1958-06-13

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on a news report in this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail to the effect, and I now quote:
*-that the Canadian ministers were cool to Macmillan's plan to create a one thousand million dollar fund for loans to help the economies of underdeveloped countries.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister feels that is something he would wish to deal with, but it seems to me to be a straight question of policy.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport, now that he is back, received a telegram from the president of the Quebec and district labour council protesting against the layoffs of employees working as machinists' helpers in the C.N.R. shops in Quebec, Charny and Chicoutimi? If so, has the minister taken any action to see that those employees are reinstated?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I have not received such a telegram.


Maurice Bourget: I have a supplementary question. Owing to the fact that the minister has answered that he has not received this telegram, could I send him a copy and would he care to take action?


George Harris Hees: 
Maurice Bourget: I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the numerous lay-offs which have occurred in the past few months, would the minister consider arranging a special meeting with the C.N.R. management to deal with this whole question of C.N.R. lay-offs?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned some time ago in making an announcement in this house, the Canadian National Railways are employing an additional 5,000 men this summer. That is two or three times the number of people they will be laying off. The number of people re-employed or given summer employment will be several times the number it is necessary to lay off because jobs simply do not exist for them, and every priority will be given to those who are laid off with respect to this new employment program of the C.N.R. this summer.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the minister. What action is being taken by the C.N.R. or by the minister with reference to the layoffs to which my hon. friend has referred? During this week there have been two or three such lay-offs. Has any action been taken, or is any action being taken, by the C.N.R. or by the minister with reference to those lay-offs?


George Harris Hees: As I have told members of this house, and I will be glad to point this out again to the hon. member, before any layoff is carried out every possible means of keeping the man employed is examined.. He is laid off only when there is simply no work for him to do. As long as there is any possibility of employing him in his job he will be so employed. If there is any chance of his being employed on the additional work being provided through the summer maintenance program, for right of way maintenance
1108	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and so on, then he will be given top priority for such employment. I do not think any hon. member can believe that the Canadian National Railways are acting in any way that is not completely fair in respect to this whole matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not suggesting that they are, but I would like to know if the minister could tell us how many of these people who are being laid off are being re-employed?


George Harris Hees: Just as many as it is possible to re-employ in the new work that is being undertaken this summer, and just as many as are willing to do that kind of new work.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: trust I am in order, Mr. Speaker, because I want to rise on a question of privilege. When my bill to amend the Railway Act was under discussion yesterday afternoon the Minister of Transport, as reported at page 1075 of Hansard, said as follows:
I have discussed the amendment with the board and its opinion is that the Railway Act already gives the board jurisdiction to prevent unwarranted reduction of train service and to entertain applications and complaints of municipalities and other interested parties regarding the adequacy of existing train service and any changes that may be proposed. In a word, the board considers that the amendment would not give to it powers that it does not now hold.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to quote from a letter I have received from Mr. C. W. Rump, acting secretary of the board-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would first indicate what is his question of privilege.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister misinformed the house with respect to the value of my amendment. The minister claimed my amendment did not give the board additional powers, but the letter from the board indicates-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -that it would have given additional powers.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that is a matter which should have been disposed of in the debate yesterday. After all, it is a question of opinion and argument. The hon.


member and others spoke in the debate. This question of privilege is raised with respect to something which was said in that debate, and which was said before the hon. member closed the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: May I rise on this question because, unfortunately I was not here yesterday. I looked at the statement made by the minister and that made by the hon. member who is now raising the question of privilege, and it was not possible for the hon. member to raise this question yesterday during the course of the debate. He has here in his hand, I am informed, a letter from the secretary of the board of transport commissioners indicating a position contrary to that taken by the minister. I feel he should be allowed to put it on the record, and the minister should be allowed to make a statement indicating what his position is vis-a-vis that of the secretary of the board of transport commissioners. I believe this procedure would be as fair to the minister as it would be to the hon. member.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: May I point out that in this debate yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West made his opening speech. The Minister of Transport also spoke, and the hon. member for Kootenay West closed the debate. That was his chance to bring up any answer. Surely he is not entitled to do so now under the guise of a question of privilege and make a further reply to something that was said yesterday. If he had other material he should have brought it to the attention of the house yesterday.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was going to ask the minister a question. Would he consult with the board and inform the house who is correct?


Mr. Speaker:: I will permit that question to be asked, but we are departing from the point of privilege which I want to dispose of now. Assuming the minister's statement was not correct, it still does not present any question of privilege that I am able to see. There is no reflection upon any member of the house or on the house or its proceedings. It seems to me that what the hon. member is really trying to do is reopen the debate. Unless he has some further point I cannot see that this matter can be raised as a question of privilege.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My point of privilege is this. The opinion which the minister gave to the house had a disastrous effect on the support given to my bill.

Hon. L. 3. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition): With great respect, sir, is it not a question of privilege if a minister inadvertently misinforms the house about a bill upon which a vote is to be taken, and in that way influences the vote on that bill?
Hon. George H. Hees	(Minister of
Transport): Perhaps I can clear this up. Yesterday when I spoke in this house what I said was based entirely on information given to me by the board of transport commissioners as to what their powers and responsibilities are in this matter. What I said still stands. The privileges of municipalities, according to the information given to me by the board, are as I said in this house yesterday. There is not one word of what I said yesterday which I would feel requires to be changed in any way, shape or form.



RIGHT HON. HAROLD MACMILLAN INCLUSION OF ADDRESS TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT IN PROCEEDINGS OF TODAY

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: May I ask the leave of the house to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
That the address of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Hon. Harold Macmillan, before members of the Senate and of the House of Commons in the chamber of the House of Commons this day, together with the introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons Debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[For text of address above referred to, see appendix, pages 1149-54.]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement of the head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerning the number of people who are falling into arrears in their monthly payments on mortgage loans, would the minister consider making a public statement on this matter setting out the government's position on a moratorium on foreclosures in cases where illness or unemployment is a factor?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a report, I understand, of a meeting held by a committee of the other house. I rather think the report is a bit sensational. Certainly I know of no such situation as serious as this report would indicate. As for a moratorium, that would come under the jurisdiction of the respective provincial governments.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works arising out of the answer he gave to the member for Port Arthur.
Will the Minister of Public Works not reconsider what he said with regard to the jurisdiction of this parliament in the matter of obligations owing by individuals to the crown in the right of Canada? What my hon. friend said with regard to moratoria generally I am sure is correct. General moratoria obviously arise out of the jurisdiction of the provinces. But will he not give consideration to his answer and perhaps on Monday or at some other time give a correct interpretation which clearly is that relief from obligations or debts owing by individuals to Canada come within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East is always very plausible, especially when he thinks he can make a little trouble for the government. As a distinguished lawyer he knows just as well as I do that the question of imposing a moratorium rests with the provincial governments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice, who is a distinguished lawyer, if he will give consideration to this question?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member might consult the law books himself, and he will And that on this occasion he is wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the attitude the Minister of Justice takes with regard to giving legal advice to the house-an attitude which I may say is in accordance with the traditions of his high office-would he consult the law officers of the crown?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for
mo

Inquiries of the Ministry Kootenay West redirected my attention to a question he had asked me on May 22 as recorded at page 340 of Hansard, which I took as notice. I apologize to the hon. gentleman for having been so long in giving him a reply. The hon. gentleman's question was as follows:
In view of the fact that the government of British Columbia is giving consideration to the assessment of yacht club wharves and boat houses for taxation or exemption, and in view of the fact that such publicly-owned marine facilities might properly be considered as aids to navigation, would the minister inform the house whether under these circumstances such aids to navigation come within the jurisdiction of the federal government?
My understanding is that the hon. gentleman's question arose in connection with wharves, etc., on the lakes in the Kootenay area. Perhaps I should just say a word as to the position which has always been taken and which I also take as to the propriety of the Minister of Justice giving what are, after all, legal opinions on public matters in this house. As adviser to the government it is not proper for the minister to give legal opinions on public matters to the House of Commons; his task is confined to that of advising the government.
Therefore I can only answer the question in a very general way by saying that the jurisdiction of the federal government in waters such as these is confined, as I understand it, exclusively to matters of navigation. The question of the right to tax could only be determined if and when any legislation or other action to impose taxes is actually passed or taken.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, to whom perhaps it should be addressed, arising out of a report from Washington to the effect that arrangements have been made between the United States and United Kingdom governments by which United Kingdom forces may now use atomic weapons made in the United States. Are there any such arrangements covering Canadian forces?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I will take that as
[DOT]notice, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: 

HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingaie):: I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works is in a position to table the correspondence I asked for yesterday.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I find that there is voluminous correspondence which will take some time to have copied. I have no doubt that the hon. member already has copies of the correspondence he requires.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the hon. gentleman himself read the correspondence?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that is a very personal matter.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 328. General administration, $8,536,892.


The Chairman:: The Department of Public Works, vote No. 328; this item will be found on page 67 of the blue book, the details on page 457.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I must begin by apologizing to the minister for my regrettable and unavoidable absence last Friday; but in my capacity as the member for one of the constituencies in Newfoundland I felt that it was desirable to visit my constituency.


An hon. Member:: For a change.


John Whitney Pickersgill: While I was there I had an opportunity to investigate the speed with which certain of the public works were being carried on in that province by the hon. gentleman's department. I was rather astonished, I must say, on reading the minister's opening statement in Hansard for last Friday, which I have done rather carefully, to find that the minister was taking great credit to himself and to the present government for the acceleration of the works that are being carried on across the country by his department. I would not presume to express any view about acceleration in most parts of the country, but I do know that in the province of Newfoundland, where we have had what I am told is one of the earliest springs on record and where there would have been an opportunity to get ahead with work very early this year, there is a deplorable absence of starts on any of the public works about which I was able to inquire.
I must say I am very pleased that the hon. gentleman has seen fit to make provision for certain works in the town of Bona-vista, works that are very badly needed, works that were planned by the preceding administration.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: And never proceeded with further.
Supply-Public Works


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will come to that in a moment if the hon. gentleman can possess his soul in patience. I noticed that the minister also made a good many references to the St. John's harbour development, about which I intend to say a word shortly. The one thing that is conspicuous about the St. John's harbour development is that so far as I can see nothing whatever is happening about it outside of the newspapers, where there is plenty happening.
Now, sir, I think there is no doubt that in one way the minister's statement as found on page 901 of Hansard for Friday last is quite correct. When he talked about accelerated construction, I think there is no doubt that is true in this very limited sense. I believe it is common knowledge-I do not think the minister would deny this for a moment-that when the present administration took office last June they thought the boom was going to continue and they hoped that by stopping public works wherever they could, decelerating wherever they could and slowing things down generally, they could make an apparent saving and justify the claims they had made during the 1957 election campaign that they could save half a billion dollars.
I give the minister full credit for realizing, around October or November, that this was a very unwise thing to have done, and about October or November the government very belatedly began to rush ahead with those projects which had been delayed, in some cases for three or four months. The consequence was that they were able to show quite a considerable record of activity in the winter months, activity that should have taken place last summer. In that sense, and in that limited sense only, the minister can claim some credit for accelerated construction.
I think the minister's claim, also found on page 901, that 97 per cent of the allotments for the year 1957-58 had been spent, is a very creditable record indeed. I think it is a remarkable achievement. In my opinion it is a great credit to the efficiency of the department and its officials, and all the greater credit to them because of the pause last summer. But I should like to remind the members of the committee that these estimates, of which 97 per cent was spent, were the estimates of the Liberal government of last year; and what the minister said at page 901 is a great and deserved tribute to the administration of the department by Hon. Robert Winters and to the care taken in treasury board by Hon. Walter Harris in seeing that honest estimates were made. There can be no possible credit to the govern-

Supply-Public Works ment except-and I give them this gladly- credit for rather belatedly going ahead and carrying out that Liberal program.
It is also well known that at the time the estimates were prepared a year ago last December-I refer to the last estimates prepared by the Liberal government-it was realized that there was still a great deal of private construction going on in this country of a character and volume which gave grounds for concern about its inflationary effects, and that the view taken by Mr. Harris and concurred in by all his colleagues was that only essential public works should be undertaken, notwithstanding the fact that perhaps at times in the past, in years when there was an election, governments had not taken that view.
In the light of that fact and in the light of the fact that in 1957 there was so much private construction in contemplation-most of which, in fact was carried out in 1957, as the figures for the whole year show-it seems to me that the increases in the estimates for 1958-59 are very disappointing indeed, because we were led to expect something different.
Perhaps it does not matter what we in the opposition were led to expect, but the country was led to expect, and millions of people in this country were led to believe, by the speeches particularly of the Prime Minister, that we were going to have something entirely new, something entirely different in the way of a public works program to meet the current recession which the Prime Minister discovered only in January but which was known to the rest of the country as early as November of last year. We were led to believe that we were not going to get a public works program of the character which had been carried on in boom days, in the Liberal days, namely a program of the ordinary essential works. They must be done, of course and there is all the more reason for doing them now than there was a year ago. But we were led to believe that some vast new program which was going to deal effectively with unemployment was going to be presented to this parliament at the earliest possible date.
When the Minister of Public Works very graciously agreed to have his estimates come up for consideration first, I think we hoped that we were going to see the unveiling of what was to be the realization of stage one of the "vision". But what do we get? We get just the same ordinary routine public works, with practically no acceleration at all and with practically no substantial increase in their volume.
I have made an examination of the estimates, and in this matter I perhaps have an advantage that some hon. members on this side of the house may not have, because
[Mr. PickersgiU.l
I served on the treasury board for a number of years and therefore possess a little background information about this matter. On examination of the estimates one can see very clearly that there is in them nothing new at all that was not in the planning stage, and well known to be in the planning stage, over a year ago. Of course the hon. member for St. John's West admitted that quite honestly the other day, and we give him full credit for his candor.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: That was in another debate which was finished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure that his colleagues were altogether pleased by it. That fact is apparent not merely as to the works that are in the estimates to be done this year, but I looked very carefully over that list of works the minister mentioned at page 907, at the bottom of the first column and the top of the second column.
Again I am not going to talk about things that I really do not know about. In Newfoundland it has been suggested that a federal building to provide accommodation for the unemployment insurance commission, and for the family allowances branch, is contemplated. Of course the minister knows perfectly well that that building was contemplated over a year ago as another step in the provision for accommodation for federal departments, and it was to be phased to begin about the time the present customs building would be well on the way to completion.
At that time I happen to know that a fisheries building was also in contemplation. Anyone who knows anything about the present accommodation of the Department of Fisheries in St. John's knows that a fisheries building is urgently needed. It is perhaps even more urgently needed than an unemployment insurance building, though they are both badly needed. It would have seemed reasonable to have accelerated some of these plans a good deal more than there is any indication of being done here.
Then I look at the buildings referred to for Ottawa. Not only have all these buildings, to my knowledge, been in the early planning stages; some of them were in rather advanced planning stages. The national library is in an advanced stage of planning. It is true that some of these buildings could have been begun a good deal earlier but for one thing.
I think perhaps I should interject a word at this moment so the minister will be saved the trouble of getting up and making the constant retort from the other side of the house, "Why didn't you do it when you were in office?" I will tell the minister-and

he knows it perfectly well-why we did not do a great many of these things when we were in office. We did not do many of these things when we were in office because we felt that only the most essential building should be done at a time when there was a great private building boom, and that the government should not be competing with other builders in bidding up the cost of building. It was felt that there were a considerable number of these projects that were not of the first urgency, though they were important and urgent, which should be carried on as soon as they were needed in order to maintain the level of construction and the level of employment in construction.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons the minister's department was able to spend 97 per cent of its allotment this past year is that unhappily there has been, as we all know, some decline in private construction, especially latterly, and it was therefore somewhat easier to get on with some of these works than it was at a time when it was hard to find architects, hard to get engineers, and hard to get on with many of these projects about which we all know something.
The minister made a reference in my absence, which I found very touching, to the Wesleyville post office.


Howard Charles Green: It is started.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; I know the Wesley-ville post office is started, but unhappily a year later than it would have been started if a certain event had not taken place on June 10 of last year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: What ingratitude.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not ungrateful; indeed, I am extremely grateful to the minister for reluctantly and belatedly going ahead with this project. But during the election campaign my opponent, a very distinguished Newfoundlander, promised that he would have this building built. He did not say he would have it built whether he was elected or not; I will be fair. He said he would have it built. He also said he would have a post office built at Badger's Quay. If the rumours I heard in Newfoundland are correct the minister is going ahead with that project, and I congratulate him upon that fact too.


Howard Charles Green: You may make me change my mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: During the election campaign when I was in Wesleyville I happened to come across the plans and blueprints for the building at Wesleyville, and they were dated May, 1957. They were all ready for the calling of tenders at that time, but the
Supply-Public Works whole matter was delayed until the autumn and then all through the winter. It was an open winter and the building could have been built, and we could have been getting ahead with the Badger's Quay building this year if the plans had not been delayed. However, as the minister has said, I must not be ungrateful and I am very grateful that he is going ahead with it now. I will be even more grateful for the building at Badger's Quay.
Before his estimates have passed through committee I intend to give the minister the names of four or five other places in my riding where postal revenues are roughly equivalent to those at Wesleyville, Badger's Quay and Glovertown-where the previous government built a very good building-so the minister will have something to add to his shelf.
I would now like to say something about St. John's harbour, to which the minister also referred in his speech on a couple of occasions. I would first like to point out a contradiction which perhaps the minister himself did not realize. At page 902 of Hansard for June 6, in the second column, the minister said the following:
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.
Then at page 904 the minister said:
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.
The minister says in one place that tha Liberals did nothing about it and implies that we ought to have done something about it, and in the next place, within the same half hour, the minister says he would not have gone ahead with it either if there were ordinary circumstances, and the only reason he is going ahead is to provide employment under the unusual circumstances which have developed since October last. Even the Minister of Public Works cannot have it both ways.
The fact of the matter is, of course, that this St. John's harbour development-and I give the minister full credit for his part in this development-was undertaken by Mr. Winters on his own personal initiative and I well remember going across the harbour in a boat with him when he pointed out the foreshore and indicated the kind of ideas he thought ought to be developed there. This is very well known in St. John's. At every stage this development has been

Supply-Public Works proceeded with just as rapidly as it reasonably could be proceeded with-by both governments.
I do not, in what I say with respect to this matter, wish to inject any note of controversy which is not already there. However there is, as the minister knows, a dispute in St. John's as to whether this is the best way to develop the harbour, and I want to say in the most non-controversial way I can something about that dispute. First, I must say there is a great deal of disappointment in St. John's-and this was reflected in an editorial the other day in the Sunday Herald -over the fact that there is no work being done on the harbour, and no evidence that work will start on the harbour at an early date.
I was rash enough to say during the election campaign that, in my opinion, there would be no substantial employment, except for lawyers and those concerned with the acquisition of property, on the harbour development during 1958. I will be very happy if I turn out to be wrong, but I do not think I will. At the rate the government is now proceeding that will be the situation.
But to return to the controversy about the harbour development, I do not pose as an expert. Everybody who remembers those terrible years between 1940 and 1945 knows how important St. John's harbour was to the whole cause of freedom during that period and how important it is that St. John's harbour should be developed as a defence measure, if for no other reason, in such a fashion that it will be of the maximum advantage, not merely to Newfoundland and to St. John's but to the whole country, in the event of another wartime emergency.
Of course St. John's is a very small harbour, even in peacetime, but we hope the steady increase in the population of Newfoundland and in the development of resources will mean that the harbour of St. John's will become increasingly busy. It is terribly important, therefore, to make quite sure that whatever development does take place will provide the maximum amount of space for berthing and for manoeuvring in the harbour. Although I am a ship owner I do not, as I say, pose as an expert in these matters; but as the owner of a vessel I am naturally somewhat concerned that there should be adequate space for the berthing of all the vessels which want to use St. John's harbour at one time.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member has just finished lauding the previous administration, of which he was an active member, on the Foundation Company plans for the development of St. John's harbour. Subsequently he told the house something of the controversy which has been going on-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps the hon. member would care to inform the house what stand he takes in this controversy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing me to the point to which I was coming anyway, and I am very happy to answer him. As I was about to say when the hon. member rose, I have no personal opinion as to whether the Foundation Company's plan is a good one or whether the alternative suggested by various distinguished citizens of St. John's is a better one. The only thing I would like to see, and I am sure the minister and the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for St. John's West would agree with me in this, is that this matter should be resolved in a manner which will be of the maximum permanent benefit as well as the maximum immediate benefit to the people of St. John's, the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada.
With respect to nine-tenths of the plan there is no controversy whatsoever. With respect to the development of the south side of the harbour, in so far as I have been able to read the documents-and I do not know whether I have read them all, because the minister has not yet been able to table them, but I have conscientiously tried to read such as have come into my possession-there is no controversy whatsoever, and there is no reason for any delay there at all. The only controversy is with respect to the waterfront between Water street and the harbour on the north side, and that is as to whether there should be a breastwork for the whole length or, I believe the figure is, only for 650 feet. On that point I must say my feeling is that if it can be done it should be done for the whole length, and I think almost anyone who has ever had anything to do with the berthing of vessels would feel the same way.
It is hard not to believe it would be a great deal better to have the whole length of the harbour along Water street developed for berthing instead of having a 2-3 grade, which would make it impossible to bring vessels alongside a good deal of the waterfront.
The main controversy, as the minister knows, and as all hon. members from Newfoundland know very well, is about the

proposed pier for the west end of the harbour as compared with the alternative suggestion that the government should acquire certain piers which now exist at the east end of the harbour, bring them up to date and use them there. As I say, I do not propose to spend any time expressing my opinion on that question because I do not think my opinion would impress anyone. I do not think it would be of any value. I am not an expert, and 1 do not pretend to be an expert.
But because I think the matter is extremely important to the future of Newfoundland, in fact to the whole of Canada, what I do say to the minister most earnestly is this. Surely the .minister could go ahead with the parts of the plan about which there is no controversy and have, as quickly as possible, a really expert investigation in which the proper people from the government would be called; in which Mr. Eric Bowring, who I understand acted as agent for the minister of war transport of the United Kingdom during the war and who had the responsibility of operating the harbour, would be called; in which any other person having any pretentions to real knowledge would be called; in which any citizen who wished to make representations would be called. It does seem to me, sir, that there are a lot of people in St. John's who are worried about this question. They are afraid that if the government do not proceed with the Foundation Company plan they will not do anything. I do not think so ill of the minister. I think much better of him than that.
What I am trying to suggest, sir, is that there is no need to delay going ahead with some parts of the plan while carrying on at the same time a careful investigation into these two controversial points. It does seem to me that all of us, on both sides of the house, would feel better satisfied if that could be done. I do not think there is anything more I can usefully say. I have attempted in what I have said to be entirely non-partisan because, as the hon. member for St. John's East rightly pointed out, it was the previous government that engaged the Foundation Company to make this plan. I am not competent to criticize, and I am sure the hon. gentleman does not think he is competent to criticize, either. However, some people with reputations, who feel they are competent to criticize, have criticized the plan. It does seem to me that it would be better for all concerned to clear this up.
If I may say something that perhaps reflects a little bit on the previous government, we have a situation in Port aux Basques that all of us on this side of the house rather deplore. I do not think those things that have been done at Port aux Basques would have been
Supply^Public Works done by even the present Minister of Transport if he had occupied that position then. What I am appealing to the Minister of Public Works to do is to make sure he does hot do some things which will turn out to be as regrettable as some things done at Port aux Basques. Again, I am not trying to cast reflections on anyone. I am trying to indicate what I think should be done about this problem that is of grave concern to people of substance, people of responsibility, in St. John's
I must say, sir, that I was pleased to hear that the minister is going to have what he called a proper shelf. He said something about that at page 907 of Hansard. Later on in the consideration of his estimates, when he begins dealing with the province of Newfoundland, I shall have a lot of suggestions to make to him as to some things that could be put on that shelf. I hope they will be kept right at the front of the shelf, and not pushed to the back.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: During the discussion a week ago there were several very interesting and important questions raised by different members who participated in the debate. I have been going over them carefully in the intervening period, and I think they can best be dealt with as we come to the individual items.
In so far as the remarks just made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are concerned, some of these also come in this category. They could only be properly dealt with on the particular items. But he did make one statement which I should like to correct at once. He intimated that last summer the new government, on taking office, had stopped public works as a deliberate policy.
I can assure him and other members of the committee that is not the case at all. He is completely wrong in these suspicions. Our attempt to provide employment is genuine. We have not only accelerated work projects but brought in new projects. The Wesleyville post office is a very important example. There may have been plans in the department under the former government, but I assure the hon. member that there was not the slightest intention of undertaking that construction. No funds had been provided for it in the fiscal year 1957-58.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister will permit me, since he has called my veracity into question, to state that I happen to know there were such plans. I say, on my responsibility as a member of the former administration, that I was assured by the previous

Supply-Public Works minister that it was proposed to go ahead last summer with this building.


Howard Charles Green: I have great respect tor the former minister. Hon. Mr. Winters was one of my best friends in the house for many years, and an excellent minister. But I happen to have had the responsibility for the work of the department for nearly a year now, and I say on my responsibility as minister of the department that funds were not provided for this post office in the fiscal year 1957-58. In order to provide work I put it ahead, just as I did with other projects that could be put ahead. As a direct consequence of that action the Wesleyville post office is now being built.
The hon. member is also quite wrong in trying to prove that the government has not a works plan by criticizing what the Department of Public Works is doing. This department is only one of the departments engaged in providing works projects. Other departments which probably provide more money are transport, defence production and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does not come under the Department of Public Works although it reports to me as minister, has provided now over $270 million for the construction of homes. The hon. member, if he is going to criticize the work plans of the government, must attack us on a much broader basis, because the public works department only has part of this program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, if I may interrupt the minister, I criticized the whole of the works program. I am very familiar with what the minister is saying about more than one department being involved. If one examines the whole works program of the government it becomes apparent there is no substantial change from a year ago. The amount is slightly larger, but considering the magnitude of the unemployment in this country it is totally inadequate.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is entitled to that opinion, and it is one which I should have expected him to express; but I think the people of Canada are a little more fair minded than he on this question, and they will agree with me when I say that all the works projects initiated by the government in the last ten months have resulted in a great many Canadians having employment who otherwise would not have had that employment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a question of the minister arising out of what he has just said, Mr. Chairman. Am I right in concluding that he has stated as a matter of fact that


there were no projects and no proposals for public works that had been agreed to by the previous government and for which appropriations had been made that were either cancelled or suspended by the present government when it came into office?


Howard Charles Green: There may have been some small items having to do with protection works in the St. Lawrence area. This was done in order for us to take a look at this whole policy, because in our opinion at least some of these projects were being constructed on a political and partisan basis; for instance, putting a wall in front of the property of a Liberal farmer and not in front of the property of any one else. But I know of no other works which were cancelled or suspended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There were a lot.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the post office building here in Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: There was the question of the building in London of which the Leader of the Opposition is probably well aware. That work has not been proceeded with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What building is
that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the post office building right here in Ottawa?


Maurice Bourget: May I remind the hon. minister of the post office building in Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: Would the hon. gentleman wait until I have completed my remarks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He will tell him about the building later.


Howard Charles Green: Also I think it should be pointed out that the increase in the estimates, including those of the Department of Public Works and the increased work for other departments, amounts to approximately $47 million which in terms of one-man days is roughly the equivalent of on-site labour of
800.000	and off-site labour of 1,500,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Days?


Howard Charles Green: In other words a total of
2.300.000	man days. With regard to new projects, the hon. member said he could not see any new projects anywhere in Newfoundland. I can only conclude that he must have spent all his time chatting with Premier Smallwood, and did not try very hard to find projects.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman should not misrepresent what I said. I said I could not find in the list of new projects he gave any that were not already in the

early planning stages when we were in office; and I would be extremely interested to hear of any project which this government initiated from the very start.


Howard Charles Green: You might have had schemes in the early planning stage, but that is a long, long way from having any men put to work on them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is certainly changing the ground.


Howard Charles Green: There have been 31 new projects in Newfoundland this year. Twenty-five have already started and the remainder will be started very shortly.
The question of St. John's harbour has given me great concern, because I received representations from Sir Leonard Outer-bridge, the former lieutenant governor of Newfoundland and a man of very high reputation, and from Sir Brian Dunfield. These two prominent Newfoundland people have opposed this scheme not only on small grounds- the new pier may have been one feature to which they objected-but they took very strong exception to other features of the plan. Sir Leonard at least wanted a completely new survey and an entirely new plan. Because of my respect for this gentleman, and wishing to do a thorough job in connection with this famous harbour, I sent the plan back to my officials time after time. We would probably have been at work on it now had that not been done. Not only my own officials but those of the Department of Transport and the navy and indeed everyone interested in this harbour has supported the recommendations made by the engineering firm, the Foundation Company of Canada Limited.
Like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, I am not an expert on this matter. I do not even own a rowboat, so I am not an expert on shipping. I do not quite understand how this ex-Manitoban from Ottawa suddenly gets to be a shipping magnate down in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the minister come down .there sometime and see.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad he is learning to like the smell of salt water, anyway. Faced with that situation and with urgent demands from the mayor of St. John's, the board of trade, the general public and the newspapers-and certainly with no objection from the Newfoundland government, which is evidently trying to be neutral in this question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: So am I.


Howard Charles Green: We finally decided a start had to be made. The engineers have been engaged to draw up plans, and we are hoping tenders
Supply-Public Works will be called later in the present year. We will do our very best to see that this job is well done. I am sorry it has not been possible for the people of St. John's to reach agreement as to the type of development they wish. From my information an overwhelming majority of them favour the plan which was submitted to the former government by the Foundation Company of Canada Limited. This is just one of those situations in which we had to do the best we could.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question at this point? I read again only yesterday the correspondence that appeared in the Daily News, of which many hon. members have received copies; and as far as I could discern from reading it-and I could easily be wrong about this-there were only two points of difference. Nobody questions the desirability of the whole development of the south side as proposed in the plan. Nobody questions the desirability of having a roadway across the north side of the harbour to remove the congestion from Water street.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I feel I must draw the attention of the committee to the fact that as I understand it the purpose of this debate on the first item of the department is to discuss the activities of this department in general terms, and that the debate on particular matters should come later when individual items are discussed. For the last half hour or so this discussion has been concentrated mostly on the subject of the St. John's harbour. I consequently believe that the debate should get back to more general terms.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the suggestion made by the chairman is a very wise one. There is an item in the estimates for this, and when we reach it I will be glad to deal with the hon. member's questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to comply with the minister's suggestion. It would have taken me less time to make the only point I had to make, sir, than it took the Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not like to rise twice in the general discussion, but my inability to express myself properly this morning led the minister to misunderstand my question in relation to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I was using the word "moratorium" in the general sense that it is used in war payments and that sort of thing. In reply he suggested that it was impossible for the federal government to do anything about stopping or postponing foreclosures on mortgage loans which were held by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He suggested this was a matter for the provinces.

Supply-Public Works
I think at this time it might be worth while having a statement of the government's position in that regard, perhaps it would be possible for the minister to make a more specific statement than the one he so kindly made several months ago, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was not going to push foreclosures in view of the information that was given in the committee of the other place. I shall read his words:
The corporation did not hear of all cases where borrowers got into difficulties.
If the government, through the minister, came out with a forthright statement in this regard many of those borrowers whom Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation do not hear of would be aware that some action was being taken, and they would not have to be in the position of being foreclosed.
Another point on which I wanted to touch, because it has been brought to my attention, is; this. In the interval since these estimates were last before the house several unions have intimated to me that there is no liaison between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Labour with regard to tenders and the operation of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. As I understand it, on any of the projects which are let by tender by this department the contractor must conform to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. There is a section of the Department of Labour which keeps a record of the going rates of wages of labour in a specific area.
One of the problems that come up is that the Department of Public Works does not check closely into those who bid on and may be awarded tenders, as to whether they have contracts with certain unions; and at times there is quite a conflict between the unions and the fair wage section of the Department of Labour as to just what are the prevailing rates in certain areas. The fair wage act says that prevailing rates must be paid on government contracts. This problem is also evident in Ontario as far as provincial projects are concerned, and officials of two different unions have told me that they find their relationship in the matter usually more satisfactory with the province than with the federal government.
It is almost impossible to get the federal government, the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works, to take any action to see that when a contractor, usually a wildcat type, comes in to bid on a job in an area where he has not his base, he puts in a bid at a rate below the actual contract. Quite often he is able to get away with it because the section of the Department of Labour which keeps the record of the wage

agreements, or the going prevailing rate in those areas, is behind in its work.
We had a case not two months ago in our particular area where the prevailing rates, according to the fair wage section, were $1.40 an hour for timbermen and $1.80 for carpenters, whereas the actual rate in the area as far as the unions were concerned with the bona fide contractors who were signed up by them-and I might say the coverage is almost 100 per cent-was from 40 cents to 65 cents above that. To this particular case a contractor from outside came in and put in non-union labour at this lower rate. When the union protested in order to protect this prevailing rate-you cannot blame the union for that-they were able to get no action at all from the Department of Public Works or the Department of Labour. There was a passing of the buck.
The unions are under pressure from the contractors in this regard. If a contractor signs up with a union at a set of rates which are going to prevail in a certain area he knows that when he bids on a contract he has to take those wage rates into consideration, and so his tender is submitted on that basis; whereas another contractor, who usually is from outside the district and whtf does not have that rate to take care of, cari come in and submit his tender on the basis of lower rates and by doing so can undermine the whole structure. In effect a union contractor, whom we shall call the good contractor, has no sure way of getting some of the public works tenders.
The minister and his officials should consider working out a much closer liaison with the Department of Labour, and make it more clearly understood to everyone who gets a contract that if the wages paid are below the prevailing rate instantaneous action must be taken to raise the rates, and that the contract will be adjusted accordingly, If that were done we would get away from this difficulty. If the minister would like correspondence in this regard and an explanation of why the relationship with the province Of Ontario has been much more satisfactory than with the federal government I will be only too pleased to give it to him.
The minister has brought up again today the point that I asked him to make a statement on, namely the question of patronage. I think before he gets to the specific items of his estimates he Should make a statement on patronage. Perhaps his previous explanation of his determination to wipe it out did please quite a number and gave a great deal

of pleasure to the public. I read this from the Temperance Advocate in relation to the minister:
Our federal Minister of Public Works "cuts no corners on the high principles he established for himself in early life".
There are no curryings of favour or salesbaiting offerings permitted in his office. Such gifts, we understand, are all returned.
We commend the minister for his courage and the definiteness of his witness. The Hon. Howard C. Green is a teetotaler.
Let us have a statement from the minister on this patronage question and what steps he has taken to stamp it out.
The other point that I should like to bring to the minister's attention is this, and this may be a question of patronage or of inefficiency. When we get to the place in his estimates that deals with the central heating plant here and the boilers I expect, Mr. Chairman, that we will get a very clear explanation as to why the central heating plant is flooded with boilers at the present time, some of which are not being used, and at the same time we have some figures in the estimates for more boilers.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in this debate on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. However, after listening to the long, elaborate and glorified statement made by the minister in introducing the estimates of his department on Friday last I felt it was an invitation that could not be turned down.
Before expressing my disagreement with some of the statements made by the minister I should like to express my appreciation for the co-operation received not only from the Minister of Public Works but from the officers of his department, and this applies to the deputy minister, to the officers and engineers in the field. On different occasions I have had the opportunity to follow the work of some of these engineers, and I can assure the committee that they spare no time and effort to solve the difficult problems placed before them.
I regret that I cannot agree with the minister's statements and the emphasis placed on the supposed accelerated program of construction by his department. In listening to the minister on Friday last one might have been inclined to believe that this was the first year that new projects were initiated by the federal Department of Public Works. The Canadian people still recall the Prime Minister's description of those prospective public works projects as a great national development which, to use his own words, "would swing into action immediately and
Supply-Public Works would be part of his party's national development policy." In fact, he called it a very extensive and challenging program. It was to be a program which, in the Prime Minister's own words, "was to ensure the development of our country and to provide as well help to Canadians, work to Canadians and an opportunity for the better things of life." These projects were to total $280 million during the first quarter of 1958 and $1,185 million for the full calendar year.
When we listened the day before yesterday to the report on unemployment given the house by the Acting Minister of Labour, and learned that as of May 31 there were over
500,000	Canadians seeking unemployment insurance benefits, we on this side of the house felt that the public works program was not too effective. At this point I want to mention that we of the official opposition are not rejoicing about the large number of unemployed we have in the country today, because after all if there are 500,000 Canadians applying for unemployment insurance benefits there must be another quarter of a million who are out of work and whose benefits have expired.
When one listened to the minister's roll call of public works projects, followed by the diversified version supplied by the hon. member for Halifax, one might have been led to believe that never before in the history of this parliament had a series of new public works projects been undertaken by the government department responsible for such works. It has been made clear by the hon. member for Levis that the Prime Minister's great vision of a public works program offers very little in new projects of major importance, and it can be termed as nothing but the continuation of a routine departmental construction program, including many Liberal projects already under way such as the St. Lawrence seaway, the northern Ontario pipe line and others.
At this point I should like to place on record the total public works expenditures for the fiscal years 1953-54 to date. In 1953-54 the federal Department of Public Works spent $144,581,000. In 1954-55 the same department spent $157,287,000, an increase of $13 million over the previous year. In 1955-56 the amount spent was $167,865,000, an increase of $10 million over the previous year. In 1956-57 the amount spent was $173,592,000, an increase of $6 million over the previous year, and in 1957-58 the amount spent was $191,426,000, an increase of $18 million over the year before. The estimates for the present fiscal year, including the supplementary estimates tabled in the house, amount to $233 million.
These figures, with the exception of the last one, have been taken from the summary of standard expenditures attached to the main estimates for each fiscal year. The last

Supply-Public Works amount, as stated by the minister on Friday last, shows an increase of $41.6 million over the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958. The increase, however, is only $23 million greater than the increase for the previous year, and we are asking ourselves if this is really the very extensive and challenging program outlined by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign.
The minister has mentioned 236 projects controlled by public works for other departments of the government, of which 168 are new items. This is certainly not the first year that the Department of Public Works has been asked to undertake construction projects not shown in his regular estimates but included in the estimates for other departments. The minister and members of the house know that this practice has been going on for years and years. I have here the report of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1957.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before the committee took recess at one o'clock I was referring to the 236 projects mentioned by the minister which were controlled by the Department of Public Works for other departments of the government. As I have stated, the minister knows, as do the other members of this house, that this practice has been going on for years. I have here the annual report of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1957. I think that it would be a good thing to have a few paragraphs of this report on the record. This report starts as follows:
A considerable increase in activity tor the Department of Public Works was seen in the fiscal year 1957.
I may add that during that fiscal year the Liberal government was in power.
Construction and maintenance work was continued on harbour facilities and protection works, dredging of navigable channels was carried out in harbours and rivers where required and testing laboratories were operated.
Further on it refers to the harbours and rivers engineering branch and states as follows:
Construction and repairs were made to 302 wharves, breakwaters, other harbour facilities and protection works, of which 232 were completed during the year and 70 still in progress as of March 31, 1957. In addition to this, 1,339 smaller projects were undertaken.
This last quotation might be of interest to the hon. member for Halifax. All of this


was done in a period of inflation when material was in short supply and when in many cases labour was not always readily available.
I should like now to speak more specifically of public works projects for the province of New Brunswick. We are aware that in New Brunswick there is today a great deal of unemployment. What major projects have been initiated within the last few months for New Brunswick? In 1954-55 over $1,350,000 was spent in New Brunswick for public buildings and over $1 million was spent in 1955-56. What has been done this year by the government to relieve this serious unemployment situation by public works projects? We see in the main estimates $1,625,000 plus $380,000 in the supplementary estimates tabled a week or so ago. It is true this makes a total of $2 million. However $1 million is for the customs building in Saint John, New Brunswick for which tenders were called before the June 10, 1957 election; $150,000 is to complete the Bathurst building and $100,000 is for the Newcastle building, both projects for which tenders were called before the June 10 election. In fact, they are all projects for which tenders were called by the previous administration, with the exception of $275,000 for Campbell-ton and Grand Falls buildings. The only items for New Brunswick in the supplementary estimates are $380,000 for Newcastle and Saint John, two projects which were started by the previous Liberal administration. Mr. Chairman, that is certainly not an accelerated program of public works for New Brunswick. In other words, if these projects had not been initiated by the Liberal government there would have been no items for New Brunswick in the supplementary estimates just mentioned.
How does the Minister of Public Works expect to relieve unemployment in New Brunswick by this piecemeal program where the people of my province are getting less than their share of public works? The minister may bring to the attention of the committee the sum of $4 million which is provided for in the harbours and rivers engineering services. Here again we see nothing but a continuation of projects initiated by the previous administration, with the exception of a few minor ones. The two main items such as $900,000 for dredging in Courtenay bay and $600,000 for breakwater replacements at North Head are all projects initiated last year by the previous administration and would have been completed this year irrespective of what party was in power.
The minister in his remarks mentioned the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. Here I want to give the government credit for having succeeded in convincing the government of the

province of New Brunswick and the government of the province of Quebec to accept the responsibility of sharing in this new venture. Also in the course of his remarks the minister asked me whether I was against the bridge. I want to make it clear that I am not against the construction of this bridge; I am greatly in favour of the bridge. I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not in his seat at the moment. I have here in my hand the Telegraph-Journal for Monday, May 26, which under the heading "Hon. George Hees officiates for Day's Ceremony" contains an article which reads in part as follows:
Campbellton-A start was made on the Camp-bellton-Cross Point bridge here Saturday when the Hon. George Hees, Minister of Transport, officiated over the dumping of the first load of stone on the causeway.
I wish the minister were here because I am informed-and I should like to check on this information-that the minister was about
1.000	miles away from Campbellton when this project was started and this ceremony took place.
Speaking about bridges, may I say that there is now under construction in Gloucester county a bridge to link Shippigan island to the mainland. This bridge is being built by a private company and when it is completed it will be a toll bridge. It is most unfortunate that the government of the province of New Brunswick has not consulted with the federal government with a view to making this bridge a joint federal-provincial project. After all, this bridge crosses navigable waters in an extremely busy channel which is being used at least two to four times a week by 60 to 70 draggers and a fleet of smaller fishing boats. This is a project which should have been undertaken with the joint co-operation of the federal and provincial governments because it is not right to ask the 5,000 or
6.000	people of Shippigan island to have to pay a fare every time they wish to cross to the mainland.
I would like to refer to projects which are of special interest to my constituency of Gloucester. I realize the Minister of Public Works has stated on many occasions that his government is determined, by means of this so-called accelerated program to help solve the unemployment situation. In my constituency the minister has a golden opportunity to put this policy into practice. We have for example, at Maisonnette, a small village of about 150 families, 35 fishing boats employing about 70 fishermen, but owing to lack of wharfage facilities and shelter these fishermen are limited to about two months of fishing operations per year. This is an opportunity where not only could employment be provided by the construction of additional
Supply-Public Works wharfage facilities but employment could also be provided for these 70 fishermen if a fish plant could be erected there. With proper wharfage facilities there would be no unemployment problem at Maisonnette.
The same problem exists at Lower Caraquet where the old wharf was built 30 or 40 years ago and is now outmoded and practically useless. I would ask the minister to have a complete survey made at Lower Caraquet with respect to the possibility of a new location for a new wharf which could be used to advantage by the fishermen. We also have at Tracadie a situation which should be corrected without delay. The breakwater there also was constructed, at least 25 to 30 years ago and is now practically in ruins. The northern section of it is blocking the channel and this is a danger to navigation. I would urge the minister to give immediate attention to the removal of this breakwater which, as I have said, is interfering with navigation.
In conclusion, I would like the minister to state the position of his department with regard to the improvement of Bathurst harbour. During the last campaign my opponent had prominent advertisements in local newspapers to the effect that he had succeeded in obtaining $3J million for harbour improvements at Bathurst, but there is nothing about this in the estimates and I would like the minister to clarify the situation. The port of Bathurst is in great need of wharfage facilities. In fact there is no public wharf at Bathurst which can be used to advantage and in this period when we still have, at this late date in the middle of June, about 3,500 to 4,000 unemployed in Gloucester county it would be a good time to negotiate with respect to projects of this kind.
(Translation):


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). I think the hon. minister is a first rate politician for, when he introduced his estimates, his speech was more a political one than anything else.
After the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and of all Conservative candidates in the June 1957 campaign, repeated with even greater emphasis in the 1958 campaign, and considering that there were more unemployed in Canada than at any time, except under the Conservative administration of 1930-35, I thought and hoped that the Conservatives would fulfil at least one of their election promises. Unfortunately, such has not been the case.
I have taken a fairly close look at the expenses incurred during the Liberal admin-

Supply-Public Works istration, and find that this department's estimates are only 30 million dollars higher than in the preceding year, and also that most of the projects involved had been prepared by the Liberal government.
However I congratulate the Ministsrs of Public Works, of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Brooks! for awarding a contract for the construction of a hospital on the Smyth road and for actually starting the work on this site. It had been planned by the Liberal government. This hospital is necessary for the proper care of veterans, military personnel and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Hon. members and all Canadians will admit, I am sure, that we are proud of the fact that no other country has a better organized and more respected police force than the R.C.M.P. In fact, during a trip I had the pleasure of making six years ago through fourteen European and Asiatic countries, I heard nothing but praise for our soldiers, sailors and airmen. I am happy to feel that no other country takes better care than we do of our veterans, men who devoted themselves selflessly to the defence of Canada and of all people who wish to remain free.
In my opinion, public works expenditures will have to be increased every year. Because of the increased population and growing prosperity up to June, 1957, new buildings of all kinds will be needed to keep pace with the expansion of our country. The only time when it is proper to reduce the expenditures of the Department of Public Works is in times of prosperity when labour and materials are so scarce that they are better left to private enterprise. However, now that more than 10 per cent of the labour force is unemployed, and that there is a better supply of materials, we had better double the estimates of that department, and provide jobs paying from $50 to $80 a week so that jobless people may enjoy a decent living with their family, rather than pay unemployment insurance benefits amounting to $20 or $25 a week to some of them for doing nothing while thousands of others have exhausted their benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Act, as it is, was passed and put in force under the Liberal administration to assist unemployed people in the winter months. Unfortunately, in Canada there will always be a few thousand unemployed workers during the cold season. I appreciate that but it is ridiculous to find about 400,000 of them in June.
[Mr. Gour.l
One project which in my opinion would provide work for the unemployed of the Ottawa area, which includes the constituencies of Russell, Ottawa East, Ottawa West, Carleton, Hull, Gatineau and Labelle, would be to build headquarters for the armed services in the area of the Rockcliffe airport. I am sorry that the Minister of National Defence is not in his seat because I meant to ask him to try to prevail upon his personnel, as well as upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet, to have this project undertaken at Rockcliffe, where everything is ready, rather than in the vicinity of the Pine-crest cemetery, on the Base Line road, or else at Bell's Corners, as was suggested by some interested people,-which is too far away for water and electric services and where, moreover, no site is owned by the government. This latter site would cost much more and would be very inconvenient for employees.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that such works were not started last year. If the Liberal government had been reelected on June 10, 1957, the projects I have mentioned, as well as the building for the general staff of our armed forces, the construction of a post office and many other public works on Riverside drive would have started last summer. It would have provided jobs for thousands of unemployed of the Ottawa area who are now receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
As I have just said, Mr. Chairman, if the Liberal government had been reelected, all these projects would have been carried out, including the construction of a post office at Eastview which is essential and had, moreover, been decided by the Liberal government. The pentagon would have been built on a lot located partly in the town of Eastview and partly in the city of Ottawa and owned by the Department of National Defence.
If this government does not decide to build immediately on its own site, this land, in my opinion, should be subdivided and each lot sold for about $500 preferably to our veterans, to members of our armed forces and then to civilians. Not more than one lot should be sold to any buyer. The buyer should also be required to complete his construction work within six months. Moreover, I think that all necessary building materials I just mentioned should be manufactured in Canada on a 100 per cent basis. This would give work not only to construction workers, but also to those who manufacture the required material.

As I say, I am in favour of the Department of Public Works doubling its budget, so as to have all essential and useful projects built. The government should launch this program at once instead of indulging in political speeches on the radio or television networks, or here in this house. The construction of these buildings would certainly be a fillip to business in this country, and would give jobs to thousands of unemployed in the building industry as in the plants manufacturing the needed material. It would also help alleviate the plight of the poor unemployed, for at least fifty of them come to me each week to tell me about their difficulties and ask for my help.
Many people have told me they are sorry they voted Conservative. It is therefore in the best interest of those poor people that I am speaking, and even in the best interest of the Conservative party, for, if things thus go on from bad to worse, the people will ask you to resign before your term has expired.
Therefore, I call upon the Minister of Public Works to press other members of the cabinet to get permission to make such expenditures and, at the same time, to ask them to delegate groups of individuals and government representatives who would be entrusted with the mission of encouraging industrialists, both from the commonwealth and from elsewhere, to come and establish themselves in Canada, while urging our own Canadian industrialists to enlarge their plants and open others in order to manufacture those articles which we have to import from abroad. That would be much more advantageous to our Canadians than sending delegations to press foreign manufacturers to come here and sell us their goods, thus increasing by the thousands the number of unemployed.
(Text):


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, in entering this debate for the first time on the estimates of the first time on the estimates of public works, I should like to join with the hon. member for Levis in the felicitations extended to the minister on being selected to assume this portfolio. Speaking personally, I hope that the rumours to which the hon. member for Levis referred are not founded on fact, because I am sure everyone on this side of the house would be quite happy to have the minister continue in his portfolio, at least for the life of this parliament.
Supply-Public Works
On looking over the estimates, and particularly the supplementary estimates, I find that the riding which I have the honour to represent has not fared too badly at the hands of the minister. I want to thank him for the consideration which he has given to the requests I have made of his department. On page 901 of Hansard, the minister mentioned the public buildings of Burin and Harbour Buffet as examples of the projects which had been advanced in order to help out the unemployment situation. If the minister will refer to his records, I am sure he will see that these two projects were provided for in the estimates for the year which ended last March and at least one of them, if not both, had already been advertised and tenders called for prior to June 10.
On page 907 of Hansard the minister said that his department was in the course of building up a shelf of public works. The minister will be happy to note that I am in the course of preparing a long list of items which I am sure will be of great assistance to him when he comes to building up that program. I hope to be able to present that list to him within the next few days.
Before the minister goes too far with the shelf of works, it would be wise for him to consider some addition to his staff because, from my personal observations, I believe there are no public servants in any department who are overworked to the extent they are in his department, particularly in the engineering and architectural branches. I should like to pay my personal tribute to these officials for the sympathetic consideration and the kind co-operation which they have always given to the problems I have brought before them. If the minister did not find any shelf of works when he assumed his portfolio perhaps one major reason for it is that his servants are already too greatly overworked to be able to do much more than carry out the current projects for every year. We know that if a shelf of works is to be maintained it requires much paper work and preparation of blue prints. As much as we would like to have a shelf of works I am sure we do not want it at the expense of the lives or at the risk of impairing the health of the servants of the Department of Public Works. I hope the minister will make a careful study of the work loads which some of his senior officials are now carrying.
As far as the estimates before us are concerned they seem to follow the same pattern as in previous years. The total estimates for this year are only about $42 million more

Supply-Public Works than those of the previous year. I am sure the people of Canada will be somewhat dismayed to find there is not more evidence in these estimates of the great works program to which the Prime Minister referred in his broadcast from Winnipeg on February 12 in which he said that his government had already launched a program which was going to total $11,085 million and that $270 million of that amount would be spent in the first three months of this year. While we admit that this expenditure would be spread over several departments I believe it is reasonable to assume that a great deal more than approximately $40 million of that $11,085 million should be accounted for in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. But if there is no evidence of this huge public works program at the present time perhaps that is just as well because President Eisenhower in a recent broadcast referred to such programs in terms of their being a solution for the unemployment problem as something which would result in a minimum of jobs and a maximum of budgetary headaches later on.
I should like to draw to the minister's attention the special needs we have in Newfoundland particularly in small post offices for more space than is normally required in post offices on the mainland. I do not know how this accommodation is allotted but it is reasonable to assume that some comparison is made with the needs of communities of similar size on the mainland. However, the minister must remember that in most instances on the mainland a mail is received every day while in Newfoundland, and particularly in the coastal regions and in the riding which I represent, a mail is not received oftener perhaps than once a week. Frequently in the winter time mail is received only every two or three weeks and in some cases only every month. When the mail does arrive the local post office is required to handle perhaps ten or 20 times as much mail as would be handled in a post office of similar size on the mainland. I have been in post offices when a mail has landed and know that the postmaster has had no room to turn around and some of the mail has had to be stored in outhouses and in the lobby.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Chesley William Carter: Not the kind you are thinking of.
There is a need for much greater space in the small post offices in Newfoundland than is requ!red in similar stations on the mainland. I should like to plead with the minis+er to reconsider the plans that have already been approved for the public building at Marystown. I know he has had a great deal of correspondence about this

already but I can assure him from my personal knowledge and observations that the space which it is proposed to provide in the new building is totally inadequate. I would also ask him to reconsider the plumbing arrangements for this building which are not at all in keeping with the size and importance of the community. The site for the building is a miserably small plot, big enough only to accommodate the building itself. It makes no provision whatever for expansion which will have to be undertaken in the not too distant future. I urge the minister to completely reconsider this building because at the present time it is not a credit to this parliament or to his department.
In the matter of the acquisition of sites I would suggest that the present policy of delaying purchase until they are actually needed is a shortsighted one because land values are increasing at a rapid pace. Many of the communities where public buildings will be needed in future are growing fast. I have particularly in mind the community of Channel where a public building is urgently needed. Consideration was given to this matter several years ago but for some reason or other for which I have never been able to find a satisfactory explanation the plans never materialized. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to secure an appropriate site for this building at Channel. I would urge the minister to have a survey made immediately and acquire whatever land is available because it certainly will not be available much longer.


Howard Charles Green: What was the name of that community?


Chesley William Carter: Channel-Port aux Basques. It is a twin town but I understand that the latter part of the name is not in best of favour in his department so I left it off.
With regard to the specifications for public buildings I should like to call the minister's attention to the fact that here is a wonderful opportunity to assist local industries which is also one of the best ways of solving the unemployment problem. We have in Newfoundland a very fine birch veneer plant which produces a quality product that compares very favourably with other products of a similar type that are available on the market. This plant does not have an opportunity to tender on public buildings because the specifications actually specify some other product. I understand that the two public buildings under construction in St. John's at the present time, the post office and customs building, are employing British Columbia fir and other products that are no better than what we produce ourselves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a misunderstanding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is perfectly true.


Chesley William Carter: It is a misunderstanding on the part of my hon. friend because he does not know what superior products we do have down there.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I judge by the large exports of fir to Newfoundland that they cannot obtain that quality there.


Chesley William Carter: Anyway, all we are asking for is an opportunity to tender, but there is no opportunity to tender if the specifications preclude it by specifying other types of materials which are produced in other parts of this country. We want to build up our industry. We have our own unemployment problem and here is one opportunity which the minister can take advantage of in the future. I am sorry he did not take advantage of it as far as the other buildings are concerned, but I do hope that he will give attention to this fact in the future.
Another matter in connection with this is the employment of local labour. I am told that at the present time in St. John's a number of riggers are brought in from the mainland and employed on those public buildings at a time when we have qualified riggers in St. John's who are still out of work and cannot get employment. The department should exercise much greater control over the type of products that go into the building and the employment of labour to give the maximum opportunity to local industries and local labour. I do hope that the minister will give consideration to this suggestion.
I thank the minister also for the provision made in the estimates for the matter of Codroy harbour. Although it is not in my own riding it is of great importance to the fishermen of my riding because it provides them with a haven which enables them to prosecute the fishery in the slack season, something which has not been possible for a good many years. I am thankful, too, for the provision of fishermen's wharves at St. Lawrence and at Harbour Breton. These wharves will enable the fishing industry to be prosecuted on a better and a more economic basis than has been done in the past. In Newfoundland we have more need of this type of installation than ever before because of the unemployment situation.
Hon. members will understand that when employment was plentiful on the mainland many of our fishermen forsook the fisheries and sought employment on construction work and in factories, but that sort of employment has dried up and the fishermen are now forced to return to the fisheries. Therefore, they must have these facilities if they are to
Supply-Public Works be able to earn a livelihood from the fishing industry. We have particular needs at Seal Cove in Fortune bay and also at Lamaline and Garnish. In this connection I should like to draw the minister's attention to the need for shallow dredging equipment. The department has been in Newfoundland since 1949 and I understand that they do not yet have any equipment of that type. We need that type of equipment very badly in our province. Perhaps we have greater need for it in Newfoundland than any other province of Canada.
I also ask the minister to give consideration to a wharf at Isle aux Morts. This is a large community which has grown to a phenomenal size and at a phenomenal rate in the last few years. There are over a thousand people there now and they have no public wharf whatever. I know several surveys have been made and it was difficult to find a proper site but I believe a suitable site has at last been discovered. I do hope that every effort will be made to have this project undertaken at the earliest possible date.
As far as the harbour of St. John's is concerned, I have a special interest in it, too, because I live in St. John's and I have lived there for a great many years; St. John's is my home. It is one of the most historical cities in the new world and one of the most important harbours. St. John's is particularly important as a haven and I am going to come out flatfooted and say that I am in favour of the plan proposed by Sir Brian Dunfield and the town planning association. I say that this plan is much more comprehensive than the other one. It will cost more money but I think we should have the best and we should look forward not 10 or 20 years but 100 years in the development of our ports. Any plan that is going to curtail or diminish the water area of our harbour is going to prove to be a very severe handicap in the future. I am not going to say any more on this point now because I hope to deal with it again when the particular item comes up and perhaps speak in more detail at that time.
Before I sit down I want to commend the minister for increasing the miscellaneous grant. I see it has been increased by $200,000 to $1 million but I should like to point out to the minister that even this amount is still very small in proportion to the need. When I came up here in 1949 the grant was $500,000 but costs have gone up a great deal since then. Apart from that, in 1953, I believe, we changed the statute so that only items of $15,000 and over would be separately listed in the blue book, and have provision made for them individually. That greatly increased the drain on the miscellaneous grant
1126	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works because formerly only projects up to $9,000 were financed out of this grant. Now, projects Up to $14,999 are financed out of this grant and since this $1 million is for all Canada, even if the maritime provinces do get perhaps a little more than their share, when it is divided among the separate provinces and is broken down among the different ridings the miscellaneous grant is still inadequate for the demand which is made upon it. I trust the minister will give consideration to these few suggestions I have made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say on this general discussion of public works and perhaps I would not utter them if it had not been for what the minister said a week ago in the rather extravagant claims he made for the program of public works which had been put forward by his government as a cure for unemployment. We heard a lot about this last February and March and I thought perhaps we would not have those arguments repeated in a discussion of the estimates of this department. No one, of course, on this side deprecates the importance of a program of public works in respect of national development. There can be no argument on that score and the public works which have been initiated and completed by the Liberal government when it was in power is an indication of our attitude toward public works and national development.
Nor can one quarrel with the idea that in a time of recession public works can be very useful indeed in creating employment, especially municipal public works, local public works, which can be started quickly, on which men can be put to work quickly and which do not require long planning and a great deal of red tape to be unrolled in federal headquarters before work can actually begin. No doubt economists will argue for a long time about whether public works or tax reductions are most effective in a time of recession. However, that argument is apart from the matter we are considering now because both can make their contribution to what we are seeking, more employment, though perhaps it should be pointed out that one of the difficulties and disadvantages in a great program of public works as a way of curing unemployment is that great expenditures on public works do provide a basis for the creation later of inflationary pressures. I have no doubt that is in the minds of the government when they consider public works because we still have the problem of inflation with us in the midst of a period of recession.
But to put forward as it was put forward, a couple of months ago and indeed was mentioned a week ago, a program of public


works as a cure for our troubles did not make sense then and it does not make sense now. As has been pointed out in this discussion and previously, this great billion dollar program of public works was nothing more or nothing less than a collection of all the public works in the estimates of the previous year, some of which were on the verge of completion, some of which had just begun and some of which were new. To put that forward as something great and new in our public works history was, of course, something which had no basis of reality.
We have had an opportunity now to examine that electoral program of public works in the light of the estimates now before us and that examination certainly confirms the feeling we had at that time that the great billion dollar program was really the estimates of the previous year and that there were a great many things included in that program which had and could have no influence whatever on employment at this time. If members of the committee, as I have no doubt a good many of them have done, will examine the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories attached to the estimates they will get confirmation of the fact that the program of works for 1958-59 is by and large in its amount not greatly in excess of that which covered the year 1957-58.
For instance, taking item 13 of the table, the item dealing with construction or acquisition, the amount voted for 1957-58 was $374 million and the amount in the estimates this year is $380 million, not a very great increase. Under the item for repairs and upkeep-and they were included in the electoral program put forward-the amount this year is $50 million and the amount last year was $48 million. Item 16, construction or acquisition, is a very large item indeed and formed a very large proportion of the billion dollar program that was going to do so much. The amount under that item last year was $548 million and this year the amount is $546 million, a decrease of $2 million. By and large the program in its amount is not greatly in excess of last year. This casts a rather lurid light on this great new billion dollar program of public works.


Howard Charles Green: I think the Leader of the Opposition should point out in fairness that the figures he is quoting now do not refer to the Department of Public Works.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They include of course, some works under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend's department.


Howard Charles Green: This is a summary of all departments. For example, equipment includes

all sorts of things. I think the Leader of the Opposition is not quite fair in trying to intimate that this constitutes the works plan of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to be fair but I would also point out that when the billion dollar plus program was put forward last February it included a great many things which were not specifically public works at all. I am making a comparison between that billion dollar program and the program we have outlined here. I quite agree that a lot of these things I have mentioned do not come under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: This does not include, for example, the over a quarter of a billion dollars spent on housing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not in the estimates at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not included in the estimates we are discussing at all. I am talking about works, whether or not under public works. Surely my hon. friend will agree that when the $1,085 million public works program to cure unemployment was put forward a couple of months ago it included a great many things which did not have any relationship whatever to a new public works program. That is confirmed by the estimates of this year. That is the point I am trying to make.
As the last observation I wish to make until we get to the details of the minister's estimates, may I point out that the minister said this morning that no projects had been delayed or cancelled by the government when it came into power last June, although he qualified that statement a little later in a way which I will indicate. 1 think it is pretty clear in the minds of most of us that when the new government took over last June they were very preoccupied indeed with the desirability of reducing expenditures. They said so and they took action towards that end, and at a time when they were more concerned with that than with the possibilities of unemployment. In connection with the action which they took surely the minister, after reflecting, will now agree that some quite important projects were postponed, if not cancelled. He mentioned this morning that there were only two he could think of and that they were minor ones involving a breakwater in front of a Liberal farm instead of a Conservative farm along the St. Lawrence river or something of that nature and he also seemed to recall a post office or federal building in London, Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: No.
Supply-Public Works


Lester Bowles Pearson: I mean London, England. That was a Canadian building in London, and I can certainly understand the government's attitude with regard to the postponement of that building if it were a question of public works for employment purposes because not many Canadians are being employed in the construction of that building. I know some of the difficulties about that building too which probably warranted some delay.
But last autumn the hon. member for Levis asked a question about this matter, being question No. 182 in the following words:
1.	Has the government decided not to proceed during the present fiscal year with certain of the projects provided for in the main and supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, what projects?
The answer to that question is found on page 2640 of Hansard for December 19, 1957. I am going to read the items. There are a good many of them. Here are some of the projects which were postponed last year: New Glasgow, federal building; Oro-mocto, federal building; Dorion, federal building; Nicolet, federal building; Quebec, postal terminal; Morrisburg, post office; Emerson, Manitoba, customs building; Glacier national park, federal housing; Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, harbour improvements; Pleasant Harbour, Nova Scotia, breakwater-wharf; Port Hood, Nova Scotia, breakwater; Port Medway, New Brunswick, breakwater reconstruction; Back Bay, New Brunswick, wharf extension; Ste. Agathe des Monts, wharf; Ste. Flavie, dredging; Mutton Bay, Quebec, wharf; Pointe au Pere, wharf improvements; Little Cascapedia river, dredging.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that return he has just read does not include an explanation in each case? In fairness, he should have read the explanation. For example, we find this:
Location	Project	Reason
New Glasgow, N.S., Federal bldg. Site unsettled. Oromocto, N.B.. Federal bldg. Site unsettled. Dorion, P.Q.,	Federal bldg. Drawings had
to be changed.
Nicolet, P.Q.	Federal bldg. Site unsettled.
This was not a case of the government cancelling them at all. It was a case of difficulties which had arisen in the course of the work of the department. It is not a case of the department postponing them at all. The Leader of the Opposition should not try to picture them as deliberate postponements.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite true that reasons are given after each of these projects.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition should have read them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But the minister this morning used the argument, as he did last Friday, that in all these cases the government had stepped in to accelerate these projects. There may have been difficulty preventing the acceleration-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, may I say that these works were not postponed, certainly not in the sense that that question was asked. In every single case there was some difficulty in connection with the site or the plans or something of that type. In no way could it be described as the government deliberately postponing a project. These matters arise every year. There will be cases this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are other works, which are not in this list and which perhaps the minister will explain, that have been postponed including the West Vancouver post office, the new Bronson avenue canal bridge in Ottawa, the Ottawa Post Office Department building, the national library, and the national memorial shrine. There may have been good reasons why those projects should have been postponed.


Howard Charles Green: Again the Leader of the Opposition is not being fair. These buildings were not postponed at all. I have never said they were postponed. The post office building was not postponed at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It just was not proceeded with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If it is a question of semantics, I will change my language. These were projects which had been initiated by the previous government but which, for one reason or another, have not yet been proceeded with. The argument that my hon. friend was making, and he made it vigorously and in political terms last Friday-


Mr. Payne:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to this fact. He said that the West Vancouver post office is not being proceeded with. May I say that work has been going forward for the past three months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member will have
a chance to explain his attitude toward these matters. I leave the matter in your hands, Mr. Chairman, but I doubt that it is a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You had better explain your
inaccurate statement that you just put on the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Last Friday the minister
made a great point of the fact-and as I say again, he made the point in political terms; in fact, he gloated over our discomfiture at the time-that these public works had been accelerated, that we had held things up and that they pushed ahead with them. With regard to the magnitude of the program I am trying to point out that no case can be made for any great increase over the last year and with regard to acceleration, that there were some projects which were on the books, which had been initiated, had been planned and for which appropriations had been made but which were not proceeded with, certainly in an accelerated way. Those are the two points I wish to make. I think they are valid points and I think they have a bearing on this whole question of public works, both as something which is important for unemployment and also in respect of the government's position that they have pushed hard to give employment through public works. Neither of those points seem to have been entirely met by the minister in the discussion we have had on this first item of his estimates.


Howard Charles Green: I wish to say just a word
or two. One very good example of a work which was accelerated is the post office in West Vancouver. We got that rushed ahead. The difficulties about the site were settled with the municipality and the work was actually started many months before it would have been started in the normal course. This was done wherever it was possible; it was done in many dozens of cases. I read a list a week ago of works which had been accelerated and I stand by that today.
Some mention has been made by the Leader of the Opposition of the Post Office Department building. I presume he means the one which is to be built on Riverside drive.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: No provision was made in
the 1957-58 estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; there was.


Howard Charles Green: No provision was made at
all in those estimates for construction of that building. There was money used for planning but there was no provision at all for actual construction. The vote was for planning of the building.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How much was the vote?


Howard Charles Green: 


Lester Bowles Pearson: $300,000 for planning only?


Howard Charles Green: There has been absolutely no delay in that building. If we had been in

a position where we did not have the need to create employment, that was one building which would very well have been held off but it is being put ahead for the purpose entirely of providing employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would permit one question? This morning I paid him and the department a tribute for spending 97 per cent of the department's allotment. I am coming to think I made a mistake in doing so. With all that long list of works included in the estimates for last year which were not proceeded with-and I use the minister's own term-surely he does not mean to say that notwithstanding that, 97 per cent of all the estimates for the department were spent.


Howard Charles Green: The figure of 97 per cent is accurate. The department has never before been able to spend anything like that percentage of the vote in a year. We aim to spend 100 per cent but you cannot always do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is impossible.


Howard Charles Green: Every day or so there are problems which crop up. For instance, we can go back to the post office in Wesleyville. In some of the centres we find that people want four or five different sites and that there is a rather violent quarrel in the community as to where it is to be. Things of this sort delay the construction. There are other projects where there have been difficulties of one kind or another and which the department no matter how efficient it might be, in my opinion could not avoid.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is suggesting that these projects which the Leader of the Opposition read out-a quite substantial list of projects, some of which seem to be rather large-constituted substantially less than 3 per cent of his total estimates?


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Bourget: He is getting an answer.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will wait for the answer.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, may I say this. The estimates for 1957-58 had to be reduced by the amount of $2.7 million covering those buildings and other works where there was delay. If that reduction had not been made, we would have spent 95.7 per cent as against the 97 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did not do
quite as well as he claimed to have done.


Howard Charles Green: I did not do it at all. It was the departmental officials who did it, and I think they have done a grand job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do I.
Supply-Public Works


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Order. May I make a sugestion to the committee concerning remarks at this stage of the resolution and I do so without seeking to cast aspersions on any remarks by any hon. member in any quarter of the house to date. I might suggest that we confine our remarks in such a way that they be pertinent to the department and that we do not attempt to refight the last election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those remarks should be addressed to the minister.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I will not try to re-fight the last election. The only thing I would like to say about the little discussion a while ago is that when the minister spoke last Friday he was not quite so ticklish as when he was accusing the previous government of not doing anything with respect to public works. He has a right to be ticklish once in a while because he seems to have so much fun with others.
The last time I spoke my subject was that of protection walls and I hope the minister did take note of the points I raised and that the matter will be referred to the supreme court because, since Quebec says it is the responsibility of the federal government which the federal government denies, we do need some clarification.
Today I wish to mention that there was an understanding between the government and the federal district commission some years ago that public buildings should be decentralized in order to help with the problems of traffic circulation and parking facilities in Ottawa and the surrounding districts. However, some of our new public buildings are being built miles and miles away from the centre of the capital, all on the Ontario side, in spite of the fact that a good part of the territory with which the federal district commission is concerned is on the Quebec side.
Up to now we have been treated as poor relations of a big family, and I want to ask that the minister and his department take a look at some of the beautiful spots we have on the Quebec side which would be suitable for public buildings and would be much nearer the centre of the city than some of the new public buildings which are as much as six and seven miles from the main government buildings. They seem to extend further and further and they will soon stretch far beyond the city limits. Since the public printing bureau was constructed nothing has been built on the Quebec side of the river.
I believe we are still part of Canada and our services are good with the exception of the lack of a bridge, but I trust that the

Supply-Public Works minister will see that a good bridge is built. There are good sites in the city of Hull, both in South and West Hull and there are good sites at Gatineau Point, all of which are near the centre of Ottawa, and all would be suitable for the purpose of decentralizing and alleviating traffic problems as excellent space is available for parking purposes. Such projects would be of great benefit to the people in that area.


Mr. McWilliam:: The minister, in introducing his department's estimates, gave a long list of projects which were said to have been accelerated in order to provide employment. He tried to leave the impression that he was doing great things in opening up a new large scale program of public works which would cure our unemployment problem. The fact is that in large measure this works program was started by the former government and many of the current plans were made by that government.
An examination of the estimates brings forth a much different picture from that painted by the minister on Friday last. This great works program will fall short of relieving unemployment to any worth-while extent. The urban centres may benefit somewhat but the rural centres across Canada will find no relief from the works itemized in the estimates. In fact, the cost of surveys, drafting plans and specifications and the purchase of materials will take up a great portion of the funds allotted leaving, in many cases, only a small amount for actual wages.
With respect to the acceleration mentioned by the minister, I wish to draw the attention of the house to a newspaper article appearing on June 10 last in the Ottawa Journal from which I read in part as follows:
Charge Delay in Government Work
Complaints were registered by building trade union officials in Ottawa today at the delay in the public works department in calling tenders for many millions of government contracts.
The 1958 construction program for Ottawa is estimated at more than $100 million. At the moment there were 200 carpenters waiting for work.
The minister has tried to make quite a play on what his department accomplished in having a start made on the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, between the province of New Brunswick and Quebec, which connects northeastern New Brunswick with Gaspe. The minister, by perusal of departmental files, could ascertain that the previous government some years ago offered to pay its share of the cost of this bridge, but that the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec would not enter into an agreement at that time. The people of New Brunswick, particularly the people of the northeastern part of that province, are very pleased that the governments

of the provinces concerned have finally entered into an agreement so that by means of this three-way proposition a start on the construction can be made.
The minister's remarks with respect to acceleration of public works do not apply to a federal public building at Newcastle, New Brunswick. Tenders for this building were called by the former government and the contract was awarded to the Kenny Construction Company in 1957, over a year ago, but what we find today is just a hole in the ground. The construction bogged down when the old building was torn down. This project would have provided employment during the last winter and during the spring months which would have been very beneficial to the unemployed of the area. The minister will say, no doubt, that delays were caused by a request for a change in the plans made by town officials. In this regard I would like to quote from Hansard November 20 1957, at page 1355, as follows:


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Have steps been taken to begin construction of the federal public building at Newcastle, New Brunswick?
2.	Was a change made in the site of the building?
3.	If so, of what nature?
4.	Did it entail much change in plans and
specifications?
The answer filed by the parliamentary assistant to the minister was as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The town officials made available a 10-foot strip of land to the rear of the crown site and it was therefore possible to meet their request that the building be set back 10 feet from its planned position to help traffic conditions.
4.	No.
Question No. 4, which I should like to repeat reads:
Did it entail much change in plans and specifications?
The answer was no. On January 22 of this year I asked the minister the following question which is found at page 3606 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise as to the cause of the long delay in commencing the erection of the federal public building at Newcastle, N.B.? The answer to order paper question No. 178 on November 20 last led me to believe that construction would start shortly after that date.
The minister's answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I did not receive notice of this question until just as I was coming into the house, and I will have to make inquiries and obtain the answer.
Now, Mr. Chairman, from the facts as recorded in Hansard of last session it is clear that a long and quite unnecessary delay has

taken place. In spite of any excuse the minister might offer he cannot lay claim to acceleration, unless it is acceleration in reverse. Was the handling of this project in keeping with the government statements on their actions to relieve unemployment?
The expenditures in public works for this constituency for the fiscal year amount to $21,000 for the Baie Ste. Anne wharf extension and $40,000 for the lower Neguac wharf extension, two projects that were in the district engineer's plans for 1958 during the former government's term of office.
At this point I should state that North-umberland-Miramichi received several public buildings, many new wharves and wharf extensions under the Liberal government since I have been a member, all of which were designed to assist the fishing industry, shipping facilities and provide buildings for public services. Last year when I raised the question of financial assistance by the federal government towards the erection of a proposed highway bridge at Chatham, N.B., I was advised that the federal government did not assume any responsibility for the construction of highway bridges within provincial boundaries. On December 20 of last year, on pages 2711 and 2712 of Hansard, the following questions and answers are recorded:

Question No. 286-Mr. McWilliam:
1.	During the past two months did the Minister of Transport receive representations from the Chatham, N.B. board of trade, in connection with the highway traffic problem and proposed construction of a highway bridge across the Mira-michi river at Chatham?
2.	If so, did the minister reply to such representations, and what was the nature of the reply?
The reply was tabled by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport and reads as follows:
1.	Yes, a telegram was received from the board of trade.
2.	The following reply was sent:
"Your telegram November 29 requesting survey traffic conditions relative to need for a bridge at Chatham have spoken to several of my officials and must advise cannot find any indication the proposed bridge would be a federal government responsibility. The bridge would be within province of New Brunswick and consequently I would suggest your representations be addressed to the province."
These answers further confirmed, at least in my opinion, the department's policy concerning responsibility for erection of highway bridges within a province. I ask now, does this policy still exist? Has there been any change whatever from the former policy? I should like also to ask the minister if his department ever received a request from the government of New Brunswick for financial 57071-3-72J
Supply-Public Works assistance towards the construction of a proposed highway bridge at Chatham across the Miramichi river.
This matter has been a political football for the past few years. The provincial government has failed to take any action. Newspapers and political aspirants have promoted the view that it is a federal responsibility, in part as a result of the location of the Chatham R.C.A.F. station. The federal Conservative candidates in the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns promised the construction of this bridge. They failed to give any consideration whatever as to where the responsibility lies. These statements misled the voters of the area, many of whom never gave any thought as to which government was responsible for construction or whether it might be a joint responsibility. A decision on this aspect of the problem is necessary so that the parties concerned can direct their efforts along the proper channels.
The minister is familiar with this situation. When he was campaigning last spring the bridge committee of the Chatham board of trade interviewed him. A report in the Chatham, New Brunswick Gazette of May 6 stated in part, and I quote:
At the conference held with Hon. Mr. Green, every assurance was given the committee by Mr. Green that he would co-operate in every possible way and explore every available channel to enhance the erection of this bridge. It is therefore planned that the committee will, if necessary, journey to Ottawa and discuss the matter further with the hon. Minister of Public Works.
At this conference did the minister advise the committee on the government's policy of erecting or giving financial assistance toward the erection of highway bridges, exclusive of the trans-Canada highway bridges, solely within provincial boundaries? If he did state a policy, and I think he should have in order to keep the discussions within the proper channels, what policy did he state? Has the policy changed from last year? Has the bridge committee asked for an interview with the minister? Has the minister invited this committee to come to Ottawa and discuss the matter? The responsibility, in whole or in part, for the construction of this proposed bridge should be cleared up now.
The provincial government continues to draw red herrings across negotiations. They promised a survey five years ago, but no action was taken. Perhaps an indefinite start will be made on the survey on the eve of the next provincial election. In the light of the press report in the Chatham Gazette which I just quoted, the minister gave the bridge committee some very nice sounding words. However, I wonder what they contain? Those words only added to the confusion amongst

Supply-Public Works the people of that area as to where the responsibility lies. If there is a federal responsibility, in whole or in part, then the minister should say so when he answers the remarks made by members on this item and clear up the confusion. I sincerely trust that the minister will state his department's policy in this regard.
As I said before, there is no sign of acceleration of public works projects in North-umberland-Miramichi. There is little hope held out that the promised relief from unemployment through public works will lessen the number of unemployed this year, when it is at an all-time high for this season of the year. Perhaps in the future, next year or the year after, something of a more concrete nature will be provided. In the meantime, I must say there has been no acceleration whatever in this respect in the constituency which I represent.


Mr. Hardie:: I do not intend to follow the minister's example of turning this committee into another election campaign. I should like to deal with some of the matters the minister mentioned in his statement. I have some questions to ask and possibly he can answer them now or have answers prepared for the time when the related items come before the committee.
The minister spent a great deal of time listing the 168 new projects that were supposed to have been started by his government this year. I wonder if he would give us a list of the projects included in that total of 168 where the preliminary work and planning was initiated since his government took office on June 10 last. I do not think it would take nearly as long to list those projects as it did to list those he cited the other day.
We have heard a great deal about acceleration on the part of the government in public works projects and about the steps it has taken to relieve unemployment. I wish to place on the record a part of the statement made by the minister on June 6 as recorded at page 901 of Hansard:
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.
Why should the government not go out of its way? It is its responsibility. You would think it was doing the unemployed people of this country a favour by promoting public works projects during the winter months.
In his statement the minister said that part of the public works program initiated by this government to look after winter employment was the brushing of 150 miles of road from Fort Providence to Fort Rae during the past winter. This project did
[Mr. McWilliam.l

relieve some unemployment in the city of Edmonton. It did bring a little relief to some of the unemployed in the Northwest Territories, too, but we had many people in the Northwest Territories who were unemployed last winter. Fifty per cent of the labour brought in on that job had to be hired through the unemployment insurance office in Edmonton; those were the instructions the contractor received from the minister. He had to obtain half of his labour from Edmonton while people all over the Northwest Territories were unemployed. Bringing them in from Edmonton meant paying their fare from Edmonton to Fort Providence and return and at the same time people living in the immediate vicinity of the project were unable to obtain employment.
I want to ask the minister a few questions and if he cannot answer them immediately he will have an opportunity to prepare answers before the items are dealt with in the committee. My questions relate in particular to the job between Fort Providence and Fort Rae and are as follows: How many men were hired through the unemployment insurance office in Edmonton for this job? What was the average period of employment of these men? What was the cost of transportation for these men going to and from Edmonton? How many men were hired from the Northwest Territories? What was their average period of unemployment? What was the cost of transportation for men hired in the Northwest Territories? What was the total amount paid to the contractor for this job? What was the total acreage cleared on this project? This may seem to be asking for more than one should expect but I do not believe it is. The contractor obtained that job on a cost plus fixed fee basis and his costs should have been turned over to the department in detail. There should be no difficulty in supplying me the information I have requested.
In addition to that I would like the minister to tell us what was the amount paid the Indian affairs branch for the clearing of the same road west of Fort Rae and how many miles were cleared?
The building program for the Department of Fisheries at Hay River is another example I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. It was not started until late in the year, I think around November. Not one man in the town of Hay River could obtain work on that project but men were hired from Edmonton whose transportation costs had to be paid. Meanwhile, skilled carpenters in the town of Hay River were without employment. We in the Northwest Territories do not object to helping the people of Canada but it must be

borne in mind that a serious unemployment problem exists there not only now but every year.
In the list of projects referred to by the minister he mentioned a northern affairs school and hostel at Fort Simpson costing $2 million. That is the total amount for the project. Tenders were called and bidding will close either at the end of June or July. Regardless of the closing date, in order for the contractor who is awarded the contract to make a start on that school this year he has to have his material brought in to the end of steel, or to the end of the highway at Hay River, by September 15 at the latest. I doubt whether construction could be got under way this year to the extent of $300,000 of the $2 million.
The minister made a strong point the other day of how his department had accelerated its planning to such an extent that this year work had started earlier than in previous years. In the case of the school at Fort Simpson work has not started earlier but later than most projects commenced in other years. I have another question for the minister. How much earlier or how much later were the contracts awarded for the Mackenzie highway from Fort Providence to Fort Rae and from Yellowknife to Fort Rae this year as compared to last year?
As far as the increase in expenditures and the $33 million for a road program in the Northwest Territories that the minister mentioned and all this malarkey we heard during the election campaign in my riding-


Mr. Grafftey:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will put you in order in about two minutes.


An hon. Member:: Invite him to meet you outside the house.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If I had to list all the promises made by my opponent in the last election you would find that all the 168 new projects that the government is starting would be located in my riding. I am not going to delay the proceedings of this committee by reading the list of the 168 projects that were promised for my riding.


Chesley William Carter: Don't restrain yourself.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What has happened to this road program? There is less money going to be spent on roads in the Northwest Territories this year than was spent last year. The minister made a big point of mentioning the $12 million Mackenzie highway. This is a job that was started two years ago by the Liberal administration. Up to date possibly 93 miles have been completed and the $12 million was just the remainder of the estimate
Supply-Public Works of the Liberal government two years ago when they started the job.
There are some other questions I should like answered. For instance, I would like to know the amount of the contract awarded to the contractor on the Yellowknife-Fort Rae section of the road last year. What was the amount of that tender? How much was spent on that portion of the road up to the end of March this year? How many miles of road did the contract call for the completion of; how many miles of road have been completed? I am asking these questions now so that the officials of the department may have the answers when the particular item comes before the committee. The minister said the other day that the new government was going ahead with those projects. I say they are all later this year than they were last year. Less money is being provided this year than last year in my particular riding on this northern development program. He did say that the department has rushed ahead at a rate which would have left the former administration breathless and lying on the side of the road. I would say that as far as the former administration being breathless is concerned, I think the minister has run out of wind after his statement the other day. He should not run out of wind now; the stretch drive is the thing that counts. I think he will be out of wind by that time.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the committee very long. Some of us might perhaps not have taken part in the discussion at this time had it not been for the attitude taken by the minister when he introduced his estimates last week. I know all Canadians were impressed when the Prime Minister kicked off his election campaign in Winnipeg with the announcement of $1,185 million of public spending. With the examination of these estimates in this chamber we see that the myth has been exploded. However, it is not with these large figures that I wish to deal today.
As I mentioned, I will be brief. I should like to refer specifically to one item and I seek the approval of the committee to cite this one instance. Last Friday the minister created the impression that the public works projects were being proceeded with with breathless dispatch while in fact many of the projects that I know of have been delayed. I have in mind one specific item, namely the dock at Mattawa.


Howard Charles Green: I rise on a point of order. I do suggest that discussion of this kind should take place on the item. If the hon. member is allowed to go into detail of the dock at Mattawa, then every other member can go
1134	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works into every other item in his constituency. This morning the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate stood over his discussion on the St. John's harbour. It is true it has been the custom to have a general discussion on the first item. This is going beyond that if an hon. member picks out an item and proceeds to talk on it on the general item.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is an astute politician-perhaps I should say tactician-in this house, but I do say he left himself wide open when he mentioned so many specific items in the introduction of his estimates. I prefaced what I had to say by saying that I was going to delay the committee only on one matter.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Since we are discussing the general aspects of the department we should limit ourselves to a general discussion and eventually discuss the individual item when we deal with the items.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, I bow to your ruling, of course, but I do say with great respect that we should be permitted to use one instance only to prove a point that has a real bearing on the general discussion. I think the people of the country will find it rather distasteful that promises of public spending are used for political purposes. We have instances of it here, and I shall endeavour to raise the point again to indicate exactly what I have in mind. I know these are small matters in relation to the billion dollar spending program, or the reported billion dollar program, but they are important in our own area. These small amounts and small docks are very important.
The government should take a new look at the importance of the tourist industry in this country. The construction of those docks is tremendously important. I know docks are important in my part of the country and throughout all of Canada. The tourist dollar that is spent in Canada is one of our greatest sources of revenue. Therefore, I urge the government to take a more generous attitude toward those docks. There was a time when it was felt that the tourist industry perhaps was something which should be catered to strictly at the local level. Down through the years we have gotten away from that point of view.
In connection with those docks I should like to say just one word. It is a development that has perhaps come along with the times. The department should give consideration to the construction of a launching ramp or apron in connection with the construction of those new docks which are built throughout the country. It is not an expensive item at all. To a $10,000 or $15,000 dock it could be added as an extra feature for perhaps a matter of
[Mr. Green.1

$200 or $300. It is a great convenience to the people who use such facilities for the launching of craft that may be transported on trailers or otherwise and I should like to make that suggestion.
In introducing his estimates the other day the minister brought up the matter of housing. I would remind him that I am still waiting for an answer to my question respecting the decision of the government to suspend agency loans. Many people are concerned about this. We perhaps know some of the reasons but I think the house and the country would benefit from a statement in this regard. As I have mentioned before, I know that many of us are concerned about the siphoning off of funds from the smaller cities. It would seem that the government is now going in the opposite direction to some extent because they are now going into areas having over 55,000 people with direct loans for the first time. Some of us are concerned as to precisely what the objective is. Is it control of housing or is it control of the economy? I am not going to delay the house by debating the matter now but I think the government should say what the objective is. I believe sincerely that the government's decision to suspend agency loans for the time being will have a detrimental effect on wage earners in the lower income brackets. In my opinion they will be worse off because banks and other institutions engaged in this type of lending will become more selective with their own money. I would appreciate it if the minister would refer to this matter when he replies.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak only briefly but I thought I should like to take this opportunity to say to the hon. member for Kootenay West how much I appreciated certain remarks he made with reference to the Minister of Public Works. I heartily agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West in the congratulations he extended to the minister with regard, for lack of a better word, to patronage and with regard to what he termed the decentralization policy now being carried out by the minister. Before continuing with these few remarks, and they are going to be brief, may I say that I know there will be cynics in the official opposition who will say that my remarks concern patronage but I think those who will scrutinize them carefully will know better. I can only say that I have sat in the house during the discussion of these estimates and while the speeches of members of the official opposition may look good back home in their respective ridings I think the Canadian people in general are happy that we have a minister who is going to deal with the Department of Public Works in the interests of the Canadian people at large. As I have

said, I concur heartily in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West concerning the minister.
On the question of the decentralization policy in the Department of Public Works I should like to refer briefly to what I had to say in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As found at page 413 of Hansard for May 23, I said:
-whenever it is administratively possible and practicable, decentralized buying and contractletting policies should be carried out. So long as the citizen's tax dollar is being most economically handled, we should stress a program of local work for local people. In other words, fairly justifiable objections are heard when large city firms enter rural ridings to undertake contracts or to carry out works which rural people feel they could do at a cheaper rate themselves.
I fully realize, that under modern managerial techniques and having regard to the way business is generally done today it is very often economical to buy centrally and there are also many contracts that only big companies are capable of handling. But I do emphasize that a certain impersonal attitude has come into what I might call the big business picture. Very often the small man who can carry out works and contracts more cheaply is not invited to tender. Sometimes he does not know how to get on lists. I simply want to commend the minister for his intention to pursue a policy of decentralization. I know that most rural members, in fact, most members whether they be Liberal, C.C.F. or Conservative, welcome the pursuit of such a policy to a greater degree than has been the case in the past. I for one feel that such a policy fits in with the announcement in the speech from the throne concerning small businesses. We have all heard in the speech from the throne-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works is not going to raise a point of order at this time.


William Heward Grafftey: We have all heard in the speech from the throne that the new administration intends to carry out policies that will assist small businesses. I feel this fits in very well with the policy of decentralization in the Department of Public Works.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret interrupting the hon. member but at present he is reviving a debate which has already taken place. I would ask him to deal with the subject now being discussed.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, in making these remarks I feel I am expressing an opinion in which members of all parties can concur, I am expressing the opinion that the following of a policy of decentralization to
Supply-Public Works a greater degree will result in reasonable savings within the department. I have heard so many criticisms from the opposition about various things that I thought I should stand up and make a few remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: You are a nice fellow but you are out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the almost embarrassing congratulations of the hon. member who has just taken his seat make me glow with satisfaction and pride and also remove some of the loneliness in my heart indicated by an hon member speaking last night in another debate. In order to quiet the minister's fears, may I say that I am not rising to make another speech. I am simply rising as a pinchhitter for the hon. member for Port Arthur who has been called away. He has asked me to reiterate two questions he put to the minister both last Friday and today and they are strictly in order because they come within the ambit of policy and administration. He has asked me to bring to the minister's attention his request for a statement from the minister on his views with respect to patronage, past, present and future. Second, he would like a statement from the minister as to the possibility of a moratorium by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to payments on houses and house rentals. With these few remarks I have discharged my duty at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to say this with regard to patronage. If I were to speak on patronage it might take a very long time. We attempt to run the Department of Public Works in a proper, businesslike way. With regard to the other question, may I say that I will deal with housing when we get to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates. However, I would point out to my hon. friend that this stressing of a moratorium is not going to help in the provision of money for the building of homes in Canada and it might very well have a serious effect on the construction of homes and thereby on employment in the country and certainly on the procuring of homes by young couples who need them so badly. I suggest that before questions of this kind are stressed in the house it would be wise to give some thought to the results that may follow by the impression being created that there is about to be declared a moratorium on all mortgage payments. I think most hon. members will agree with me that it would not help Canada very much at the present time to have an idea of that type spread across the country.
1136	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister a question based on some remarks he made when he was on this side of the house. In asking this question I do not want to be contentious in the slightest degree because I am sure that when the minister advanced this suggestion he was serious, just as I am at the moment.


Mr. Macdonnell:: You are never contentious!


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. I am glad to have my hon. friend confirm my statement.
When the minister sat on this side of the house I think he expressed the opinion from time to time that it might be well if the Department of Public Works were to give consideration to taking over from other departments the construction of public works in those various departments. One day when I was passing estimates here having to do with certain construction works in the Department of Transport-I have forgotten what the item was but perhaps it had to do with radio or meteorological services or something of that kind-I recall that the minister expressed the feeling that perhaps it was a duplication of services or even a waste of money that there should be so many public works branches in all the departments of government that had any works of a public nature to perform. In the light of the changed circumstances in the house and in the light of the consideration which he may have had time to give to the matter since he has been over there on that side of the house, I should like to hear his comments. I am wondering whether or not he has had an opportunity to consider this problem and whether he would care to comment on it at this time?


Howard Charles Green: We do most of the governmental construction work. The main exceptions are the work of the Department of Transport and the work of the Department of National Defence. Occasionally we are doing some work for each of these departments. This seems to have been a practice which has grown up over the years. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend was responsible for it when he was minister of transport. The Department of Public Works cannot very well raid the Department of Transport. This is a matter which would have to be decided by the government as a whole. As the hon. member will realize, various practices have grown up for one reason or another in the administrative field. Eventually I would hope that they would be remedied. However, there is close co-operation between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. We happen to share the same office building. We have the very best of relationships with that department and we have great admiration for


the work they are doing. I hope the hon. member will not press me any further for my views as to what should be done on this point.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not think of doing so. I should simply like to say this. I presume there is no intention of changing the policy that has existed in that respect over the years.


Howard Charles Green: We are trying to improve the former government's policies in many regards. This may be one of those.


Lionel Chevrier: May I proceed to another matter, and again I hope the minister will not think that I am contentious. I want to be constructive in this matter. It has to do with a point that was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with reference to patronage. It is not my intention to open up that question today but I think perhaps briefly the minister could satisfy not only myself but, I am sure, the house in general. Could the minister say what the policy of the Department of Public Works is with reference to that question? Is there going to be an overall change in the present policy? Have any of the employees of the Department of Works in any category whatever been severed from their employment because of political activities? I think it would be well if the house were to be reassured in that respect. I know that after the election of June 10 the Minister of Public Works made in the house a statement that reassured most hon. members with reference to that matter. I should like to know from him now whether any employees have been severed from their employment since June 10 because of political activity?


Howard Charles Green: There was some discussion on this question during the last parliament, as the hon. member will recall, and references were made to some employees who had been dismissed. I think he will remember that there was one in the Department of Transport who had been extremely active politically. I think all hon. members will agree that civil servants should not take an active part in politics. Frankly I may say that where you have a case in which employees of any department are active organizers politically I do not think they deserve very much consideration. However, once again I should like to pay tribute to the work of the civil service. Certainly in my department I have found that they have been excellent. As I told the hon. member for Kootenay West, we are trying to run the department on a businesslike basis.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not dealing with the Department of Transport, although I well remember the case the minister had in mind

and he had not been extremely active politically: I was dealing with the Department of Public Works. I wonder if he would answer the question by saying whether any employees have been severed from their employment for that reason. My understanding of the case he had in mind is that a member of parliament on his responsibility as a member of parliament and also on his statement that he knows that a person has actively participated in a campaign, may because of that fact require the severing of an employee from his employment. But my understanding of the situation is that that rule does not apply to civil servants as such but applies to the other categories of casuals, supernumeraries or the like and that in so far as civil servants are concerned, the matter is governed by the pertinent sections of the Civil Service Act.
However, the question to which I wanted to obtain an answer from the minister if he can give it now-and if he cannot do so, I shall be pleased to wait until a later date-was whether or not in his Department of Public Works, which is a huge department of employment in that respect, there have been any employees who have been severed from their employment because of political activity.


Howard Charles Green: I would inform the hon. member that one of the employees of the Department of Public Works had himself appointed a returning officer for the election last year and took a leave of absence to act in that capacity. That employee has since resigned. That sort of thing, in my judgment, is inexcusable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister say "to be a returning officer"? A returning officer is an appointment of the crown.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister consider that the appointment of a returning officer is an act of partisanship?


Howard Charles Green: It certainly was in this case. I do not believe there has ever been a government take over in Canada where there has been so little political partisanship shown towards the civil service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: I would inform the hon. member that there have been some very provocative actions which in other days would have called for pretty drastic action, but this government has leaned over backwards to be non-partisan in its dealings with civil servants, and I am sure the people of Canada as a whole clearly understand that that has been the attitude of the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to be provocative at all. On the contrary, I raised this question in the most casual 57071-3-73
Supply-Public Works
manner I could, but I believe the house is entitled to know, if the minister can tell us, whether or not any of these men have been severed from their employment for that reason. He did mention the case of the returning officer and in order to indicate to him and to the house that I have no intention of being provocative I say to him now that if it is not possible for him to give the information at this moment, I would be quite happy if he gives it to me next week or even afterwards. I am not pressing for an answer immediately but I think not only this house but the public generally will want to know and will want to be reassured of what the minister has just said, that the government is doing a good job with reference to the employees under its jurisdiction. If it is doing that job, fine, and I will be the first to commend the government, but I would like the minister to be a little more specific. He has been very courteous in his reply but has really shelved the issue. I believe we are entitled to a little more than that and if he feels after consideration in the week to come that the reply should be made at a later time I am perfectly happy. However, I feel the house should know what is the position.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would not be in the
best interests of the service or of the Commons to precipitate a debate on a question of this kind. If it is to be debated then facts will have to be brought out and arguments made as to this man and that man having participated and what he did and so on and so forth. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose whatsoever to get into a wrangle of that kind. The change of government has been made after a period of 22 years when, as the hon. member himself knows very well, active supporters of his own party were given positions in the civil service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Twenty-two years with one
party in power, and when thousands-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know of any who
were discharged.


Howard Charles Green: Thousands of employees were appointed by that government and there were many cases where supporters of opposition parties were unable to get work or were dismissed.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Oh, oh. Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: Don't you get started. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the country to open up this subject. We believe in the merit system for the civil service and our actions during the last year have shown that we have faith in that service. We intend
1138	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works to stand by them and it does not help very much to try to precipitate a debate on a matter of this kind.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not trying to precipitate a debate but apparently the hon. minister has been touched by what I have said and has gone, I think, a little further than he should have gone. I have no intention of discussing cases. I was looking for an over-all statement such as the minister made, voluntarily, after the election of June 10 when he assured the Canadian people that there would be no severing of employment because of political activities in so far as the government was concerned. The position which he is now taking is different from that which he took on the first occasion, and he has withdrawn-


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I made no such statement that there would not be any action taken where there had been political activity. The hon. minister cannot find that I made any such statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I must accept the hon. minister's statement but he certainly did in this House of Commons assure not only the whole house but the country that this question would be carefully considered by his government as would the question of change-over and we were assured that-


Howard Charles Green: I made no such statement in the House of Commons and the hon. minister cannot find that I did.


Lionel Chevrier: I am very glad the minister thinks I am still a minister.


Howard Charles Green: There has never been a government which has taken over in Canada where there was so little disruption of the civil service.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I would like to bring to the attention of members that we are at present debating the estimates of the Department of Public Works and I believe we are now getting away from that debate. May I therefore suggest the return to the matter under consideration?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could help the Chair by bringing the discussion back to the item under consideration and by restating that when I rose, I discussed the question in a general way in the hope that I would get a simple answer. Instead I got a rather acrimonious reply, but notwithstanding what the minister has said I would like to say that while I was on the other side of the house there was no occasion which I can recall when, in my 

capacity as Minister of Transport I had occasion to recommend that a person be severed from his employment because of political activities and I do hope that will be the case under the present government.


Howard Charles Green: There was a very good reason because they were all on your side, so why should they be severed?


Lionel Chevrier: There were five elections.


An hon. Member:: How would he know?


An hon. Member:: What about Cornwall?


Lionel Chevrier: What was that about Cornwall?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I would like to ask the
minister what is the policy of the department with respect to the appointment of inspectors on construction projects when among the applicants is a man who has overseas service with the Canadian forces to his credit?


Howard Charles Green: I will deal with that when we come to the particular item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister's answer is quite good enough. This question applies to the whole range of activities of the department. We are discussing the administration of the department and it does seem to me the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester is very relevant. He beat me by a fraction of a second in asking it. There are a great number of appointments-I do not believe any department has more appointments than the minister's department-of a casual and occasional nature. I think we are entitled to know, on item 1, whether or not it is the policy of the department to respect the veterans' preference in connection with these appointments.


Howard Charles Green: The answer to that is yes.
Mr. Pickersgill} There are two questions that I wanted to put to the minister. I have been looking through the estimates and I cannot find anywhere-that is why I am asking the question on item 1-a vote for the survey of the Chignecto canal which the Prime Minister promised to investigate during the election campaign. I wonder if the minister could tell me where to find that item in his estimates.
The second question is as follows: I have been looking at the amounts appropriated for the minister's department by the governor in council, in the absence of any parliament in this country. I find that the amount appropriated was about $3 million less than was in the estimates presented to parliament which were never passed. I was wondering if that $3 million was also taken into account when the minister was making the claim he

did about spending the proportion of the estimates he said had been spent. If by arbitrarily reducing the estimates by $3 million, then the claim that they had spent 97 per cent of it would give a very different picture from the one the minister tried to give last Friday.


Howard Charles Green: There is no item in the estimates with respect to the Chignecto canal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the government doing
anything about it?


Howard Charles Green: Well, it is under study. With regard to last year's estimates and the balance of which was covered by governor general's warrants, a discussion will come up I presume on the amendment to the Financial Administration Act, or at a later stage. It is not involved in these particular estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite aware of that.


Howard Charles Green: There were certain amounts
voted, certain monthly votes and that sort of business, so I am not in a position to give the exact situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the minister would have been quite right if he had not raised the matter himself, but since he made the claim he has spent 97 per cent of last year's estimates I think the committee is entitled, before we pass this item, to be told what estimates he means. Is he talking about the estimates that were presented to parliament or the revised estimates the governor in council passed in secret after the election campaign was under way? It is a very simple question.


Howard Charles Green: The percentages I gave earlier in the afternoon were the correct percentages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but percentages of what?


Howard Charles Green: Percentages of the estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But of the estimates originally presented to parliament?


Howard Charles Green: It was 95 per cent, approximately, of the estimates as printed, and 97 per cent of the revised estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is unaware of anything being done about the Chignecto canal?


Howard Charles Green: I told the hon. member that this situation was being studied.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister indicate whether that is being done by his department or by whom?


Howard Charles Green: By the department.
57071-3-731
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Brooks:: The hon. member shows great interest in it now, but he did not show too much a few years ago.


George James McIlraith: I have two questions to ask the minister. Before doing so, I hope I will not attract acrimonious comment from him when I tell him that I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge, in a wholehearted way, the merit of the civil service. I hope he will not deny me the pleasure of feeling that it is, to some extent at least, to the credit of the former government that they did leave a [DOT] civil service of such calibre. I think that is fair comment.
The questions I wanted to ask him are these. With regard to the discussion a few moments ago about the public works department supervising the actual construction of all federal public buildings, could he tell the house as to whether or not any decision has been reached with respect to an administrative headquarters, presumably in Ottawa, for the C.B.C.? Could he say whether or not any decision has been reached as to whether such a building, when it is built, will be built under the supervision of the public works department or the C.B.C.


Howard Charles Green: We have nothing to do with that.


George James McIlraith: My point was as to the
actual construction of the building, the supervision of the work. It was very much a lively topic of discussion in the past.
My next question has to do with the policy of the government concerning the placing of public buildings on the central experimental farm. I am one of those who considers it a very happy circumstance that we have, right in the heart of our Canadian capital, the very fine central experimental farm. The minister will recall that within the last few years the previous government announced a policy of putting no further public buildings on the lands of the central experimental farm, save and except such buildings as were directly related to the agricultural work being undertaken there. Could he give the house the policy of the present government in that respect?


Howard Charles Green: This really comes under a particular item of the estimates. Perhaps if we could get the general item through this afternoon, then I would be glad to deal with the question.


George James McIlraith: The information I wanted was as to the general policy of the government on that point. It is not on a particular item. I should like an answer. If the minister wants the subject discussed on a particular item, and if he will give an undertaking of

Private Bills-Divorce
the government that it can be discussed on a particular item, I will be happy to abide by that.


Howard Charles Green: That would come under buildings in Ottawa, and I shall be glad to discuss it then.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-15, for the relief of Olive-Jane Frances Piper Sinclair.-Mr. McCleavie.
Bill No. SD-16, for the relief of Rhoda Carin Burack.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-17, for the relief of Evelyn Grace Blakely Mullins.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-18, for the relief of Julia Swit-nicki Kobel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-19, for the relief of Eric Duns-tan Martin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No.	SD-20,	for	the	relief	of	Hazel
Margaret White Jackson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No.	SD-21,	for	the	relief	of	Mary
Stepko Berryman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No.	SD-22,	for	the	relief	of	Jewel
Evelyn Bockus Yeo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-23, for the relief of Clarence Leonard Sproule.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-24, for the relief of Geraldine Avonne Dixon McNaughton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-25, for the relief of Jean-Louis Ducharme.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No.	SD-26,	for	the	relief	of	Emery
George Nemeth.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-27, for the relief of Alfreda Rose Celina Gigot Kyriazis.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Speaker:: The business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
328. General administration, $8,536,892.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This item shows an increase from 549 to 595 employees. Could the minister explain if this increase of 46 employees is due to the establishment of new branches in the department or if it is just a normal increase in office employees?

While the minister is obtaining the information to my first question he might at the same time prepare himself to explain the increase from 58 to 117 employees in the property and building management branch. Here again is this due to new services, new branches, or is it just a regular increase in employees?


Howard Charles Green: There have been no new
branches. There has been a readjustment which accounts for the difference in the numbers shown under this vote. Unfortunately I * sent my books upstairs. I had the information all marked.
A survey of the combined office service units in district offices showed that many of the minimum services have not been provided to the technical and professional staff. This has necessitated additional positions in several districts. The heavy work load resulting from highway construction programs and the national parks necessitated six positions to carry out the work now being done by prevailing rates staff. Additional staff is needed at Edmonton to deal with increasing developments in northern construction.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In the details concerning the building construction branch to be found on page 460 of the blue book it is indicated there has been a decrease of 46 employees. Was that due to transfer to other services of the department? How is the decrease explained?


Howard Charles Green: Forty-eight additional positions have been transferred from the building construction branch as the duties of the positions relate to buildings and maintenance. It is a transfer within the department.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I see there is quite a difference in the development engineering branch. There is an increase from 167 to 261. Is this difference due to the hiring of new engineers in the field or an increase in the staff here in Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: Large increases in the funds provided for highway construction by other departments have necessitated an increase of 94 positions in the highways division. Thirty-six of the positions were established under the supplementary estimates in 1957-58 to provide engineers in Newfoundland, the Terra Nova national park, the Northwest Territories and the western national parks. Thirty-one positions were established under the main estimates mostly for the western national parks and the Northwest Territories. These are designated as term positions to be reviewed in three years in the light of the department's commitments at that time. The additional 27 positions have been established for the Yukon Territory.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is a general increase for that branch in this item 328 of a little over $1 million. There is an increase from $7,402,301 to $8,536,892. Is this increase mainly owing to salaries or to an increase in staff?


Howard Charles Green: Most of the increase is due to salary increases; then, of course, there is some additional staff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising very briefly to re-echo what was said by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I could not agree more completely with him about the excellence of the staff of the department both here in Ottawa and in the province of Newfoundland. I am sure the minister's officials will tell him, if he does not know already, there is only one thing wrong with the staff in Newfoundland and that is there are not enough of them. That was very understandable in the period when the architects and engineers and other technical personnel were so fully employed in this country that it was just not possible to hire them and probably not desirable to interfere with capital development throughout the country by going on with any public works that could reasonably be postponed. We have now reached the situation where the minister himself indicated that it was greatly in the public interest to accelerate those works in every way possible. I know from what I have seen, even in the past week, that the addition of some engineers in the province of Newfoundland would enable the department to get on more rapidly with this work, work which as the minister knows is very badly needed in that province. I have wondered what efforts were being made by the department in that direction because we all know at this time, with the universities closing, it is not hard to get competent personnel to carry on this kind of work.


Howard Charles Green: We will be very glad to check into this situation in Newfoundland. The officials of the department have been carrying a tremendous load during the winter months and now with the increased construction during the present season. It is not always easy to convince the treasury officials as to just how much of an increase there should be in staff. The hon. member knows that this was always somewhat of a problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Howard Charles Green: We are very anxious to keep the staff at its proper size.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Anything that I can do to strengthen the minister's hand I will do. I can think of one argument he might use on the Minister of Finance. It is that the salary
Supply-Public Works of half a dozen engineers in each of the provinces might save thousands and thousands and maybe millions of dollars in unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance in this country, because the bottleneck in so many of these projects is supervisory, technical and engineering staff. I know, because, when I made supplications year after year to the Department of Public Works when I was on the other side of the house, I had it explained to me by the former minister. He convinced me because I know he was right, that they just could not get on with these projects because they could not take engineers from other work which was more in the national interest; but that is not true today.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Did I understand the minister to say a while ago that the increase of over $1 million was due mostly to increases in salaries?


Howard Charles Green: The increases were, salaries and wages, $792,591; travelling and removal expenses, $150,000; freight, express and cartage, $2,000; telephones and telegrams, $36,000; office stationery, supplies, et cetera, $43,000; materials and supplies, $71,000; acquisition of equipment, $10,000; repairs and upkeep of the equipment, $30,000.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Has there been a general increase in the whole department or is it just increases in some branches of the Department of Public Works?


Howard Charles Green: Most of the increase in salaries is for new positions. There are some other increases involved in it but the bulk of the sum is for new positions.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Have any increases been given to the lower bracket salaried people in the department during the last year?


Howard Charles Green: A general increase was approved by the present government after coming into power last summer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the recommendation of the preceding government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does that apply to the lower bracket salary people?


Howard Charles Green: That applied to everybody.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The civil servants or the hourly rated people?


Howard Charles Green: The general increase applied, of course, to the permanent civil servants. Those employees on an hourly basis have their pay adjusted from time to time accordingly. They were not covered by it. The amounts are set by the Department of Labour.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I did not quite understand the
last sentence.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: The prevailing rate employees have increases made from time to time. They are not included in the general adjustment. The prevailing rate increases are on recommendation of the Department of Labour.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Are tradesmen paid according to the rates paid union tradesmen in Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: Generally speaking I believe that is the case but this again is settled by the Department of Labour.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is it not the understanding that salaries will follow those paid to union men outside the government?


Howard Charles Green: My difficulty here is that this is a question of policy of the labour department, not of the Department of Public Works. Therefore I am unable to give an answer to that question. The Department of Labour recommends the rates to the Department of Public Works and we set them accordingly.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Can we get an answer when we come to the Department of Labour or can the minister get an answer for us before we finish his estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister perhaps prepare a memorandum and present it the next time his estimates are before the committee?


Howard Charles Green: This is a question which should be taken up when the estimates of the Department of Labour are under consideration.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister is quite sure that they will not refer the matter back to the Department of Public Works?


Howard Charles Green: I understand these rates have always been set by the Department of Labour. This is not a new practice. It has always been the case.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In the estimates book there is a total amount of $191,426,540 shown for 1957-58. Has the money all been spent or does that comprise the estimates for 1957-58 as they were presented or should have been presented?


Howard Charles Green: That figure of $191 million odd is the revised figure.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Has that money been spent for 1957-58?


Howard Charles Green: Approximately 97 per cent has been spent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: And inasmuch as no estimates were brought forward for that period that money was all spent through governor general's warrants.


Howard Charles Green: Most of the amount was covered by interim supply passed from time to time by the last parliament. The balance was covered by governor general's warrants.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Without the estimates being discussed.


Howard Charles Green: They are to be brought up by the Minister of Finance.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will we have the details of what has been spent by governor general's warrants some time during this session so that we can discuss them?


Howard Charles Green: That is to be brought before the house by the Minister of Finance.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I want to know if we will have the details before us for the amount which has been spent through governor general's warrants or the other part covered by interim supply.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding is that those figures will be available.


Alexis Pierre Caron: They will be furnished.


Lionel Chevrier: May I revert for a moment to the confidential reports my hon. friend referred to the other day in connection with harbour and river improvements. Do these reports cover all of the ports along the St. Lawrence? Can the minister give us some idea of the ports with respect to which a special study has been made and where it is anticipated river and harbour improvements will be carried out?


Howard Charles Green: In connection with these lower St. Lawrence ports the main or supplementary estimates contain substantial items for port improvements at Rimouski, Seven Islands and Sorel and in addition there are sizeable items for Pointe au Pere and Riviere du Loup. During the last winter investigations were made of harbours at Matane, Pointe au Pere, Rimouski and Riviere du Loup on the south side of the St. Lawrence as well as Chandler and Gaspe farther east on the Gaspe peninsula. In addition, of course, there have been investigations made at the lake-head, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor, Sarnia, Kingston, Cornwall, and there may have been others.


Lionel Chevrier: Are these investigations made in the light of the new traffic that is likely to ensue following the opening of the 27-foot channel?


Howard Charles Green: Oh yes, that is one of the main reasons for making these investigations. We have a team go out composed of representatives from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Is any specific attention being given to the north shore of the St. Lawrence river where, because of iron ore development, railway installation and natural resources development, additional facilities will be required?


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, some of the ports I have mentioned are on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give the amounts involved?


Howard Charles Green: They appear in the estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want them in detail as it would take too long. Can he give the over-all amount for the ports east of Montreal?


Howard Charles Green: We have not got figures here worked out on that basis. Some of the ports on the St. Lawrence, of course, do not come under the Department of Public Works. They are under the national harbours board. I refer to Montreal, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers-


Lionel Chevrier: You have named them all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
591. General	administration

further	amount
required, $102,800.
Mr. Batten:: I want to make one or two remarks and one or two inquiries concerning public buildings in the province of Newfoundland and in my own constituency.


The Deputy Chairman:: Item 591 is to be found in the supplementary estimates at page 8. It is another administration item.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will wait until we get to item 329.


Howard Charles Green: The supplementary estimate is to increase the general administration item by $102,800. The details will be found at page 27 of the supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question? Is it not a little bit unusual to start taking the supplementary estimates before we have finished with the main estimates? I have a feeling that greater progress would be made in the committee if we could go ahead with the main estimates and then deal with the supplementary estimates later.


Howard Charles Green: I do not care one way or the other. It has been done both ways. Some departments take the supplementaries with the regular estimates. Others do not do that. Mind you, it makes for a clearer explanation of the total amount that has been spent on the different items if the supplementaries are dealt with at the same time as the main estimates.
Supply-Public Works


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister would
rather do it that way, it is all right with me.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 591 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then it is the intention of the minister to discuss the supplementaries first and then come back to the other ones?


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings construction and services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
329. Newfoundland, $3,461,474.
Herman Maxwell Batten: I should like to make one or two remarks and also ask a couple of questions about the public buildings in the province of Newfoundland and in the riding of Humber-St. George's. May I first refer to the public building which now exists at St. Andrew's. This is a small public building. It came into federal ownership as one of the terms of confederation. It is now, I think, long past its usefulness. It is no longer able to serve the community as a post office. It is poorly located. Over the last few months there has been some considerable correspondence concerning this building. I wonder whether the minister is in a position now to give me any information as to what can be done about this problem.


Howard Charles Green: We will look into the question of the building at this particular location.


Mr.   Balfen@: May I refer to one other building. There is one other public building in my constituency that needs attention, the public building situated at Port au Port. This building is not as old as the one now existing at St. Andrew's. However, it is a very small building and it is completely inadequate to handle the mail that must be handled at this particular point, inasmuch as Port au Port is the distribution centre for the whole peninsula. There is a small anteroom or waiting room on the outside and then there is the inner office which, even for an average mail, is too small to accommodate the number of bags of mail that arrive, and the mail has to be handled in the outside part where it is trodden on by people coming to be served at the post office. I think there has been some discussion as to what are the possibilities of making this building a little bit larger and more suitable for handling the work it is required to handle. I wonder whether the minister, when giving me some information about

Supply-Public Works the post office at St. Andrew's would also give me some information concerning the building at Port au Port?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member will be glad to hear that we are now making plans for a building at Port au Port and we hope to get it started this year.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I thank the minister for that information. Is he in a position now to give me any indication as to what type of building this will be and when tenders will be called?


Howard Charles Green: It is an addition to the present building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not quite so
cheerful.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo raised a question about the buildings at Burin and at Harbour Buffett. The former was authorized on March 26 of this year and the latter on March 3 of this year. One of them is already under construction. We hope to get them both built this year.
He made some other quite interesting suggestions. For example, he urged the use of local veneer. He said that the veneer plant had been unable to qualify. My instructions are that the specifications were not such as to prevent bids by the Newfoundland plant. They allow for birch plywood. Then he also asked us to build a larger building at Marys-town. The Department of Public Works does not necessarily set the size of the building. That will depend upon the requests made by the other departments; for example, in this case the request was made by the Post Office Department. We are adding 200 extra square feet to the building at Marystown. There was some trouble there in connection with getting a site, apparently.


Chesley William Carter: No.


Howard Charles Green: I am wrong. The hon. member complained about the site not being large enough.


Chesley William Carter: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The view of the officials is that the site is adequate. One difficulty was that the suggestion was made by the town that this building should also house a civic centre and provincial offices. If it were to do that, of course it might have to be bigger. However, we are not in the business of providing office space for civic centres or for provincial governments.
Then he raised the point of using local labour. In our contracts there are standard provisions that local labour must be employed. In addition to that, we are constantly on the watch for ways of making sure that the

local people get as much as possible of the business where projects are being built in their district.
It is not as easy as it looks because when we call for tenders somebody may come in with a lower tender who may not be doing business in the particular centre where the project is being built and we cannot maintain a low tender basis of doing business and at the same time refuse to give a contract to a man who happens to make the lowest tender because he lives somewhere else. Every effort, however, is made to create the maximum amount of benefit from these projects in those areas where the projects are being constructed.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on a point of information. Is this a period when all 207 backbenchers might ask about all the buildings in our constituencies to find out what they are going to be built of and why they are not built in the different villages or towns?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We are now discussing item 329 which covers public buildings, construction and services.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I might help the hon. member by telling him that every member is entitled to do so but I am hoping that they all will not.


Chesley William Carter: Following up what the minister has just said, could he say what control is exercised by his department in order to ensure that local labour is employed, because we do have riggers out of work in St. John's at the present time while riggers are being brought in from the mainland.


Howard Charles Green: Officials of the department try to watch this very closely and to see that local labour is employed.


Chesley William Carter: I pointed out to the minister earlier today how overworked is his staff, and I know that in the St. John's office they are terribly overworked, so I do not see how they could possibly have much opportunity to look after matters of this kind in addition to the ordinary work of his department.


Howard Charles Green: We do the best we can and if the hon. member, or if any hon. member knows of a case where this is not being done we will be very grateful for any information they can give us about it.


Chesley William Carter: I do not think there is any indication of laxity on the part of the minister's officials. I was not trying to imply that at all, but I do know that I have received complaints from riggers in St. John's who wonder why they cannot get work on these

buildings when people are being brought in from the mainland to do the same job.


Howard Charles Green: The department apparently has not been aware of this situation and we will look into it at once.


Chesley William Carter: May I ask the minister a question about this local industry. We manufacture a number of products in Newfoundland today such as cement, etcetera, which could be used in public buildings. I have just been made aware that the minister answered part of this question while I was in the lobby and did not hear him. Could the minister tell me, however, whether the local industries had an opportunity to tender on materials for these public buildings?


Howard Charles Green: Local industry would have to tender to the head contractor.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, but my understanding is that when they tender to the contractor the contractor finds himself bound by the specifications with respect to materials which are actually written out in the contract and if the particular product is not actually specified by name then they cannot tender.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will give us an example where this has been done we will remedy the situation at once.


Chesley William Carter: This is not a complaint peculiar to Newfoundland; I am getting complaints of this kind from all over the maritimes. The people of the maritimes complain that local suppliers do not have a chance of supplying materials required for public buildings, and they blame the situation on the specifications. Some even go so far as to imply there are lobbies in Ottawa to get preference for certain materials.


Howard Charles Green: I would not like the hon. member to spread the news around, but we actually specify local materials are to be used, wherever possible in the maritimes.


Chesley William Carter: And that includes Newfoundland?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: On the question of local labour, is there any way in which the minister could write into the contract that a certain percentage of local labour must be used?


Howard Charles Green: This is actually written into the contract.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I spoke earlier today I was just about to say something with respect to standard plans to which the minister had referred when he opened the discussion. This matter is very relevant to this particular item because there is no doubt that there are a number of public buildings needed, such as
Supply-Public Works post offices, in some of the middle-sized places of Newfoundland. These have not been built in the last few years, for the reasons I indicated earlier with which I think the minister agreed. It would be a very great help to have these buildings constructed at this time when the provision of employment is so vital. As to standard plans, I have in mind particularly the plans used at Glover-town and Joe Batt's Arm. Buildings of the kind I have mentioned are well adapted to these communities and those plans could be used. There are a number of other communities. I do not profess to know other parts of Newfoundland as well as I know my own riding, but in my own riding there are three or four places which would qualify with exactly the same criteria as the two I have mentioned. So far as revenues and amount of postal and telegraph business are concerned they are equally suitable for projects of this kind. I have a few places to add to the minister's shelf, although I do not seriously expect him to get all this work done this year because I know the estimates are now before us. I know, however, that he is anxious to go ahead with his planning for the next year so that he can really make an early start and so that that start will not be just the vision mentioned in his speech, but a reality.
I would mention, therefore, that Gambo and Hare Bay would undoubtedly qualify. I would also like to ask the minister, although he may not have the information immediately if he would tell me before the estimates are concluded whether the announcement made by my opponent during the election campaign to the effect that a building was going to be constructed this year at Badger's Quay is correct. I believe it is correct, and I hope it is, but there is no evidence of it in the estimates. I presume the reason is the same as in the case, of Wesleyville, namely that it is not expected to exceed $20,000 in cost and therefore does not have to be specified separately.
While on this subject there are two other points I would like to mention and one perhaps is a criticism of the administration to which I belonged. Even though I was a member of the government for four years, I was never able to discover-so well kept was the secret-who or which department it is that really decides the size of these buildings. If you go to the Post Office Department they will say, "Oh, yes, we ask for so much, but those people in the Department of Public Works always screw us down", and, if you go to the Department of Public Works, they say, "We are just purveyors. Whatever the Post Office Department asks for, we give them."
1146	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
I am sure the minister must have had that experience himself when he was over here, and I just wanted to confide in him that even a minister of the crown has the same experience. However, with this new regime where there are going to be no secrets and everything is going to be out in the open I think it would be wonderful if the minister would tell us, once and for all-and would get the Postmaster General to agree with him before he says it-which department it is that really does decide. I am making this plea primarily for the benefit of the 150 members opposite who will not get much chance to speak on the estimates and who are just as much interested as we are in these matters. I know that they would like to know to which department they ought to go, whether it is the Post Office Department or Public Works.
The fact of the matter is that, it has been a regrettable experience that whichever department it is has never been able to appreciate how rapidly Newfoundland is growing. Again, I say this may be slightly in criticism of the administration to which I belonged, but it is true that practically every public building that has been built in Newfoundland is already too small. The building at Stephenville-I believe the hon. member for Humber-St. George's will confirm this- was too small before it was opened. The building at Deer lake, which was opened only two years ago, is going to have an addition to it already, according to the estimate. We are glad to have Newfoundland growing. We hope it is going to continue to grow, even under the adversity of a Tory government.


Howard Charles Green: That is why it is growing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One of the best expressions the minister can give of his confidence in his own government, and in the results of his administration, would be to see that these buildings are 25 per cent to 30 per cent bigger than those which the post office requests. If the minister will do that, and if he will build buildings at Hare Bay and Gambo, and at one or two other places I will mention on another occasion, I am sure that he will make a lot of people in Newfoundland happy and a lot of people think better of his administration.


Howard Charles Green: I was rather surprised that the hon. member raised this question of the size of buildings because I understood that my predecessor thought the building at Bonavista was too large.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister take that view? I saw that building in Bonavista this week, and I can assure the minister that all the rooms in the building seemed to be


fully occupied. When the mail comes in three times a week, the waiting room is pretty well filled, too. The building is actually a credit to the people of Canada and a fine symbol of the advantages of confederation.


Howard Charles Green: I hope they did not all turn
out just to meet the hon. member?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad the minister
mentioned that point, because a large number of them did turn out, I regret to say, to ask the hon. member if he could find them a job. If the minister could only get ahead with his dredging and his work on the piers at Bonavista some of these people would have jobs and would not have to be asking for one.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member will be glad to hear that we are going to build a post office at Badger's Quay this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am delighted.


Howard Charles Green: In so far as the responsibility for determining the size of these government buildings is concerned, that must be a matter of co-operation between the departments. While we do build many buildings for the Post Office Department, we build an increasing number of buildings in which other departments of government are housed. I am afraid the position must continue that this is a matter of co-operation between the different departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other question I should like to ask, and that is all I have to say on this item. Can the minister give us some estimate as to when it is expected the customs and post office buildings respectively will be completed in St. John's?


Mr. Monieith (Perth):: There is more than Newfoundland in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but they did not elect
anybody to speak for them.


Howard Charles Green: The answer to the last question asked by the hon. member is that we expect these buildings to be completed in mid-1959.


Chesley William Carter: Would the minister say if the amount of space provided in the building now proposed for Marystown is the same as was requested or equal to what was requested by the Post Office Department?


Howard Charles Green: The area is 20 per cent greater.


Chesley William Carter: It is 20 per cent greater than
what?


Howard Charles Green: It is 20 per cent greater than that agreed upon by the post office.


Chesley William Carter: My question was, is it greater than the area requested by the post office, not what was agreed upon?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, 20 per cent.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: While we are on this item of public buildings, construction and services, could the minister state if the Department of Public Works has a definite policy concerning the construction of post office buildings? What I mean is, does the revenue of a post office have to be up to a certain amount, or is it just built where the demand is strong enough?


Howard Charles Green: These questions are very carefully considered by each of the departments. They set up different priorities for different centres. For example, No. 1 city may be put in category A, and then the building there would be built ahead of the building in a centre in the second category. By the way, this year we either have or will have under construction all the category A buildings, and about half of those in category B.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My question was, before
the department decides to build a post office building must the revenue of that particular office attain a certain level?


Howard Charles Green: That is a factor in the decision as to whether there will be a new building. Mind you, there are other factors. There may be a satisfactory lease. You cannot lay down any general rule because conditions are different in the different cities.


Mr. Tucker:: With reference to unemployment and the clause that local help must be used on these works, I hope the minister will see to it that they adhere strictly to the clause. I should like to ask if in every public building erected in the different towns there is always provision made for the necessary washroom facilities?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I understand provision is made for our own employees, but of course not for the general public.


James Roy Tucker: Not always, I understand.


Chesley William Carter: I have a few more questions to ask, but it is now six o'clock.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, will the house leader indicate what the business will be on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, by arrangement between the parties we are to have a one-day supply motion on Monday with the understanding that at least by ten o'clock we shall get into supply when under the rules we can call three departments. If by any chance we should get into supply before ten o'clock we would go on with the public works estimates.
On Tuesday we intend to start with the resolution dealing with hospital insurance and then to follow that with the resolution concerning the Department of Transport Act, the resolution on the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the one with regard to the Cape Breton Highlands national park. We only have until six o'clock because the budget speech will be delivered at eight.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extreme co-operation which the minister has received on the first item of his estimates perhaps I could persuade him to go a bit further and tell us what we might expect on Wednesday, if that is possible.


Howard Charles Green: I am not yet sure about Wednesday. We may conclude the debate on the NORAD agreement and then take other government business which happens to be on the order paper. Next Thursday may be government business or we may go into supply and on Friday an arrangement has been made under which the debate on the budget will commence.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand from the house leader that all parties have agreed that the supply motion on Monday will be a one-day motion and there will be no time carried forward beyond that and the vote will be taken at the end of the discussion or at the end of the first day.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the case so far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That is agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[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.. Bourgei: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works cancelled any projects for which tenders were requested since January 1, 1958?
2.	If so, what were these projects, and the amount involved in each?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


POST OFFICE BUILDING, COTE ST. LUC, QUE.
Mr. Macnaughfon: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from the mayor and municipal council of the city of Cote St. Luc, Quebec, asking for a post office building?
2.	If so, has the minister given approval?
3.	Has the Postmaster General recommended its construction to the Minister of Public Works?
4.	If so, lias a site been acquired, and where?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes-(on Cote St. Luc road between Silverson and Elgin avenues).


CABANO-RIMOUSKI FIRES  FEDERAL AID
Mr. Racine: 1.	Did the federal government grant financial assistance to the towns of Cabano and Rimouski, in the province of Quebec, in connection with the major fire disaster suffered by these municipalities in 1950?
2.	If so, by whom was the request for such assistance made, and what were the respective amounts paid?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	The government of the province of Quebec.
Rimouski	 $2,436,634.05
Cabano	 299,726.01
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
328. General administration, $8,536,892.
591. General	administration-further	amount
required, $102,800.

Visit of Right Hon. H. Macmillan

[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Macmillan was welcomed by the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Hon. Mark Robert Drouin, Speaker of the Senate, and the Hon. Roland Michener, Speaker of the House of Commons.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker of the
Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, members of both houses of parliament: This is the third time that a prime minister of the United Kingdom during and since the war has spoken in this chamber. Our thoughts are carried back to those dark days during the war when freedom hung in the balance, and when there was made in this chamber by that indomitable statesman Sir Winston Churchill a speech which gave new hope to the legions of freedom everywhere in the world. Mr. Macmillan and Sir Winston have in common not only their devotion to national and international well-being, but through their maternal strain both unite their own country with the United States of America in its partnership with us without which freedom cannot be achieved in the world.
On this occasion I know you would want me to say as well that we are very happy that Lady Dorothy Macmillan has accompanied her husband at this time. We remember that it was during the days following the first great war that here in this city of Ottawa Mr. Macmillan met his bride-to-be.
In these difficult days the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom approaches the critical world problems with wisdom, with loyalty, with long experience in business and as a House of Commons man, and with the scholarly clarity born of outstanding academic distinction. He is one whose mind has been tempered in his devotion to the great masters of history and politics, and whose desire for peace and the necessity of its maintenance was born of his own experience of the terrible toll of war. One of his great predecessors, Benjamin Disraeli, once offered this as a definition of a statesman: "One who represents a great idea, an
idea with which he may identify himself, an idea which he may and can impress on the mind and conscience of a nation".
That definition is one to which Mr. Macmillan conforms in his devotion to the achievement not only of the well-being of his own nation and of a prosperous commonwealth dedicated to freedom, but in addition thereto in his never-ending efforts on behalf of peace.
During the last couple of days he and I and my colleagues have been associated in informal discussions. No one anywhere in the world need fear the purposes or the objectives of these and similar meetings. These discussions are not in the nature of conspiracies, but are conferences for peace designed to attain the joining of our efforts for the maintenance of an honourable and humane international society.
Today the joint purpose of all of us must be never to weary in well-doing and to realize at all times that while some may say it is a futile objective to have that idealism in the face of the sometimes sheer paralysis in the inflexible stand of the U.S.S.R., we must not consider that quest as futile. Out of this meeting has been reinforced, as I see it, the conviction that we will not be "futili-tarians", however great the frustrations may be, but will continue to do everything we can to do our part simply, humbly and justly in order to bring about the assurance of peace to generations to come.
On your behalf and on behalf of the Canadian people I welcome Mr. Macmillan as a scholar, a soldier, a world statesman, commonwealth friend and expounder; the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
1150	HOUSE OF
Address by Right Hon. H. Macmillan


Right Hon. Harold  Macmillan@Prime Minister of the United Kingdom: Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, and members of both houses of parliament: I am very grateful for the invitation which has been extended to me to address the Canadian parliament. I have spent 34 years of my life listening to speeches in the House of Commons. I therefore know what a high compliment it is for parliamentarians to add voluntarily to the burdens they may have to undertake.
I remember very well sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons in Canada in Ottawa nearly 40 years ago. At that time I was a young member of the governor general's staff, which I joined shortly after the end of the first world war. I recall in particular the leading figures on both sides. Mr. Meighen, happily still with us, was on one side, and on the other was Mr. Mackenzie King. Those were the heroic days of parliamentary debate. Being already attracted to politics, I used to spend many hours listening to these classical masters of oratory. If I remember right the fashion of that day was that speakers were not only very polished but sometimes-dare I say it-somewhat prolix.
I listened to your proceedings as a young man, and now in revisiting your parliament after this great lapse of time I am reminded of a story of Sir Winston Churchill who is still, I am happy to say, an active member of the British House of Commons. On a visit to America and Canada in the middle of the last war he was persuaded somewhat against his will, for he was much pressed for time, to go to Niagara falls, which he had not seen for 40 years. When asked what he thought about it he made this observation, "Well, the principle of the thing seems much the same". So, if I may say so, it is with your parliament.
I lived a year in Canada, and I had the good fortune to travel over the greater part of the country. In fact I think I have visited perhaps more places from coast to coast than have many Canadians. I took away from Canada the most happy memories. I made many friendships which have lasted through the years. I also took back two precious gifts: first, the return of my health-for I was a cripple from war wounds when I came here; and second, a gift to which you have made kind allusion, Mr. Prime Minister -a wife. I am glad to say that I have contrived, in spite of the ups and downs of life, to preserve both these blessings.
The last time I was in Ottawa was in November of last year. I had already had the good fortune, Mr. Prime Minister, to make a friendship with you in the summer

previous when you came post-haste from a general election to the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. I shall always admire the way in which you arrived almost at a day's notice. Nor can I forget that at that conference by your inspiration and persistence there were sown the seeds of the commonwealth trade and economic conference to which we are looking forward with such high hopes. The first stage took place within a few months at Mont Tremblant last year. For the second, the preparatory work of experts and officials is now proceeding. I earnestly hope that the conference will mark a great advance in commonwealth co-operation in trade and commerce.
When I saw the Prime Minister and the cabinet seven months ago we had full and frank discussions; but if I remember right it was a position of some political uncertainty. Since then you have had another election and you, Mr. Prime Minister, have the satisfaction of being now supported by a large majority in the house.
Perhaps you will allow me without impertinence to make some reflections upon the ups and downs of politics. You have had them in this country, and we have had them in ours. Great successes are very agreeable when they come, and defeats are correspondingly disappointing; but both victory and defeat are in our democratic system part of the game. We learn to accept them cheerfully and look forward to the next time. We recognize that the rights of minorities must be respected as well as the powers of majorities, and perhaps this is the special strength of our tradition and our democratic system. It is based on, and indeed it can only be preserved by, good humour, common sense and fair play.
This leads me to venture some observations about the commonwealth as a whole. I have had in the last few months a most wonderful experience. I made a tour, much too rapid to be satisfactory but comprehensive enough to be inspiring, of five commonwealth countries in as many weeks. All of them have their problems-India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Australia, New Zealand. I hope I may be allowed some day to make not only these occasional visits to the capital of Canada, but a more prolonged visit to other parts of the country. This tour which I made in January made me realize more deeply what I had already known but perhaps had not fully comprehended, the immense force for good which the commonwealth is and can be in the world today.
What is it that binds us together? The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa-we are, of course, held together by common origins and tradition.

to now we have not been good at is salesmanship, and that, with your help and by your example, we are now learning.
I was particularly pleased at the job done by the visiting Canadian delegation a few months ago. The contacts that were built up and the close association that we have now with Canadian industry are going to produce some remarkable results as the months go by. We have with your government the closest understanding. We have between your industries and ours novel and quite remarkable developments in practical cooperation. Your industrialists have been to see our country and how good the stuff is that we have to sell. We hope that our recent mission to Canada under Sir William Rootes will have helped us to add still further to our understanding. We are looking forward, therefore, to increased mutual trade and closer working in all industrial and economic fields.
Our two peoples, among so many other things in common, have also this which ties us together. There is a word, which like most of the sacred things we do not find it easy to bandy about; which we do not talk about, but feel, and that word is "loyalty". Canada was founded on loyalty. The people of the old country, with all their differences and divergences, are a profoundly loyal people.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is with deep emotion that I have the honour to speak in this chamber as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I never dreamt as a young man of such a possibility. Now that it has come I can scarcely believe it, but the message I bring to you is one based upon the thoughts of my early youth and confirmed by later experience. Our people and your people have been tested twice in my lifetime, tested in a hard school through two long wars and the harsh and difficult problems that follow war, but never were Canada and Britain closer together than they are today. Each of us can say to the other, with sincerity and truth, those beautiful words we know so well:
Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.
(Translation):


Hon. Mark Robert Drouin (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. Prime Minister, may I, on behalf of the members of the Canadian Senate, express the pleasure your visit to Canada has brought us. We were happy to learn that you had kindly consented to address us in this house, and I wish to offer my most sincere thanks for the admirable speech you have just delivered. Each of us, I am sure, has found in it food for deep thought.

I would also like to avail myself of the opportunity, Mr. Prime Minister, to express, on behalf of those senators and members who, like myself, are of French descent, the pleasure we felt while listening to you speak to us in our native tongue.
Our country is rightly proud of the visit of so illustrious a personage as you are, and we are most happy to have you with us at this time.
As was said by the right hon. Prime Minister, this is the third time in less than 20 years that a prominent spokesman of the United Kingdom has honoured this house by his visit and enlightened it by his authoritative statements.
In December, 1941, it was the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill whose engaging personality was the hope and inspiration of the democratic world during the dark hours of the war. In February, 1956, we welcomed the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, who played such a great part in the administration of the foreign affairs of his country. Today, we welcome you, Right Hon. Mr. Macmillan, who, in these uncertain days, continue to play the same prominent part as your predecessors. To us, you are the personification of the importance and the greatness of the United Kingdom. This relationship between our two countries is of the highest order. Owing to our frequent consultations, we have been in a position to work in perfect understanding for the promotion of our mutual progress and development. Has it not been said, and rightly so, that the commonwealth countries constitute a vital part of the business world? Although those countries have evolved and have reached nationhood, the similarities which they have preserved create among this group of parliamentary democracies a relationship which allows them to spread their influence throughout the world and to contribute to the establishment of a spirit of understanding and cohesion.
We are confident, Mr. Prime Minister, that this relationship will continue to be strengthened with the years.
The whole of Canada welcomes you as an ambassador of friendship and of peace, two sentiments which are made especially alive by your kind presence here today. May I say to you, sir, how deep an impression you leave with us? Your visit here has extraordinary importance at a time when some international problems remain unsolved. Moreover, it symbolizes the loyalty which unites our two countries; it is the symbol of the sustained efforts your country made after terrible years of hardships. If, at the most critical time of history, we sometimes
Address by Right Hon. H. Macmillan tend to lose faith in the future, we only have to look upon the glorious past of your country to find new courage and energy.
We are all rightly proud to be members of the commonwealth, this group of partners who, in a spirit of equality and fraternity, work for the maintenance of peace and freedom in co-operation with other agencies of world security. Such is the ideal you represent, Mr. Prime Minister, and in closing my remarks I should like to endorse the opinion expressed by one of our French-speaking newspapers, on the occasion of your visit:
There is no doubt that, like previous ones, this meeting between the head of the government of Great Britain and the head of the government of Canada will be friendly and will afford both countries a new opportunity to strengthen friendly ties which are not to be neglected in the western world at the present time.
Therefore, I have the great honour, Mr. Prime Minister, of expressing to you, on behalf of this assembly which represents the Canadian nation as a whole, our deep gratitude for your visit, and I should like to transmit, through you, to all your fellow citizens our sincere and friendly regards.
(Text):


Hon. Roland Michener (Speaker of ihe House of Commons):: Mr. Prime Minister Macmillan, on behalf of the House of Commons I have the honour to add our words of appreciation to those expressed by my colleague of the Senate. From our point of view it is particularly appropriate that you should have spoken to the Canadian parliament and people in this chamber, the green chamber of the commons. Although it may look a bit strange to your parliamentary eye by reason of its expanse and its comfortable armchairs and desks as contrasted with the narrow benches of your own house, the Speaker's chair, which is an exact replica of the one in Westminster whence it came as a gift of your parliament, should fill you with that familiar sense of uncertain security which this ancient seat has symbolized for generations of house leaders.
You will agree, I believe, that in spirit we are a true House of Commons in which responsible government is carried on in the British tradition, with only such variations as were needed in a federal union of two races and many regions. As you have remarked, these parliamentary institutions and practices have taken root in all the selfgoverning nations of the commonwealth, and bind us together with an understanding of each other's politics which is certainly a

Visit of Right Hon. H. Macmillan broader if not a stronger bond of union than those of language and race. So it has been in your travels about the commonwealth; you have been welcomed with pleasure and understanding by fellow parliamentarians, Asian, British and French, all speaking the same language of the standing orders and rules of procedure.
You have been welcomed, of course, for your own sake; for your friendly charm and your great personal attainments and, as our Prime Minister has mentioned, in this case for the presence of your charming wife. But this commonwealth welcome is deeper. It

recognizes in you as' the Prime Minister of the original parliament a personification of the ancient source from which we have all drawn and to which we still look for living example and inspiration, and through which we communicate one with the other.
Knowing your heavy responsibilities, although you do your best to conceal them, we are the more grateful that you have found time to speak to us today. We thank you for your message and your greetings. We ask you to accept our heartfelt good wishes and to carry them with you to your own House of Commons and people.

Monday, June 16, 1958