minister has ever handed out any advice to his senior engineers to see whether or not it is possible to have a little more decentralization. He have the harbours at New Westminster and Vancouver and they are developed to almost as high a degree as it is possible to develop them, yet most of the money that is being spent seems to be going into the further development of these harbours and very little into the development of any harbour facilities-this includes dredging-in the areas around those two major centres. I cannot see why the New Westminster harbour board, if it is unwilling to grant adequate representation to the surrounding municipalities like Coquitlam over whose waters it exercises authority, should not have the authority over the Fraser river east of New Westminster taken out of its hands. The section of the river west of New Westminster has already been removed from its hands and we have the north arm harbour board authority. I do not see why New Westminster, if it is unwilling to recommend the development of the Fraser river to the east of the city, should continue to exercise authority over that area.
Then, we also have the Coquitlam river which used to be used rather extensively. However, I suppose because of the conditions in the hungry thirties the cleaning out of the mouth of the Coquitlam river came to an end and its usefulness has been gradually disappearing. Now, the mouth of the river is in such a condition it is causing a flood menace to hundreds of homes which have, over the past several years, been seriously affected by the flooding of that river. I know that the municipal council has at times made representations to the government to again begin cleaning out the mouth of that river.
Then, I should like also to put in a plea for more cleaning out of Burrard inlet. A lot

more dredging would serve a very useful purpose there. There is some going on I believe in connection with the loading of oil tankers there. However, the city council of Port Moody has on numerous occasions asked that something be done to restore the usefulness of its harbour. They had a long wharf, about half a mile long, and again possibly because of the need for saving money that existed in the thirties it began to be neglected. Well, once the minister's department neglects the upkeep of wharves or dredging, then the owners of vessels have to begin to ignore those places as ports of call. The usefulness of those places is then gone. Some years ago the Port Moody council put in a very reasonable request. They did not ask that the whole wharf be replaced, but asked for a wharf about half as long. They thought, for the time being, that would serve the needs of the fishermen and others in the city. Instead of that the minister's department offered to hand over the wharf to the city council, and they could do with it as they saw fit. This was a rather ill-advised offer because it would cost a lot of money to remove the wharf. I believe the department has now spent a considerable amount of money to get this danger to navigation removed. However, they are doing nothing about replacing it.
Then I believe representations have been made over the years by North Burnaby for some pleasure craft facilities on the shores of Burrard inlet. We want to develop a park there and there is a considerable number of people who would like to spend their spare time in water sports. Again, so far I have not heard of any progress towards the provision of some pleasure craft harbour facilities in the Burnaby section of Burrard inlet. If there has been any progress we have not been advised, and I know the North Burnaby board of trade would be very grateful to the minister if he could now inform us that some action there is contemplated.
I should like also to have the minister explain why last year we voted $5,227,200 for British Columbia and the Yukon under this heading and this year only $3,493,500 or $1,733,700 less in the year 1956-57 than was voted in 1955-56. In reply to the hon. member for New Westminster the minister indicated that on one single item at least this year he did not intend to ask for more money than he actually planned on using. However, that is not a new feature of the minister's department. He has been following that policy, I believe, ever since he became minister. I can only take it that the minister is actually planning a considerable reduction in expenditures in the province as a whole. I am not thinking particularly of my own riding. I feel this is
Supply-Public Works very poorly timed, and that British Columbia's needs are growing by leaps and bounds. Industrially at least the needs should be made obvious to the department and the amounts for the province of British Columbia should be greater this year than last year. I would certainly like to see the department keep pace with the growing development of the province.
I raised a number of points. To repeat them, there are the wharf facilities in North Burnaby, the wharf and the dredging at Port Moody, and this matter of the New Westminster harbours board having authority over a section of the Fraser valley that is not within the city limits of New Westminster and in which they cannot possibly have any interest whatsoever except to hinder that section of the Fraser river in the interests of the commercial establishments in New Westminster itself.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond wishes to deal with some of the aspects with which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has been dealing, I would be glad to have him go ahead.


Tom Goode: I appreciate the hon. member giving me the floor. Perhaps the minister should know something about this wharf in North Burnaby. At one time I represented that riding. It was agreed with public works, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam knows, that something would be done by public works in allotting enough money to permit the wharf to be built, but there was a catch to it-this was before the present minister's time-and that is why I have to take time to explain it. The main line of the Canadian Pacific runs right through between North Burnaby and where the wharf is proposed to go. We tried as best we could to get the board of transport commissioners to give us a by-pass from North Burnaby to the suggested wharf but the board of transport commissioners refused, and for that reason no money was appropriated at that time. I think the situation is exactly the same in 1956.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, earlier I had intended to raise one or two points in connection with the project to remove the pinnacles of Ripple Rock that were discussed earlier under the administration item, but the Chair at that time suggested it should be deferred until this point in the proceedings.
I draw to the attention of the committee the fact that at the outset of the discussion of this branch the minister did make a progress report fin this project. I thought it was appropriate that on the day he did that I had received a copy of the Campbell River Courier with a rather fine aerial photo of the narrows

Supply-Public Works at the point where this work is going on, showing the construction camp and also showing something of the white water over the top of the rocks with the tide going out. In view of the fact that this is a project of not only national but also of international interest I am sure some hon. members of the committee will be interested in having a look at this photo, and I shall be glad to show it to them.
While, as I say, it is primarily a project of national and even international significance, being in the main traffic artery of transportation on the west coast, nevertheless it does happen to lie somewhere in the riding of Comox-Alberni. For that reason there are one or two points in connection with it that I should like to raise at this time. I should like to point out to the Minister of Public Works that I did raise with his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, a matter which is of some concern to some local residents, particularly those of Indian extraction, in respect to the effect this explosion, when it takes place, is going to have upon the stocks of fish in the area.
If the minister is in a position to do so I should like him to give us some indication of the form of co-operation that is going on with the Department of Fisheries to ensure that there will be the least possible damage to any stocks of migratory fish, salmon in particular, at the time the explosion takes place, and as to whether there is some consultation on the effect of the explosion on the local stocks of groundfish in that area.
The other point on which I should like to have some report from the minister, if he is in a position to give it, is as to the outcome of an accident to a light plane which occurred, as I am informed, at the time the power line was being strung across Seymour narrows by the British Columbia Power Commission to supply power to the construction camp. According to the report published at the time, this light plane became entangled in the cable while it was in the process of being strung across and was catapulted into the water. Has the minister any report on the outcome, and whether the department was in any way at fault in the accident? I would appreciate having some information on these two points.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, as to the fishing aspects of the removal of Ripple Rock, there is close co-operation with the Department of Fisheries. We are working with their officials at all stages, even to the point where we shall endeavour to set off the blast in cooperation with them at a time when it will do the least harm to the fisheries.
With respect to the matter of the light plane hitting the cable, that was a cable strung by

the British Columbia Power Commission. I understand the matter is under litigation between the commission and the owner of the plane.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Apart from the matter of
Ripple Rock there are one or two other matters under the British Columbia vote that I should like to comment upon. First of all, I should like to assure the minister on behalf of the citizens of Alert Bay that they will appreciate the fact that there is a vote in this year's estimate toward starting an improved small-boat harbour there. The same appreciation will be felt by the fishermen in the Deep Bay area, who will be making use of the facilities that are proposed there, as well as the extensions that are contemplated for the Comox harbour area. At this point I would bespeak the very sympathetic cooperation of the Minister of Public Works in the problem which the Comox-Courtenay-King salmon club has at this time, arising out of their long occupancy of a certain area adjacent to the Comox wharf.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the minister that I hope he will not forget in his planning and engineering some of the other projects which, to my way of thinking, are necessary before an adequate program of harbour facilities is provided over this large area of the British Columbia coast. I might mention particularly at this time the need which will arise before too long for facilities at Sointula on Malcolm island, and also draw to his attention the project which I know has had some investigation for providing an adequate breakwater for a small-boat harbour at Sayward-Kelsey Bay. Then on the west coast of Vancouver island where nature, rather surprisingly, has provided more and better natural harbour facilities than on the east coast of the island, there are a couple of points where I think further development would be warranted. Such development could include a project for additional docking facilities for the fishing fleet in the upper harbour at Ucluelet and also for better harbour facilities at the town of Zebal-los on the west coast of Vancouver island. To my way of thinking these are projects which should be receiving serious consideration by the Department of Public Works.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate to the committee in respect to the project at Alert Bay just what his department considers is involved in the project that is to be initiated. The current vote of $100,000 is toward a boat harbour. I think it would be appreciated if the minister could indicate to us what will be involved in this project by the time it is completed.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the proposed work at Alert Bay consists of dredging, construction of a pile breakwater, construction of a floating breakwater, construction of
15,000	square feet of floats, construction of a wharf having an approach 100 feet long with a wharfhead 30 feet by 30 feet. Those are the general items we have in mind for Alert Bay.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, in view of the reply of the minister I would like to ask a question concerning this item. Will the minister tell us if in his opinion the needs of British Columbia are being met or is it the over-all policy of the government in view of the growing national need for capital expenditure in the coming year that almost $2 million less is going to be spent in British Columbia this year than was spent last year. Is no one asking for any development? The item for Ripple Rock takes $1 million out of the $3,500,000 allotted for this year.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member recognizes the fact that there is a reduction this year as compared with last year in every province. In large measure this is due to our policy of trying to work closer toward the full expenditure of the money we have in the estimates.
I do not think the hon. member should judge the program of work we have in mind entirely by the amount of money being requested here. If the hon. member will refer to the details on page 485 he will see that whereas for last year we requested votes to carry out 10 projects, we are seeking funds to carry out 20 projects this year. Although the amount of money shown is less, we propose to undertake twice the number of projects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally-
380. Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction and replacements for the maintenance of services; to provide for wharf repairs at Ste. Angele de Laval, Quebec, and to authorize commitments against future years in the total amount of $420,000, no new works to be undertaken, $3,185,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the minister give us a general statement on this item, Mr. Chairman, because it seems rather ambiguous to me. For instance, in the explanation on page 486 it says:
Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction and replacement for the maintenance of services, and to provide for wharf repairs at Ste. Angele de Laval, Quebec, no new works to be undertaken.
I do not see any mention of Ste. Angele de Laval, Quebec, in the particular items, and I notice that every province is mentioned.
Supply-Public Works For instance, $500,000 will be voted for Newfoundland and there will be a commitment authority for $100,000. The same applies to every other province; there is a certain commitment and a certain vote and the amounts are exactly the same as they were last year. Would the minister give us some explanation regarding this item in general?


Robert Henry Winters: As my hon. friend said, the details of the item are found at page 486. In particular I think the hon. member referred to Ste. Angele de Laval, which is really a carryover of an old agreement. The moneys normally were carried in the reconstruction vote. The treasury board asked that they be specifically referred to both in the item on page 62 and in the item on page 486. They have been carried in that way for 2 years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the minister explain the commitment authority of $100,000 for Newfoundland? I take it the department has already promised to undertake some work in Newfoundland to that amount. How do you arrive at the amount of $500,000 which is to be voted? Is that just an estimate or a guess? I notice it is the same as last year.


Robert Henry Winters: The explanation of that point, Mr. Chairman, is that we can spend up to $500,000 in Newfoundland but we have authority to commit beyond that sum to the extent of $100,000. Of course we have to come back to parliament to get the money to discharge the commitment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I take it that you can spend $600,000 in Newfoundland?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And the same in the other provinces?


Robert Henry Winters: We can spend $500,000 and we can commit an expenditure of $100,000 but we cannot actually expend that amount without coming back to parliament.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the question in my mind in this connection is why the commitment authority is doubled in the province of Newfoundland in relation to that which is allowed in any of the other provinces. What is the particular reason for that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would it be the Port aux Basques ferry harbour?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right. It is because of the fact that Newfoundland is a relatively new province under the terms of confederation and we are still learning of projects that are required to bring the scale of public services up to those obtaining in the other provinces of Canada. We expect we will need
3368	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works a little extra leeway there in being able to commit forward expenditure, but I say again that we have to come back to parliament to get the vote to spend the money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering branch-
382. Branch administration, including district staffs for highways and bridges, and related expenses, $861,997.
Charles Edward Johnston: I think this is the item under which the minister asked me to bring up my problem. I wish to refer to the bridge which was constructed at approximately mile 4 in Yoho park. Before I begin to say anything about this, let me ask the minister a question. Does the responsibility for this bridge rest with this department or with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Robert Henry Winters: The responsibility is that of the Department of Public Works.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood from information I had that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources had something to do with this project in its beginning.


Robert Henry Winters: They did, that is true; but since that time the responsibility for the work on these bridges has been transferred to the Department of Public Works.


Charles Edward Johnston: What I wish to point out to the minister on this occasion is that I asked a question some time ago concerning the unsatisfactory condition of this bridge. The answer I got to the question was not very satisfactory. Then when I communicated with the department, the deputy minister was good enough to go into it in more detail and give me practically all the information that he had available.
It is rather unfortunate that such a mistake was made in this regard. When I speak of a mistake, I preface my remarks by saying that I thought probably some of the responsibility for this mistake was not entirely that of the present minister but of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources when it first started. It seems rather odd, when a department is putting in a bridge that is going to cost about $200,000, which is a rather large amount of money, that the proper engineering development was not carried out.
In part of the information I received from the department-and they do not try to belittle the facts at all-they say it was unfortunate that soil borings were not taken prior to its design, so the class of material underlying the gravel layer was not established.


It is almost inconceivable to think that any construction company or any department that has to do with the building of bridges would attempt to build a bridge over a river such as the Kicking Horse without taking thorough borings to find out what the soil condition was before that bridge was started. When I asked whether there was a movement in the bridge, the answer was that a movement was noticed in the pier under the heavy construction traffic which was then required. An immediate investigation was undertaken, including complete soil borings but that was after the bridge was built.
There again I say it was rather odd that the bridge had to be completed over such a turbulent river as this before it was found that there were no proper engineering practices carried out and no soil tests made. As soon as they noticed the movement, they say-
... no further work was undertaken with the exception of some riprap around the abutments as a normal maintenance procedure.
In the last paragraph they say:
It is regrettable that preliminary soil borings were not taken prior to the design of this structure.
It was regrettable to the extent that it cost us for that mistake over $54,000. Then they go on to say:
If these had been done, steel piling would have been included in the original construction. Doing this after the bridge construction undoubtedly increased the cost to some extent over that at which it would have been possible to do the piling during original construction.
As I say, in a construction of this type, which cost when it was completed in the neighbourhood of $200,000, the department that was originally responsible for the location of this bridge and for the engineering practice that went on, was negligent in not seeing that there was a proper soil test and certainly should be condemned. When they did take the final borings it was found there was about 100 feet of silt underneath the gravel bed, and this bridge costing $200,000 was built on that. Is it any wonder that the footing moved out? The department that was responsible for the original location of this and was responsible for the soil testing and the engineering practices should be condemned in no uncertain terms.
I am sure that now the Department of Public Works under the present minister, who has had to come in and take the responsibility for such a mistake as this, should not be required to take all the blame. I am not attempting to put all the blame on him, but I am saying that the department which was guilty of this negligence should certainly bear that responsibility. It should be looked after as far as his department is concerned, and the

present minister should see to it that no more slipshod methods such as that are practised, and it does not cost us $50,000 to correct mistakes in the construction of another bridge such as this.


Frederick George Hahn: Earlier today it was suggested that a question I raised regarding the Lulu island bridge, specifically named Queens-borough bridge, be brought up at this time, and I should like to bring it to the attention of the minister. I should like to ask him this, in view of the statement he made this morning. As I recall it, he said he had not received the report and therefore did not recommend it. A month's time has elapsed since the report was sent to his office. I want to know whether his answer indicates that he has seen the plans or his officials have seen the plans and it' has not met with their approval and therefore was not given to him for his approval, or whether it means specifically that it has not yet been drawn to his attention and that, when it is, it will be given consideration.


Robert Henry Winters: No, it does not mean that I have disapproved the plans. It just means that I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing them. They have been submitted, but I understand that recently we have had quite a number of protests because I understand that the plans submitted by the city of New Westminster contemplate leaving existing structures where they are. I shall have to analyse all these protests before I can pass on the project.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask the
minister a question in regard to another problem that has arisen in the Banff national park in connection with road construction? That is the right of way which the highway requires going around the railway at Anthracite, where the property was expropriated. At least, I do not know whether the proceedings are still going on or have been completed. This thing has been hanging fire for one and a half or two years.
Again I am not sure, because of the complicated situation there, whether it is the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources that has dilly-dallied in getting a settlement made of this question, or whether it was the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources that was responsible for putting a road through private property without even getting permission from the owner, thereby cutting off the owner's livelihood without giving him any compensation whatever and holding him up for over one and a half years for payment. The settlement, as far as I know, has not even been made yet.
Supply-Public Works
I cannot conceive that the Minister of Public Works would do such a contemptible thing, yet that was done. I am not sure whether those expropriation proceedings had to be carried out by the Department of Public Works or whether it was again the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am sure the minister can let me know about that. If he is responsible, I should like to know what action is being taken to see that this man has proper compensation for his labour, and proper compensation for the loss of livelihood which he has had to endure for all this time. Is it the practice of the department when building highways through national parks to intrude upon a man's private property and simply say, "Well, here we are, get out", or is there a proper procedure followed whereby proper compensation is paid? Again I have my doubts as to the minister being responsible for that, but I should like to know.


Robert Henry Winters: In this instance the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has taken action to acquire the property by expropriation. The plan has been filed. The government now owns the property, and I understand that northern affairs has actually made some settlements and some payments.


Charles Edward Johnston: Some what?


Robert Henry Winters: Payments.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned the Lulu island bridge. Can the minister tell us at this point exactly what is the policy of his department with regard to assuming responsibility in respect of the cost of bridge building? I understand the policy with respect to interprovincial rivers or rivers that straddle the border is well settled, and that the government does pay a large share of the cost of bridges in those cases.
We in the lower mainland of British Columbia are faced almost every week with the situation where somebody says that the federal government should pay part of the cost of this bridge, that bridge or the other bridge, and sometimes we are somewhat at a loss to explain exactly what bridges the minister's department does assume some degree of responsibility for. Is it all bridges over navigable waters or is it not? If it is not all bridges over navigable waters I should like to follow through with several other questions seeking information on specific bridges.
My second question is whether any consideration has been given to adding to the list of bridges for which the minister's department does assume responsibility bridges that

Supply-Public Works would be of service in the cause of civil defence and the evacuation of our major centres of population. Has any consideration yet been given to this problem? If so, what decision has been reached?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, it is very
difficult to give a broad statement of general policy. I would far rather deal with individual cases on their merits. The fact that a bridge is required over navigable water does not in itself mean that the federal government has a responsibility to share in the cost of building the bridge. The federal government's responsibility is to protect the position of the navigable waters. Before anybody can build a structure they must conform to the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which means that in the final analysis the Department of Public Works must authorize or otherwise the building of the structure. But it does not of itself mean that the federal government is obliged, bound or committed to contribute toward the cost of the structure.
We have a certain responsibility with respect to bridges over interprovincial and international waters, where we normally contribute as a matter of policy when a bridge is required; but apart from that most bridges are, generally speaking, for the purpose of facilitating highway traffic within the province and, once again generally speaking, in the first instance and normally they are a responsibility of the provincial jurisdiction.


Erhart Regier: I should like to thank the
minister for his answer. I should like to ask the minister whether his department is assuming any share of the cost of the bridge now being built to replace the present bridge over the Pitt river in British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: No, not to my knowledge. I have not been informed of any such project, so I am quite sure I am safe in saying we are not participating.


Erhart Regier: I do not know whether the minister will be able to answer this question, but in the light of the general policy statement he has just made would he explain for the benefit of the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia why his department would assume responsibility for the Lulu island bridge and not assume responsibility for the Pitt river bridge, which is not very far removed from the Lulu island bridge, which is a portion of the main highway and also crosses navigable waters.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member says we are contributing toward the Lulu island bridge. I am not aware that we are contributing toward any such structure.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to ask a further question about the bridge at mile 4 in Yoho park. Can the minister tell us now if the bridge has been satisfactorily repaired even though it did cost us an extra $50,000, whose sole responsibility it was, and how it came about that such negligence was allowed? Was that the minister's responsibility? If not, whose responsibility was it?


Robert Henry Winters: The bridge has been completed. I do not think it cost an extra $54,000. If it had been designed in the first place as it should have been, I think the additional cost would have been something more in the order of $20,000. The bridge was designed by the old department of resources and development at a time when I was responsible for that department. Therefore the ministerial responsibility is mine and I accept it.
The bridge was built at a place where the substructure was not as was anticipated. There was silty soil and there was some movement. It was found that steps had to be taken to put the bridge in shape, and I think the additional cost required over what would have been the cost had the bridge been designed properly in the first place, as it was finally, would have been something of the order of $20,000.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not want the minister to think I was endeavouring to mislead him when I quoted the figure of $50,000. Actually the price was $54,016.45. I do not know what the 45 cents was for. It states here that the work was carried out in March and April of 1955, so it must have been all due to the mistakes made in the first place. It could not have been $20,000. It must have been $54,016.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that work did cost
$54,000; but what I am saying is that if the bridge had been designed in the first place as it should have been some of the items of expense in that $54,000 would have been charged against the initial cost of the bridge.


Frederick George Hahn: The minister indicated that the federal government is not contributing to the cost of replacing the Lulu island bridge. Is any consideration being given to contributing to the cost?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir.


John Angus MacLean: I have a question I should like to put to the minister. I am not sure whether it is more appropriate under this item or under item 390. In any case, I should like to ask the minister what are the possibilities of his department proceeding with an engineering survey to determine the

feasibility of the construction of a causeway between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


Robert Henry Winters: Recently I received a letter from the premier of Prince Edward Island, which is the first official communication I have had in connection with this causeway. I think that was within the past ten days or two weeks, relatively recently. The letter set forth certain information which had been acquired locally and was based in part, I believe, upon a preliminary survey by a consulting engineer. I have asked the officials of the Department of Public Works to review the information submitted by the premier and to let me have their estimate of the cost of having a full-scale engineering study made by a competent consulting engineer. I have not received that information yet from the engineers of the department. That is the way the situation stands at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering branch-
384.	International bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Calais, Maine, the state of Maine to pay a like amount, $150,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister what is the total cost of this international bridge between Calais and St. Stephen and how soon he expects the bridge to be completed?


Robert Henry Winters: The total cost of the bridge is $440,000, which will be shared equally between the government of Canada and the state of Maine. The target date for completion of the bridge is September, 1956.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will there be an official opening at that time?


Robert Henry Winters: I would certainly think so, Mr. Chairman. Nothing has been laid on yet, but I think we would be safe in saying there will be something.


Mr. Michener:: The next three items cover an international bridge, an interprovincial bridge and a bridge which might be called an intraprovincial bridge as it is entirely within one province. What I should like to ask the minister is what becomes of these bridges when they are built. They are paid for in part by the federal government. Can he give us first the disposition of the St. Croix river bridge after it has been constructed? Does it become part of the highway system of New Brunswick and is it operated by that province and the state of Maine as a free bridge, a toll bridge or what is the prospective disposition of the St. Croix river bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: Which particular item are we on, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 384.
Supply-Public Works


Robert Henry Winters: Then perhaps I should limit my remarks to that item.


Daniel Roland Michener: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: Arrangements for maintenance will be shared on the same basis as the cost of construction. Maine will maintain and repair its half of the bridge and the government of Canada will maintain and repair its half of the bridge on the Canadian side of the border.


Daniel Roland Michener: Will ownership be in the same proportion?


Robert Henry Winters: Ownership will be in the same proportion.


Daniel Roland Michener: I understand it is just one of the public works of Canada in so far as the Canadian half of the bridge is concerned?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: There is no special corporation to operate the bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Daniel Roland Michener: And no tolls will be charged?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering branch-
385.	Construction of spans of bridge over the interprovincial channel of the Ottawa river between Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec, $450,000.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to ask the minister a few questions about this bridge at Allumette island. I should like to ask him when it is estimated it will be open for traffic and what the total cost of the bridge will be to the federal Department of Public Works?


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member knows, this bridge is being built in three sections. The Ontario government is building the southern third, the Quebec government is building the northern third and the government of Canada, through the Department of Public Works, is building the centre section. The total contract cost of the centre bridge is $850,000. The completion date of that centre section which is our responsibility is the latter part of this present summer. I do not know what are the target dates of completion for the other two governments, but I think they would be somewhere around that time.
The maintenance will be divided between the three governments. The provincial governments have undertaken to do running maintenance, snow removal and that sort of thing up to the interprovincial boundary. The major repairs, repairs of a construction nature, will be done by the federal government on the centre span which we are building; and the two provincial governments will
3372	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works be entirely responsible for all phases of maintenance on the sections they are building.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You think that the whole bridge will be open for traffic some time in the early fall?


Robert Henry Winters: I think so; yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: Where will title rest?


Robert Henry Winters: Title to the centre section will rest with us and title to the other sections will rest with the respective provincial governments.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In that connection I should like to ask the minister a question. In connection with an interprovincial bridge, where is the legal authority for the federal government to build one-third of it? I ask that question because there has been considerable controversy over the construction of a bridge between New Brunswick and the province of Quebec; I refer to a bridge from Campbellton to Cross Point. I remember that some time ago when the matter came up for discussion in the house here we were told that the federal government had no responsibility.
That idea may have changed. Here we have an interprovincial bridge where the federal government is taking responsibility for building one-third of it. I should like to ask the minister just where the authority for that is to be found. I had the idea that it was under the British North America Act. As a matter of fact the ex-premier of the province of New Brunswick, Mr. McNair, cited that authority one time but it was never agreed to by the government in connection with the Campbellton and Cross Point bridge.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not believe there is any doubt about the federal government's responsibility with respect to bridges over interprovincial waters. There was never any doubt in my mind on that point. The doubt is as to whether or not a bridge will be built at all. The mere fact that there is an interprovincial water does not automatically mean that it must be bridged by the federal government or by anybody else. There is also the question, I suppose, of what the ratio of participation should be because on one side of an interprovincial boundary the structure is in one province and on the other side it is in the other province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As in this case.


Robert Henry Winters: It is a matter for general agreement. With regard to the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, we have taken the position that if the provincial governments concerned-that is the Quebec government and the government of New Brunswick-wish to build a bridge and bring forward a proposal


indicating their participation, we will be prepared to give it favourable consideration. I have had discussions with the premier of Quebec and the premier of New Brunswick, and it was mutually agreed that the project would not be brought forward at this time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask who objected to it being brought forward at this time? I am sure it was not the premier of New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
386.	Towards construction of the Burlington beach bridge, the province of Ontario to pay a like amount, $2,000,000.
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word about item 386. I should like to move- or to have somebody move-that this item be deleted. My reason is this, and I can best explain it by reading two brief letters. One is dated April 9, 1956 and is from me to Hon. J. N. Allan, minister of' highways, province of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Allan:
In the proposed estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1957, vote No. 386 asks parliamentary authority for the federal government to contribute $2,000,000 towards the construction of the Burlington Beach bridge.
I gather from conversations I have had with Premier Frost and with you that financial participation from the federal government will not be required during the present fiscal year, if indeed it would be required at all.
Under the circumstances, when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are being considered, we propose to ask parliament to drop this item. I hope this carries your judgment.
Hon. J. N. Allan replied on April 16 as follows:
I have received your letter of April 9th, and may say that we are quite agreeable to your suggestion of dropping the item of $2,000,000 toward the construction of the Burlington Beach bridge.
Yours sincerely,
Jas. N. Allan,
Minister of Highways.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. Winters moves that item 386 be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the pleasure qf the committee to adopt the motion?


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the minister has just read a letter from the minister of highways in Ontario, I assume it to be the fact that they will not be far enough ahead with the work this year to make use of the $2 million but that it will probably be reappropriated next year. I assume that to be the case, anyway. I should like the minister to say whether or not that is so.


Robert Henry Winters: I believe the government of Ontario is contemplating a toll bridge at this point. In that event, they do not propose to ask for federal government participation.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will second that motion, Mr. Chairman, and the minister can use part of that money in finishing the post office up in my riding this year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the minister would explain, now that we have the $500,000 which appears for last year, what is the authority for the federal government participating in provincial bridges? This appears to be a provincial bridge, and would the minister give some indication as to how far he is prepared to go with all the provinces in participating in the cost of bridges?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: There has been a motion that this item be dropped.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is an item before us here and the motion has not been carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The motion before us at the moment is that the item be dropped.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The motion has not been put, and I presume I am quite in order in asking the question I have asked. The minister might be expected to make a reply.


An hon. Member:: The item is off.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, it appears in the estimates. It has been moved that the item be dropped, but hon. members have a right to discuss it until the motion is carried. I have asked the minister if he will make some statement about the $500,000 which appears opposite this item for 1955-56. Would he also indicate if the federal government is prepared to negotiate with all the provinces in Canada in connection with the construction of bridges?


Robert Henry Winters: It seems rather odd that I should be asked to explain why we were participating in an item that I have just asked be dropped. The reason we did contract to participate was that the bridge is to be over the Burlington canal, which is a canal built by the federal government. The federal government felt it had some responsibility to help the province of Ontario bridge a gap that was built by it. Moreover, the traffic through that canal is so heavy that a high level bridge is required. This considerably adds to the cost of the structure.


Daniel Roland Michener: Before the motion is agreed to, and while I do not at all question the reasons the minister has advanced, may I ask if the minister is relying entirely on the correspondence which he has read for his suggestion that this item be dropped? What is the
Supply-Public Works date of the correspondence, and had the bridge involved any joint expenditure for engineering up to this time?


Robert Henry Winters: The project had involved no expenditures on the part of the federal government. I might say that since that letter from Mr. Allan which is relatively recent being dated April 16, 1956, I have had the matter confirmed in a telephone conversation.
Motion agreed to and item withdrawn.
Trans-Canada highway-
387.	To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks, $11,000,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the item dealing with the provision of funds for the construction of this highway through national parks, which is the sole responsibility of the federal government. I note that the amount spent last year was $5-5 million, and $11 million is being provided for this year. I trust that indicates a real determination on the part of the department to go ahead and get the trans-Canada highway built within these national parks. A considerable amount of concern was expressed when we were dealing with the trans-Canada highway a few days ago as to the slowness with which some of the provinces had been proceeding with the construction of that highway through their territory. The construction within the national parks has been just as slow as or slower than in many of the provinces. I would hope something much better will be done with this $11 million than has been done in the past.
I notice particularly that in the details on page 490 of the estimates book there is a breakdown of the expenditure of the $5 [DOT] 5 million. The actual expenditures to December 1, 1955, were $2,300,355, and it says that the estimate for the balance of the year is $3,149,645. In other words the major portion of this expenditure for last year had not been expended up to the end of 1955. Certainly the department would not be able to do any highway construction in that mountainous area in which the national parks are located between the end of December, 1955, and the end of the fiscal year. You just cannot carry on highway construction during the winter period in the mountains. Therefor I should like to have the minister tell us how much money actually was expended last year. It would appear to me, from looking at this breakdown, that considerably less than half the money voted last year had been expended.
I believe the necessity for getting the trans-Canada highway built through the parks is urgent. It is not only a matter of

Supply-Public Works getting that particular link in the trans-Canada highway completed, but it is a matter of providing a highway in Banff national park which would provide a reasonable road for the thousands and thousands of tourists who use that park. So far as Banff and Jasper national parks are concerned, one of the chief complaints has been the state of the highways. There is no question but that the very poor state of the highway has been responsible for these parks losing, and Canada losing, a great deal of tourist business. Many thousands of United States tourists who have been in the parks have been loud in their claims that they would never go back and drive on such roads as these.
If we are to get the full advantage from these parks as tourist attractions, then certainly the most important thing that can be done is to provide good roads. This particular section of the road will be the most used section of the road system in the parks; therefore I would hope that with this increased appropriation the department will actually get the road constructed instead of offering the excuses we have heard in past years that this is a very difficult type of construction which requires a great deal of rock blasting and things of that sort. Everybody knows that is the case. The fact is that the money which has been appropriated at various times in the past has not been expended. In other words there has not been the drive behind getting this road constructed, and as a result it just lags along.
In addition to these general remarks I should like the minister to give us a breakdown showing how much of the trans-Canada highway has been completed in the national parks, how much is going to be constructed this year, how much will be left, and when it will be constructed.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the first question the hon. member asked was how much was spent out of last year's vote. The answer to that is $4 million. The reason we did not spend more, I suppose, is the same as the provincial government's reason. We were held up first of all by an unusually wet season and, secondly, we were not able to get the structural steel for our bridge program. This year we are further advanced. Our contracts are already awarded.
A summary of the progress would be as follows: The survey of location is complete and the clearing and grubbing is 98 per cent complete. There is work we have been able to do in the winter time. The outstanding grubbing mileage consists of widening for high fills and deep cuts. The grading has been completed for a total of 26 miles; 11-7 miles in Banff park and 14-3 miles in Yoho
[Mr. Harkness.)

park. The design for base and pavement consists of a variable depth of gravel subbase; three inches of compacted gravel base course; three inches of bituminous stabilized base course; three inches of asphaltic concrete pavement. A total of 7-4 miles of gravel base course has been completed. The work on base course up to March 31, 1956 is equivalent to 5 [DOT] 8 miles of completed pavement. Four bridges have been completed at the following locations: Banff park, mile 1-5 at Carrot creek; mile 7-7 at Cascade river; mile 9-6 at Forty Mile creek; Yoho park, mile 3-9 at Kicking Horse river bridge No. 1.
Contracts have been awarded and are in progress for grading and the provision of compacted gravel base course for the following mileages: Banff park, mile 0 to 31 and mile 43-3 to 51-1; Yoho park, mile 0 to 28 -6. The following contracts remain to be awarded to complete grading and compacted gravel base course: Banff park, mile 31 to mile 43-3; Yoho park, a recall of a contract for mile 10 to mile 16. This contract was partially completed but terminated on December 1, 1955.
Bridges: The following contracts have been awarded for the construction of bridges: Banff park, five small reinforced concrete bridges between mile 13 and mile 40; Yoho park, C.P.R. overpass at mile 2-5. The following contracts remain to be awarded in 1956: Banff park, mile 14-3, bridge and overpass to the Bow river and C.P.R.; Yoho park, mile 16-7, bridge over the Kicking Horse river and C.P.R.; mile 21-5, bridge over the Kicking Horse river.
Paving:	A contract will be awarded in
1956 for paving bituminous stabilized base course from mile 0 to 14-2 in Banff park.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the minister feel satisfied that the base he is talking about from mile 0 at the east gate-


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: -up to the
railroad track is sufficiently properly constructed now to carry a hard surface?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope we are right and that we do not have to repair it in the short period of time within which we have had to repair the other. I wish to mention the road from Eisenhower junction to Radium Hot Springs. That gives us a good example of a road on which probably not enough precaution was taken in its construction, because after that road was built it was completely gone in about three years. I understand the whole thing has to be torn up and gone over again and a hard surface put

on it. I recognize that it is not a part of the trans-Canada highway. I mention it only to show that we should be careful to see that the foundations are properly laid before we proceed to hard-surface the road. There is lots of material close at hand in the parks.
I understood the minister to say that the hard surface from mile 0 to about mile 8 in Banff national park would be completely hard-surfaced this spring. Will it be done in time to take care of the tourist traffic?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it will not be finished in time for the tourist traffic, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was wondering what effect it will have both on construction of the road and the tourist traffic if the work is going on while the tourist traffic is going over it, because the traffic is exceedingly heavy at that time.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have a note here on that particular section from mile 0 to mile 10-8. Since the hon. member raised the matter before perhaps I should give him a fuller statement. Construction was started on this section in 1952 under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and a contract was awarded to Williams and Carruthers Limited for the construction of the subgrade and the Carrot creek bridge. This work was completed in 1953.
An additional contract was awarded to Standard Gravel and Paving in 1954 for the grading and culverts between mile 4-2 and
10-8 and gravel base course between mile 0 and 10-8. A section of the Cascade river was omitted where relocation of a portion of the C.P.R. line was involved, on which agreement was not reached until 1955. This railroad relocation is now under construction. Bituminous treatment of the gravel base course was undertaken between mile 0 and mile 5-5 in 1954 as a protection coat and a dust control measure.
The relocation of the C.P.R. line will be completed early in 1956, permitting completion of grading from mile 0 to 14-2, and it is proposed to call for tenders for completion of the gravel base course and the bituminous stabilized layer this season.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister why the road was switched from the south side of the Bow river to the north? I understand that the highway formerly ran on the south side but now there is a completely new road being made on the north side of the river.


Robert Henry Winters: It is just the reverse.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that the snow melts later on the north road that is now being used and that building a completely new road
Supply-Public Works has meant a great deal of additional expense. Why was it necessary to switch to the other side of the river?


Robert Henry Winters: The south side of the river presented better topography for a trunk road than the north side. The north side remains, anyhow, as a local park road, a tourist road, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has said. Both roads will be necessary, but for a through trunk road I think the hon. member would agree that the south side of the river presents many advantages.


Howard Charles Green: That is not the information I am given. I understand it would be much wiser simply to improve the road which already exists instead of carving out a completely new road.


Robert Henry Winters: We do not think so, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave us a considerable number of figures. What they all seem to mount up to is this. By the way, may I ask the minister what is the total mileage of the trans-Canada highways in the national parks?


Robert Henry Winters: Eighty-three miles.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, if the total mileage is 83 miles it would appear that no miles are finished at the present time. None of that road is completed in spite of the fact that for years and years the work has gone on. Furthermore, only 14 miles of this will be, I presume, completed. It is going to be paved, at any rate, during this coming summer. So by the end of the construction year 1956 only 14 of those 83 miles will be finished. Then there are various things that are going on as far as the rest of it is concerned, grading in some places and bridges being put up in others, and so on. Can the minister tell us when the entire road is going to be completed through the national parks?


Robert Henry Winters: Roughly, Mr. Chairman, we are planning to have the grading completed and the structures built in 1957, the bituminous stabilized base course completed in 1958, and the final paving completed in 1960.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the minister in his last statement has referred to Banff national park or to all highways within the national parks?


Robert Henry Winters: Banff and Yoho.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The reason I raise the point is that I was wondering whether his remarks include the trans-Canada highway in the national park in Newfoundland?


Robert Henry Winters: No.
3376	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Mr. Barnett: Can the minister give us some indication as to what activity will be undertaken in connection with the Newfoundland trans-Canada highway in that park?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. That area has not finally been established as a national park, Mr. Chairman; therefore it does not come under the provision for the national parks nor is the trans-Canada highway being approached on that same basis now. But we have told the Newfoundland government that if they proceed with that part of the highway through the area that is set aside for a national park, and if it then becomes part of the national park, and the road is built to trans-Canada highway standards, we will pay half the cost; but so far the initiative for the programming of the work is the responsibility of the provincial government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Did I understand the minister to say the proposal was that we were to pay only half the cost of what might eventually come within the national park?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I did give the wrong impression. We do pay half the cost as part of the trans-Canada highway, but when it is in a national park we will pay the other half of the cost.


John Angus MacLean: I am under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that after the trans-Canada highway in the parks is completed the Department of Public Works will have no more responsibility, and the maintenance of those sections of the trans-Canada highway will be the responsibility of the parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the trans-Canada highway, which is only one of many roads in the national parks, continue to be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works as far as maintenance is concerned?


Robert Henry Winters: It will be the property of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and ordinary maintenance will be done by that department. Capital expenditures will be carried out by the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
388.	Payment to the province of Manitoba, being 50 per cent of the province's contribution to the city of Winnipeg for reconstruction of Broadway avenue, as part of the trans-Canada highway, $36,633.
Mr. Dinsdale:: I would like to ask the minister if the principle enunciated in item 388 applies generally to sections of the trans-Canada highway passing through urban communities? What is the principle behind this vote?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this principle does apply. The principle is that the federal government will pay half of the cost incurred by a provincial government in carrying out its normal practice in respect to municipalities. As a matter of fact I do not believe this amount will be required because I understand, although we have not been officially informed, that the government of Manitoba intends to reroute the trans-Canada highway in order to by-pass the centre of Winnipeg to the south, and this expenditure therefore would not be required.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have one further question. Would the same principle apply if the construction of a bridge on the trans-Canada highway were necessary? Would the federal government share on a similar proportionate basis if the construction of a bridge on the trans-Canada highway were necessary?


Robert Henry Winters: Does the hon. member mean if a bridge were constructed within a municipality?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: If it were built within a municipality and at the same time on the route of the trans-Canada highway, the federal government under the terms of the agreement would pay half of the cost incurred by the provincial government, if it has been the normal established practice of the provincial government to contribute toward municipal roads.


John Angus MacLean: What policy has been carried out with regard to avoiding cities where possible on the trans-Canada highway? That sentence may seem a little strange, but where people have had experience with through highways it has been customary to by-pass cities and have connecting roads into them so the motorist can either carry on straight through without having the interference of city traffic to cope with or he can take the by-pass into the city if that happens to be his destination. The most outstanding example of that is the autobahn in Germany; the facility with which one can travel for long distances on that road is well known.
I was wondering if a conscious attempt has been made to avoid having the trans-Canada highway pass through congested areas where speed limits are necessary.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I doubt
whether we are in order in discussing general policy on this specific item, but as the hon. member knows the determination of the route is the prior responsibility of the provincial governments. It is up to them to say whether the road shall go through or by-pass. For

our part we have been endeavouring to encourage the provincial governments to by-pass centres of population.


Tom Goode: Mr. Chairman, I know there will be some doubt as to whether I am in order, but I am very interested in what the minister has just said. Would the minister take note of the statement made by the premier of British Columbia as reported in the papers yesterday that they are going to ask the minister to change the route of the trans-Canada highway, and could we expect a favourable reaction from the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have not read the statement to which the hon. member referred nor have I received any communication from the government of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
389.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for: a maximum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work and, with the approval of the treasury board, that maximum may be increased to $25,000 in the case of any one building construction project, $800,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have one question on this item the wording of which rather intrigues me. This item provides for miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for. A maximum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work, and with the approval of treasury board that maximum may be increased to $25,000 in the case of any one building construction project.
I am wondering if there is a deliberate choice of words here. There is a difference between "any one work" and "any one building construction project". I assume for a wharf, for instance, you could spend a maximum of $15,000 because that is a small project, whereas for a post office building or something of that nature you could spend a maximum of $25,000 because that is a building construction project. I should like to know the theory behind the wording of this item. If it is deliberate, all well and good, but if it is not deliberate the wording should be changed to reconcile one with the other.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is substantially correct in what he said. We get a lot of miscellaneous small items that are not specifically referred to in the printed items and unless we have some authority of this kind we cannot undertake any project which is not specifically mentioned. Under this vote we can undertake works up to $15,000 which are not specifically referred to in the estimates, and we can go as high as $25,000 on small projects of the nature of small postal buildings
Supply-Public Works with the approval of treasury board. That is quite right.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is this a duplication of item 364, "Unforeseen improvements" on which we spent some time?


Robert Henry Winters: No, that covered improvements and alterations; these are generally new works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
390.	To provide for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $1,500,000.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I have had some difficulty with the department in the past in obtaining sites. For instance, I have not found any one who knows who owns the 66 feet around a lake shore. I claim that the man who owns the land behind it owns that strip, but a stipulation in the provincial law makes it public ground. I think the department should frame some legislation to enable it to take possession of that land. The department should not have to go through the provincial and municipal governments. I do not know whether it is an excuse, but I have known projects to be held up for three years before the dominion government could acquire ownership of the land or the right to build a dock or wharf on the lake shore.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 390 carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, if this were the last item I would not say a word in view of the time, and if the minister were trying to get through before five o'clock I would not speak on this item. I do not think the minister is sufficiently optimistic to expect to conclude before five o'clock. I would like to say a word concerning this item; if it is not five o'clock I shall, but if it is five o'clock I shall not.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to spend a little more time on these estimates?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall just take a minute of the time of the committee, though I would prefer to spend ten minutes discussing this. I notice that this is a very general item referring to advanced planning. Advanced planning is a euphemistic expression which includes everyone and everybody. I recall reading in the press that the minister's plans required the tearing down of the old supreme court building at the foot of the hill here and making a parking lot of it. One could spend ten minutes discussing that, but I am going to spend only one minute on it and say that
3378	HOUSE OF
*	Supply-Public Works
I think the minister in his planning should look further ahead than the necessity of providing a parking lot for perhaps 15 or 20 cars.


Robert Henry Winters: That is a temporary arrangement. What we are doing will ultimately conform with the national capital plan.


George Clyde Nowlan: If it is in conformity with the national capital plan, I happen to he a member of the joint committee of the house and the Senate and I do not think the national capital plan is completed as yet. There will be many meetings and many recommendations. All I would like to say is that here we have one of the old historic buildings of the city, and one that means a great deal to this country. It is true that it was a stone carving shop at one time. Perhaps Sir John A. Macdonald's coachman went in there to warm his hands over the stove when he was waiting to drive home the boss. Afterwards it evolved into the supreme court building. Now, of course, we have a magnificent structure further down the street.
If this country grows as we hope and believe it will grow, perhaps in another 50 years there will be another Supreme Court of Canada building in some other place. Then everyone is going to be lamenting the fact that we did not have the foresight to preserve some of these earlier buildings and monuments.
If you want amplification of this argument, I am not a shareholder in the Royal Bank of Canada so I do not mind advertising one of their products, the monthly letter, and I would refer you to the latest issue which is just off the press. It deals with the necessity for preserving the historic sites of this country. Our failure to have done so warrants the attention of every hon. member. I would urge the minister not to move too quickly in the demolition of that building.
Perhaps it has some significance. At one time horsemen stayed there, and now we are going to park automobiles there. I suppose one might say that there are philosophical attachments to the question, but a building that housed the Supreme Court of Canada for 30 or 40 years should be preserved if at all possible. It could be done while still maintaining the integrity of the national capital planning scheme, which we have not yet finally evolved. Until we do, we should not destroy any historic sites.


Mr. Knight:: I rise on a point of order. I think it is important that we should preserve the rights of private members. Goodness knows, they are limited enough. The minister has already taken up, on government business, time designated for the consideration of private bills. I would be quite


willing, if there is time left after private members' bills are discussed, that we revert to the minister's business before six o'clock. I suppose that would happen anyway. But I am just pointing this out to you, Mr. Chairman, and I am not making an issue of it.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member is quite right. Does item 390 carry?


An hon. Member:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Item 389 is carried.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills-items 46 to 76-on the order paper. Shall these be considered in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Jean Benoit Maille.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Jeannette Cowan Weinstein.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Rina LeBreton Fleurent.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Hazel Annie Palmer Martel.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Phyllis Matilda Clayton Sawyer.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Leonora Cancelli Desgroseilliers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Eugenia Tow-stuk Podilchuk.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Rose Rother Lewartt.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Marie Germaine Muguette Andree Brunet Sievert.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Joan Noble Rusk.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Joseph Edouard Walter Gerard LeBlanc.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Marie Jean-nine Eda Codette Azaria.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Mary Margaret Florence Bradley Green.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Mary Wylie Johnston Haan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Christina Walsh McBrearty.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Marie Anne Roy Suess.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 233, for the relief of Ray Israel Lieder.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Lillias Cushnie Dowden Grande.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Angelina Heylen Thirion.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of William James Munden.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Robert Raymond.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Jacqueline Gagne Brothers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Nathan Fish-bine.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Dorothea Atkinson Bosse.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of George Evan-gelinelis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Tatiana Holowko Kucznski.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of May McMullin Bjornson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Adrienne Cote Souliere.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Imogene Eva Patricia Hayes Knox.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Maria Domany Cap.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Elfrieda Eggert Nowinski.-Mr. Henderson.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Charles Edward Johnston: the second reading of Bill No. 150, to amend the National Parks Act.
He said: I am sure I am not the only one in this house who has a national park in his constituency, and I feel that everyone in this house who has a national park in his constituency will be vitally concerned'with the changes suggested in Bill No. 150 to amend the National Parks Act. This act needs a complete and thorough overhaul. As it stands at present, it lends itself to most unfair treatment of the citizens who have residences in national parks and also those who come there as tourists. It can be and is used as a means of intimidation, and this sort of thing should not be allowed to continue.
Under its present regulations, intimidation is exercised against those who desire to establish themselves in a competitive enterprise, and in favour of those who are at present established in a national park. No act or its regulations should be drawn in such a manner or used to favour any particular individual or group of individuals.
National Parks Act
The penalties under this act have been a cause of contention and irritation for many years. The minister has promised to revise the act, but so far nothing has been done. Whilst the act needs a complete and thorough overhaul, I am now asking only for an amendment to change the unduly severe penalties and also to offer some protection for the privacy of a man's home. The act as it now stands is most unsatisfactory. There are regulations in the act pertaining to very minor offences and, according to the act as it stands, anyone who is convicted of those minor offences is subject to most severe penalties. Those are some of the things with which I am concerned.
In order to enlighten members of the house as to what I have reference to, I should like to read one or two of the existing regulations. Some of them are petty and should be removed. Some of them are indeed more serious. I want to refer to one regulation made under the act which deals with one of these trivial things. Here is one of the general regulations having to do with national parks:
No person shall pick wild flowers or remove any shrubs or plants from park lands, but the director may issue permits for the taking of flowers, shrubs and plants for scientific purposes.
That means that if any person picks a flower on park lands he is subject to the penalties laid down in the act. Let me give one more trivial example which is annoying and can lead to serious difficulties. On page 4 I find the following:
No person shall remove or displace any rock, mineral, fossil or other object of natural curiosity or interest in a park without permission in writing from the director.
I venture to say that regulation is broken a thousand times every day when the tourist season is in progress. It is so useless that it should not be allowed to remain there. Here is another one on page 9 of the regulations, dealing with snow removal:
The lessee of any lot in a townsite in which residence or the operation of a business is permitted during the winter months shall remove the snow from the sidewalk in front of such lot. Such snow shall be removed within a period of 12 hours following any snowfall.
If any person fails to comply with that regulation he leaves himself open to a fine of $500 or six months in jail at hard labour. There is no other place in Canada where we find such things. Certainly in the city of Calgary where I live we are required to remove the snow from in front of our premises, and if you do not remove it there is a penalty. The city authorities send around a crew to remove the snow, the cost is charged to your taxes, and that is it. There is no such idiotic thing as we find in the National Parks Act.

National Parks Act


Mr. Lesage:: There are no taxes in Banff.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is one other example I want to mention. These are some of the more trivial things that need a little attention. Listen to this regulation:
No person shall drop or throw down in a park any burning match, lighted cigar, cigarette, or other burning substance.
Literally that means that if anybody walks down the main street of Banff and throws away a lighted cigar or cigarette he is breaking one of the regulations. There are also regulations which deal with the sale of goods on Sunday. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a Sunday, particularly during the tourist season, when goods are not sold publicly in stores. Let me give one example, radium hot springs, a government establishment where the concession is leased to private individuals. At the same time, if individuals with stores in the town of Banff sell goods on Sunday they are jumped on with both feet and upon conviction are liable to a fine of $500 or six months in jail at hard labour.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that such a condition should not be permitted to continue. Then I should like to refer to part 11, regulation 3 (f) which reads as follows:
No person shall touch or feed the bears or entice them to approach by setting out sweets or other foodstuffs.
If people break that regulation they are subject to a fine of $500 or six months at hard labour. As you pass through the park you will see signs along the road saying you must not feed the bears, and I think they state on them that there is a $500 fine. To my knowledge they do not say that you are liable to a penalty of six months in jail at nara laDour. There again, every day in the week during the tourist season that regulation is broken. You only have to go to where the garbage from the hotels is dumped. Thousands of tourists go there to see the bears because that is where they come. On every occasion I have been there I have seen people feeding the bears. I know the danger attached to such a practice, because some people have been mauled by the bears, and there should be proper regulations to control that practice. But the act is so full of these minor offences that should be removed that it is in need of a complete and thorough overhaul.
Then there are some offences that are of more concern to the people there than others. I am not confining myself particularly on this occasion to the question of a complete overhaul of the regulations. I think there are some respects in which the act can be violated where the penalties are out of all line with proper procedure, and these should be taken

care of. I am only asking first of all that the fines be reduced, and also the penalty if the fine is not paid. Let me read the provision in the act with respect to penalties. It is section 8 (1) and reads as follows:
Any person violating any provision of this act or any regulation-
It does not make any difference what it is.
-in addition to any civil liability thereby incurred, is liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not more than five hundred dollars, and in default of immediate payment of such penalty and of the costs of prosecution, such person may be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding six months.
The minister will probably say, "Oh, well, that is never done". But it is not a case of whether it has been done or will be done. The act is there. The law is stated clearly, and those penalties are there and can be made use of. This is something that concerns the people of Banff a great deal, and I am sure it concerns the people in other national parks or will concern them when those parks reach the prominence that Banff has reached.
I want to refer to something that happened a year ago in connection with the application of the provisions of the Alberta hospital act. As hon. members know who were here during the debate in the house last year, a hospital act was passed which permitted the people of Banff to enjoy the benefit of the provisions of the provincial hospital act. They were allowed to come under the dollar a day hospitalization plan. The remaining part of the cost is contributed on a fifty-fifty basis by the province and the municipality. The act was changed so the people of Banff can now enjoy that service, but it is this point I want to deal with particularly.
While the people of Banff wanted hospitalization in the park, they did not want to come under the regulations under this act, and they appealed to have it changed. When we debated this question the minister referred to the health and welfare act, and I want to read something in that regard to be found in part 20 of the regulations under the National Parks Act governing the levying of tax upon the residents of national parks in Alberta for health and welfare services.
If any persons fail to comply with the regulations under this act after having been given 30 days' notice and they fail to pay their tax levy, then they are violating the regulations of this act and they leave themselves open to a fine of $500 and six months imprisonment. The people there most decidedly object to this provision. When we look

up the regulation we find that provision is made for the collection of this tax. It reads:
Where a person refuses or neglects to pay a tax within 30 days following demand, the superintendent may levy the amount of the tax by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the person in default, together with the costs of the distress and sale.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this regulation deals with the disposal of those chattels, but the penalty is clear. As stated in the act under "Penalties and Procedure" at page 5, the penalty is that any person violating any provision of this act or any regulation is subject to a $500 fine and in default to six months in jail with hard labour. That was in connection with the health and welfare act Mr. Speaker. When the hospital act was introduced the people of Banff took strong objection to this, and it has been brought to the minister's attention in this house on more than one occasion by myself and by the hon. member for Acadia and considerable correspondence took place in an appeal to the minister to do away with these severe penalties, particularly as they applied to the health and welfare act and to the hospital act. You will see what the promises were as we go along.
I want to read part of a letter which I received from the Banff advisory council in connection with this very matter. The secretary of that council is referring here to a previous letter written by myself. This letter is dated March 24, 1955. In it he says this:
This is quite right as far as it goes, but there is another section of the regulations which states that non-compliance with any park regulations is liable to a penalty of a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment for not more than six months, and as the welfare tax is part of the park regulations the section quoted becomes applicable.
I want you to notice this, Mr. Speaker. In my first remarks I spoke about discrimination and unfair practice in regard to this matter. I would ask you to listen to this:
In cases where a resident has become delinquent in the payment of the welfare tax it has been the practice of the department to summon him in the police court with the result that he is fined both for non-compliance with a regulation and also the amount of the tax. The section dealing with distraint of goods is not invoked-
That is the one which was in the welfare tax act and it is also the one which is in the hospital tax act.
-but the delinquent is really treated as if he were a criminal and in addition he is actually punished twice, which is certainly unjust. He is compelled to pay his tax and is also punished for infraction of the regulations. The council considers this most unjust and we feel sure that if the hospital plan is made part of the park regulations and becomes subject to the penalties mentioned it will be defeated by a plebiscite.
National Parks Act
You might ask me the question, was it defeated? In reply I would say no, it was not defeated because certain promises were given by the minister. I shall refer to them in a moment. On May 5 the council again wrote to me with regard to this matter. I shall read only that section of the letter which pertains to it:
There is no objection to the tax being collected by the park superintendent, provided that such collection does not entail the scheme being brought under the park regulations.
I quote this to you, Mr. Speaker, so you will readily see that the people of Banff are very much concerned with having this regulation removed. Then I took this matter up with the minister and pointed out to him the difficulties the people of the park were facing. On July 5 I wrote to him in this strain:
Now, it is the view of the hospital board-and I must say that I concur in their belief-that definite assurance should be given to the people of Banff that penalty as outlined in part 1, section 8 of the act, shall not under any circumstance be applied when a person is in default of a regulation under the new hospital plan, but rather that the penalty as outlined in part 20 of the regulations, section 7 shall apply only.
Would you be good enough to inform me that such shall be the case? I am perfectly aware of the fact that any assurance does not override the act, but I am quite positive too that your assurance will be most satisfying to the people of Banff and the municipal hospital board, and I would further ask your assurance that when we again meet here in Ottawa for the 1956 session of parliament, that an amendment will be introduced to the parks act so as to eliminate the possibility of part 1, section 8, applying to the dollar a day hospitalization plan in Banff national park.
The minister answered that letter and said in part:
The whole question of the hospital plan is as you know, receiving active study at the present time. In connection with it, the views expressed in your letter will be kept in mind.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when the question was introduced into parliament and the act was passed, here is what we found. I should say that just prior to that the minister wrote to the Banff advisory council and they sent me a letter which referred to it. They say here:
Mr. Lesage says-"In order to waive the penalties incurred in section 8 of the National Parks Act, a further amendment to the act would be required. A bill to amend the National Parks Act to provide authority for the introduction of the hospital plan has been passed by the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. However, when the bill becomes law and if the hospital plan is implemented, no doubt regulations for the administration of the plan will be established . . ."
And notice this, because I referred to his promises:
"In these regulations provision will be made for the method of collecting the tax-
And I emphasize this part:
-together with proper penalties for non-payment."

National Parks Act
Let us now refer to the act. When the hospital act was passed the regulations were drawn up and this was what was put in, as found in part 27, page 2:
Where a person refuses or neglects to pay a tax within 30 days following the demand, therefor, the superintendent may levy the amount of the tax by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the person in default, together with the costs of the distress and sale.
That is the method of collecting it, but it does not refer in any instance to the penalty, and that is the thing the people were very much concerned about. I just indicated what the penalty was. Let me read it again so the members of this house will see what position the people of Banff are in if they fail to pay that tax after 30 days' notice. Not only can they have their goods seized and sold but it is stated quite clearly in the act:
Any person violating any provision of this act or any regulation, in addition to any civil liability thereby incurred, is liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not more than five hundred dollars, and in default of immediate payment-
And I emphasize those words "immediate payment".
-of such penalty and of the costs of prosecution, such person may be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding six months.
I am definitely sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would not for a moment condone such penalties being included in the act under these circumstances. I would hope the members of this house would give this every consideration in fairness to the people who are obliged to live under these conditions, and see that this section of the act is revised. All I am asking in the bill is that there be a change, and that $50 be substituted for $500. It seems to me that $50 would be a sufficiently severe penalty for an infringement of the hospital tax. Then, too, I am asking that the word "immediate" before the word "payment" should be left out.
In order that the minister could not in any way refuse to accept such a proposition as this, we have said that any such person may be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one month. Surely that is sufficient. Why we should ever have hard labour attached to it is beyond my comprehension. I say that any reasonable member of this house would agree that we should not have such penalties attached to this legislation.
There is one other section to which I want to refer, and I do not want to take too much time on this occasion. I refer to the right of individuals appointed under the authority of the act to enter a man's house without a search warrant. The regulations dealing with this are very numerous. Supposing, for

instance, you caught a fish in Banff park that was under size, you would be breaking the regulations. Now, if a constable empowered to carry out this search so desires, he can enter a man's house without a warrant and search it from top to bottom. He can break open any trunk or any box he desires. In addition, he can leave the park area and go into the city of Calgary. If I happened to be an offender he could come to my house without a search warrant and go through it, whether or not I was there. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think such a regulation as that is just idiotic.


Mr. Fulton:: What would he find there?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am asked what he would find. He does not have to state what he would find. If he is suspicious that a man has used any equipment illegally for catching fish, he does not have to state any reason. He can search those premises. The minister may say we need these regulations to search without a warrant particularly in those cases that have to do with liquor. We need to immediately enter a man's premises. I contend, Mr. Speaker-


Jean Lesage: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would say that the section of the act to which my hon. friend refers deals only with the search without a warrant in the case of game and fish, not in the case of liquor.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not saying that. I said the minister may say-


Jean Lesage: I will not.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then the minister will be talking differently from the way he talked when I spoke to him privately.


Jean Lesage: This deals only with fish and game.


Charles Edward Johnston: We were talking about searching a house without a warrant, and I was just saying that the minister may say-I may say he did say to me when I mentioned the case to him-that they needed the power of this legislation to search without a warrant in the case of a man with liquor. So hon. members will be under no illusion in that respect let me read this-


Jean Lesage: Since the hon. member is referring to what I said in a private conversation I will tell hon. members what I said. I made a comparison with the various provincial acts and mentioned the fact that all the liquor acts of the provinces have a similar provision for obvious reasons, and the reasons were the same. That is quite different from what he says now.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me say to
you, Mr. Speaker, in any event, just to disabuse anyone's mind of such a thing, that we have a reference to it I believe on page 9, and I shall read it so it will not be brought up as an excuse for continuing permission to allow a man's house to be searched without a warrant. The regulations are clear.
The laws of the province in which a park is situate respecting the sale of intoxicating beverages apply in a park, but no person shall be granted permission to sell any intoxicating beverage in a park unless the application therefor has been approved by the minister and the applicant has secured a licence therefor under the national parks business regulations.
In any event, I want to point out to the members that it is not necessary to have such a condition outlined in the act, where an official can enter a man's house without a warrant, even though he may have liquor in it. This comes under the jurisdiction of the province. I have the provincial legislation here, and I think all provinces take care of that item very well. This, therefore, can be no excuse for the minister to permit these unduly severe penalties to exist under this act, and it should not permit him to continue to authorize a person's home being ransacked by an official without having the proper legal authority to do so. I contend such an official should have a warrant and do it in the proper way.
You will notice that in the bill we say:
-with warrant or other legal process enter and search any building, premises, structure or residence and without warrant or other legal process at any time enter and search any camp-
There may be circumstances when a person living in a camp has violated regulations and he may escape immediately or within hours so that is taken care of in the bill. Then mention is made of a vessel. A person could have illegally caught fish or illegal equipment in a boat, and that too, is taken care of. He may be in possession of liquor in his car, and that car can be searched without a warrant. We are only trying to protect a man's private property. We say that under no condition should these places be entered without a warrant. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the things I have told you show you the desire of the people of Banff to have these regulations changed in so far as the fine and imprisonment are concerned and in so far as not permitting an officer to enter a man's house without a search warrant. The minister cannot say that has not happened in Banff, because it has.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk this bill out. I want the minister to have an opportunity to reply, and certainly I want to
National Parks Act
give other hon. members here who have parks in their ridings an opportunity to say what they think about this legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This bill deals with two separate things. The first is a provision to reduce the maximum fine and the maximum length of time for which a man may be sent to prison in lieu of paying a fine. The fine is to be reduced from $500 to $50 and the jail term from six months to one month.
The hon. member for Bow River has pointed out a considerable number of instances in which a fine of $500 would not be applicable. I do not think there is any question but that the regulations under the National Parks Act and probably the act itself need revision. Certainly a good many of the regulations should be revised and the whole thing put in better shape. There are undoubtedly a considerable number of anomalies either in the act or in the regulations. I do not know where they come as between one and the other.
However, I am in some doubts as to whether the way to correct this situation is the way that is set out in the first section of this bill, by making a general reduction in the amount of the penalty from a $500 fine to a $50 fine. There are some regulations under which probably a $500 fine is required. I might just cite one example where it would be a mistake to reduce the amount of the fine. Take the case of a man who is extremely anxious, we will say, to shoot bighorn sheep, and they are very difficult to shoot. He has perhaps tried for some considerable time, it may be days or weeks, outside the confines of the park and has not managed to shoot one. He is coming back home through the park. He sees one on the side of the road, as very frequently happens, and he is extremely anxious to have a trophy or to make that particular type of kill. If he is assessed only a $50 fine he might think it is quite cheap. It is much less than he would pay for the time he has spent in trying to hunt one before, so he might well shoot the sheep and say, "If I am caught and have to pay the fine, that is all right; I do not mind paying the $50".


Charles Edward Johnston: How about six months' hard labour?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think there are cases of that sort, in which the provision of a $500 fine or six months in jail might be justified, and I think this method of trying to change a situation which is bad and which needs to be changed should be looked into. I fully agree with the hon. member for Bow River

National Parks Act
that a considerable amount of change is necessary, a considerable amount of improvement is long overdue.
What I am expressing doubt about is whether this particular means of doing it is the way it should be done. I do not think it is. Perhaps the maximum of $500 should remain. What should be done is an amendment of the act requiring that the various types of offences should be put in categories. The offence of picking flowers, for example, would be a category which might carry a maximum $10 fine, or something along that line; whereas the matter of killing game perhaps should call for a $1,000 fine. In other words, instead of having just a blanket coverage, as it is, of $500 today and of $50 if this amendment should carry, the offences should be in a series of categories. I believe that would make for a much better situation, and one which would cover the general running of the park much more adequately than at the present time.
What I would suggest to the sponsor of this bill to begin with is that the first clause be amended to provide for something along that line.


Charles Edward Johnston: I say to the
hon. member that I should like to have the whole act revised in order to give some relief.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. I would suggest to the minister that he take this matter up with his officers and bring in an amendment in place of section 1 of this bill which would cover the matter along the line that I have suggested. We would then get away from the situation where we have so many anomalies as exist at the present time.
The second part of the bill deals with the matter of the right to search a man's house without a warrant. I think practically everyone will agree that a man's home should be pretty well inviolate. It should not be entered by officers of the crown or by officers of the national parks branch or by anybody else without a search warrant. The excuse which is put up for this, as the minister has already indicated, is that it applies only to game or offences in connection with game; but included in that is the possession of firearms, fishing rods or other equipment of that sort.
Under these circumstances it is extremely easy for an official of the national parks branch to enter anybody's house in the national parks without a warrant and make a search. As it definitely states in the act as it stands, he may examine any trunk, box, barrel, parcel or other package or receptacle,

and so on. In other words he is pretty well free to do what he wants under the act as it stands, and all he has to plead in justification for going into a man's house, whether he is actually there or not, breaking into the house if he wishes to do so, and turning everything inside out, is that he thought this man might have some illegal game there or that he might have a weapon or a fishing rod or something else with which he chose to take game illegally. In other words, it provides too much opportunity for abuse. I think the minister should agree to accept that provision and do away with this right of search without a warrant as far as the national parks are concerned under the provision as it stands.
It seems to me that this bill is designed to improve the situation generally in the national parks. It has been brought forward with that idea in view. I hope the minister will accept the second provision particularly, and agree to bring in a changed form of the first provision so the penalties for various types of offences may be adequately dealt with.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that I cannot accept the suggestions of the hon. member for Calgary North, for reasons I shall give in detail. I am not in a position to accept the principle of the bill.	.
The bill itself deals with two matters. It contains two amendments. First of all let us deal with the section of the bill which suggests that the maximum fine to be imposed in case of an offence be reduced from $500 to $50 and the maximum imprisonment from six months to one month. I agree that there are a variety of matters covered in the regulations under the National Parks Act. I agree that some of the offences that can be committed against these regulations are trifling; but this is a general penalty clause in the act which covers all the offences.
It seems to me that both hon. members who have spoken tend to forget that the judges in Canada are pretty reasonable men, and also that the officers in the parks, before a prosecution is launched, think twice and in most instances refer to head office here in Ottawa. I can assure the hon. members that the officers of the department are pretty reasonable. I have not heard of any case where there has been a prosecution because a stone was turned or because a flower was cut. There has to be some regulation over matters which seem trivial if we want to preserve the natural beauty of our parks,

and these regulations simply must exist. If they are broken in good faith it is understood that it is the practice not to prosecute, and in fact this has been the practice.
There are both minor and important matters; that is why the penalty clause provides for a maximum fine but no minimum is provided for. The judge who hears the case of a person who is accused on summary conviction of an offence against park regulations will deal with the offence according to its gravity.


Charles Edward Johnston: The decision depends on the judge.


Jean Lesage: I have great confidence in the judges of my country. They have proven in the past that they are worthy of the greatest confidence.


Charles Edward Johnston: There was an example in Quebec just a little time ago.


Jean Lesage: There may be accidents, sir, but we have courts of appeal and means are provided by law to correct errors of judgment on the part of judges. In practically all cases we can have confidence in our judges. The judiciary is above reproach. I have the utmost confidence in our judges.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would not want my comment interpreted as being critical of the judiciary. We are not discussing the judges but the law, and I was speaking about the law.


Jean Lesage: When the hon. member made his speech he spoke as if the law were so written that there was a fine of $500 imposed automatically for the most trivial offence which, of course, is not the case.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, no.


Jean Lesage: First of all there has to be a decision as to whether or not there will be a prosecution, and these decisions are made by reasonable people. Second, when it is decided to proceed with a prosecution the case is heard by a justice. I say that the judges in Canada are reasonable people and they are there to render justice. That is why in all our acts you provide-and I say you because parliament has so provided-for maximum fines and maximum terms of imprisonment and in most instances there is no minimum provided.
The general penalty clause on summary conviction under the Criminal Code adopted by parliament only two years ago provides in section 694 for a maximum fine of $500 and six months' imprisonment. May I read section 694, section 1:
Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every one who is convicted of an offence
67509-215J
National Parks Act
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.
That is the general law in Canada. I say that the penalty section of the parks act is in accordance with the general law of Canada.
There are other federal acts which have penalty clauses; for instance, the Meat Inspection Act, which is chapter 36 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1955, in its penalty clause provides for a maximum fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment or both. The Unemployment Insurance Act provides for a maximum fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment or both. The Immigration Act provides for a maximum fine of $1,000 or one year's imprisonment or both. The Northwest Territories Act provides for a fine of $1,000, maximum, or one year's imprisonment, maximum, or both. The Yukon Act has a similar provision.
We also have provincial acts which have similar penalty clauses. The game and fisheries acts of the various provinces indicate similar penalties. The game act of the province of British Columbia, where there is a Social Credit government in power, provides for a penalty not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment for not more than 90 days.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker,' on a point of order-


Jean Lesage: The game act of Alberta, the province of my hon. friend, provides penalties-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) is rising on a point of order.


Frederick George Hahn: I would like to ask the minister at what point in these proceedings any one from British Columbia has indicated that the Social Credit governments were endorsing this legislation.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear a Social Credit member from British Columbia dissociate himself from the proposal of the hon. member for Bow River.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not dissociate myself. I asked the minister a question and the question was this. At what point in the proceedings did any member of the Social Credit party from British Columbia indicate that his party was endorsing this type of legislation?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, the game act of Alberta provides penalties up to $1,000 and

National Parks Act
imprisonment for terms not exceeding six months for one section and not exceeding $200 and imprisonment for terms not exceeding three months in other sections. The game and fisheries act of Ontario provides for penalties of not more than $500 for each animal.
Sir, it is six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Lesage the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock this house stands adjourned until Monday at 2.30 p.m., daylight saving time.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.