1958-06-06

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) presented the first report of the standing committee on estimates, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment on the reported statement of the premier of Ontario to the effect that it is inevitable that the dominion-provincial conference be called before the end of the summer, and that Mr. Frost is full of hope and confidence that Ontario will get an extra $78 million from Ottawa.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave earlier, that there has been no determination made of the question as to reconvening the conference. With regard to the latter reported statement I can only give the same answer I gave on the last occasion a similar question was asked.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question about this very important matter. Can the Prime Minister say when he might be in a position to make such an announcement?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate those occasions.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the statement made by Mr. Nickle, a member of the Frost government, that Ontario was very anxious to have a further $78 million in order to permit the Frost government to reduce taxes in Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Frost government will appreciate the tremendous interest taken by former ministers in this house in the statements they make. Other than that I have no observations to make.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State as part of our continuing crusade to ensure equal treatment for all civil servants. Can the minister inform the house if he knows of any senior civil servants who have continued to receive their salaries without performing any duties whatsoever over a number of years; and, if so, under what authority are such arrangements made?


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secreiary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I am sorry that I sent him notice only a few minutes ago, so the minister may wish to take this as notice. Is the minister negotiating at the present time, or has he concluded for his department an understanding, with the government of the province of Quebec relative to fisheries inspection within that province? If so, could the minister inform the house of the effect of such an understanding?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice within the last few minutes of his intention to ask this question. I regret to inform him that there is nothing I can say at the present time. When I am in a position to give an answer I will inform the house, possibly on my estimates.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



FORT ROUGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a telegram I received just before the house opened. Would the minister care to comment on the reported lay-offs at the Fort Rouge shops in Winnipeg? Is the minister prepared to discuss this question with the C.N.R. to see whether those employees may be reinstated in their employment?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the house on numerous occasions these matters are completely within the jurisdiction of the management of the Canadian National Railways. They have informed me on many occasions that whenever lay-offs are made that is not done until every possible means of keeping the men employed have been explored, and that when lay-offs are necessary everything will be done to re-employ the men just as soon as possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would mind relaying this particular problem, which is important, to the management of the C.N.R. at this time. I appreciate the assurance he has given the house.


George Harris Hees: Yes; I will bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of the management.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wanted to ask a question with respect to lay-offs of the shopmen in the C.N.R. Fort Rouge shops. In the answer the minister gave to the hon. member for Assiniboia he indicated that he would communicate with the Canadian National management, but there was no assurance that he would subsequently report to the house. I wonder whether we can have that assurance; and would the minister give us the number of people who have been laid off and indicate just how many of those it is expected by the management will be given the alternative employment to which the minister referred?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, these matters come within the sphere of the management of Canadian National Railways. I will bring the representations of the hon. members to the attention of the management, but I do not think it is fair that every move they find it necessary to make regarding their employees should have to be reported to the house.


William Moore Benidickson: This is a very substantial one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read your old speeches.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. members for Welland (Mr. McMillan) and Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) inquired regarding a newspaper report to the effect that radio communications facilities belonging to the Department of Transport were being used to break the strike of the great lakes pilots association.
According to my information this report is not accurate, as I am advised by my officials that radiotelephone facilities at the entrance to the Welland canal have always been used as a means of communication with shipping for a variety of purposes, to assist both the canal operators in their control procedures and planning, and to assist the ships. Messages passed within the capacity of the system deal with a variety of subjects, such as expected times of arrival of vessels, delivery of provisions and other matters associated with ship operations.
Whatever use is being made of these facilities at present is simply a continuation of a service which has been in use for a number of years.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question on the same subject addressed to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us whether the Department of Labour has determined if this dispute between the great lakes pilots association and the shipping federation of Canada is in fact a strike and properly under the jurisdiction of the department.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation there is no contract; it is a rather loose arrangement, and therefore cannot properly be considered to be a matter under the jurisdiction of the department.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A further question, then, to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement just made by the minister responsible for the Department of Labour, can the minister go ahead with his attempts to mediate this dispute now that it has been determined that it does not come under the Department of Labour?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the house some time ago, the Department of

Transport has offered on numerous occasions to provide whatever facilities would be considered useful in helping to end the difficulty which exists between the shipping federation and the pilots. At any time both sides decide that we can provide some assistance in this matter we shall be glad to co-operate in whatever way we are requested to assist.



DIVERSION TO U.K.    REPORTED CANCELLATION OF CANADIAN ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is based on a speech by Mr. H. V. Lush, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, at the 87th annual general meeting of that association. In discussing trade diversion he said in part that "some Canadian manufacturing concerns which are subsidiaries of United States companies, subsidiaries that pay Canadian taxes and hire Canadian workmen, suffered cancelled orders in favour of British suppliers". Will the Minister of Finance tell the house the value or amount of such cancelled orders?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the amount of these cancelled orders. I do not know whether there were any orders cancelled or any orders not given that might otherwise have been given. I understand that Mr. Lush made a speech to that effect. He has not advised me as to the information upon which he bases the statement to which my hon. friend has referred.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister approve of this aspect of his trade diversion policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is quite incorrect, as my hon. friend well realizes, to refer to these matters in the way in which he has done. What the hon. member for Ottawa West has had to say this morning purports to quote the view of one Canadian citizen with regard to a particular situation, and I take it that it is his inference that this is somehow related to a policy of seeking to extend the flow of two-way trade with the United Kingdom. That is no ground whatever, if correct, for the inference the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to draw from the incident.


George James McIlraith: Will the Minister of Finance agree that when the president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association speaks about 57071-3-57
Inquiries of the Ministry trade diversion he is presumably a responsible Canadian citizen having some special knowledge of the subject?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that sort of question is rather a statement or an attempt to give information to the house rather than an attempt to get information.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is in a very happy and constructive mood this morning, if in view of the reported character of the discussions between Prime Minister Macmillan and the President of the United States in the matter of commonwealth trade, the Minister of Finance will take advantage next week of the visit of the British Prime Minister to discuss the government's policy of trade diversion, and more particularly the British proposal for reciprocal trade with Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has not indicated to the house the precise nature of what he says are the communications between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States with regard to the matter of Canadian trade, but I can assure him for his necessary information that the statements he made during the election campaign that there was in the United States some irritation over the policies of the present Canadian government were completely without foundation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question, and incidentally of course express my gratitude over the fact my hon. friend read my speeches. Would he kindly inform the house whether or not he proposes to take advantage of the presence in Canada next week of the British Prime Minister to discuss a matter which obviously, in the language of our Prime Minister, is one of the most important questions facing Canada at this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think my hon. friend knows very well that we shall be certainly glad to have an opportunity in Ottawa next week, during the course of Prime Minister Macmillan's visit, to discuss with him the subject of expanding the fruitful two-way flow of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom and the implementation of this government's policy of expanding trade for the good of Canada.

Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



PREMIUM IRON ORES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: My question is a rather long one, Mr. Speaker, and is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether or not the external affairs committee will be given an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the Premium Iron Ores case, in view of the increased press speculation regarding the suggestion made in the United States Senate committee that the animus in this whole case stems from business rivalries in Canada between the M. A. Hanna Company, the Iron Ore Company of Canada, Algoma Steel and the Steep Rock-Cyrus Eaton interests?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am not a member of the external affairs committee, Mr. Speaker, and it will be for the committee to decide what will be discussed.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I wonder whether, in view of the inspired press reports, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would say if it is true that open placement of immigrants has ceased entirely.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yesterday, I think it was, Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the house that at the moment the government is not advertising. There is no open placement of immigrants, with the exception of certain categories where we require people for jobs which cannot be filled by workmen already in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. lady indicate what those categories are?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would have to make that question an order for return. There is quite a list of those categories for which we do not have workmen now. The hon. member has seen such a list, and he knows the type of compilation which is ordinarily used in the department. I would be glad to make one of the reports available to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. lady not
think, in her capacity as Acting Minister of Labour, that in view of the very large amount of unemployment in this country those unemployed persons would be interested in

seeing what categories of positions the Department of Citizenship and Immigration considers cannot be filled by Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will agree that he is asking for an expression of opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all, sir.



INVERNESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester asked this question:
Has the minister held any discussions with the government of Nova Scotia with a view to incorporating this Inverness plant into the maritime power program initiated last year?
I have inquired and at the present time the answer is no. As the hon. member knows, the Inverness power plant is owned by the Nova Scotia Power Commission, which is headed by the premier of Nova Scotia. It is my information that the minister of mines and the manager of the Nova Scotia Power Commission will be meeting the people of Inverness next Friday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he care to comment on the Canadian Press dispatch in this morning's Montreal Gazette which is as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker said tonight the government plans to take "comprehensive action" to combat unemployment "regardless of deficits in the national budget."
Does this mean new action to combat unemployment, and is the Prime Minister forecasting a deficit in the budget?


John George Diefenbaker: In that speech, Mr. Speaker, I set forth something of the initial reasons for the degree of unemployment that existed when we came into power, something of the courses of action already followed and then, with a degree of modest pride, I set forth some of the courses already taken and stated that we intend to continue these courses as well as long-range policies of national development and the like to the end that this problem be met regardless of cost.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister comment on the particular part of the quotation which reads "regardless of deficits in the national budget"? Are those remarks correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that it is not proper to ask the Prime Minister to divulge the contents of the budget in advance of its presentation in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that these words are in a direct quotation. They are taken from a speech the Prime Minister made yesterday at a meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. With great deference and respect I suggest that those remarks are something the Prime Minister might be asked to elucidate further at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. member. He has drawn attention to the statement. He might ask the Prime Minister whether he made the speech, but to ask him to indicate in advance the contents of the budget, as I think all hon. members of the house will agree, is contrary to all practice.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, Mr. Speaker, if I may I will put my question more directly. Would the Prime Minister comment on those words which are in quotation marks, "regardless of deficits in the national budget"?


John George Diefenbaker: The only comment I can make is that those words are perfectly explanatory, that regardless of the cost and the resulting expenditures that may have to be made and that have already been made, we intend to meet the situation.



REPORTED RESOLUTION OF FEDERATION OF MAYORS AND MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to comment on a resolution approved unanimously yesterday at a meeting of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities calling for federal action on unemployment, and indicating that the public works program outlined already by the government would not take care of immediate employment needs.


John George Diefenbaker: As a comment may I say that is an opinion of an organization, if correctly quoted. We have set forth the situation in this country. We have pointed out that the public works program is one of the phases 57071-3-574
Inquiries of the Ministry with which this government has proceeded in order to meet the situation.
According to economists there are several means that should be adopted. One is to provide additional consumer monetary assistance in order that the consumer may be able, by the expansion of his income, to make purchases, thereby improving the general situation. The second is by a public works program. The third is by action in the reduction of taxes. All three courses of action have been followed. In no case has any one of these three legs of the tripod, as it were, for recovery been followed in its entirety. Each complements the other. None of the three by itself is recognized by economists as sufficient to meet the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In the light of the resolution unanimously passed by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister's understandable interest in the problem, it might be of interest to the country if the Prime Minister could meet the federation not in September but perhaps much earlier than that.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, there has been no suggestion with regard to an earlier meeting. The general reactions I received to the suggestion that we should call the municipalities together in the situation already detailed by me were accepted as a fair basis for the consideration of this and other related problems; and it was concluded that the month of September, or the period following the month of September, after the trade conference had been concluded, would be a sufficiently early date to meet the requirements of the municipalities for the consideration of their problems as well as any other matters that might arise.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of the very important statement he has made regarding the three methods by which unemployment can be dealt with. Does this very important statement also cover the matter of deficiency payments to western producers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what I said a while ago amounted simply to a recapitulation of the policy carried out by this government in order to help the farmers and make cash advances available to them, under the heading of expanding consumer credit. In so far as the question of deficiency payments is concerned, this is a matter which is receiving consideration. Further than that I cannot go at this time.

Supply-Public Works SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 328. General administration, $8,536,892.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Public Works are, in the main, of such a nature that they call for discussion as the items themselves come up for consideration. However, I should like to make a few general remarks today with regard to the department.
It is one of the oldest departments in the government service, and it has had a long record of accomplishment of works across the country. In recent months, however, it has faced much heavier responsibilities than in ordinary times. For many months now the officials of the department not only in Ottawa but across the country have been extremely busy working on projects which will give additional employment, and I am sure hon. members will realize this as I go on with my remarks.
The department has a function of its own in connection with its own work and, in addition, it does a great deal of work for other departments of government. Falling within our own jurisdiction are such projects as public buildings, harbours, bridges, a certain amount of highway work, more particularly the federal share in the trans-Canada highway and the construction of highways in the national parks, which latter job is really done for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. There are many other works, including dredging, but these are the main ones carried on by the department as part of its own functions.
In addition we do very extensive work for other departments, with the exception of the Department of Transport. In fact we do perform a certain amount of work for that department, but most of the construction which comes under the Department of Transport is carried on by that department itself. In the same way, construction for the Department of National Defence is carried out primarily by the Department of Defence Production. We have not yet got to the stage of building penitentiaries. I do not know whether that is a compliment or an insult, but we have not been asked as yet to do so.
Today, of course, I am dealing primarily with the construction work that my department is doing, but I would point out that defence construction during the present fiscal year is expected to reach $100 million. This is quite largely a result of the present government's policy of pushing ahead these defence
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
projects in order to create employment. The same is true with regard to the Department of Transport. It is not my job to deal with the estimates of that department concerning construction, but they build such things as airfields, airports and ships, and I should think their expenditure during the present fiscal year will be even higher than that of the Department of Defence Production.
The Department of Public Works, in the 1958-59 estimates, is asking for approximately $218 million in the main estimates and an additional $15 million, approximately, in the supplementary estimates, making a total in round figures of $233 million. This is by far the largest sum the Department of Public Works has ever sought from parliament, and is an increase of $41.6 million over the fiscal year 1957-58.
In so far as spending money for other departments is concerned, we are being asked this year to spend $40.6 million. This amount, of course, does not appear in our own estimates but will appear in the estimates of the various departments for which we shall be doing the work. I point out that the total value of the work being undertaken by the Department of Public Works for other departments in 1958-59 is approximately $152 million. This is the value of the projects. We are actually planning to spend $40.6 million this year on these projects but the total value of the work on which we will be busy will be $152 million. That includes 236 projects, of which 168 are new items.
I have been sitting here in recent days listening to some hon. members of the opposition, for example the hon. member for Essex East, saying that nothing had been started by the government in the way of public works, that it has all been a myth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He did not say that; your
colleague from Newfoundland did.


Howard Charles Green: I would also point out that
the Leader of the Opposition attempted to twist the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland. I heard that, too.


Mr. Chevrier:: The minister would be
better off looking after his estimates.


Hazen Robert Argue: There will be no progress
today.


Howard Charles Green: I am pointing out especially
for the benefit of hon. members of the official opposition that in the work we are doing this year for other departments there are 236 projects, of which 168 are new items.
In carrying on a public works program the department has laid down a policy of spending money in a sensible way on projects

which are needed at once or will be needed, and on projects which are the responsibility of the federal government. In other words, we have not simply gone out to put money into this project and that project for which the federal government has no responsibility whatever. One reason for that is that we think it would not make sense, and another is that there are plenty of projects which are the responsibility of the dominion government on which the money can be spent.
We have accelerated construction. This is a factor which has been almost entirely overlooked in the criticisms made from the other side of the house. For example, we have gone out of our way to promote work during the winter months. This is something which should be the objective of all governments and industries in Canada at all times, whether or not there happens to be a recession.


Mr. Bourgei:: This was done before under
the Liberal administration.


Howard Charles Green: That is true. This helps to
meet the seasonal nature of employment in Canada. Quoting figures for the months from October to March inclusive it is interesting to note that during the past winter the number of man hours of employment on projects of the building construction branch of the department increased 39 per cent over the comparable period in the previous year. The hours worked in 1957-58 were 3,047,000 and in the previous year, 1956-57, the hours worked were only 2,192,000. Expenditures on these projects during those winter months in 1956-57 were $18,799,000, and in 1957-58 they were up to $24,234,000.
In addition, two major winter projects were undertaken on behalf of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The first of these was the advance location survey for the national parks division to permit brushing on the Banff-Jasper-Yellowhead highway, and the second was 150 miles of brushing for the northern administration division in the Northwest Territories on the road from Providence north to Fort Rae. Location surveys were also carried out in the Wood Buffalo national park. We aim to carry on just as much work of this kind as possible during the winter months.
For several large projects the planning was advanced to permit construction to begin at much earlier dates than would normally have been the case; for example, the national film board vault building in Montreal, postal station Q in Toronto, the Post Office Department building in Ottawa, survey and mapping building in Ottawa, public buildings at Ples-sisville and Shawinigan Falls in Quebec and Burin and Harbour Buffett in Newfoundland.
Supply-Public Works
These are only some of the projects the planning for which has been rushed ahead in order that men might be put to work much earlier than would have been the case ordinarily.


Maurice Bourget: All these projects were started by the Liberal administration.


Howard Charles Green: All these projects have been rushed ahead at a rate which would have left the former administration breathless and lying on the side of the road. A large program of winter works has been undertaken in the field of building repairs. These works are not large in terms of value, but they can be done on short notice in locations where they may be required. Another advantage of these is that they are done all over the country.
The original plan for program of winter repair works had a value of $1,046,000. This program was accelerated, with the result that in the period November 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958, the works done had a value of $2,008,000; that was achieved by a special push on the contemplated works and, in addition, by bringing forward projects which otherwise would have been carried out in 1958-1959.
There has been another interesting improvement in the work of the department, and this comes to light when one considers the percentage of the estimates which has been spent.
I remember some years ago, particularly before an election, when the minister of public works of that time brought down estimates which were simply padded with items which the department had no intention of proceeding with in the fiscal year for which the estimates were tabled. I remember myself, as the opposition critic of the department at that time, referring to votes in different provinces, and it was fantastic the way those estimates had been padded for election purposes.
In the year 1957-58 some 97 per cent of the allotments has been spent, compared with 91.7 per cent in the previous year. This shows very clearly the manner in which the officials of the department have rushed ahead those piojects in order to make further work across the country. I think the figure of 97 per cent is a concrete tribute to them for the way they handled the department during those winter months.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister explain that last statement more fully? I did not catch its significance.


Howard Charles Green: In the estimates for 1958-59 a certain amount is asked for. The department tries to see that those estimates are such

Supply-Public Works
that the work will actually be carried out in the fiscal year. It is not considered to be fair to parliament, or good business, to bring in estimates for a very large amount and then spend only 60 per cent of the estimates. In the last fiscal year, 1957-58, the department has come quite near perfection in that 97 per cent of the money asked for has been spent on the projects for which the money was sought.
Then I would also like to deal with the manner in which new projects have been undertaken. These 1958-59 estimates reflect the advancement of both planning and construction in order to get an earlier start on buildings, many of which would otherwise not have been started for a year or even longer. I have some examples here; I am going to run over them quickly. Let me take Newfoundland as an example. The very first item from Newfoundland is a post office at Wesleyville, which was sought so hard by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last year, which had not been built by his own government and for which his own government had made no provision. This post office contract is now being let; the post office is to be built.
I see the leader of the C.C.F. group smiling, because he comes in exactly the same category. He has a post office at Radville, Saskatchewan, which is being built this year and which would not have been built in the ordinary course if we had not decided to accelerate every project that could be built in a businesslike way in order to help create employment. I give these two buildings as examples in answer to the chatter that is being heard in the House of Commons from some of the members of the official opposition to the effect that this work program does not mean a thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many men have been put to work under this scheme?


Howard Charles Green: I will tell the hon. member for Essex East one thing. He said nothing at all had been done. Right in his own home town we rushed ahead the demolition of old buildings on the post office site in order to create work, and we had to get around the provision made by his own government which would have prevented that demolition being carried out until much later in the year.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: You are not
putting very many to work.


Howard Charles Green: The former Liberal government did nothing at all about hurrying up this post office right in the city of the hon. member for Essex East.


Murdo William Martin: When we were in office there was no comparable unemployment.


Howard Charles Green: No unemployment? There were many warnings of coming unemployment which you carefully swept under the rug.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not what the Prime Minister said last night.


Howard Charles Green: These are projects in Newfoundland which would not have been started within a year or perhaps even more had the government not deliberately gone out to make work: Wesleyville, $27,000; Deer Lake, $26,000. Harbour projects: St. John's, $12 million. The Liberal government had had a report on a harbour project for St. John's and did nothing about it. Now we have $1 million in the estimates this year. An engineering firm has been engaged to draw the plans and we are going right ahead with this work which should have been previously undertaken. It is nine or ten years since Newfoundland came into confederation. Had the former government been on its toes this project would have been undertaken many years ago. Bell Island, $100,000; Codroy, $300,000.
I now come to Nova Scotia. Here again public works projects were rushed ahead which would not have been under way this year otherwise, and certainly never would have been undertaken by the former government had it continued in power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no unemployment then.


Howard Charles Green: Digby, $150,000. Harbour projects; Caribou, $125,000; Dennis Point, $134,000; Glace Bay, $158,000; Main a Dieu, $100,000; North Sydney $158,000; Port Morien, $147,000; Port Hood, $200,000; Shelburne, $100,000.
I now come to Prince Edward Island and the Northumberland strait causeway. We got no action on that from the former government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What action is there now?


Howard Charles Green: There is provision in the estimates for $360,000. An engineering firm is engaged in making a detailed survey, and if the report is favourable then the present government will proceed to construct the causeway to Prince Edward Island. In that province there is provision for a building at Borden, $26,000. Harbour projects; Alber-ton, $100,000; Fishing Cove, $85,000.
New Brunswick; here again are projects which have been rushed ahead in order to provide work this year; buildings: Campbell-ton, $250,000. Harbour projects; Buctouche, $85,000; Kennebecasis river. $150,000; Saint

John (Negro Point), $500,000; and a bridge in northern New Brunswick about which the former government did nothing for 22 years.


Maurice Bourget: We were ready.


Howard Charles Green: You were ready but you never made a move. Campbellton-Cross Point bridge; a contract has already been let for the causeway on the New Brunswick side, and the two provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec have agreed to participate in the bridge structure. It is going to cost the dominion approximately $4.2 million.


Mr. Robichaud:: Will the minister permit a question? Has work been started on the bridge at Campbellton, and was the Minister of Transport delegated to officially inaugurate the commencement of work?


Howard Charles Green: The contract for the causeway on the New Brunswick side was let about six weeks ago and work has actually started.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Was the Minister of
Transport-


Howard Charles Green: Don't you want the bridge?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am just asking a question. Was the Minister of Transport the official representative of the government on the occasion of the starting of work on the
bridge?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether or not he was. I know I was not there. I sent a telegram. I was too busy here looking after
you members.


Lionel Chevrier: You are busy now holding
up your own estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You may be here
a long time.


Howard Charles Green: Turning to the province of Quebec, again these are projects under way this year which otherwise would not have been under way. There is a building for trade and commerce in Montreal, $175,000; postal terminal improvements, Montreal, $240,000; a building in Nicolet, $250,000; a building at Phillipsburg $150,000; a building at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, $125,000 and a building in Ville St. Georges, $220,000. These are only the larger items.


Maurice Bourget: Most of them planned before.


Howard Charles Green: Then there are harbour projects at Les Eboulements, $250,000 and at Pointe au Pere or Father Point. I am surprised that the former parliamentary assistant did not get something done about the project at Father Point.


Maurice Bourget: Tell us the circumstances.
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: We are going to spend $3 million at Father Point.


Lionel Chevrier: How much?


Howard Charles Green: Three million dollars. We are only starting this year.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a drop in the bucket.


Howard Charles Green: Other projects are at Pointe au Pic, $200,000; Riviere du Loup, $300,000; Sorel, for dredging, $135,000. Then I come to Ontario. These are projects which in most cases certainly would not have been built during the fiscal year had we not deliberately pushed ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question. Will he put on the record now how much is being spent for port facilities in Ontario as compared with Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: Port facilities?


Lionel Chevrier: Harbour developments, the items he has been listing.


Howard Charles Green: Those were harbour items.


Lionel Chevrier: Would he give the total for Quebec and the total for Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: That will be in the estimates. If the hon. member will look at the book he will find it in the estimates. The hon. member is an old hand at this game. He need not try to catch me with a question like that.


Lionel Chevrier: I used to be an old hand at getting my estimates through, not at holding them up.


Howard Charles Green: Taking Ontario and dealing with buildings, Ottawa post office building-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must advise the Minister of Public Works that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we ought to give the Minister of Public Works an opportunity to tell us just how many men have been put to work under this public works program. For this reason I would express what I think would be the view of most members, that the minister should be allowed, time to show how many thousands of men have been put to work.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the Minister of Public Works the unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the members of the committee. I should like to point out, however, that the hon. member for Essex East is never going to be convinced that we have put one man to

Supply-Public Works
work unless we drag the poor man up here on the floor of the House of Commons. There is the new post office department building on Riverside drive in Ottawa. I can assure the hon. members that this would not have been proceeded with had it not been done to help create work. The amount is $7,600,000. Then there is a survey and mapping building, Ottawa, $7,840,000; a Department of Finance building, Ottawa, $235,000; a building at Burlington, $200,000. Then there is a building at Elliott Lake. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not oppose this. _ I am sure too that if he had still been in office-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would have been built by now.


Howard Charles Green: -it would not have been done. The amount there is $300,000. Then there is a building at Goderich, $175,000; a building at Guelph, $350,000; a building at Leamington, $310,000; a building at Oshawa, $200,000; a building at Peterborough, $200,000 and postal station F in Toronto, $750,000.
Dealing with harbour projects, we have Leamington, $102,000; Port Colborne, $137,000; Port Credit, $300,000; Port Dover, $150,000 and Sarnia, $190,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister tell us
whether these are all in the estimates?


Maurice Bourget: He does not know.


Howard Charles Green: The total amount of the St. John's, Newfoundland harbour development, $12 million, is not in the estimates. I pointed out that $1 million was in the estimates. The point I am making is simply that in most cases, if not in every case, these works would not have been proceeded with this year under ordinary circumstances, but in order to make work the government is going ahead with them. If the members of the official opposition are not willing to give us credit for this I am sure the members of the C.C.F. group will be willing to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Divide and rule.


William Moore Benidickson: Are they all getting post offices?


Howard Charles Green: What is more to the point, I am sure the Canadian people will realize that we have really been trying to do something to create more jobs. As I said, harbour projects in Ontario are at Leamington, $102,000; Port Colborne, $137,000; Port Credit, $300,000; Port Dover, $150,000 and Sarnia, $190,000. Then there is the Burlington low level bridge, $4J million, which should have been undertaken long since by the former government.
[Mr. Green.l


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was begun under the previous Liberal administration.


Howard Charles Green: This work was not begun at all, and it should have been started a long time ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, you are wrong about that.


Howard Charles Green: In Manitoba we have buildings at Portage la Prairie, $250,000 and at Winnipeg, for the unemployment insurance commission, $1,350,000. There are harbour projects at McBeth point, $62,000 and at The Pas, $90,000.


Mr. Badanai:: The minister has failed to mention Fort William in the province of Ontario.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Port Arthur, too.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad the hon. member asked that question, because Fort William was neglected by the Liberal government for a long time. We are going to remedy that condition in spite of the fact that there happens to be a Liberal member from Fort William. We are planning to spend between $3 million and $4 million on the development of terminal projects at the lakehead.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is not in the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: I pointed out that in Manitoba there are harbour projects at McBeth point, $62,000, and at The Pas, $90,000. In Saskatchewan there are buildings at Radville, $35,000, Saskatoon, $1,600,000 and Whitewood, $40,000. These are only the larger projects. There are a large number of small projects. In Alberta we have improvements to the customs building at Calgary, $42,000. There is a harbour project at Lac la Biche, $32,000. With respect to the highways in Banff national park, we are undertaking the completion of all structures and the bituminous base coat in 195859. In British Columbia there is a building at Comox, $40,000. It would not have been proceeded with if it had not been for the policy of this government. There is the Victoria immigration building improvements, $60,000; harbour projects at Gibson's landing, $110,000; Sidney ferry terminal, $300,000; and Sointula, Rough bay, $250,000.
Those are the larger projects which have been rushed ahead in order to create work. In addition there is also the provision of $450,000 more in this year's estimates than in last year's in the vote which is described as "miscellaneous works", and which is used for smaller projects throughout the year. Provision is made for the acquisition of dredging equipment, and this vote has been increased by $298,000 by an item in the supplementary estimates. I am very happy

to announce that there is to be a new large dredge built on the west coast for the west coast, which will cost approximately $3 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there anything for the merchant navy on the west coast?


Howard Charles Green: After what the hon. gentleman did for the merchant navy I am amazed that he has the nerve to ask me any questions about it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am going to ask you a
lot more questions about that; don't worry.


Howard Charles Green: Those items to which I have referred are all directly the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. In addition, in 1958-59 there are other large projects which in some cases we are starting and in some cases also finishing for other departments. For example, in so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, there are laboratories at Fredericton costing $450,000; at Swift Current, $1,200,000; at Vancouver, $900,000. In so far as the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is concerned, there are schools and dormitories at Pointe Bleue, Quebec, costing $1 million; St. Mary's mission, that is an Indian mission at Mission City, B.C., $1 million.
There are new hospital wings at Shaugh-nessy, Vancouver, for the Department of Veterans Affairs costing $4 million; Westminster hospital, London, $4.5 million; national research council communication building, Ottawa, $3.5 million; a northern affairs school and hospital at Fort Simpson, $2 million; a national health and welfare hospital and nurses' residence at Aklavik, $2 million; for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 48 detachment quarters at various locations costing $2 million.
I point out that the Department of Public Works is the principal construction agent for the community developments at Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Fort Simpson and Tuk-toyaktuk, Cambridge bay and Chesterfield inlet.
Then there are highways for the department of northern affairs, in national parks, to a total value of $46 million. The highway work we are doing for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the Northwest Territories totals $33 million. The following are the major aspects of this work: Banff-Jasper reconstruction, to a total value of $20 million; Banff-Windermere reconstruction, total value, $10 million; Mackenzie highway extension to Yellowknife, total value $12 million.


Mr. Hardie:: Is this $12 million for the Mackenzie highway new?
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: It is for the Mackenzie highway extension to Yellowknife.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: It was started two years ago.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is right; we are planning to spend $12 million.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The former government planned to spend $12 million two years ago.


Howard Charles Green: Well, they were very slow in getting anything done. Then for the Department of Transport there is a marine agency wharf at Charlottetown at a cost of $1 million, and for national defence there is an extension to French Cable wharf at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, costing $1 million. Just within the last few days there has been a contract let for a bridge over the Yukon river which is to cost about $850,000.
All these expenditures, of course, are exclusive of money spent for housing. I am not going to go into that today. I do not believe we need to convince even the members of the official opposition that the housing plans of the government have put thousands and thousands of Canadians to work, probably directly and indirectly as many as 200,000 during the last six months. I would suggest to them that they read the current issue of the Financial Post if they do not already understand the situation, and they will get the whole story. The headline is "The Housing Boom: $70 Million Market for Canadian Factories." Another headline reads, "What New Housing Money Trend Means." I shall just read one short paragraph:
Canada's biggest single industry-homebuilding- is on a prosperity rampage deliberately started last August by the federal government to spur the then-flagging industry and to promote winter employment.
Jet-propelled by a combination of $300 million in direct government loans and a now reviving flow of private investment money, housing took the bit in its teeth.
This is only one aspect of the work that has been created in housing, because there have also been redevelopment plans and the limited dividend plans, all of which have been pushed ahead to the maximum. We are even going to have a redevelopment plan in the city of the hon. member for Essex East, and I am amazed that he has not expressed at least some gratitude for this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We certainly need it. We have about 15,000 men out of work.


Howard Charles Green: It is not our fault that the scheme is not already under way. The figures for the construction industry generally are very interesting. I have here an excerpt

Supply-Public Works
from the Hugh C. MacLean building report which was published yesterday. It reads as follows:
For the second consecutive period this year, the total cumulative dollar volume of Canadian construction contract awards has broken all previous records. The total cumulative dollar volume of awards for the first five months of 1958 is the largest ever listed. This follows a similar record set this year for the first four-month period.
Statistics compiled from Hugh C. MacLean building reports show that the 1958 five-month total is $1,295,442,100, or 23 per cent higher than it was at the end of this period last year, and 5 per cent higher than it was in 1956, the previous record year for the first five-month total.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could I ask the minister a question? Would he explain why, then, in view of all this amazing activity, there are still more than half a million people out of work in this country?


Howard Charles Green: It is very significant what great pleasure the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters take in gloating over the fact that there are a great many people unemployed in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Public Works has just said that the Leader of the Opposition takes pleasure out of the fact that there are so many men out of work. I submit that this is an unparliamentary remark for the Minister of Public Works to make. Like every other hon. member of this house, the Leader of the Opposition is greatly concerned about this problem. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to withdraw that remark. It is an imputation and reflects on the character of the Leader of the Opposition.


Howard Charles Green: My remark was perfectly
proper, Mr. Chairman. All one had to do was see the broad grin on the face of the Leader of the Opposition when he rose in his place. However, I will say this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have risen on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask for a ruling.


Howard Charles Green: I am speaking on the point of order. I will say this. The hon. member for Essex East is very much worse in this regard than is the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has made an observation that I smiled and indicated my satisfaction over the fact that there are still 500,000 and more people out of work in this country. That imputation, of course, is nonsense. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to bring to the minister's attention, when he is bringing to our attention this amazing record of activity in putting people back to work which has not been successful, the

fact that there are 500,000 people out of work and to ask what he is going to do about the situation.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition knows just as well as I do, and as every other thinking Canadian does, that the government was not responsible for all these people being out of work. If any government is responsible it is the government of which he was a member less than a year ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule on the point of the serious imputation made against the Leader of the Opposition and also made now against myself, to the effect that we are not concerned about this problem of unemployment, and that we are gloating over it. I ask you to rule on this point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not think it is an unparliamentary remark. It might have been better if it had not been made. The Leader of the Opposition rose and clarified the situation, so in my opinion that was not an unparliamentary remark.


Howard Charles Green: The sad part of this situation is simply this, Mr. Chairman. This condition in which Canada finds itself, and in which it has been during the last few months-


Mr. Gour:: Under a Tory government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: -can be greatly helped if everybody in the country is really trying to do something about it and is keeping his or her chin up. The government has gone to great lengths to help provide employment. I do not think it can be disputed that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been given work directly because of government action, but the vast majority of jobs must be given by private industry.
When we hear leaders on the opposition side of the house get to their feet day after day weeping and wailing about, this, that and the other thing, an effect is created across the country. An employer who hires 5,000 men may decide to lay off 2,000. In many cases I think men have been laid off who could have been kept on by private industry. Incidentally, I may say that the government has been most careful to retain people in employment. The same thing applies with regard to unions. They hear these leading figures on the opposition side of the house complaining day after day about unemployment being so terrible, the country going to pieces and all this sort of thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who says that?


Howard Charles Green: Is it any wonder that jobs are being lost in Canada by the thousands because

of lockouts and strikes, when they get this sort of example set by the members of the opposition?


Lionel Chevrier: Why does the minister not get on with his estimates?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to them-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read some of your speeches in 1955.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I was just as foolish then as you are now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With less than half the unemployment.


Howard Charles Green: I feel sorry, Mr. Chairman, for the Jeremiahs across the way. I was looking up the definition of a Jeremiah in the concise Oxford dictionary, the fourth edition of 1956.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On what item is the minister speaking?


Howard Charles Green: It applies to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East. The definition is this: a doleful prophet or denouncer of the times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is certainly putting his estimates through.


Lionel Chevrier: If he keeps on he will be known as the minister who holds up his estimates best.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are going to keep this parliament here away beyond the month of September.


Howard Charles Green: I know that hon. gentlemen do not like this, but they have been asking for it for the last few weeks.


Lionel Chevrier: You are going to get it back.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are giving us a great opportunity.


Howard Charles Green: The government believes in the future of Canada, and that is one reason why it secured a tremendous victory on March 31. We intend to go right ahead with these projects which will help in the building of a great nation.


Mr. McWilliam:: Go ahead with the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Supply-Public Works
shore and south shore of the lower St. Lawrence river. The estimated cost of this construction is put at $3 million.
(iii)	The national research council is undertaking model studies of the harbours at Matane and Chandler, Quebec, to determine the most suitable location and type of structures required to improve the berthing conditions and the maintenance of dredged channels.
(ivj At Sarnia, Ontario, the department has included an item in the 1958-59 main estimates to provide additional warehousing space to meet the immediate needs of the harbour. Consideration is being given to the acquisition of additional land and water lots to provide for future expansion when required.
(v) Basic surveys have been completed and cost estimates prepared on a deep water wharf at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and at present discussions are taking place with potential users.
Finally, a word with regard to dredging. In addition to action directly following the reports of the group, a committee composed of representatives of the Department of Public Works, national harbours board and national research council are carrying out investigations to determine what steps should be taken to reduce annual dredging at Saint John, New Brunswick. If necessary a model of the harbour will be constructed to determine the best location for future wharfage facilities. The on-site surveys are being conducted by the national research council in conjunction with the local district office of the Department of Public Works.
Many millions of dollars are expended annually on maintenance dredging, and in order to assess the long-term picture we have started a program to study littoral drift in so far as it affects the annual dredging of our harbours. An associate committee on waves and littoral drift has been formed with the national research council, and a start on these studies is being made this summer on lake Ontario where the actual field work will be performed by representatives of Queen's University.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, in the 18 years during which I have been a member of this house I have never seen, on a Friday morning, such a nice floor show as has been put on today. I think the remarks the Minister of Public Works made must have been a cause of great pleasure to the officials of his department who are now sitting in the galleries and on the floor of the house, particularly when he went on to read all the items which appear under the heading of their department in this year's book of estimates. It struck me very forcibly that we witnessed

the same kind of show once before, during the past election campaign, when the Prime Minister and his colleagues promised the people of Canada that a public works program amounting to $1,185 million would be undertaken.
Well, we have witnessed the first act of this performance, and I suppose all hon. members are looking forward to seeing the second act. I did not think the minister would make the kind of statement he did. I admit I was not prepared for it. You will realize, Mr. Chairman, that because of the fact that the English language is not my own it is very difficult for me to reply immediately to all the points which were raised by the minister this morning. I am quite sure, however, that I will have another opportunity to do so during the discussion of these estimates.
This is the first occasion on which the estimates of the Department of Public Works have been brought up for discussion in committee of supply. I have before me a few words of congratulation to the minister, but I am asking myself now if it is really necessary to convey those words of congratulation to him.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Maurice Bourget: However, I think as a good Liberal I will congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in his task. We have heard rumours-I do not know how true they are; they are only rumours as yet- that the hon. gentleman intends to give way to some other member of his party. I suppose that is why this morning, before leaving his office, he decided to read to the committee all the items which are included in the estimates. As a matter of fact a comment on these lines has already been made by the leader of the C.C.F. party.
I am sure we are all aware, as we were told this morning, that this department is one of the most important of the administration, and that it has grown tremendously since the end of the war. One has only to look back at the estimates of 1945, for instance, to find that the expenditures under public works for that year amounted to approximately $19 million, whereas the total expenditure incurred by the department during the fiscal year 1956-57 on its various works of construction, maintenance and operation amounted to $190 million; and this was under a Liberal administration at a time when there was no such crisis of unemployment in Canada as exists today. This comparison shows clearly how greatly the department grew and developed during a period when the economy of this country was much easier than it is today.

When in 1953, hon. Mr. Winters was appointed minister of public works, additional responsibilities were assigned to the department; the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and also those connected with the trans-Canada highway were then placed under his jurisdiction. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I feel certain that all hon. members will agree with me when I say that Mr. Winters discharged his responsibilities with great devotion and fairness to all, having in mind as his sole aim the best interest of the Canadian people. I am sure, also, that in his new and important function he will continue to take an active part in the development of our country.
I wish to add that the growth and development of this department is also due in large measure to the able and competent civil servants who for years have worked hard and diligently to carry out their duties. I can say without hesitation that from the deputy minister down to the most humble employee I have never seen such a loyal and devoted group of men and women as those with whom I was glad to be associated from 1953 to 1957.
It is not my intention to deal at great length on this occasion with the estimates now before us. My intention was merely to make some remarks of a general nature and to inquire about any changes, new programs and new policies which the minister might be contemplating for the future. We have not heard much concerning a change in policy, nor have we seen much evidence of the initiative of the new Minister of Public Works. Practically all the items he read this morning were projects that were planned and prepared by the previous administration, as I will demonstrate later on.
Before the tabling of the estimates a lot of people in this country and many hon. members not only on the opposition side of the house but in every quarter of this chamber were expecting to see a very large increase in the amount to be spent by the Department of Public Works during the present fiscal year. In fact hon. members will recall that since the beginning of the year and particularly during the election campaign the Prime Minister and his colleagues on many occasions and at various places promised and advertised with great publicity that a vast and nation-wide program of public works would be undertaken. I am using the words of the Prime Minister: "a program of dividend-paying works of $1,185,000 would be undertaken of which $270 million would be spent in the first three months of this year."
I would have thought that in his statement this morning the Minister of Public Works
Supply-Public Works
would have told us where the sum of $270 million was spent on new projects, or does he share the view of the hon. member for St. John's West as recorded at page 758 of Hansard of June 2 this year:
Turning now to public works, I heard the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) challenge hon. members on this side of the house to say what public works-he qualified his question by adding "of a national character"-have been undertaken. He was referring to some major undertakings. Well, he knows as well as I do that no great public works of a major character has been inaugurated since this house opened, nor could it have happened before this house opened.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could draw the attention of the hon. member for Levis to my meaning in referring to the subject raised by the hon. member for Essex East. When I referred to public works of a national character I was thinking of projects such as the St. Lawrence seaway, and was not referring to all the numerous projects that were listed in the estimates already published.


Maurice Bourget: I would have thought that as a member of the cabinet the hon. member for St. John's West would have been aware of the large projects that were advertised during the election campaign. Surely this statement is of great importance to the people of Canada because it comes from one who is a member of the cabinet. Upon completion of the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West to which I have just referred, the hon. member for Essex East is reported as saying:
If the hon. gentleman would permit me, the question I asked was: can he name a project which this government initiated which has actually been started and, if it has been started, how many men have been put to work as a result.
The hon. member for St. John's West replied:
I admit the validity of that question, and I cannot personally point to anything that has actually given great employment, but I do know of a number of works for which money will be voted in the estimates or in the supplementary estimates.
Even though the Minister of Public Works cited a long list of projects this morning we have in the above statement proof that nothing has been done in a practical way by the government to relieve the unemployment situation in Canada at this moment. As I was saying, we were expecting to see a marked increase in the amount spent by the Department of Public Works during the present fiscal year because the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the election campaign said that such expenditures would be undertaken, but we have seen nothing of the sort.

Supply-Public Works
Of course I want to be fair, and I should point out we were not expecting to find all the new projects listed in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. But on the other hand we would have thought that the building construction branch of the Department of Public Works would be spending a lot more in the present fiscal year. This morning the minister placed on the record a number of projects in an attempt to show that his is one of the most important departments of government and one which bears the responsibility of making good the promises that were made during the election campaign.
References to the vast program of public works were made during the election campaign not only by the Prime Minister but by the Minister of Public Works as well. The Ottawa Journal of January 28, 1958 reported the minister as having said in the beautiful city of Quebec, while attending the convention of the Canadian Construction Association "that the government was increasing its program of public works and was trying to build a shelf of public works projects to be carried out when employment falls off."
I remember that at the beginning of last session the minister referred to the shelf of public works that was supposed to have been prepared by the Liberal administration. "Since that time I have looked under the bed and under the sofa, and I did not find any shelf prepared by the government of which he is a member." I know a little about public works, and I challenge the minister at this time to invite me to look under the bed to find out if the government has a shelf of public works projects to relieve unemployment in the face of the serious situation that confronts us.


Howard Charles Green: Sure; you can look under the bed any time.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid the bed is not clean.


Maurice Bourget: With more than half a million unemployed in Canada this is certainly the right time to announce a comprehensive public works program.
Referring to the estimates of the department for the present fiscal year we find that the total expenditures, including special categories-and the minister mentioned the exact figure-is $218 million compared with $175 million for the last fiscal year, or a difference of approximately $43 million. I have compared only the main estimates, of course. The increase of $43 million, it should be pointed out, is not due entirely to the initiative of this government, nor does it represent new projects solely.

If one looks at the estimates one will find there is an increase of $15 million for the trans-Canada highway. As the minister well knows that $15 million is just a matter of accounting, because that figure actually represents the amount of work that will be done by the provinces and I am not aware that he has given the provinces any additional incentive to carry on or undertake more work. There is also $5 million of the total increase which is to be charged to general administration, maintenance, operation of public buildings and grounds, and furniture and furnishings in government departments, which leaves a very small increase for new projects.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems that there is a very small increase for new projects. When one looks at the different items listed in the estimates he finds that many of them are for projects that are to be completed, and many others were planned by the previous administration. I will give an example. I am glad I made a note here, because the minister, as I said before, cited a long list of projects. I suppose it is good publicity, but I will take just one item here:
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings.
Let me take Quebec because, of course, I am a little more familiar with my own province. There are 24 projects listed. The third one is "Chicoutimi-public building-to complete"; "Dorion-public building"; plans were prepared by the previous administration. The next item is "Hull-national printing bureau-improvements". The next item is "Montreal" and has to do with a national revenue building, another project of the previous administration. The next item is '"Montreal-postal station R-addition and alterations-to complete"; "Montreal-postal terminal-alterations and improvements". This is not a new project. Then we have the item "Montreal-vault building for national film board". This is not a new project. Then we have the item "Plessisville-public building-to complete"; the plans were prepared by the previous administration. We have the item "Quebec-Wolfe's Cove

building for customs and immigration, $2,500,000", one of the most important items of that branch to complete. Then we have "Shawinigan Falls

public building"; the plans were prepared by the previous administration. Then, "Sorel-public building"; plans also prepared by the previous administration; "Ville St. Georges-public building"; the plans were prepared by the previous administration.

This shows, Mr. Chairman, that although the minister has given a long list of items this morning we can say to him-and I suppose it would apply to some of the other departments-as far as the Department of Public Works is concerned the great majority of the items that appear in the estimates were planned by the previous administration, or they are items to complete payment for works already undertaken.
May I at this time also point out to the minister that I heard that in the fall of 1957 a number of tenders were called for different projects and for one reason or another they were put aside. I do not know how many tenders were so cancelled, but I hope when the minister replies he will give us some information regarding this question.
Now, relating the projects that appear in this year's estimates to unemployment, I wonder whether the minister will also tell us if he has received advice from the Department of Labour as to where the projects should be carried out. We all know there are some regions or districts which are affected more by unemployment than some others. Therefore I am inclined to believe that in undertaking these projects this year special attention should be given to the regions or districts that are the most affected by unemployment.
I should like at this time, Mr. Chairman, once again to bring to the attention of the minister the question of the proposed post office building in Quebec city. I must say that I was somewhat disappointed, as probably the hon. member for Quebec West and many citizens of our capital city were, that-


Howard Charles Green: It is not our fault. We would be delighted to get ahead with that.


Maurice Bourget: -we could not expect a start on that building this year. I know the minister is not entirely responsible for the delay which has taken place but I would have expected more, particularly from a minister who was wont to blame the government so much when he was sitting on this side of house-


Howard Charles Green: You did so many things wrong.


Maurice Bourget: You were blaming the government every day about the delay. A few minutes ago the minister was boasting to the committee of how he was carrying out works that would not have been done if the Liberal administration had remained in power. I am speaking of that particular project in Quebec city. The minister has been in office for 11 months, and has he done anything about it?


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not get it fixed up?
Supply-Public Works


Maurice Bourget: We certainly did something. If the minister will look back through the files and if he will ask his officials he will find out how many times the former minister, Mr. Winters, had telephoned the mayor of the city of Quebec, had sent him telegrams and written him letters. He will also find out how many meetings we had in the city of Quebec which I attended.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does he not admit that this is entirely because the city officials of Quebec and the C.N.R. have not been able to get
together?


Maurice Bourget: Yes; I agree with that. I said that it was not entirely the fault of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: It is not our fault at all.


Maurice Bourget: Just a few minutes ago I said the minister was saying that some projects are going on today which would not have been carried on if the Liberal administration had remained in power.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: You have had 11 months.


Lionel Chevrier: You were blowing your own horn too much.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock before the luncheon recess I was speaking about the post office building in Quebec city and saying that I was a little disappointed that we could not expect a start this year. I also mentioned that the minister was not entirely responsible for the delay that has taken place but nevertheless I would have thought that during the eleven months the government has been in office there would have been sufficient time to iron out the difficulties between the city of Quebec and the Canadian National Railways authorities. I do not know if negotiations are still going on at this time between the two parties concerned but if not I think there is only one way to settle the question.
If the minister will permit me, I would suggest that the minister, with the help of his colleague the Minister of Transport, should arrange a meeting with the management of Canadian National Railways and try to convince them to lower the price they have been

Supply-Public Works
asking for their property. The minister and the officials of the Post Office Department must realize, as does everyone in Quebec city, that this building is badly needed, and if the minister will agree to take the step I have suggested I think he will find that the matter will be settled in the near future. (Translation):
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this matter for the benefit of Conservative members for the province of Quebec, and especially those who represent Quebec city, so that they might urge the minister to arrange for the immediate construction on this building which, as I said a moment ago, is urgently required for local postal services and which, in addition, would help to give employment to the 18,000 jobless at present in the city.
(Text):
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the trans-Canada highway. During the fiscal year 1956-57 good progress was made and if one consults the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act he will find on page 2 that commitments during the fiscal year totalled $82 million odd, an increase over those for the previous fiscal year of $25 million. Canada's share of 1956-57 commitments totalled $52 million, of which $11,280,000 represented payments on account of the additional 40 per cent contribution to be made to the cost of construction of 10 per cent of the highway mileage. This shows that the amendment brought down by the previous administration and approved by the house early in 1956 has had the expected effect of accelerating the rate of construction.
Hon. members will also recall that when the amendment was discussed in the house our friends now sitting opposite were very critical of the progress that had been made. They were also blaming the government of the day for not paying at least 90 per cent of the total cost of the road. I could read from Hansard many statements that have been made, particularly by the hon. member for Victoria and also supported by many other members of the Conservative party of that time. If we look at item 366 of the estimates for this year we find that the amount provided for the construction of the highway through national parks, for which the minister knows the federal government is entirely responsible, shows a decrease of $500,000. Unless the amount of $12,500,000 appearing in the estimates represents the money required to complete all of the roads within the national parks I do not think that the present government has reason to say, as the minister said so often this morning, that they are doing a better job than the previous administration.
[Mr. Bourget.l


Lionel Chevrier: He was just kidding.


Maurice Bourget: In any event, the minister is now in a position to change the policy that was followed up to June, 1957, and when he answers I hope he will take the opportunity to explain to the committee the changes he has in mind so as to fulfil the promises made by his party when they were in opposition.
At this point I should also like to ask-the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) also inquired about this some years ago-if the minister has made any approach to the government of the province of Quebec so as to convince them to share in this program if it is not too late. We Liberals, I think, have reason to regret that our province did not take advantage of this project, thus losing since 1949 from $25 million to $30 million which we all know could be so well used at the present time in the province of Quebec, particularly for education. I hope that the minister, with the help of his numerous colleagues now surrounding him-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I only need a minute or two and perhaps I might have the unanimous consent of the committee.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Bourget: I wish to thank the members of the committee for their courtesy.
(Translation) :
In this respect too, I should like to speak more particularly to my colleagues from the province of Quebec. As I have just said in English, we have lost from 25 to 30 million dollars in revenues since 1949. I am no expert, no great constitutional lawyer, but I do think that the construction of the trans-Canada highway is a national undertaking, involving more than one province and, therefore concerns the federal authorities as such.
If my hon. friends from the province of Quebec would care to remember this, I might remind them that even Le Devoir, our autonomous newspaper in the province of Quebec, and one which does not always support the Liberal party, has been wondering for a long time why the province of Quebec was unwilling to take part in, this project.


An hon. Member:: Autonomist? It is a
nationalist newspaper.


Maurice Bourget: It has also come out for the autonomy of the provinces. Besides, Conservative members from the province of Quebec have used it on other occasions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is why Mr. Duplessis does not like anyone to read it.


Maurice Bourget: Anyway, in view of the magnitude of this project, which could have meant millions for the province of Quebec,
I wonder if my hon. friends who are close to the premier of Quebec could, after considering the matter, urge the premier to accept so that we might recuperate those millions of dollars which, as I said, could be used in several fields of provincial activity.
The purpose of those remarks, Mr. Chairman, is not political but I make them because, of late, we have heard complaints from rectors of some universities and from other educational leaders, and because we need all the money we can get to help those who seek secondary education, especially university students.
(Text):
Before closing I should like to remind the minister that on many occasions he has argued that the Department of Public Works should as its name implies, be the department of government responsible for public works within Canada and outside of Canada. If one looks at Hansard one finds what he said on that question in 1954, and also on July 1, 1955. I realize the minister is one of the most influential members of the cabinet, and I was wondering if he had approached his colleagues with a view to getting more public works, and also with a view to putting into effect what he had preached while he was on this side of the house.
I should like also to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to give us a statement on the removal of Ripple rock in Seymour narrows. The minister knows that this project involved one of the biggest man-made nonatomic blasts in history, and it took place on April 5 of this year. I understand that the minister was present when the rock was removed. I am sure all members of this house would be glad to hear about one of the most interesting engineering projects ever accomplished in Canada. I am certain also that the hon. Mr. Winters, who was minister of public works when this project was initiated, would read the report with a great deal of interest. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the theme we should follow in this discussion is that the Conservatives are just the same as the Liberals, only better. A number of points have been covered by the previous speaker upon which I was intending to touch. However, I think I should remind the minister that the leisurely progress of his estimates
Supply-Public Works
so far is in keeping with the past history of the consideration of this particular department. I feel that he, in part, has engendered that atmosphere. If one looks through back issues of Hansard, one finds that the minister always took a leisurely approach to the consideration of these estimates. He was prepared to stay and stay and ask questions. I think the new members will appreciate that bit of information and they will know they are under no compulsion to finish this matter and therefore we should be here for several days considering these estimates.
When the minister was just the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra he had considerable help in creating this atmosphere from such people as the hon. member for Kamloops; the hon. member for Victoria; and the hon. member for Huron. The members of this party are always in a self-righteous position because they have never been in power and have never been debauched by any corruption that may exist in the government.
One of the points I wanted to bring up was that two years ago the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) made an interesting comment during the consideration of these estimates. He said something like this:
Last year, I made some reference to patronage. So long as you do something for my riding, I do not care how much patronage you use. So long as we get a little project, a building here and there, we shall be satisfied. The little bit of patronage that is used by the department at times does gripe a little, but, never mind, we shall stand the gripes if the minister will get busy.
This, of course, raises a nasty suspicion in my mind that perhaps patronage did exist in the Department of Public Works under this nefarious regime which ended last June. We righteous people are worried, because of the approach of the member who has been parliamentary assistant to that department, as to whether or not patronage still exists. This suspicion was increased last session when the minister, in answer to a question from a gentleman on the Liberal benches who has since moved to a more exalted realm in Quebec, suggested that the building of certain river improvements was more likely to have been placed in certain areas if the people in the area happened to be good Liberals. As I say, these suspicions are going around in our minds. We are prepared to accept that the new minister is a very forthright and very honest individual. He has made a number of public statements that no such thing as patronage is going to exist. I feel, therefore, he should be prepared now to make a statement about the patronage

Supply-Public Works
he found in the department and the steps he has taken to stamp it out. Certainly, he should say what steps he has taken to watch his erstwhile parliamentary assistant who said he did not care how much patronage there was as long as his riding got a little bit. Now that may be in keeping with the free enterprise ethics we heard stated so well yesterday. However, it seems at odds with the minister's own position, and we would like to hear more about that.
There is one more aspect of patronage I should like to mention, and this has come to the notice of those on the opposition benches. There are not many defeated Conservative candidates across Canada, and I know that makes a number of people around this chamber very happy. Those few defeated Conservative candidates that do exist have, in a few instances since the last election, come out with statements in their local papers. These statements seem to have been triggered by letters they received from the Department of Public Works or officials of that department to the effect the government, in its graciousness, is going to do something here or there. In other words, we have defeated Conservative candidates announcing government projects as a result of what seems to be a pipe line into the Department of Public Works.
Now this may just be evidence of a superior interest on the part of the defeated Conservative candidates, but it does raise suspicions. I do not believe anyone on the opposition benches ever expects, and I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra did not, to make announcements regarding works in his constituency. However, I am sure it would have bothered the hon. member if at that time the defeated Liberal candidate made the announcements. I just wondered if the minister would not consider putting an end to this whole practice. If there is going to be a post office or a latrine or anything of that kind built in the constituency, the announcement ought to be made in a dignified way by the government and the government officials concerned. As I think the minister is aware, it does raise some suspicion if a senior civil servant is in direct communication with someone who has no more official status than that of a defeated Conservative candidate. It does make the people in such a constituency believe that the only way to get something done is to apply political pressure through party channels. If that is the way it is, I think the public should know.


Mr. Crestohl:: Are you just theorizing?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, of course, this is pure theory.


An hon. Member:: How about an example?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does some hori. member want an example? I will bring him the Timmins newspaper in which there was an example about six weeks ago; the Port Arthur newspaper, and there was one about five weeks ago in the Sault Ste. Marie newspaper. I could bring all those to the hon. member's attention. These are just points which I think, because of the pure and honest approach of the minister, should be straightened out at this time.
I believe that a few moments ago I saw the hon. member for Carleton in his seat. Both he and the Leader of the Opposition have made statements about the aesthetic appearance of the public buildings that have been erected in Ottawa, and this of course applies to other parts of Canada.
I think the minister will admit that in the realm of aesthetics we are on a general topic that should be considered properly right here in his estimates. I do believe that he has an architectural branch which in its way, as has perhaps been suggested by the hon. member for Carleton, can mould the whole atmosphere of this capital city. Obviously, if we judge by the comments of the hon. member for Carleton, this-what would you call it-Liberal modern or Liberal Gothic pattern or whatever pattern is developed is not satisfactory. It is not particularly pleasing. I think at this time-and I am not being facetious-a statement on the whole architectural approach of the Department of Public Works and the people in the Department of Public Works who are responsible is in order. If we have a bunch of buildings that in slang terms are crummy in appearance, that take away from the beauty and the dignity of Ottawa as a capital city, now is the time to do something about it. I hope the minister will make a statement in that regard.
Speaking specifically about Ottawa, I also think of one of the things that has been pointed out to me a number of times as a socialist by people living in Ottawa as an example of how socialism does not work. I was told it just the other night by a lady who works in the civil service. She said, "Socialism will not work". She said, "As to these people who are government employees, unless there is some special incentive they will not do the job." "Just the other day", she said, "We were going to have a bit of new linoleum put in our office". I may say that this was a government office. She said, "It took four members of the Department of Public Works working all afternoon just to get the measurements". This is the sort of criticism that strikes to the heart of someone whose mainsprings are in socialism.


Howard Charles Green: Do you not approve of that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: We hate to see government employees' reputations put in a bad light. I just wonder if the minister would explain what steps he has taken to keep employees, and especially the minor employees, of the Department of Public Works functioning in an efficient manner so that this kind of criticism which seems to be floating around in Ottawa will die away and the department will get the prestige and the status that I am sure it deserves.
One of the points that was mentioned and that I have encountered countless times in looking at the previous debates was this whole question of a shelf of projects. I think the .minister must answer the questions put forward by the hon. member for Levis in this connection. He made the statement -and we all remember it in the house last session- that he found no shelf of projects that we all thought was there from 1945 on. We have been given no indication by him, in that very pleasant, rambling statement of his, just what his department is doing to build up a real shelf of projects. I think that information should be forthcoming.
Another interesting point raised by the hon. member for Levis, and which I should like to stand behind, was this. It is hard to understand why, if there has been this tremendous speed-up, the estimates for the department are not much larger than they are. If there has been this 97 per cent efficiency of this particular committee, if you are projecting things into the future and if you are going ahead with the large shelf of projects, it seems to me your planning budget at the very least would have accelerated much more than it did. I therefore think we deserve a statement from the minister with regard to his planning project.
One of the other statements that I think he should give at this time, especially for new members-and I class myself as a new member and I know the hon. member for Fort William would appreciate it at the present time-is with regard to the whole relationship between the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works. They are the two departments that affect the demands of so many of our constituents. I give as an example the lakehead harbour situation. It is very hard to determine just where the impetus for development is coming from. It is hard to see just where is the jurisdiction or his connection with what seemed to be almost a casual announcement that the government is going to put $3 million or $4 million into terminal facilities at the lakehead. I might say that we should like to know this. I understand
Supply-Public Works
this will almost be a model for other harbour developments along the great lakes in connection with the seaway development.
We should very much like to know whether it is going to be a capital expenditure by the government-there is nothing in the estimates to show this-or whether it is going to be a long-term loan at a low rate of interest to the harbour commission in question. This is an extremely important matter. The people in the area are considerably enthused about the harbour commission development but I am sure there would be a good deal of hesitation if all the government was giving was merely a long-term loan and engineering advice and not a substantial capital sum to initiate it and get things under way. I therefore hope the minister will touch on that matter.
One of the other points that I should like to make-and again it was touched on by the previous speaker-was the question of the sort of equalization of expenditures and projects across the country. As you know, we have ten provinces and within those provinces we have very many places that are clamouring for projects. During the throne speech debate from almost every person who spoke we heard of a number of little things that he would like to have for his constituency that involved the Department of Public Works. Just what is the general policy of the department in trying to equate them? Is it strictly in terms of need? Is there an attempt to balance off the provinces? If there is such an attempt, I should like to know why the ratio seems to be especially heavy, in relation to population, toward Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island in these particular estimates and I should like to know why Ontario seems to come off so lightly.
One of the other points made by the previous speaker relates to the fact that the Department of Public Works are concentrating these projects in areas of high unemployment. If seasonal unemployment is going to continue to be a problem-and I think we all agree that it is going to be-the minister can be fairly sure where these areas are because from the statistics of the unemployment insurance department there are certain areas of this country, especially related to the forest industries, the pulp and paper industries, that have a winter unemployment problem. I know certain steps have been taken by the department to do something about this matter, especially in connection with repairing and painting Department of Public Works buildings. But I wonder just how close the liaison has been with the Department of Labour to determine these areas and just how policy is directed with regard

Supply-Public Works
to plans so that an area like Windsor, the lakehead or Vancouver which faces such problems consistently each year, is going to have winter projects initiated by the Department of Public Works.
I was delighted that the hon. member for Levis brought up the point about Quebec's non-participation in the trans-Canada highway arrangements because, from checking previous debates, I find that the hon. member for Three Rivers is on record as stating that this was another example of the Liberal tendency to centralize things in Ottawa. One has the feeling that perhaps a new approach is due when we have this new government. I think a very proper question to ask is whether this government is going to take steps to bring Quebec within the operation of the Trans-Canada Highway Act or whether it is going to continue to go along with nine provinces and not the ten; and if it goes along with the nine provinces and not the ten it seems to me that it is refusing to face up to the constitutional point that has been put forward by the government of Quebec. So again, since it is a long term project, I think we need to know something about it.
One of the points that I believe was dear to the heart of the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., when he was a critic in this particular field was that the trans-Canada highway was not wide enough, that the 22 foot strip led to a concentration and a wearing out of the highway so that by the time the project is completed the highway is going to be in a state of needing rebuilding. He made the point very well, I thought that a broader highway -even a 24 foot highway-would be to the best advantage. I should like to have some word on how he has gotten along in his work within the department in seeing that this is coming to pass.
One of the other things in connection with the trans-Canada highway was this. I noticed there seems to be a popular clamour from new Conservative members in Alberta and Saskatchewan to have a second trans-Canada highway instituted under the general overlordship of the federal government.
I would suggest to the minister that in certain parts of Canada we are still waiting for the trans-Canada highway itself to be completed, and that before he follows this rush of enthusiasm from the west he should begin taking steps to get the provincial governments working much faster on completing the highway as it is. I wonder whether if in this regard he would consider offering Premier Frost of Ontario some sort of bonus in order to get his department of highways working a little harder up in northwestern Ontario. We realize we are a

part of the province which tends to be neglected, and in this case we might bring federal strength to our support in order that we may be provided with facilities which the provincial government does not seem too anxious to get for us.
There was, I notice, in the press today a statement which the head of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had made to the gentlemen in the other house to the effect that his staff had been reduced but that it was carrying out its operations even more efficiently. The only point I want to make in this regard is to ask whether the minister in the light of his responsibility for this department would consider increasing the staff in those areas of the country which are not getting service now. It has been generally admitted in the house, even by the minister himself, that the small communities are not getting the housing service which the cities are receiving, and we think Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could well take on additional staff in order to do the job effectively in these small communities, and particularly in those scattered across the bush areas. We would appreciate a statement on this, especially since the corporation has proven itself to be so efficient that it can cut staff. We should like to know if the cutting of the staff is one of the reasons we are not getting better service in the hinterland. I have gathered from my investigation of the corporation's work that certain people within the organization feel they can only give better service to the small communities if they do have more staff available for this work. I know the minister will give this point sympathetic consideration.
One of the things I wish the minister would do is to tell the committee the exact difference between so-called harbour improvements and dredging. I know we could take this point up at specific places in the estimates, but while going back into this year's estimates and last year's estimates, too, it is hard for anyone trying to look at the dredging picture to see what is provided for dredging, what is provided for rock work and groins, and what comes under the general heading of harbour improvements.
In closing, I should like to say it is always a pleasure to be in the house under what I referred to earlier as the benign influence of the Minister of Public Works, and we look forward to hearing his answers to some of the points which have been made. I may tell him that I know that the other seven members of this group-and I am sure this

applies to other hon. members of this committee-are girded, and waiting with all the standard points to be brought up on specific items of the estimates. Finally, I should like to say to new Conservative members that it is traditional for even supporters of the government to stand up and make demands, so we hope to hear a long and continued chorus in this regard.


Mr. Morris:: Before we move away from this first item which is, traditionally, one of general administration, and since we were talking this afternoon about the impact of federal public works on employment, I think it might be helpful if we were to consider one typical constituency for a few moments.
It is understandable that members of the opposition should be concerned about the impact of public works on employment in Canada. I think it is fair to say that the minister believes that the program of public works initiated by the government has been helpful in providing employment. But I think it might possibly be even more influential if some other members of the house were able to check out the minister's remarks in relation to some particular typical constituency. I should like for a few moments to detail the effect of the government's public works program upon my own riding which, rightly or wrongly, I feel was neglected under the previous administration.
It may be of interest to hon. members of this house in committee to have a rough idea of the extent of federal activity in the constituency which I represent, and to gauge its impact upon employment. Since the last federal election on March 31 the federal government has awarded the following contracts-I will keep the list brief so as not to detain the committee unnecessarily- first, transit shed No. 34 on pier A-l in Halifax. The contract was awarded today for $561,290. Improvements were authorized for two pavillions at Camp Hill hospital for veterans; an extension was authorized to the medical records department at the same hospital; a contract was awarded for an extension to the central heating plant, H.M.C.S. Shearwater; one of the sub-postal stations at Halifax had its roof repaired; a contract was awarded for an airport and airways surveillance site building, one of fifteen radar sites in Canada; a canteen and gear room building was authorized at the ocean terminals; and three magazines were installed in H.M.C.S. Shearwater or, at least, contracts were awarded for their construction.
A marine stores building contract for over half a million dollars was awarded in Dartmouth. This is a rather interesting one, because Liberal candidates in the last federal
Supply-Public Works
election promised that they would have this building constructed, if they were elected, on the same day as the tenders closed in Ottawa in respect of it. In addition, a contract for an air terminal building at the Halifax international airport was awarded for nearly $4.5 million. Also, the Minister of Public Works, representing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has, since the last federal election, signed for the federal government's share of the cost of a massive new Halifax housing development representing nearly $4.2 million, and this week Canadian National Railways called the first tender towards the construction of a ten-storey $4 million addition to the Nova Scotian hotel.
These projects alone amount to more than $14 million in one constituency since March 31. When you add to these low bids, the result of tenders called since the last federal election, but for which contracts have not been awarded, for a damage control school, a canteen and office building, and a submarine battery charging building, you come to over $15 million. In addition, tenders have been called for a breakwater wharf at Carter's point; a breakwater at Ecum Secum, and for improvements at Windsor Park and Shearwater. The Minister of Public Works has authorized repairs to and an extension of the breakwater at Cooper's point. A guardhouse and gatehouse are to be constructed at H.M.C.S. Shearwater. Repairs are to be made to the C.V.D. jetty at Halifax and in his remarks this morning the minister alluded to improvements at the French cable wharf, Dartmouth, the latter involving an expenditure of $1 million. It is proposed to extend one runway at the Halifax international airport. The sum of $50,000 is required to complete the Ralston building in Halifax and it is proposed to construct an addition and make alterations to a public building in Halifax for $750,000 and one in Spryfield. These bring the total of federal government activity in construction in Halifax city and county, which surely needed it after 20 years, to just under $20 million since March 31.
I will only detain the committee a few more moments. In harbours improvement, wharves and breakwaters, these additional repairs and expenditures were authorized: repairs to skidway and plank bridge at Bear Cove; levelling up of breakwater deck to original elevation at Eastern Passage; repairs to deck and breakwater, Grand Desert; repairs to approach and deck, wharf, Herring Cove; installation of a derrick on the breakwater, John Vogler Shore, West Quoddy; gravelling and erecting barricade, breakwater, Necum Teuch; cleaning the approach and repairing cribwork at wharf, Owl's Head; repairs to

Supply-Public Works
the approach and deck of the wharf at what is probably the most beautiful natural site in Canada, Peggy's Cove; repairs to deck and stringers, wharf, East Petpeswick; erecting barricade on the wharf at Port Dufferin East; removal of debris from old wharf at Port Dufferin West; repairs to skidway at Portuguese Cove; reconstruction of part of wharf at Sambro; repairs to skidway and construction of an engine shed at Sandy Cove; repairs and improvement at the wharf at Sheet Harbour East; installation of a derrick and placing of sheathing at the wharf, Sober Island; and authority for a fourth new wharf at Factory Cove, Port Dufferin East-all of this since March 31.
I do not wish to burden the committee with a boring recitation of other projects at places the names of which might not be familiar to hon. members of the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: You have succeeded in doing both.


Edmund Leverett Morris: These are illustrations of federal activities in one typical constituency involving an expenditure of some $20 million all of which have been undertaken since March 31 in addition to all these smaller wharf and breakwater repairs. To this should be added all the private undertakings. For example, at Dalhousie University, the distinguished chancellor of which is a former right hon. member of this house, there will be an expenditure made under his guidance of over $2 million. Part of the public expenditure comes from the impetus given it by federal activity. I believe the $20 million spent in one typical constituency plus all these lesser repairs and improvements must represent jobs for unnumbered thousands of people in that constituency which I have the honour to represent. Without any fawning whatever may I say on behalf of the people of my constituency that they appreciate what this government has done to provide employment under adverse conditions.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Halifax?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Yes, by all means.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Could the hon. member tell the committee what amount of money was spent by the Department of Public Works in that particular riding during the last fiscal year?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Just over $10 million since June last but I am afraid I do not have the figures for April and May. From June until the end of March last slightly more than $10 million was spent.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Public Works are assuming much more importance this year than ever on account of the serious unemployment situation in Canada and perhaps more especially due to the promises made during the last election by the Prime Minister and his followers. Despite the fact that as late as October last the Prime Minister used to say that the Liberals were grossly exaggerating the situation he and his party have finally reached the conclusion that there is a heavy quota of unemployment in Canada at the present time. I believe the figure for June indicated that approximately half a million Canadians were unemployed and this is a greater number than we have seen for a long time.
In examining the estimates before us today I was surprised at the small amount to be expended on public works projects as compared with the promises made. When he was speaking about unemployment during the election campaign the Prime Minister led us to believe that if elected his government would devote $1,185 million to inaugurating a vast public works program but an examination of the expenditures of this department as mentioned by the minister himself this morning reveals that $233 million will be spent. There is a considerable difference between these two figures.
The total appropriation for other branches of the Department of Public Works is to be $152 million and the minister said only $44,600,000 would be spent this year. There is a difference of approximately $21 million between the appropriation for last year and this year and last year the government would not consider that unemployment was a factor in our economic situation. This year everybody admits that it is a significant problem. Even those in power at the present time admit the truth of this and realize they must do something to solve the problem.
When one examines the estimates carefully one wonders exactly how many unskilled labourers will benefit through these public works projects. A great deal of mechanical apparatus will be employed in the proposed construction and this will reduce the amount of human labour involved. A close inspection of the projects also indicates that a very large proportion of it is merely the completion of work which was started under the previous Liberal government. I did not make a calculation but I was curious as to what portion of the projects represented a completion or continuation of work which had been previously undertaken.
I see that under harbours, rivers and engineering services in Newfoundland there are three projects which are to be completed

and two projects are continuations of works which had been started before. In Nova Scotia there are seven completions and four continuations. If we look at the figures we see that the larger amounts were in 195758. The others are generally smaller. In Prince Edward Island four projects are completions. In New Brunswick there is one completion and two continuations. In Quebec there are seven completions and eight continuations. In Ontario there are six completions and six continuations. These are all works which had been started or initiated by the Liberal government which was in office until June, 1957. I do not have time to look over all the projects.
In his speech this morning the minister tried to indicate that the work which is going on now, or to be done in the current year, is work initiated by the present government to try to help unemployment. When he says that I believe he is going a little too far. What we really need at this time is work which could be easily planned, work which could start right away, not work which needs a lot of engineering, a lot of preparation by the contractors themselves, but smaller projects. It occurred to me that this would have been a good time for the Minister of Public Works, now that we are in an extraordinary situation, to reinstate the practice of building protection walls, which was the custom from 1908 to 1953. Oh, I know the answer will be that it is not the responsibility of the federal government because the federal government is responsible for navigation which is responsible for the erosion of the shores of the rivers. Well, this is an opinion which has been contradicted by some of the provincial authorities who claim that under the British North America Act navigable waters are the responsibility of the federal government even if they are navigated or not. This has been contradicted by the legal officers of the department under Mr. Winters who decided that it was not their responsibility. At the time I asked the government to submit the question to a high authority. Mr. Winters, being an engineer and not a lawyer, may not have been in a position to decide the question all by himself.
If I am not mistaken we now have a lawyer at the head of the department. He is said to be a very good lawyer, at that, and I have been asking him time after time to study this question and submit it to the supreme court because, even if he is a good lawyer, even if the officers of the department are good lawyers, they are not in a position to decide in a way which will not be questioned by the provincial authorities if it is decided that it is their responsibility.
Supply-Public Works
I believe it is the responsibility of the federal government. I may be mistaken because I am not a lawyer. As I read the British North America Act I find that the federal government is responsible for navigable waters, not navigation. "Navigable" has been interpreted as meaning "navigation", and there is quite a lot of difference. The provincial authorities say they cannot believe, because a river is not navigated, the federal authorities are not responsible. I know that the Quebec government blame it on the federal authorities and the federal authorities blame it on Quebec. I believe it is time for them to go to the Supreme Court of Canada and have it decided once and for all who is the responsible authority.
Even if it is the responsibility of the provincial authorities, from 1908 to 1953 the federal government accepted the responsibility of building protection walls where they were necessary. I know that in my county the land has been eroded in one place up to 200 feet from the river. The farmer has lost this land and he wants to know who is responsible for that loss. If it is caused by nature, then we should correct it if it is at all possible and it is up to the proper authority to do it. I want to know at the present time who is responsible for it and that is what I am asking the minister.


An hon. Member:: It is an act of God.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is what I am saying; if it is an act of God, and if it can be checked, there is nothing in the gospel that says we should not try to check it. I believe it can be checked and the only way it can be checked is to have protection walls constructed along the river banks. I think it is a federal responsibility on account of the British North American Act, which refers to navigable waters. It does not use the word "navigated". It says that navigable waters are the responsibility of the federal government. In many constituencies of the province of Quebec, some of which are represented by Conservative members, many of these problems can be found and we have to decide on whose door we are going to knock. I do not think the municipal governments can do it; they have not the revenues to do it. They want to know whether it is the responsibility of the federal government. If it is the responsibility of the provincial government, they want to know it. I am asking the government at this time, and especially the Minister of Public Works, to look into the question and if it is at all possible to restart the practice which was discontinued in 1953 and help the municipal authorities to settle a problem which has been a most difficult one to understand.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. Graffley:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Can he tell me whether it was the policy of the last Liberal administration to construct these retaining walls on innumerable non-navigable waters in the province of Quebec?


Alexis Pierre Caron: As I said a while ago, under a Liberal administration from 1908 to 1911; under a Conservative administration from 1911 to 1921; under a Conservative administration from 1930 to 1935, and a Liberal administration from 1935 to 1953 it had been the custom to build part of these protection walls here and there to help the municipalities and the proprietors of those lands. I do not know whether it was legal or not. I am not a lawyer. I am not going to discuss the matter personally. I only ask the government to place it before the Supreme Court of Canada to decide where the responsibility lies. I think that is fair enough. It will not cost very much for the government to ask for a ruling. We would then be able to get a good ruling and not just the answer of the minister that they are not responsible, not just the answer of the law officers of the department that they are not responsible. When we go to the Quebec authorities the answer we get is that they are not responsible, that it is a federal responsibility. We want to know who is responsible so that we can act accordingly.
I do not think that is an unfair demand to make of the government. I do not blame anybody. This is a question of law. I do not know anything about law but I do know that the matter can be discussed and settled by the court. When we have a legal ruling we can then go to the proper authorities and ask them to act accordingly. That is what I am asking the government to do at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's statement this morning and also with some amusement at what I considered a bit of embellishment at times. However, I can well understand the minister's attitude because I am quite sure he enjoys the administration of his department. You know, Mr. Chairman, we both started our younger working days in public works. We started digging ditches together. We were members of local 54 of the eternal trench diggers association. Unfortunately the minister did half as much work as I did and got twice as much pay.
However, speaking seriously, this department has grown a great deal in importance during my tenure in the house since 1945. I presume that is on account of the increasing

demand for facilities such as public buildings, harbours, and, more particularly lately, the building of the trans-Canada highway. For some years we in this group were not at all satisfied with the administration of the public works department. Some of us had rather close associations with that department in years past and from past experiences and what we observed in the house we considered that the department was bogged down in obsolete procedures, antiquated methods and there was certain evidence of a lethargy which I think was the result of a number of causes.
I think the minister will remember that we in the C.C.F. urged for years the necessity for planning, the need for surveys to indicate the possibility of future developments so they could be anticipated, the need for increased efficiency in administration, the elimination of patronage and the expenditure of the money voted by parliament yearly instead of money being voted year after year and not expended. I think a good number of our suggestions and recommendations have been listened to and put into effect. In recent years I have noticed not only from my experience in the house but from chatting with officials in British Columbia, with officials of local organizations and with the men employed by the department at various places on various jobs, that there is now, I think it is safe to say, some planning undertaken in the department. I think one evidence of that was the establishment of a properties division for the care of buildings and so forth which I think is of great importance.
There is also greater decentralization. I remember that years ago in my own constituency one pile driver crew building a wharf actually was idle for a month on full pay because the man whose tender had been accepted to deliver lumber to the wharf suddenly asked for $10 more per thousand feet. Because the legal department had to be informed and go through all its complicated procedures these men were idle for a whole month on full pay until a decision was reached authorizing the local foreman to take delivery of the lumber at the $10 increase. That was evidence of too much centralization. I think those situations have been largely overcome in recent years by considerable decentralization and the leaving of decisions of that kind to local authorities such as district engineers and with respect to lesser matters the foreman engaged on the job and so on. I think that has improved the efficiency of the department.
I also understand there has been considerable staff reorganization and some change in

the areas of regional administration so that work can be administered by certain officials of the department to better advantage having in mind geography, distance and so on. I was very glad to hear the minister say this morning that the department was undertaking surveys with respect to possible developments in the future, anticipating the future, which I think is a very wise thing indeed.
I was very pleased to hear that the department is giving consideration to standard building plans for certain types of buildings.
I could never understand why we had to suffer, in my opinion, unnecessary expense at times and quite frequently unnecessary delay drawing up a set of plans for a building that was identical as far as needs were concerned with hundreds of other buildings that were in use in Canada at the time. I am very glad that standardization of plans has been undertaken.
I want to say at this point that I think a great deal of the credit for these improvements is due to the deputy minister, the senior officials in Ottawa and throughout the country and to the loyal co-operation of a very large staff. Some have informed me personally on a number of occasions how much more they appreciate the way things are done now compared with the way they were done at times in the past. I am not criticizing the persons who had to do with these matters in the past because obsolete methods, antiquated procedures and inertia were the result of our whole attitude to public affairs and public administration. I think the improvement springs essentially from the interest of members of parliament of all parties in improving the situation and the interest of a great number of members of the staff in that direction. It is safe to say that on this account there have been considerable savings. A great deal of waste has been eliminated, a great deal of valuable time has been saved and I hope this will continue.
Before I go on to the more local aspects of my short speech this afternoon I want to deal with the question of patronage. I have been very pleased to read the minister's announcements from time to time indicating that he is taking a strong stand against patronage. I am most pleased because patronage is a virus that can undermine the efficiency of any department. I wish him every success in all he undertakes in that direction.
I have had some experience with patronage as an observer of both the Liberals and the Conservatives. On one occasion a wharf was being built in my district by a contractor. The engineer who was acting as inspector of the wharf took ill and the district engineer asked me if I would substitute for the man until he could return. I arrived on the job
Supply-Public Works
and immediately started to cull some piles that had arrived for the building of the wharf because of their diameters, sweep and so on. The next day I got a note asking me whether I knew that the piles came from a prominent Liberal. Then I began to cull some lumber because it was not up to standard and I got another note the next day asking me whether I knew that this lumber came from a sawmill owned by the Liberal member of the provincial legislature for the district.
On the third day I started to complain about the depth of the driving of the piles. They were not going down the required 15 feet. The contractor came to me and asked me whether I did not know that every inspector on his jobs always got his board and room free. Finally, some hardware arrived, some stirrup irons for bracing and that sort of thing, and they were too light according to the specifications and I complained. I got a note asking if I did not know that this hardware store was owned by a president of the Liberal association. As a result of my experience, I resigned and as promptly as possible resumed my pleasant peasant existence.
That is my experience with the Liberals, and I had a similar experience with the Conservatives. A breakwater was being built in front of the village near where I live during the Conservative administration from 1930 to 1935. I was on the committee of the local board of trade, as it was called at that time, and we were very interested in getting this work started for the very same reason we are anxious to get work started now. There was a depression, and there was unemployment. The president of the local Conservative association was all for patronage with respect to the purchase of the cedar logs for the breakwater, the hauling of the dirt, the placing of the rocks and so on. The secretary of the association was a young Englishman, from England, and he could not understand or appreciate this patronage. He objected very strongly, so the president wrote to the president of the West Kootenay Conservative association complaining of this matter. The president of the West Kootenay association wrote back and said: "I fully appreciate your concern about this matter, Tom, but we expect an election after March of next year, so in the meantime will you quietly continue scratching his back on this matter until election day, and after election day, in good Conservative fashion, tell him to go to hell."
Now, mind you, that has been my experience all through the years. There have been members of both parties who have objected to the patronage principle. Is the chairman tapping his estimates? Well, the patronage principle has been related to these estimates

Supply-Public Works
in the past, and it has been opposed by people in both parties. I am very glad to see we are getting away from that sort of thing, and that the minister is taking a stand.
After making these somewhat kind remarks, I have one complaint and that is with respect to the fact that, on occasion, I read in the newspapers that the defeated Conservative candidate has made an announcement. On several occasions I have read that the defeated Conservative candidate has been authorized to announce the commencement of certain public works, and so on. I want to say this. I quite realize that it is the government's responsibility to make these announcements, and that is very satisfactory from all points of view. I am just saying that I am sure the minister will be generous and gracious enough to see that opposition members are also notified of these proposed undertakings and announcements of developments. I am sure he could do that without dimming, in any sense whatever, the after-election glow of the defeated Progressive Conservative candidates.
I do know there is a great demand all through the country for as early a start as possible on many of these public works. I have received letters within the last two or three days from people in my constituency, good people who are seeking work and who see no opportunity of getting employment at the moment. I do urge the minister to give every consideration to starting projects that can be started without a great deal of preparation.
There is one other matter I wanted to mention and that relates to the question of airconditioning. I understand it was the policy of the former government not to instal airconditioning in public buildings. Personally I always thought that was a great mistake in view of the fact that to instal it later means a great additional expense. I had this brought home to me very forcibly when I was in Trail some short time ago. A new federal building had been erected there, and it is generally satisfactory but all the employees were regretting the fact that airconditioning had not been installed. It gets very hot in Trail in the summer months, and the staff has found it most uncomfortable to work in that building on hot days. I do urge the government to give consideration to the installation of airconditioning in federal public buildings, particularly those in larger centres and in areas where the people suffer more from the heat. I believe the extra cost is well merited by the increased efficiency and the saving in loss of time.
I want to mention one other thing with respect to administration. I suggest to the minister that when he is starting these smaller [Mr. Herridge.l
projects throughout the country he give consideration to using day labour under proper supervision wherever possible. While this may sound unusual to a number of members who possibly have not had much experience in that respect, it is possible on smaller projects, and under proper supervision, to save money by employing day labour rather than calling for tenders. Only last year we had a very nice wharf built at Nakusp by the Department of Public Works. At the time I suggested to the minister of the day that I thought it would be a good idea to use day labour if possible, and for two reasons. I was quite sure that the minister's staff was most efficient and capable of doing the work, and also it provided employment for the staff during the year. These were men who were required, during certain months of the year, for dredging purposes and things of that sort. I was quite certain there would be a considerable saving. I understand that as a result of building the wharf with day labour there has been a saving of approximately $10,000. I urge the minister to give consideration to using day labour under adequate supervision on those projects which could be undertaken to advantage in that way.
I am going to move from the general to the particular, that is I will move from the federal field into the constituency of Kootenay West. This morning I listened with interest to the list of projects in British Columbia which the minister read. I did not hear a reference to the commencement of a new building for the R.C.M.P. in Nelson. The former government purchased a site, and I understood plans were being drawn. It is a project which, if it could be started, would provide employment for quite a number of the unemployed. At the same time, I may inform the minister it is very urgently required by the R.C.M.P. in our district because we have an abnormally large staff as a result of peculiar and intentional illegalities that occur from time to time. I trust the minister will give this matter his serious attention.
I urge that adequate funds be provided for the continued dredging of the Arrow lakes, between the upper and lower Arrow lakes. There were some suggestions made in the department two or three years ago that because the paddle-wheel steamers had ceased to run there was no necessity for dredging. The tugs that are towing the logs and towing the ore down the lake actually have a deeper draft than the stern-wheelers, and for that reason the lumber people and the persons interested in transporting ore, as well as persons with other craft which are increasing on the lake throughout the years, do urge the continued provision of

adequate funds for the dredging of the narrows between the upper and lower Arrow lakes.
I come now to the question of river bank protection, which was mentioned also by the previous speaker. Certain erosion is occasioned at the turn of the river, just below Burton, and it is largely occasioned as a result of the wash from steamers or other vessels going up and down the river. I understand this erosion is recognized as a direct responsibility of the department. Some work has been done throughout the years but when I was going down the river not long ago I noticed that the mattress was getting in poor condition. I think some work on that would save the mattress that is now in place and avoid possibly a large expenditure in the future.
Also there is the question of snags. When high water occurs on the Columbia river and the Arrow lakes you find large trees or stumps floating down from the upper Columbia and they often lie in shallow water, water that is from 10 feet to 30 feet deep, and stay there. I urge that consideration be given to pulling out the snags at the end of the lower lake and at a number of other places where they have accumulated during the years. They are a great hazard to small boats, particularly at night.
I hope the work on the straightening of the Duncan river will continue. The work that has been accomplished to date has been of great value in preventing flooding of the river, thus assisting navigation proceeding from the Duncan river to Howser lake. I might say it lowered the water table about three feet on about 3,000 acres of land which the farmers in that area can cultivate much earlier in the season. The minister knows the area very well that I am speaking about.
I might also mention that there are some piles just at the end of Howser lake that were driven originally I think by the Canadian Northern when they were attempting to build along Howser lake and they have been left at the end of the lake since the early days. The drift wood from the Duncan is coming down the Duncan and into Howser lake and piling up against these piles. Local residents asked me to suggest to the minister that a few cases of dynamite would blow these piles out and prevent log-jams at that point and the consequent flooding of the surrounding territory.
I also urge the minister to give consideration to keeping the present usable wharves in repair on the Arrow, Kootenay and Trout lakes. While not as much use is made of these wharves as in the past, with the passing of the stern wheelers, we still have boat
Supply-Public Works
service between Beaton and Nakusp daily except Tuesdays in the summer months and tri-weekly in the winter months and there is a tri-weekly service between Robson and Edgewood. There are some wharves between those two points. I remember suggestions,
I think it was two years ago, that the department dismantle the East Arrow Park wharf.
I received strong representation from the local women's institute. I always find that it is a very good thing to get the women behind you if you want to get your way. Anyway the women's institute and other organizations supported my representations and the wharf was not dismantled. I think it is most fortunate. I was there only a short time ago and there were about five small boats tied up at the wharf. The wharf has a long life ahead of it. It is built of cedar logs which are in good shape. All that is required is an occasional plank and mending of that sort.
One other thing before I conclude my epistle is this. I want to bring to the minister's attention the urgent necessity for the building of a wing dam at Arrowhead where the Columbia river enters the Arrow lakes. This wing dam I remember being built originally nearly 50 years ago at very small cost. I think it cost about $3,000 or $4,000 in those days. It was a crib dam filled with rock. This was rebuilt years later but during the last war it was allowed to fall into disrepair and has not been repaired since then. As a result of that disrepair the river instead of flowing out into the Arrow lakes at its usual point, has now been diverted in towards the shore or along the fore-shore of Arrowhead and that means that instead of the silt and all that going out into the lake where it has gone previously, it goes into the steamer channel before the wharves and around the wharves and causes extra dredging on that account. Then in the winter very large ice floes drift in and surround the wharf and at times make it most difficult for the steamers to land. I have been on the boat when they have had to spend an hour or so manoeuvring around these ice floes which in some cases can be six feet and eight feet high. They are accumulations of ice that come down from the upper Columbia. A suggestion was made to rebuild this wing dam and an estimate was given at one time but I think the minister's officials misunderstood what was suggested. I think they thought the local people were suggesting a breakwater along the fore-shore of Arrowhead. But all that is required is the replacing of the old wing dam. The timber is handy and the rock is convenient. The men are idle and are available and willing to do the work.

Supply-Public Works
There is one matter I wish to mention to the minister. For some years various requests have been made for federal government assistance in the extension of the wall at Trail. Originally the portion of the wall was built at the cost of the federal government or at the expense of the federal government, I think under legislation that was passed during the last depression, as an act for works for the general advantage of Canada. Since that time numerous requests have been made for the extension of this wall and they have been rejected on constitutional grounds. I understand the government offered to pay 37J per cent of any extension carried on at the present time but that the province and the city would have to share the balance. I urge reconsideration of that offer.


Howard Charles Green: They said they did not want to do it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know that. They found it to be beyond their financial capacity.


Howard Charles Green: No. They did not want to have it done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. I think you will find on inquiry that it was a matter of money.


Lionel Chevrier: It always is.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is a great deal of truth in that statement. I am quite sure that the basis of their indecision or lack of enthusiasm was the lack of funds. In any event, I will speak to the minister privately about that matter.
There is another matter I want to raise before concluding. I urge the co-operation of the minister's department with the appropriate provincial government officials in making certain that sawmill wastes-slabs, sawdust and things of that sort-be not allowed to get into the rivers and lakes of our district. I understand that there is in the Navigable Waters Protection Act a section which comes under the administration of the minister's department and which provides for regulation of this sort of thing.


Howard Charles Green: It comes under the Department of Transport.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Department of Transport?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does it not come under your department?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not that section of the act?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall discontinue my remarks on that subject, Mr. Chairman, and take my troubles to the appropriate minister.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to offer a small contribution at this stage of the committee's proceedings with regard to what is basically a question which is a burning one in Canada today. With the recession in force and difficult as it is, involving us to a considerable extent, the question asked right across the land is this: what can the government do and what should government do? What are the limits? What are the terms of reference to solve this dilemma? Certainly I hope that as a result of our experience in facing up to this general problem we shall learn valuable lessons which we can put to work in the future to solve and in many cases to anticipate, the deteriorating effect of recession.
With reference to the matter at hand and the department under discussion, there have been understandable attempts to make political capital out of situations by people who in my humble opinion should be better informed, pretending they did not know the answer that must have been clearly obvious to them. I refer to statements that have been made in this debate and which, it seems to me, have been repeated for the last six or eight months, with reference to what this government has done to give men employment.
I made some inquiries into the matter, particularly concerning this department, quite apart from public works projects concerning the number of homes built and what the investment in the building of those homes was. The figures I got indicate that it takes approximately two men one year to build a house. So in discussing the number of homes being built on a direct on-site basis the information I have been able to gather is that there are two man-years involved. The best estimate from government and other sources which I could obtain concerning the number of man-years involved in supply industries- material, prefabricated units coming to the site, and so forth-is also two man-years. A third factor, which is a little more difficult to estimate, is the fifth man in the scheme who is working in a secondary stage-such people as moving van operators.
Having acquired this information as to the number of homes built, quite apart from the activities of the former government, for which this government specifically can take the credit, it is approximately 35,000 within the last year, and multiplying this by five in terms of man-hours I think it is fair to say that this government by its specific actions has provided year-long employment in the past year for approximately 175,000 persons. As I say, there is no secret source for this

information; it is fully available to the members of the opposition and I have been surprised that they have been asking such questions.
Getting further into this field of public works activity in terms of an anti-recession factor, my personal opinion, after listening to a television address on, I believe May 20, by the President of the United States, in which he made a statement which, in my humble opinion, is not quite fair to the role of public works as an anti-recession factor, the statement is as follows:
I am determined not to get bogged down in a slow starting emergency public works program which will provide the minimum of jobs now and a maximum of budgetary headaches in the years ahead.
I believe this was quoted by one of the hon. members of the opposition as part of an argument, as I detected it, that the government should set aside public works as an anti-recession factor. If you examine that closely, it does not mean what the hon. member for Ottawa West intended or the interpretation placed on it by other members of the opposition. "Slow starting", "emergency" and "immediate number of jobs"-there are certain non sequiturs in that statement, I suggest, because of lack of sufficient planning and anticipation. This department in particular in its activities, accelerated as they were during the winter months, and I sincerely hope I have no reason to doubt that this type of effort will be continued in order to focus attention on the winter months when the unhappy by-products of unemployment hit hardest.
We are, I feel, coming out of the woods in this recession situation. There are as many guesses as to what there is ahead of us next winter as there are people, but I should like to suggest that we start now in approaching this problem of the shelf of public works on a new basis and from a new point of view. I was certainly under the impression and, I am sure, most of the people of Canada were, that this shelf of public works that used to be spoken of following the war when there was a general indication of at least a recession and at most a depression. Certain major companies in both the United States and Canada took action based on the fact that they were virtually certain that a depression or a bad recession was bound to happen, and the propaganda organized under the previous administration pretty well convinced the people of this country that they had an assurance of public works and not the type of shelf that members opposite have mentioned in terms of things like the seaway and others.
In economic terms a shelf of public works is a series of projects brought through the whole planning stage to a point where the
Supply-Public Works
gap between the shooting of a gun, the saying of "go," and the beginning of the work and the employment of people, is relatively short. It is shorter, in fact, by the period of planning that has gone before.
The arguments which have been put up to the effect that we are the beneficiaries of this shelf of public works are economic nonsense, I submit, because by no stretch of the imagination is the St. Lawrence seaway a shelf program in economic terms. I should like to suggest that the various industrial areas of this country should be arranged in terms of relative sensitiveness in terms of unemployment. As I say, we have learned a lesson from the situation last winter, and that is that when the recession first appears unemployment manifests itself most seriously in certain areas. I should like to see in future a public works program directed to projects such as housing on a truly shelf basis, and economically desirable in every section of this country. I should like to suggest that if this were done and cognizance taken of this economic sensitivity in bringing through the planning stage to the start stage and no further-I am not suggesting this will be easy; it will be difficult in many ways because of public pressure; the public is aware of these things very rapidly-the arguments will come from the constituencies and from members in many corners of the house, probably from myself at some future time, the arguments being: these are socially and economically desirable projects, why do we have to wait for a recession to achieve the benefit of these things?
I suggest this is going to require courage and planning. As I say, I am personally confident we are heading out of the woods on this situation and probably into a series of years of prosperity. There is no question of this in the minds of economists in the United States and Canada, looking at the continental economic picture. But I do urge, and I urge most strongly, that the minister and the government should not be lulled into a sense of false security, which was the reason that this government inherited a situation where we were not able to put into force these antirecession measures as quickly as we should have been able.


Murdo William Martin: This is an excellent speech except for the last remark.


Frank Charles McGee: Perhaps I will stop while I am ahead, and sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Scarborough will, I am sure, excuse me if I do not follow his argument. I will let some of the other members on this side of the house deal with the thesis he
926	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
developed a moment ago. I do not rise, either, to be contentious, as the minister was this morning. When the minister spoke as he did he pointed his finger across the house and argued against himself and against the passage of his estimates. I could not help but recall the early days when I sat on the other side of the house and I thought of an hon. member who sat on the government side then and who did exactly as my hon. friend did this morning. No one was guiltier than he was of holding up his own estimates. He managed always to rise at the most inopportune time.
I did not want to be contentious in any way in my remarks but I did wish to deal with a section of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. My understanding of that act is that it divides itself into two parts. Part 2 is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and has to do with the removal of obstructions to navigation in a navigable river. Part 1 falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works and it has to do with the construction of dams, obstacles or obstructions in a navigable water.
On orders of the day recently I asked the Minister of Public Works if an application had been made by the government of the province of Quebec for the development of power in the Lachine section and I recall that his answer was that while there had been no official approach there had been unofficial discussions. That is the way I understood the case to be. I wanted to discuss the matter because it is one which I feel should be of keen interest to all hon. members from the province of Quebec if not indeed to all hon. members of this house because the development of power in the Lachine section of the river is related to the development of power in the international section.
If I proceed further I find that if it is not now the intention of the government of the province of Quebec to develop power in the Lachine section it soon will be because the time is fast arriving when due to the development of industry on the south shore and in the area extending from Valleyfield on the west to Sorel and Varennes on the east power will be necessary.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This is very interesting but I suggest it is quite out of order on a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. The hon. member for Laurier is speaking about the development of power on the St. Lawrence which does not come under the estimates of this department at all. I invite the hon. member to consider how wide a debate there could be on that subject. We would get ourselves into an impossible situation. It may be that such a discussion


would be appropriate under the estimates of the Department of Transport, certainly when the St. Lawrence seaway authority is under consideration, or it may be in order under the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources which department has some jurisdiction over questions of power but it is foreign to the Department of Public Works. Merely because the Department of Public Works has the obligation under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to give a permit for the construction of some projects that would interfere with navigation, that does not allow the hon. member to open up a discussion on the question of power on the St. Lawrence river.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the point of order, I would point out with respect that the minister is quite wrong when he states this is a matter for discussion under the estimates of the Department of Transport. The Minister of Transport would be quite within his rights in rising and saying that the matter does not fall within his jurisdiction because, while he has authority for navigation, he certainly has no authority with reference to power.


Howard Charles Green: Neither has the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: If you will just allow me to continue, I am speaking to the point of order. The Minister of Public Works should know that part 1 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act falls under his jurisdiction and it is clearly stated in section 7 thereof that:
7. (1) The local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters, for which no sufficient sanction otherwise exists, may deposit the plans thereof and a description of the proposed site with the Minister of Public Works, and a duplicate of each in the office of the registrar of deeds for the district, county or province in which such work is proposed to be constructed, and may apply to the governor in council for approval thereof.
I happen to know that informal discussions have already taken place in this matter and the only place they can be conducted is through the Department of Public Works and an application to put an obstruction in a navigable river must of necessity go to the Minister of Public Works. What I propose to do now is to discuss this informal application.
I have asked for a return concerning correspondence with the government of the province of Quebec and the federal government. I have not been successful in getting it because it is not ready but there is no doubt in my mind that under part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act this department, and only this department, is the one concerned.

The application can go to no other department. Certainly it cannot go to the Department of Transport. For that reason I feel I am in order in discussing the development of power under the estimates of the Department of Public Works and particularly under the first vote in those estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there has been no application to this department under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and if the hon. member is in order in discussing what the power policy should be on the St. Lawrence river then another hon. member would be just as much in order in discussing what the power policy should be on the Columbia river, the Yukon river or any other navigable water in Canada. The hon. member may have some slight excuse for making his speech if there were an application before the department for a project of this kind but there is no such thing and I suggest he is out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: There were informal discussions as the minister has stated.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that any discussions which took place occurred when the hon. member was himself president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and he ought to know all about it and why he would seek to drag in this discussion at this time on a broad question of policy concerning the development of power on the St. Lawrence river is quite beyond me.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if the minister has forgotten his answer to me in the house to the effect that informal discussions had been taking place between his officials and those of Quebec hydro for the development of power in the Lachine section? That is on Hansard I submit, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that over two years ago when the hon. member for Laurier was president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority discussions of a highly informal nature took place between different governmental authorities including the St. Lawrence seaway authority on a very junior level. However, this is not the place to drag in a debate on the question of policy concerning the development of power on the St. Lawrence river.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak again to the point of order, I wish to say I do not like the expression used by my hon. friend when he refers to my attempting to drag in a discussion of power policy. It is not a question of my dragging in a discussion to debate here the various alternatives that are applicable and which will have to be determined by the minister's department. It
Supply-Public Works
is not a question of dragging this subject in but rather one of discussing the position between one province vis-a-vis the other.
It is a question of discussing what attitude the government should take with reference to power in one province as opposed to another province. I submit I have a right to put that on the record because the minister's department is the only place in which this can be done. If I cannot do it here, then any minister can rise and say, "Well, I have nothing to do with this". Surely, there has to be some place where the matter of power can be discussed and I submit this is the place.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member could have and should have made his speech in the throne speech debate. He can make his speech in the budget debate, as he knows. On either of those occasions an hon. member can speak on any subject but it is absolutely foreign to the discussion of public works estimates, especially when there is no such application before the department.


Lionel Chevrier: I submit I have the right to do it here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that on the first item of a department's estimates the widest possible discussion has always been permitted. The Minister of Public Works suggests that this matter could have been discussed in the debate on the address, or in the budget debate; but undoubtedly that is an inadequate opportunity, because a member may desire not only to state his position but undoubtedly as well he seeks to get ministerial reaction. No opportunity is given in these general debates to obtain the reply of the government to the point expressed by an hon. member. This is a question which obviously under the Public Works Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. It surely is limiting the rules and the traditions of debate on the first item to preclude an hon. member from raising a question that admittedly comes within the authority of the minister. If the minister could successfully argue that it does not come within his jurisdiction, then my submission is not valid.


Howard Charles Green: It does not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is clear that under the act it does. The hon. member for Laurier has read the section which details the minister's jurisdiction in this particular. Surely, if this is the case-and the section is clear-there can be no doubt that the hon. member for Laurier is in order and within the rules of the house.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: The question of power policy has nothing whatever to do with this department. We have no jurisdiction to set power policy. That is the point I have been trying to make from the start. The hon. member can make his speech; he is not going to get any reaction from us because it is not our responsibility.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister has ruled himself out of court when he says that a committee of junior officials was set up in his department-


Howard Charles Green: No, I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: -some years ago to deal-


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: -with this very matter.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say a committee was set up in my department. I said there had been discussions between various government officials of different departments at a very junior level, including officials of the St. Lawrence seaway.


Lionel Chevrier: That indicates at once that there must have been some people on the committee from the minister's department. If there were, then I am in order in discussing the matter because the application for the development could be made to only one department and that is the Department of Public Works.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair faces a very difficult situation. I am wondering whether it is not a question of interpreting a statute. The Chair, of course, is not in a position to do that. We realize that everyone is entitled to the right to speak and to bring up anything he wishes at certain times. It may be that there is a statute but the Chair feels he has no right to interpret it. The Chair will take the position that as there is no application before the Department of Public Works, the discussion is out of order at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think your ruling is erroneous because it puts me in the position of not being able to discuss this. However, I shall not discuss your ruling; I accept it. I should now like to go on and discuss improvements of harbour and river works along the St. Lawrence seaway. This morning the minister attempted to read out at some length some of the developments that were taking place in the various harbours from the head of the lakes to the lower St. Lawrence. My purpose in rising now is to bring to his attention the fact that the development of rivers and harbours arising out of the seaway should be an orderly one, and

I doubt very much whether it will be unless there is an economic survey made of those ports along the seaway route.
During an earlier discussion I had occasion to suggest to the government the establishment of an economic survey of the seaway and the effects it would have on the various regions of Canada. I ventured to suggest that if such a survey were established it would be possible to ascertain what effect the seaway might have on the Atlantic regions, on the regions of Ontario and Quebec, on the prairie regions and on the Pacific coast province; also I did suggest that particular attention might well be paid to the metropolitan areas of Montreal and Toronto-Hamilton because I think it would be a mistake if the government were to go about the development of harbours in the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway area without a well conceived plan.
There is no doubt that the legislation which has already been brought down in this house, having to do with the development of the port of Hamilton and the improvements for Toronto, as well as the establishment of a harbour commission at the lakehead, are all to the good. I think, too, that consideration should be given not only to lake ports but to ports in the lower area of the St. Lawrence. It is true that the national harbours board, over which the minister has no jurisdiction, should look after the interests of harbours such as Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers, but there are any number of other harbours in the province of Quebec which to my mind are not being given the attention they should. When I look at the amounts that are contained in these estimates for lower St. Lawrence ports I find they are only paltry; when I look at the amounts that are contained here for port developments east of the city of Montreal I find that they do not compare with items elsewhere.
It has been said in this house that upon the opening of the seaway a certain volume of traffic will by-pass the city of Montreal and that the seaway might well be detrimental to that city. I do not believe those statements. There is no doubt that a certain amount of traffic will, as it is bound to, go beyond the city but there is a large amount of new traffic, which has never come to Montreal namely the lake carriers, which will come down to Montreal for the first time and which I think will bring a volume of traffic that did not exist before.
A very recent study has been prepared by the University of Indiana, in conjunction with the Chicago board of trade, on grain movements on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence in which there are extremely interesting conclusions. One of the conclusions is

that no less than 200 million bushels of United States grain will be transported through the seaway. If that survey is accurate, then it means that this grain will come down in lake carriers, both United States and Canadian, and provision will have to be made for the development of port facilities not only at Montreal but at ports beyond Montreal for trans-shipment overseas. These ports are places such as Seven Islands, Ri-mouski, Three Rivers, Quebec, Sorel, all the ports on the lower St. Lawrence.
What provision is being made by the Department of Public Works for port facilities at Seven Islands, for instance? I see in the estimates small amounts for piers and wharves but in view of the survey on the movement of grain made by the University of Indiana in conjunction with the Chicago board of trade I think the minister should give careful consideration to whether or not additional elevator space should not be built at these ports and whether additional facilities should not be built at the port of Rimouski, for instance.


Howard Charles Green: We do not build elevators, as the hon. member knows.


Lionel Chevrier: It may be that the minister does not build elevators but if there is to be this additional grain movement additional facilities will have to be built over and above elevator facilities and related to elevator facilities are piers and harbours which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. That confirms my suggestion earlier that an economic survey should be made of the effect of the St. Lawrence seaway on these areas.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that should have been done by your government long ago.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that interjection. It was begun by our government. If the minister will look at what was done by the St. Lawrence seaway authority at the time he will find that a survey was started and, as I indicated in an earlier debate, the only reason it was interrupted was that the person who had charge of it was placed on the tolls committee. My suggestion made several months ago was that that survey be continued.
Another survey was started by certain economists at McGill University. They received funds from a United States foundation. Their survey had to do with the effect the seaway would have on the Montreal area within a radius of 100 miles. I do not know where that survey stands at the moment but nonetheless I believe that a survey 57071-3-59
Supply-Public Works
such as was started by the former administration should be continued by this administration. If it were the minister would then have before him a uniform plan to indicate where these moneys should be spent.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he trying to make out that the former government started such a survey?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not trying to make it out. I said that an economic survey of the effect of the seaway on the various regions of Canada had already been started, that all the material for the survey was gathered at that time and that the person responsible for the conduct of the survey was appointed to the tolls committee and his work was interrupted.


Howard Charles Green: What department of the former government started the survey?


Lionel Chevrier: The St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Howard Charles Green: Again this has nothing whatever to do with the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course it has. I am trying to indicate now that there is no plan in the Department of Public Works for the development of harbours along the seaway route. That is what I am trying to indicate. What I said was that I have no objection so far as what has been done is concerned. On the contrary, I have supported it because I believe that the seaway will bring tremendous development to the ports of Ontario including Hamilton and Toronto. But I am saying that the amount of expenditure by the government should also take into consideration ports along the lower St. Lawrence and what is in the estimates now is not sufficient. It does not take into consideration the development of seaway traffic because if the seaway is going to be completed next year and if there is to be the volume of traffic that the economists say there will be, namely 30 to 35 million tons, there should be development of port facilities not only with respect to the harbours under the national harbours board but also the harbours that fall within the jurisdiction of the minister. That is why I was saying earlier and repeat now that in order to spend the money profitably and economically there should, in my opinion, be a survey made of these ports.


Mr. Crouse:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
930	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In arranging this survey was there any thought given by the former government to the protection of the Canadian shipping industry having regard to the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: The St. Lawrence seaway authority did not deal with the Canadian shipping industry. The authority was a crown corporation that had two things to do. One was to expropriate property from the port of Montreal to lake Erie for seaway purposes and the other was to build a canal 27 feet in depth. So far as the seaway authority is concerned, it had those two things to do. It began to do them, I presume it is continuing to do them, and from what I know it is continuing to do them well, efficiently and according to schedule.
As to my hon. friend's question, I was not then a member of the government but nevertheless I know a royal commission on coastal shipping was established by the former government the object of which was to deal with that and problems of a like nature. That commission has made its report and the other day I asked the Prime Minister whether or not its recommendations were going to be accepted by the government and implemented through legislation at this session. The Prime Minister replied that he did not think there was any time to deal with legislation arising out of that commission's report.
To come back to what I was saying, it seems to me that if the suggestions I have made were followed there are ports along the lower St. Lawrence which would be entitled to greater facilities than are now provided in the estimates. For instance, I think of the tremendous amount of iron ore that is going to go up the St. Lawrence. It has been estimated that the first year the seaway is open to traffic 10 million tons of ore will move up it. It has been estimated that during the second or third years 20 million tons of ore will move up the seaway. Are there the requisite facilities at Seven Islands and adjacent ports to deal with this additional volume of traffic?
All I am trying to do is to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I started off by saying that I hoped I was not going to inject the same contentiousness into my remarks as the minister did in his earlier today. Apparently I have succeeded in arousing his ire.


Howard Charles Green: Oh no, nothing like that.


Lionel Chevrier: That I did not want to do. I know the minister wants to be fair. I simply wanted to bring to his attention the fact that he should deal with all ports in the same manner, and in order to do that it


seems to me that the best way is to have a survey or study made. After all the minister cannot, because of the thousand and one things he has to do in his department, determine what facilities are best for what ports. Someone has got to advise him, either a board of engineers or an economic commission of some sort. It is for this reason I say it is still not too late. This can be done quickly because of the material that has already been gathered.


Howard Charles Green: It has already been done for practically all the ports.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad it has. If it has, I hope the results will be available to those of us on this side of the house so we can ascertain, for instance, what considerations are being given to Seven Islands for instance where a railway is already in existence; what considerations are being given to Baie Comeau, where there is heavy industrial development; what is being done at Sorel and Three Rivers.


Howard Charles Green: Three Rivers is under a
national harbour board.


Lionel Chevrier: I am interested also in the other ports along both shores of the river.
My purpose in rising was, first of all, to discuss power development. The chairman has ruled that I am not in order in doing that. I shall try to find another occasion to do it. My other purpose was to ask the minister to give careful consideration to the ports east of Montreal, to see that the requisite facilities for this new traffic are provided to these ports in the same fashion as to all other ports in Canada.


Mr. McCleave:: In the few minutes I shall take in this debate I hope to bring gladness to the hearts of the minister and his officials who are looking around for worthwhile public works projects in Canada. My suggestion will concern the trans-Canada highway and the amendment of the regulations which set out the route of that highway. The purpose of this amendment would be to enable the highway to become truly transCanadian in character by reaching that fine city of Halifax. It is possible that this highway neglects to approach other cities across Canada, and if so I hope I may speak on behalf of those cities.
I would suggest to the minister that he consider the advisability of extending from the trans-Canada highway a series of trunk approaches of the same standards as the highway, which would reach such cities as Halifax and other cites of importance throughout Canada. Perhaps it could be done under a formula that cities of more

than 100,000 population should be considered as cities to which access approaches from the trans-Canada highway should be constructed.
I might say to the minister that by extending the trans-Canada highway to Halifax it would involve the construction of some 60 or 70 miles of road from Truro. This road would pass one of the new large international airports now being constructed in Canada, and would have the advantage of providing a fine new road to the largest market in the maritimes. Perhaps it would help to cure our transportation problems.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time since this government took office that we have an opportunity to take up the estimates of the Department of Public Works.
We know that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) is a man of great ability and experience. We had proof of it when he was sitting on this side of the house. I must congratulate him on the work he is doing. We know also that he is a very busy man and that, besides being minister of Public Works, he is the government leader in the house. In fact, rumour has it that he might consider relinquishing the public works portfolio and devote his full time to the proceedings of this house. We hope to have him around for a long time yet.
However, the Minister of Public Works is not the only hard worker in that important department. He is ably seconded by a parliamentary assistant who is also very devoted to his job. I would not like to miss this opportunity to extend my warm congratulations to all the officials in the Department of Public Works, from the senior officials down to the lowliest employee. This department has a large and competent staff, men on whom we can rely at all times. They are sincere civil servants. Therefore, the hon. holder of that portfolio need not worry; we will try to co-operate with them.
This morning the minister attempted to demonstrate that the estimates for his department were a great deal higher at this time than they had been in the past. However, if we take a close look at these figures we will see that this year the extra amount provided is hardly 27 million dollars, even if we take into account the fact that the supplementary estimates for 1957-58 amounted to 16 or 18 million dollars, because this year, in the supplementary estimates, we find an amount of approximately 15 million dollars.
The fact remains that this department is the one which, on a large scale, looks after construction and acquisition of land. In fact, if 57071-3-59$
Supply-Public Works
we have a look at the table which is provided with the estimates, we see, to begin with, that the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport are involved to the extent of 107 million dollars in the estimates for the Department of Public Works. That is the highest amount voted for construction and purchase of land. Next comes the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, where the corresponding amount is only 30 million dollars.
I said a moment ago that the Department of National Defence assigns $100 million to the purchase of land and construction of buildings, that the Department of Transport assigns $86 million to the same ends, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, $30 million, which mean that approximately $216 million are administered by those other departments.
I distinctly remember that in 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, when the Minister of Public Works was sitting on this side of the house, he kept on saying that all those acquisitions and building expenditures should have been undertaken by the Department of Public Works. I wonder if the minister has taken steps or prepared a plan to have all construction undertakings come under his department or, at any rate, under the Department of Public Works. The minister probably took steps in that direction and, when he answers the questions raised by the previous speakers, he will probably be in a position to tell us if, in the future, his department should undertake all those construction works for the government.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) raised a rather interesting question having to do with protective works along our navigable waterways. This is an important and fairly complicated problem; the fact remains that those protective works, in the case of navigable rivers and lakes, come under the Department of Public Works. I understand also that, for the government to be responsible, the damage suffered by the riverside owners, along these navigable rivers and lakes, must be caused by navigation, although there is no exact definition about that.
The Harricana river, which runs through my riding and that of Chapleau, is a navigable stream. The officials of the Department of Public Works are well aware of the situation and admit that springtime flooding, due to heavy rains, causes considerable damage to the farmers' properties along the river and on the edges of the lakes forming its basin. The municipal councils of my riding and of the neighbouring one contacted the Department of Public Works, and officials recognized

Supply-Public Works
that this damage was considerable. On the other hand, I agree with them that, if some draining must be done, that matter is a responsibility of provincial authorities.
Since this river is navigable, if the provincial government lowered its level to the point where navigation would become impossible, I believe the federal government should assume its responsibilities.
I have already referred, with some insistence, to this project, but since it was actually a case of drainage, the federal government had not seen fit, in the past, to undertake the necessary works to solve the situation along that river. So I would urge the Minister of Public Works, now that his party is in power and in very good terms with those who run the business of the province of Quebec, and especially the premier of that province, to get in touch with that government, which in turn could undertake the dredging at the rapids downstream from the city of Amos. The federal government through its Department of Public Works, could then undertake the construction of a lock to control the flow of water.
I admit that, in some cases, the control of waterways is under provincial jurisdiction, for instance, when water storage or similar projects are contemplated. However, when it is a question of controlling the course of a river in order to promote shipping, I say this comes under federal jurisdiction.
Therefore, the provincial government necessarily has first to undertake dredging operations in the rapids downstream from Amos, at the outlet of Peter Brown lake. Once this work is completed, the federal government will be able to build a lock in order to control the flow of the river. In this way it would be possible to avoid the considerable damage which is caused all along that important river.
The project has been discussed for a long time. I ask the hon. minister again to give serious consideration to the matter. I know his officials went out of their way about it, but they did not manage to come to an agreement with the provincial authorities. I think nobody is in a better position than the Minister of Public Works to approach the provincial authorities, so that the project may be carried out soon.
I agree that we could be told: "Why did you not carry out this project before?" Well I have given an explanation, as I have admitted that the federal government cannot undertake to control this river before the dredging and drainage work is done. I therefore count upon the goodwill of the hon.

minister for getting our good friend the prime minister of 'Quebec, to agree that his department of colonization should first tackle the dredging work.
I note that the speech from the throne stresses the fact that it is proposed to accelerate construction work with regard to harbours, rivers and public buildings. Well, it might be one way to implement this project which the people of the ridings of Villeneuve and Chapleau have always looked forward to.
And now, Mr. Chairman, if we compare the figures of the table accompanying the estimates of 1958-59 to those of 1957-58, we realize that the minister was rather a little too enthusiastic this morning when he said that his department had undertaken considerable works-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, from estimates of the Department of Public Works to the subject of corporal punishment is quite a transition. However, I hope that hon. members are interested in the subject and that they will have something to say on the bill.
For some obscure reason we in Canada in the past have been somewhat loath to get away from corporal punishment, even though we are one of the few remaining countries in the free world that still retain this system of violence in the treatment of criminals. It is not so many years ago that criminals were ofttimes given sentences that involved capital punishment, the rack, the stake, the iron maiden and items of that nature. But year by year the countries of the world have been getting away from treatment of brutality and violence and changing to more modern and civilized systems or methods of taking care of the criminal element. Here in Canada we have still retained two systems of corporal punishment.
One is the lash and the other is the strap. To those who have never seen the lash-it has been commonly called the cat-o'-nine-

tails-I would explain that it has nine nylon quarter-inch cords attached to a handle. The strap is made of leather. It is sixteen inches long, two inches wide, and is attached to a ten-inch handle. On some occasions there are eight holes punched through the leather. So, Mr. Speaker, you will realize the laceration that results when the strap hits the flesh because there are holes in the strap. I do not know how many members of this house have been sufficiently interested in our institutions of penology to visit the jails and penitentiaries in order to examine what is known as the "hole" or "solitary", and to see the room where corporal punishment is administered and the equipment used. It is worth seeing from the point of view of anyone who is interested in penology and in the treatment, custody and rehabilitation of the criminal element.
When a person, as a result of a judicial sentence, or as a result of the findings of a warden's court, is subject to corporal punishment by means of the lash or strap he is taken down to a very small room, his feet are strapped to a metal plate fixed on the floor, he is stretched over a table and strapped to the table so that he is completely immobilized. Then there is a wide leather belt which is placed over the kidneys, because if either the lash or the strap were to strike the kidneys with sufficient violence it would maim or kill. If the penalty is the lash, it is received on the bare shoulders; if it is the strap, on the bare buttocks. By regulation, a doctor must be in attendance at all times in case it should be found that a person has not the physical ability to take the punishment. That is corporal punishment in Canada.
As I say, we are one of the few remaining countries in the free world to retain it. As a matter of fact, I was amazed to discover that we are one of only three countries which still retain corporal punishment of any nature. This is one of the reasons why I think this house should give some consideration to its abolition, particularly as part of a judicial sentence.
It is obvious from the experience of other countries and from the researches that have been made in our own country that corporal punishment is not a deterrent to bad behaviour or to criminal tendencies. It has been amply proven, in my estimation, by all the research which has taken place in this country that the tendency of corporal punishment is to make the person upon whom it is inflicted more antagonistic towards society and the law than he was before. Over a period of 25 years I have visited a great many of the jails and penitentiaries of this country. I have spoken to a great many men
Criminal Code
who have received the lash or the strap. I have spoken to them individually, and I have spoken to them collectively with the warden and the deputy warden of the penitentiary present. It was on very rare occasions that a person who had received corporal punishment said it had done him any good. In almost every case they said it made them bitter and antagonistic and worse behaved than before. I have spoken to those who had received only four or five strokes of the lash or paddle, and I have spoken to those who have received as many as 160 strokes over a period of time. The conclusions were always the same.
This is not only my own personal experience, but it is also the finding of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which for a period of three years investigated this matter of corporal punishment along with capital punishment. The members of that committee did not personally interview those who had suffered corporal punishment, but the committee did authorize its counsel to meet personally and confidentially with a number of individuals who had received corporal punishment and who, on release from the penal institutions in which they had been confined, had become rehabilitated. Counsel was instructed to obtain on a confidential basis their reactions to this form of punishment. It is most interesting to read the testimony which was reported back to the committee. Naturally, all names have been deleted because these men did become rehabilitated and in the majority of cases they now hold respected positions in the communities in which they live. For this reason the individuals concerned are referred to as "Mr. A", "Mr. B", and so on. I should like to read to the house the evidence of these men who had experienced either the lash or the paddle, as given to the counsel who interviewed them, and recorded in the transcript of the committee's proceedings:
Mr. "A"
He considered it had done him no good . . . He repeated several times that the strap had no effect in controlling his conduct within the institution or outside of it and he stated that he knew of several instances where a man was strapped and turned around and committed the same offence again.
Mr. "B"
He said that corporal punishment was like strapping a person every once in a while to show a person who was boss; it was no way to reform a man. Corporal punishment was much worse than the "hole".
Mr. "D"
He reiterated that it had not done him any good, and stated that only a minority of prisoners ever got the strap and most of them seemed to get it more than once.

Criminal Code
Mr. "E"
He reiterated that the strap had neither done any good or harm to him. He thought that corporal punishment showed the futility of trying to control outbreaks in institutions.
Mr. "F"
He did not think that the threat of corporal punishment would keep him out of trouble in any institution if he was not treated as he thought he should be treated. Other forms of punishment were more effective, and corporal punishment did much more harm than good.
Mr. "G"
His own recent experience in penitentiary indicated that there were better means of punishment than the strap. The loss of good time, the deprivation of various privileges, hurt more than having corporal punishment.
Mr. "I"
This witness stated that for a time after corporal punishment he was extremely hostile to authority and to his fellow inmates, and it was apparent that talking about his experience almost 19 years later aroused considerable emotion in him. He felt it was a degrading punishment, and the fact that it was degrading aroused violent hostility.
Mr. "J"
He claimed the strapping had not influenced his subsequent conduct in institutions. It had not affected his conduct outside of institutions because his two most serious crimes had been committed after the strapping. He attributed his successful rehabilitation to the fact that he had learned a trade during his penitentiary sentence and that he had "just got fed up doing time''.
For him, solitary confinement and deprivation of diet were much more serious punishments than the strapping. He stated however, that other people could take solitary confinement in their stride. Strapping, however, simply provoked hostility and the desire to get even and did no good by way of reforming the conduct of an inmate.
Those remarks, sir, are taken from the evidence presented to the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries. I am convinced that if hon. members will investigate this subject, study the history of penology, have personal conversations not only with those who have received corporal punishment but also with psychologists, psychiatrists, wardens and guards they will be informed by them and will reach the conclusion that corporal punishment serves no useful purpose because it merely creates antagonism in the mind of the individual receiving it. In most cases the antagonism does not arise because of the physical suffering but because of the degradation involved in this barbarous form of punishment.
I think it is safe to say that in recent years the policy of the Department of Justice has been to have our penitentiaries serve to the highest degree possible as means of training and rehabilitating those who are incarcerated therein because they have broken the
[Mr. Winch.l
law of society. In my visits to such institutions over the years I have found a great change. In recent years more is being done in terms of offering the inmates psychological analysis, psychiatric advice and training in morals, socially acceptable behaviour patterns and social responsibilities. It seems the height of stupidity to spend the amount of the taxpayers' money we do in attempting to rehabilitate these men and make them useful citizens and then because of the brutality involved in the principle of corporal punishment undo in a matter of minutes the good work that has been done.
The irony of this situation is emphasized when we read some of the sentences that are brought down by learned gentlemen of the bench. I am glad to say there are only a few judges in Canada who follow the practice but we sometimes do read of a learned judge who in passing sentence on an offender stipulates that in addition to a term of imprisonment corporal punishment is to be administered on two separate occasions. I read of an instance of that only recently. A young man was given a short sentence and ten strokes of the strap to be administered on two occasions.
I invite hon. members to consider what takes place. A young man is sentenced to an institution and approximately two weeks after admission receives half the number of strokes of the strap stipulated in the sentence he has been given. For the balance of his imprisonment the warden, deputy warden, guards, chaplain, teachers and psychologists combine in an effort to make him a useful citizen, teach him a trade, give him a new outlook on life and orient him from anti-social to social behaviour. And then what happens? Just before the boy is released he must undergo the degradation of having the balance of his sentence of corporal punishment administered. His feeling of resentment and hostility toward society returns and all the good work has been nullified in a matter of moments. This process has been described to me on many occasions by wardens and deputy wardens and others in the penitentiaries I have visited across Canada. It is time that we began to use a little common sense in this regard.
I would have very much liked to bring in a bill which goes further than the one before us and perhaps I should have done so, calling for the complete abolition of corporal punishment in Canada as part of a judicial sentence and as a means of discipline inside a penal

institution. However, there has been a noticeable decrease in the use of this form of punishment within institutions. There is now a regulation in effect under which the commissioner of penitentiaries must consider each case when a warden imposes a sentence calling for corporal punishment and must decide whether or not it will be administered. The result has been that corporal punishment is falling into disuse as a disciplinary measure within penal institutions. This form of punishment in Canada is in almost the position it is in in Great Britain in that it is used within an institution only in the event of an inmate displaying violence in an attack upon a guard or another inmate or where he is responsible for major wanton destruction of property. Because of this fact, and because I am one who if he cannot get a full loaf will take half a loaf and then try for another half later on, I have brought in the bill that is before us. I feel there can be no objection on the part of any hon. member to a measure which calls for the abolition of corporal punishment as a part of a judicial sentence. It has been abolished in the United Kingdom. As far as I am aware, South Africa and Canada are the only two countries in the free world where corporal punishment is a part of a judicial sentence.
I recall very well the words of one hon. member who spoke exactly one week ago today concerning capital punishment. He definitely gave the impression that he was in favour of its abolition but he thought the recommendation should have come from a joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place. I am certain that he and all hon. members will appreciate knowing that the abolition of corporal punishment as part of a judicial sentence was the unanimous recommendation of the recent joint committee of the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate which met over a period of three years.
On the basis of the situation that obtains in other countries, on the basis of the recommendation of the joint committee of the parliament of Canada and on the basis of one other fact which I will mention in a moment,
I urge hon. members to support the principles of the abolition of corporal punishment as part of a judicial sentence.
Article 5 of the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the United Nations and supported by Canada reads as follows:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Criminal Code
In view of this provision in the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations which has been accepted by Canada it is difficult to understand how Canadians could give formal approval to that provision and yet retain corporal punishment under our criminal law.
Therefore, sir, because of the fact that all civilized countries, and in particular those that have a modern prison system, do not make use of corporal punishment, because that indicates we have no need for it and because of all that I have tried to put forth in a few words, I hope hon. members will see fit to support this measure.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I say quite simply that I find myself in favour of the principle of this bill and in sympathy with the objective at which it is apparently aimed, namely the deletion from the Criminal Code of all the provisions which sustain what in my opinion are useless and obsolete measures designed to inflict corporal punishment on persons who are sentenced to that punishment. [DOT]
So far as I can ascertain-and I think I differ slightly from what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)-there are four countries which still retain that method of punishment, which include the state of Delaware, the Union of South Africa and apparently what was formerly Egypt, and we rank with them in occupying that unique position of still keeping corporal punishment on our statute books.
My own personal opinion is largely derived from my experiences over a period of some 30 years in the practice of my profession in defending people who were charged with offences which included this punishment in addition, of course, to the other punishment of imprisonment. While I have struggled to achieve the reputation of not appearing for anyone who was guilty, I am afraid from time to time I found judges and juries who could not agree with me in that point of view: but when I had occasion to appear for anyone charged with such an offence I inquired with the greatest measure of anxiety as to this question of punishment and the possible effect it might have on the individual who was charged and, of course, the effect it might have on society as a whole. I do not think you can possibly separate the two. You cannot put the individual

Criminal Code
charged with the offence in one corner like a boy who is put in the corner as a dunce in the schoolroom and say that he is separate and distinct from society because the punishment which is inflicted upon him is bound to have an effect on society as a whole.
The measure of that effect is difficult to estimate accurately, but there is no doubt that over a period of time it could have a serious effect upon his family, his business associates, his friends, all the people with whom he might come in contact, not only at the time but for many years afterwards. I consider, therefore, that any such punishment could not effectually achieve any beneficial result which would overcome the bad results.
From time to time I have also had occasion to discuss this question with judges. My experience has been that the question of infliction of punishment is one of the most onerous of the responsibilities of any judicial officer. Once the verdict has been brought in, the question of what should be done is one which I think greatly exercises the minds of all those who sit upon the bench. I have always found that they have been willing and anxious to go into all aspects of the background of the individual and the basis of the commission of the crime. In fact, they will discuss any matter at all which may have any bearing on the question of punishment. As a result of this discussion and my own experience I feel quite definitely that there is no beneficial effect to the retention on our statute books of this particular punishment.
May I say this, sir? Usually when a request or a suggestion is made that a certain enactment should be deleted or abolished the onus largely lies upon those who make the suggestions; but I would say that is not the case here. Here is a question of a form of punishment which is so repugnant to our sense of what is normal in human behaviour, so opposed to what we consider as being the concepts of decency and propriety, that I would suggest that, in assessing the various arguments, the onus lies upon those who suggest that the punishment should be continued to convince this house that this is so, and they have a difficult argument to carry.
The basic purpose of punishment, of course, is deterrence. You say, in effect, that if such and such a crime is committed, then the individual committing the crime shall be punished for it. I would suggest, sir, that every illustration of the commission of that crime is an illustration of the failure of that punishment to achieve its objective. I may be met with this answer: how many cases may there

not have been where the commission of that crime was prevented by the fact that there was in the statute books a provision that if you commit the crime you would be punished. The answer to that, of course, is a difficult one to ascertain. I would suggest that even the late Dr. Kinsey, with his peculiar propensity for eliciting unpleasant information for statistical purposes, would find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain from individuals the fact that they had contemplated committing a crime but had failed to do so because they realized there would be certain punishment. I would suggest that you might possibly divide those people who commit crimes, or contemplate committing crimes, into two classes. This is an over-simplification because I am inclined to the opinion that there are as many types of criminals as there are crimes committed. But let us suggest for the purpose of argument that you might divide them into the class of hardened or callous or professional criminals on the one side and on the other those people who through stress of emotion, without premeditation, have come to commit some act which is contrary to what our laws prescribe. In the first instance I doubt very much whether those criminals carry around with them a copy of the Criminal Code and consult it prior to the commission of any offence. I would suggest that if they did the only effect would be to make them more careful, more cautious, more inclined to take measures to prevent detection. As for the second class, the crimes which they commit are not those which are committed with previous thought being given that they would be committed. They are not the type of persons who have knowledge that a certain act is punished in a certain way and therefore that knowledge would prevent the commission of that offence.
I am reinforced in that opinion by what I have read in a book entitled "The Gallows and the Lash". The author is Mr. W. T. McGrath. I should like to read briefly from it because it sets forth in a more concise and apt way the sentiments I have tried to express here. On page 72 there is the following:
With the co-operation of the Home Office and New Scotland Yard, we have been able to analyze the subsequent records of 440 persons who were convicted of robbery with violence during the period 1921-1930, and in appendix III of this report the subsequent record of those flogged is compared in detail with that of those who were not flogged. Of the 142 flogged, two have subsequently been convicted of a second offence of robbery with violence and in a third case a charge of robbery with violence was dropped when the offender was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude on another charge founded on the same facts. Of the 298 who were not flogged, three have since been re-convicted of robbery with violence: but two of these men were mentally unstable and it seems very doubtful whether either of them would have

been restrained from committing the second offence if he had been flogged on the first occasion. So far as these 440 cases are concerned, it appears that a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude without corporal punishment was no less effective in deterring the offender from committing a further offence of robbery with violence than a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude combined with corporal punishment.
Again, on page 81 there is the following:
For the most part, corporal punishment is ordered for those who have either committed a crime of violence such as armed robbery, assault or rape, or for those who have committed a sex offence interpreted as disgusting, such as sodomy or incest. The people who commit these crimes are those least likely to benefit from corporal punishment. They are the emotionally unstable, probably aggressive people who will only react with further violence. As far as sex offenders are concerned, these people are unable to control their emotions and will commit further crimes even against their own wishes.
There probably are unusual people who would respond favourably to corporal punishment, but they are very difficult to identify, and certainly no court has the facilities to select them . . . Any possible deterrent effect is further weakened by the necessary time lag between the crime and the infliction of the punishment. If the offender could be punished immediately he commits the offence he might connect the two, but there is delay while he is awaiting trial, and further delay of some weeks to allow for appeal; only then is the lash administered. By that time, the connection between the crime and the punishment is not very clear.
Again, Mr. Speaker, referring to the report of the parliamentary committee to which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made reference, there is in my opinion a very significant table on page 43 giving the number of convictions in cases where corporal punishment might have been inflicted in addition to the normal punishment of imprisonment and also giving the number of cases where corporal punishment was actually ordered to be inflicted. I think the two figures of significance occur in the years 1931 and 1954. In the year 1931 there were 1,360 cases where corporal punishment could have been inflicted in addition to penal servitude and there were 165 cases out of that number where corporal punishment was actually ordered to be inflicted. In the year 1954 we find that there were 2,344 cases where corporal punishment might have been inflicted and actually only 14 cases where the judges who imposed sentence thought it fit as a result of their deliberations to impose corporal punishment.
From these figures I would derive the impression that the people best qualified and whose duty it is to inflict this means of punishment have come to the conclusion over the intervening period of time that flogging does not have the effect of deterring or reforming. I would suggest that these circumstances be borne in mind when considering the effect of the proposal before us.
Criminal Code
Finally, I have it in mind that there are still quite a number of jurisdictions in Canada where police magistrates can be appointed without necessarily having the qualifications to exercise the functions of a judge which in my opinion they should have. That being the case, and bearing in mind that in my experience 90 to 95 per cent of criminal cases are actually tried at the magisterial level, I would be most reluctant to see continued a state of affairs whereby we put into the hands of these possibly unqualified people the right to inflict punishment of this kind. For these reasons I am in favour of the principle of the bill and feel obliged to support it.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, corporal punishment should be abolished. I make that flat statement because as soon as we start to talk about degrees of corporal punishment we are in deep water. I agree that corporal punishment should be abolished entirely not only in our courts but also in our penal institutions as well as in the home. I was raised in a home under a father of the old school whose word was law and any exhibition of normal boyish enthusiasm was frowned upon. However, I was also made aware at a very early age that both my father and mother loved me very dearly. Therefore any bad effects which corporal punishment may have had upon me were dissolved by love and kindness. So far as my moral welfare since that time is concerned, those of the old school might argue that I was a reasonable person because I had a stern father. I refute that argument and say that in so far as I am socially mature, it is because I had loving parents.
If we apply what I have said to the present problem I think hon. members will have to agree with me that corporal punishment is long out of date. The mores of a community are usually established long before the laws are adjusted to fit those standards. If we look at the history of the world and the history of law we see that there is a strange parallel between the reduction of cruelty and the advancement of democratic principles. Where there is dictatorship there is cruelty. Where there is freedom there is mercy. It is extraordinary that we should have to labour this point in a Christian community but we do. People who are of the old school will quote scripture but Shakespeare says that "the devil doth quote scripture to his purpose".
I think corporal punishment is a very evil thing and should be uprooted. Those who say "spare the rod and spoil the child", are trotting out the words of the old testament in order to uphold this old, worn-out argument. Those who really want to see progress

Criminal Code
will say "forgive thy brother until seventy times seven". This represents forgiveness across the board, and therefore it rules out entirely any argument which may be put forward regarding vengeance.
I maintain there is no room in the modern world for vengeance. There is only one excuse for corporal punishment, and that would be that it would be a deterrent to crime, either individually or collectively. In so far as the individual is concerned, and I can only speak for myself of course, I do not believe that corporal punishment ever did me any good. I have never seen any case where it ever did anybody else any good. There may be occasions where it has, but they have not come to my attention. I speak in this connection as a result of some experience, because I have been directly and indirectly connected with law enforcement, being an officer of Her Majesty's peace forces for some 23 years.
I cannot see that fear of corporal punishment is very much of a deterrent. I would say also that in order to understand how to prevent crime we should understand the causes of crime. In my opinion, the greatest single cause of crime is lack of affection, and the second cause is lack of money. These two causes often go hand in hand because in a poverty-stricken home there is often little affection.
I come now to the underprivileged. According to the statistics which I have studied, and I have looked through this large volume of evidence collected by the investigating committee, 90 per cent of the crimes of violence are committed by the underprivileged. These are the crimes which, upon conviction, generally lead to whipping. The greater percentage of these people come from what I might call economically underprivileged homes. It is difficult to secure statistics on affection, and for that reason I concentrate on the economic aspect. I think it is true, and I have observed this in my own experience, that crimes of violence, robbery and theft, arise from these two sources. The people accused come from broken homes in which there is no affection or from poverty-stricken homes.
When a man is poverty-stricken I think he will do nearly anything to get enough money to survive. If we could do away with poverty and near-poverty, I am quite sure that, regardless of any ideologies which may be involved or appear to be involved, we would do away with a major cause of crime. In so far as punishment is concerned, I do not believe the threat of corporal punishment would deter anybody from stealing if he is hungry. I do not think it would keep

him from stealing if his loved ones were hungry. Therefore, the punishment of a man who has stolen because he is hungry or because his loved ones are hungry can be nothing but revenge. It will not prevent the crime.
There is another situation which arises, and it is this. Supposing he steals once and we punish him with the lash. I think that we are pushing him farther into the mire. All our efforts should be directed towards raising him out of the mire. We can only do that by convincing him that he is wrong and society is right. We may be able to show him, with patience and with true understanding, that society is right. Society can only do this by, first of all, forgiving him for his offence and, secondly, trying to show him some way out of the position in which he finds himself.
There has been a great change in penal institutions and in punishment. We no longer inflict what some people call barbarous sentences of punishment such as they inflicted in the British navy a little more than a hundred years ago. Still, I claim that the infliction of the lash is cruel, regardless of the weight. These engines of torture which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) described to us-you cannot call them anything else-are horrible. I have seen them. I would not want any human being to be punished with those instruments, particularly when he is tied on the table and unable to defend himself. He feels he is already in the clutches of the law. Then, too, there is a possibility, and it may only be a possibility, that he has been unjustly arrested and hastily tried and then condemned to this inhuman punishment.
I will agree there is a great deal of difference between a brutal sex offence-if such an offence is ever committed by a sane man- and purse snatching or pocket picking. Nevertheless, I maintain that the lash should never be used because we can never be sure that this person actually committed the offence. Certainly, we can never be sure we know what went on inside his mind while he was committing it. I do not believe it is a common thing for a peace officer in this country to arrest a young man for the joy of arresting him, but he could be overzealous. It is not a common thing for the prosecuting counsel to persecute a man in our courts, but it is possible and it has been done. Then, we do not know the mental background of this person, this boy or young man, because as we know we do not flog the women.
I might digress at this point for a moment or two. We do not flog women, and why

is that? We all agree that this age of ours, hard and materialistic as it may appear to be, is still chivalrous, that is the main reason. We give women equality in many ways, economically, socially and legally, but we still maintain women should not be flogged. We say that we are chivalrous, and when we say this we really get back to Christian ethics. We do not flog women today because that is one of the standards to which we adhere. If it is wrong in the light of our Christian principles and chivalrous attitude to flog women, then certainly it must be wrong to flog any prisoner. He is entitled to some consideration. He is not able to stand on the field of battle, with his lance out, and fight us on equal ground. Once he has been arrested and is in the toils of the law, he is very much an underprivileged person. I can see no argument in favour of deterrents strong enough to offset that one basic principle.
The great reformers have gone into this matter since the time of Plato. An Italian gentleman by the name of Beccaria did much to modernize the criminal law of Italy and of that of the whole of Europe. He was followed by Montesquieu the noted French political philosopher and contemporary of Voltaire. These men, who lay behind the French revolution, at least pointed up the need for reform in Europe and brought reform a little further along the line. Jeremy Bentham in England took up the cudgels against the cruelties of the law and he brought the movement along further. He lay behind great reform movements in English law. He in turn inspired men like Wilberforce who said, "If slavery and cruelty to human beings is wrong in England, it is wrong all over the world". The fires spread. Lincoln took up the torch and made himself an immortal name for carrying this cause further yet. After all, one of the worst features of slavery is the possibility that another human being can inflict corporal punishment upon you.
I will get back, gentlemen, to the first argument. Corporal punishment should be abolished in its entirety. We cannot fool around any longer with degrees of corporal punishments; it is wrong from A to Z. I for one must cut across party lines, or all lines, and favour the passing, at any time, of any bill which will prevent one man from being brutal to another.


William Heward Grafftey: Business of the House
premature to pass it at the present time. The Liberal government brought down the Archambault and Fauteux reports. I am not criticizing the commissioner of penitentiaries or the penitentiaries commission when I say that Canada as a nation is woefully behind in matters of prison reform.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting leader of the government what the business of the house will be for next week?


Mr. Monieiih (Perih):: Mr. Speaker, the house leader asked me to announce that
Monday would be private members' day. On Tuesday the business will be item No. 5 on the order paper, the NORAD agreement; then item No. 8, which has to do with the resolution in my own name; and item No. 2, a resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the acting leader able to indicate what the business will be on Wednesday?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. McGee: Questions
1.	With respect to how many cases heard by the exchequer court is judgment at present under reservation?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the conclusion of the trial?
3.	In each instance, what is the subject matter of the case?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):
1. Twenty-nine.
2 and 3.
No.
Style of cause
Judgment	Nature of
reserved	action
1.	100035	
2.	89809	-10
	93194	
	89811	-12
3.	74311	
4.	93109	
5.	113407	
6.	101209	
7.	98065	
8.	123615	
	126313	
	126316	
9.	132099	
10.	133946	
11.	133777	
	133778	
12.	133924	
13.	119071	
14.	40568	
15.	136965	
16.	137519	
17.	129929	
18.	137147-8-9	
19.	138948-9	
20.	136650	
21.	85907	
22.	135196	
23.	144073	
24.	132683	
25.	134478	
26.	136158	
27.	131126	
28.	130094	
29.	128771	
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Western Leaseholds Western Minerals *
Commissioner of Patents	
v. Minister of National Revenue
McPhar v. Sharpe	
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Her Majesty the Queen	
Minister of National Revenue v. Frankel Corporation....
Distillers Corporation v. Minister of National Revenue.
Plimley Automobile Co. v. Minister of National Revenue. . .
Interprovincial Pipe Line Co. v. Minister of National Revenue
Her Majesty the Queen v. Peninsula Press	
Building Products Ltd. v. BP (Canada) Ltd	
Minister of National Revenue v. A. Manasteri	
Minister of National Revenue v. J. Manaster J
Alma Catherine Burns et al v. Minister of National Revenue.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Twin City Boat Co	
Durand v. La Patrie	
Canadian Admiral Corporation v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs & Excise	
Tuxedo Holding Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue...
Minister of National Revenue v. Bower	
Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue	
Sheddy v. Minister of National Revenue	
Her Majesty the Queen v. Brisette	
Siseoe v. Munn	
Semet Solvay v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs & Excise	
SS Giovanni Amendola v. Powell River Co. Ltd	
Bayridge Estates Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue..
Javex Co. Ltd. et al v. Oppenheimer Bros. & Co. et al..
Western Leaseholds v. Minister of National Revenue	
Clover Leaf Bedding Co. Ltd. v. Ideal Upholstering Co. Ltd.
Her Majesty the Queen v. H. J. O'Connell et al	
Her Majesty the Queen v. Hall	
Jan. 12/56
Jan. 18/56
Feb. 17/56 Apr. 20/56 Feb. 1/57 Apr. 15/57 Apr. 16/57
Oct. 22/57
Oct. 29/57 Dec. 6/57 Feb. 4/58
Feb. 4/58 Feb. 7/58 Mar. 7/58
Mar. 12/58
Mar. 17/58 Mar. 21/58 Mar. 25/58 Mar. 26/58 Apr. 9/58 Apr. 10/58
Apr. 15/58
Apr. 15/58 Apr. 23/58 May 7/58
May 8/58 May 23/58 May 27/58 May 30/58
Patent
Revenue
Patent
Compensation
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Expropriation Trade mark Revenue
Revenue
Contract
Copyright
Tariff board appeal Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Damage Trade
Tariff board appeal Admiralty Revenue Tariff board appeal Revenue Patent Damage Expropriation
PUBLIC building, ville st. Georges, que. Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister 
Question No. 62-Mr. Racine:	of Pul,lic Works):
Have steps been taken by the Minister of Plans and specifications are being prepared Public Works to call for tenders for the public ant* it is expected that tenders will be called building in Ville St. Georges, Beauce county? early in July, 1958.

Monday, June 9, 1958