1958-07-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is unanimous consent, because we oppose the idea of committees sitting while the house is sitting.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise the house that the government has received the resignation of Mr. A. D. Dunton as chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This resignation was received yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Dunton was appointed chairman of the board in 1945, and from 1945 to the present time he has served in that capacity. It has been, I think we would all agree, one of the most difficult positions in the public service, and he has shown in the administration of that office a combination of tact, firmness and ability which has characterized his term of office and placed the administration on a high level of efficiency which reflects credit on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and on himself. The high standard of C.B.C. radio and the tremendous growth of C.B.C. television culminating in the inauguration of the national microwave system on July 1 will serve as monuments to his record of service to Canada.
Mr. Dunton has received various offers of employment during the last year, all of which he has turned down, but he has been offered one which appeals to him because it provides a different opportunity for public service- one which, I understand, has been tendered to him officially this morning, and which he has accepted, namely, the presidency of Carleton University.
We all regret the fact that his services are lost to the public service of Canada in 57071-3-121J
the field of radio and television, but at the same time we welcome the fact that he is entering another area of public service where he will be able to make a real contribution to the development of this country. His resignation will be effective on July 15.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house will have heard with great regret the news the minister has just given us of the resignation of one who has served his country with distinction, devotion and intelligence in one of the most difficult positions that any Canadian could hold. Our regret at this news is mitigated to some extent by the other announcement that he is accepting the position as head of one of the two great universities in Ottawa, where he will have further opportunities of public service.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret certainly that we in this group learn of the resignation of Mr. A. D. Dunton, chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe his resignation is a blow to Canada and to the C.B.C. which has been built up to such great efficiency over the years. Mr. Dunton presided as chairman of the board of governors while the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was in a state of rapid growth particularly in respect of its television facilities. The corporation has strongly cemented national unity in Canada amongst both our great races and has helped develop a distinctive Canadian culture. Without reservation we are sorry to see Mr. A. D. Dunton resign from this important position. Naturally we are pleased that he will continue to serve his country in another highly important capacity. We wish him health and happiness in his new post, and we anticipate from him the same distinguished service in the years to come.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread publicity given to the statement I am alleged to have made yesterday that there were to be drastic reductions in the militia,
1908	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and the serious effect and repercussions that may arise from that publicity, I would like to make a brief statement on the actual situation. The question of the reorganization of the militia is now under study along the lines that the organization should be based primarily upon the ability of various localities to support militia units, and partly on the proximity of possible targets for enemy attack.
I still want to stress that the militia is an important element in our deterrent, because it is to be trained so it can help to sustain the life of this nation under a nuclear attack and, therefore, make that attack less effective than if there were no such organization.
There are some localities which experience has shown have not been able to maintain the number of units that had been previously allocated to those localities. Some of these units will have to be amalgamated with others, but there is no drastic reduction contemplated in the militia.



REPORTED DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS UNIFORMS TO WELFARE AGENCIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my first question to the Minister of Defence Production, based on a somewhat abnormal continuing curiosity.
In view of the reports that arrangements were made by the minister for the sale of clothing sufficient for one thousand men at a cost of $1 to assist a welfare organization in the rehabilitation of certain unfortunate persons, would the minister inform the house if it is the policy of the government to render such assistance to other organizations undertaking similar rehabilitation programs?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I have received a request from the Meurling Institute of Montreal to sell for a nominal sum used clothing for the rehabilitation of certain unfortunate persons in that district. Although it was a most reasonable request, no decision has as yet been taken on it.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, because of the wide interest in the coastal steamship strike and the interest which I know hon. members in this house have in this matter I want to follow up and summarize what has transpired since I made
[Mr. Pearkes.l

my statement on Wednesday last, in which I said that I had forwarded to the parties concerned a recommendation of Mr. Eric Taylor who is acting on behalf of the Department of Labour in trying to bring the parties together.
I have received replies to my telegram from the Canadian Pacific Railway accepting the conditions as outlined by Mr. Taylor subject to their being accepted by the other interested parties. I received other telegrams from R. E. Greaves, the national president of the national association of marine engineers, and G. F. Bullock, secretary of the Canadian merchant service guild, advising me that these two organizations confirm acceptance of the recommendation as outlined by the mediator, Eric Taylor, and will comply. The only one we have not heard from definitely is the seafarers international union. A referendum was being taken yesterday in Vancouver, and we are awaiting the result of that referendum and their decision.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to remove the statutory limits on the amount of compensation for cattle slaughtered pursuant to the act. except when slaughtered pursuant to area or herd disease eradication programs, in which case the limits are to be increased.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to extend the benefits of the act and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at

the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the high court of Ontario, for one additional judge of the appeal division of the supreme court of New Brunswick and for six additional judges for the county courts of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government any plans to investigate possible economies in the organization of the civil service, for instance by the appointment of a Canadian "Hoover" commission, a proposal which the Prime Minister and his party advocated so strongly when they were in opposition?


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us hope not.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that over the years this party advocated a commission similar to the Hoover commission in the United States. It is equally true that over the years those who are now in opposition opposed that suggestion with all the vehemence at their command. This government will give the fullest consideration to this matter, and when it is in a position to announce a decision it will be made to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the statement of the Prime Minister now replacing the statement he gave to the press yesterday on this subject?


John George Diefenbaker: There is no replacement in any way, as my hon. friend will find if he will read the question and the answer of yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will read them.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A contradiction.



INQUIRY AS TO PROCLAMATION OF ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister explain to the house the unprecedented delay in proclaiming the Annual Vacations Act which was given royal assent on January 31 last, and can this act be proclaimed immediately so the people affected may get their holidays this season?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: I expect to make an announcement to that effect in the early part of next week.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture to further enlighten the house and, I trust, promote the happiness and welfare of the tree fruit growers in British Columbia. Can the minister inform the house when a decision can be expected in connection with the application of the British Columbia fruit growers association for assistance under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for the 1957 crop?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia fruit growers association requested some assistance for the 1957 apple crop in January of this year. I assured them at that time that when they had finished marketing that crop, which was not in fact until about a month ago, we would give consideration to their request. They wrote again on March 27 and asked that consideration also be given to assistance on the 1957 crops of apricots, prunes and two other fruits. I have forgotten which ones they are at the moment. Then they made a formal submission on June 11.
I wrote to them in reply pointing out the fact that we had made a commitment to give consideration to assistance as far as the 1957 apple crop was concerned. We also asked them on June 24 to supply additional information with respect to the 1957 apple crop, information which we will require before we can make any determination and come to a decision whether assistance should be given. Up to date this information has not been received.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the minister receive a telegram from the city of Rouyn asking that seasonal benefits be extended, or that the government take all necessary steps to help the unemployed?


Michael Starr: wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer to the first part is no. Since
1910	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry we have extended seasonal benefits twice already, it is not the intention of the government to extend seasonal benefits further.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware of the reported statement of Premier T. C. Douglas of Saskatchewan with regard to the whole South Saskatchewan dam agreement, which statement is found in the Ottawa Citizen of July 3 and reads in part as follows:
He claims the province is being asked to pay more than the federal government, although he does not regard power as a separate project.
Is he also aware of the statement of the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan as reported in the Ottawa Journal of July 3, which reads in part as follows:
He called it "a tougher deal than Jimmie Gardiner offered us when he was federal agriculture minister in the former Liberal government."
If the minister is aware of these statements, would he care to comment on them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have seen these press reports and certain others, and I must say I was surprised and disappointed to see them in view of the extremely generous terms we have offered to the province of Saskatchewan respecting the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. With respect to the statement made by Mr. Nollet that we have offered tougher terms than the former minister of agriculture, Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner, offered to them at one time, I would only say that we started our negotiations with Saskatchewan on that basis and continually improved our offer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the minister that the other day the Prime Minister tabled the terms of the offer which I take it he is now endeavouring to explain in response to this question. I assume the matter will come before the house for approval, and it seems to me it would be better to defer discussion until that time, because this discussion is taking the form of a debate.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, if it is in order I would like to ask the Prime Minister a factual question in connection with the federal government offer in respect of the South Saskatchewan river dam. Would the Prime Minister inform the


house what concessions have been made by the dominion government to the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the number of acres to be irrigated by the province as a condition of the participation of the dominion government in the South Saskatchewan river dam project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question I think I should refer to a statement made by the Canadian Press and, as such, a statement which affects the privileges of this house. This statement was to the effect that the premier of Saskatchewan had said that the province is "deeply disappointed" that the requested federal government loan to help build the South Saskatchewan river dam had been rejected and accused Prime Minister Diefenbaker of "rank discrimination against Saskatchewan".
If this statement was made by the premier of Saskatchewan, all I can say is that it is in error. The total cost of building a dam up to $100 million will be shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the provincial government. Of that 25 per cent one-half will be given as a loan by the federal government to the government of Saskatchewan in further assistance with respect to this project.
In so far as concessions are concerned, a very material concession was arrived at as the result of consultation, and that is that while at all times in the past it was understood that if the project was proceeded with 100,000 acres of irrigated land would have to be assured within one year after completion of the dam, we have met the province of Saskatchewan in that regard by reducing by 50 per cent the number of acres subject to irrigation within that period. The other concessions were in general referred to by myself when I brought this matter to the attention of the house on July 2, 1958, and I will not repeat what I said on that occasion.
The premier of Saskatchewan and the minister of agriculture of that province, of course, by their attitudes in this very important matter seem to be generating provincial pre-election schemes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the comment of the Prime Minister has been most regrettable, and I am going to explain why I believe this to be so.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to misjudge a comment of the premier of Saskatchewan. Is the Prime Minister aware that on the C.B.C. television news at eleven o'clock, following his announcement in the house, an erroneous report was

made that the Prime Minister had announced that the Saskatchewan application for a loan had been turned down. If that report was on the C.B.C. news is it not possible, though I have no personal knowledge of this, that the report was also in the press in Saskatchewan, and that that was the newspaper report which the premier of that province is answering, just as the Prime Minister himself is answering a news report today?


John George Diefenbaker: That is entirely erroneous, Mr. Speaker. What I was referring to was an additional amount over and above the assistance in the building of the dam, for which the government of Saskatchewan was asking; not assistance in connection with the financing of the dam of which, as I have already stated, we will agree to provide 50 per cent. I am referring now to the one-half of the $25 million on a 20-year debenture basis. Over and above that the premier of Saskatchewan asked that this government should also finance the province's own power development in Saskatchewan, and I said we turned down that proposal. That is a different matter altogether, and there was no erroneous report on the C.B.C.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think my interpretation of the news at any time is as accurate as the interpretation of the Prime Minister, but may I ask this question. For what reason has he changed his position from that taken a few years ago in this house when he said that this project should be fully a federal responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and does he not know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter will become a general debate if it is pursued in this vein. It seems to me that sufficient explanations have been given to make the matter clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister if he thinks that consideration should not be given by this government to the power needs of Newfoundland equal to that given by the government to the power needs of Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to note the interest of my hon. friend in the power needs of Newfoundland, which were neglected while he was in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a supplementary question, does the Prime Minister consider that the power needs of Newfoundland were so neglected? The minister from Newfoundland said the opposite.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS



RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTION WALLS ON NAVIGABLE RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the controversy between Quebec and federal authorities regarding responsibility for building protecting walls on navigable rivers, even if not or little navigated, would the minister satisfy all interested parties by submitting the case to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification? If not, why not?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this question is a hardy perennial and I suggest it is not in order at this stage of the proceedings.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Why?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will be in half an hour.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED INTENTION TO ORGANIZE TRADE UNION MONOPOLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Has the attention of the Minister of Transport been drawn to reports that Mr. James Hoffa, head of the international teamsters union, plans to organize a trade union monopoly of the workers of the St. Lawrence seaway? Would the minister have any comment to make on this report?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: I have read the same newspaper report as the hon. member, and I have no comment to make.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of continued reports of further substantial lay-offs of employees of Canadian National Railways at many points across the country, including the laying off of 75 employees in Winnipeg today.
Would the minister say what action the government is prepared to take to prevent further lay-offs at this time and whether, as a result of his conversation with the Canadian National following his statement of June 6, the minister can assure the house that long-service employees recently laid off will be re-employed at an early date?

Inquiries oj the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. In reply I can explain the matter no more clearly or fully than I did when I spoke in the house on this matter on June 6 last, when I said as follows:
Mr. Speaker, as I have told the house on numerous occasions these matters are completely within the jurisdiction of the management of the Canadian National Railways. They have informed me on many occasions that whenever lay-offs are made that is not done until every possible means of keeping the men employed have been explored, and that when lay-offs are necessary everything will be done to re-employ the men just as soon as possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a supplementary question, may I say that I think the minister should read on from his statement of June 6, wherein I asked him whether he would make representations to the Canadian National and he replied by saying:
Yes; I will bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of the management.
If he did, can he explain to the house why the Canadian National is apparently accelerating the rate of lay-offs, thus adding to the very serious unemployment in the country at this time?


George Harris Hees: I did bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of the management of the Canadian National, as I assured him I would do. I was again assured by the management of the Canadian National that whenever these lay-offs are necessary they are not made before every possible means of keeping the men employed is explored, and that whenever it is possible to find work for these men they will be re-employed. But they have pointed out to me, and I point out to the hon. member, that if there is no work for a man to do, the Canadian National cannot employ him.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his statement. I wonder if he would be prepared to discuss with the Canadian National the question of the laying-off today of 75 employees from the shops in Winnipeg?


George Harris Hees: I have discussed this whole matter of lay-offs on many occasions with the Canadian National management, and this particular lay-off, although it is just as regrettable as all the others, does not enter into a different category. I know exactly how the management feels about this and other lay-offs and my speaking to them again about this will not change the effect of it, I feel sure. However, I shall be glad to speak to them again about this particular lay-off.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of his important announcement of yesterday concerning the movement of feed grain on the prairies, and in view of the serious situation facing stockraisers because of the shortage of hay and other feed this year, which is causing many of them to sell stock early and threatening a glut on the market, if he would inform the house whether or not the government is giving consideration to some action to assure an adequate feed supply for the coming months, including this winter?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: My responsibility in the matter was with regard to wheat, oats and barley, the feed grains. I did make an announcement yesterday in the house as to action in that regard.
Other matters with regard to fodder would come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness).


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce be kind enough to bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think possibly the hon. member for Essex East is losing his eyesight.
This matter of fodder for cattle in the drought areas of the west has been causing us very serious concern. We have been getting daily reports from the officials of the department in those areas as to what is the situation, and I have been in touch with the ministers of agriculture for Manitoba and Saskatchewan who are coming here next week in order to discuss this matter. We will then be able to consider steps to deal with what might be a very, very serious situation unless rain falls in that area within the next two weeks.
If we do get fairly general rainfall in the drought areas during the next two or three weeks the pastures will come back and a fair amount of feed will be provided. Otherwise there is going to be an extreme shortage of feed, and undoubtedly steps will have to be taken to provide fodder for the livestock in those areas.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could tell us whether the government would consider

paying the cost of the freight for the movement of fodder and feed grains to drought areas in the prairies, in somewhat the same manner that is now provided for the movement of feed grains out of the prairies to eastern Canada, since there is a very great emergency in this case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated a minute ago the reason the ministers of agriculture for Manitoba and Saskatchewan are coming down here next week is to discuss these very matters, as to what steps should be taken and what is the best way to meet the threatened situation. At that time we will be having discussions upon these very points about which the hon. member is asking.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister if he has yet made any reply to the letter from the premier of Newfoundland
dated February yesterday?	19	which was	tabledRight Hon. J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister has consideration yet been given, as was publicly promised by the Prime Minister in St. John's, to that request and is it the intention of the government at the present session to propose an amendment to the statute as requested by the premier of Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: In the immortal words of the hon. member when he was on this side of the house, when a decision is made it will be announced.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question through you to either the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Defence Production. I wonder if either minister could advise the house what progress has been made toward the construction of an armoury in Sudbury following the announcement that was made this spring?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: Consideration is being given to the construction of an armoury in Sudbury, because the accommodation occupied by the militia in Sudbury is no longer available.


David Rodger Mitchell: I do not think the minister quite answered my question. How far has the department proceeded with the planning of this armoury? When may we expect it?


George Randolph Pearkes: Work is being carried out on the plan for this armoury.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could
ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the important international developments of recent weeks there is likely to be an early opportunity to discuss external affairs in this house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to say yet just when, but I would say that within the next week, as a result of arrangements, I hope a date can be fixed.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister care to comment on the proposal made yesterday before the Senate finance committee by the president of the house builders' association that consideration should be given to making financing easier for the purchase of older or so-called used homes?


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the question relates to matters before a committee of the other house?


John Richard Garland: It was not asked in that spirit. I asked the minister if he would care to comment. The basis of my question is a press release in yesterday's newspaper.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest it would be quite improper for me to comment on evidence that has been given before a Senate committee.
1914	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



LAKE NIPISSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Nipissing concerning the control of the water level in lake Nipissing. This level, apparently, is very low at the present time, and the hon. member asked whether we could not arrange more effective co-operation measures for control, together with the Ontario hydro commission.
I have now had an opportunity to check this situation with the departmental officials, and I can tell the hon. member that the cooperation between the Ontario hydro and the department is as good as can be, up to the limit that we cannot ask them to seriously endanger their water storage as required for power production needs. Officials of the department have telephone communication always available with officials of the hydro, and both agencies currently exchange information. Hydro also sends to the department weekly and monthly reports on data of discharges and storages.
Hydro have just advised an official of the department that there is no possibility of dumping more water than they have been doing recently. They point out that the Temagami, which is their largest storage, is now two feet below normal, and there is no possibility of dumping any more of the storage water. Spring run-off this year was practically nil, and as a consequence storages are subnormal.
Recently, as a result of some little rain and a high percentage of relative humidity reducing evaporation, the lake level has raised by 0.24 foot. However, unless run-off increases further, water power requirements may necessitate a reduction in discharge at the power dams in view of the present critical situation.
I greatly regret that I cannot give the hon. member a more encouraging report.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the pattern of three-power co-operation developed during world war II on atomic matters, could the minister


inform the house whether Canada will be invited to join in the agreement signed, I think, the day before yesterday between the United Kingdom and the United States for co-operation on the use of atomic energy for defence purposes?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will accept that question as notice.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has the answer to my question of yesterday on the strike on the pipe line at Port Arthur?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought the hon. member directed that question to the Minister of Labour. I have no answer for him today, but I will try to have one for him on Monday.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning the forest fire situation in the Yukon. Since that time, in view of the fact that my information indicates an increase in the number of these forest fires with a consequent increase in the danger to private and public property, I am wondering whether the department has taken any further action in respect to sending assistance to those engaged in fighting these numerous fires.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we were in contact with the commissioner of the Yukon on Wednesday. There are now 44 fires in the Yukon, and the old ones still have not been brought under control. A tremendous effort is being put into controlling them. The wardens we sent to assist a week ago are proving very useful. The commissioner has requested additional assistance, and yesterday four additional wardens were sent, three from Banff and one from Prince Albert. We are also sending some replacement relief for the forest engineer of the territorial government of the Yukon, who has been seriously overworked in the last two weeks. The replacement, I believe, has already flown in from Port Smith. There was also a request

for equipment, and this was sent in either by air freight or air express yesterday.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Harbours and Rivers Engineering Services-
350.	Ontario. $11,642,900.


Mr. Allmark:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the committee a matter which is of the utmost importance to my riding of Kingston and, I believe, of equal importance to the Canadian people. In the planning of the St. Lawrence seaway there was no provision made for the deepening of one small section approximately one-half mile in length at the foot of Wolfe island, some 20 miles east of Kingston. Because there was no provision made for the deepening of this particular section the Canadian channel which has been used almost exclusively since shipping began would no longer be the channel through which the vessels using the St. Lawrence seaway would pass. The western terminal of the St. Lawrence, which has been on the Canadian side of the river, would be transferred to the United States side.
The fact that this channel has been on the Canadian side has made Kingston the pilot's terminal. It has brought industry to this area. It has been responsible for building up shipyard and ship repair facilities which gave to Canadian labour millions of dollars annually in wages. It is obvious that if this one section is not deepened Canadian industry and labour located at the western end of the St. Lawrence river will not only lose the benefits they have enjoyed but will also lose those greater benefits which will result from the building of the St. Lawrence seaway.
It is sound reasoning to believe that ship repair facilities will be required at the junction of the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes. Ships that are damaged in the canals and in the narrow channels to the east of Kingston require repair before proceeding into the open lakes, and ships which suffer damage in the lakes cannot jeopardize the seaway system by proceeding through it without repair. Therefore I suggest that if this one obstacle is allowed to remain and block off the Canadian channel and prevent ships which require repair from reaching the repair facilities now established at Kingston, then these facilities will be built in the United States channel.
The Kingston drydock is owned by the Canadian government. Its cornerstone was laid in 1890 by a Canadian of great vision,
Supply-Public Works Sir John A. Macdonald. It is my hope that this government will take the steps that are necessary to keep in Canada that which we already possess, the western terminal of the St. Lawrence system.
In the early days of this parliament I brought this situation to the attention of the minister. My submissions on behalf of the riding I represent have been enthusiastically and vigorously supported by the Kingston chamber of commerce and by the city council of Kingston. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he and his departmental engineers have had sufficient time to consider my request for the opening of the Canadian channel in this particular area, and, if so, what action the government proposes taking.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member headed a delegation from Kingston which came to Ottawa a few days ago and interviewed the Minister of Transport and myself concerning this proposed deepening of the channel at the eastern end of Wolfe island. As a result of the information we gained at that interview we are having a further survey made, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to take some steps along the lines the hon. member has advocated today. We can assure him that we are very conscious of the importance of seeing that the famous old Canadian city of Kingston should not suffer in any way through any lack of action on the part of the government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister for an explanation of the expenditures for Port Arthur and Fort William, and the relative balance toward Port Arthur rather than Fort William. I also put to him my former question concerning the distinction between dredging and harbour improvements.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the last thing I should like to do is fan any flames of rivalry between the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There are none.


Howard Charles Green: I learned shortly after I became Minister of Public Works that when I wrote a letter to the mayor of either of those cities it was wise to write the same letter to the mayor of the other. I have no intention today of going into a discussion of finances in such a way as to lead to the thought that there was any discrimination on the part of the government in dealing with the two cities referred to. It just so happens that last year we spent more money in the harbour of Fort William than we did in the harbour of Port Arthur. This year the reverse is true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was an election.

Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: It had nothing to do with the election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just inclining a little to the C.C.F.


Howard Charles Green: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would allow his thoughts to sink so low. This year there is more money to be expended in the harbour of Port Arthur. As both the hon. members for Port Arthur and Fort William know, there is to be a lake-head dock erected and a lakehead harbour commission is being set up, and I am sure this co-operation will help a great deal to draw those two cities together in just the same way that the attitudes shown here by the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Fort William have been most co-operative on this extremely difficult question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, as my thoughts, in the words of the minister, are low, may I-


Howard Charles Green: I did not really mean that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -ask him what progress, if any, has been made in the construction of a dock at Cutler, Ontario, to serve the very important Elliot Lake mining area, a dock which was promised by the Prime Minister as a government dock in the election of June, 1957?


Howard Charles Green: Evidently this dock is in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition, Algoma East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: He is very wise to be deeply interested in it. There was a suggestion that a coal company was interested in establishing a dock there and an attempt was made to work out some co-operative undertaking between the company and the government; but recently the coal company seems to have lost interest. I fear that at the moment not much progress is being made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that particular development, and I suggest to the minister that one of the reasons it has been very difficult indeed to work out this co-operative arrangement, by which the cost would be shared by the mining company and the coal company, with the government assisting in various ways, is that the Prime Minister promised that they would construct the dock. That was a little discouraging to the private interests who were about to contribute.


Howard Charles Green: Well, those private industries are not usually so thin-skinned. I think they understand pretty well what is required

where a dock is to be constructed under conditions of this kind. We shall be very glad to have another look at the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the minister's assurance in that regard because, as he knows, this particular area of Elliott Lake is becoming increasingly important, and the shipments from that area are increasing in volume every week. A dock in this particular area is becoming more and more important.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister comment on the extent of the repairs and plans for the dock at Sturgeon Falls this year? Perhaps when he is replying he could also clarify the responsibility assumed by his department for the approaches generally to government docks.


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member will have noted, there is no item in the estimates for Sturgeon Falls dock although there may be-


John Richard Garland: Just repairs.


Howard Charles Green: There may be small repairs
under way there. There is $1,000 for paving the approach to the dock. The practice in these cases is to construct a road to the nearest municipal or provincial highway.


John Richard Garland: Construct a road to the nearest street or highway?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Mind you, that would be limited to construction on government property.


John Richard Garland: Oh, that is the qualifier? In view of the answer the minister was kind enough to give me earlier today concerning the water level of lake Nipissing, I should like to say a word. This is a very serious matter, of which I am sure the minister and his officials are well aware. It affects the employment of people who normally would be working in the mill at the present time. It affects perhaps close to 200 people in that category. No doubt it will affect the possible employment later of 300 to 400 people in the woods operations.
I realize that this is a very difficult problem. The desirable level of that lake is 642 feet. I think the department endeavours to maintain 642.2 feet. At the moment I think the water level is 640.69 feet, or that was the level a day or so ago. In view of the answer the minister gave this morning, stating there is little hope of getting water from the upper Sturgeon river or from any of the adjoining areas, I am wondering whether the minister would have his engineers visit the area with a view to having another look at the situation, to see if anything can be done to facilitate the mill operations there to get into production.
I have in mind one thing. I recall that on an earlier occasion I recommended to the

department that they enter into an agreement with the company. I am not suggesting any such course at the moment until we have more facts. The recommendation was that the department enter into an agreement with the company on a 50-50 basis for some dredging in that area which would enable the mill to operate when the water is low. That work was done.
In view of the seriousness of the situation, and particularly because it affects the employment of several hundred people in my district, will the minister instruct his engineers to have another look at the situation to see whether anything can be done to get that mill back into operation?


Howard Charles Green: We will be glad to have our engineers look over the situation again. The hon. member will realize that the problem really is not one of dredging but of maintaining a minimum flow in the river which runs into the lake.


John Richard Garland: I recognize that additional dredging may not be the answer. I hate to be troubling the minister with those problems; I know that he is anxious to get on with his estimates, but I wonder whether he would care to comment on the progress of the Mattawa dock project?


Howard Charles Green: The intention of the department is to proceed with the construction of the dock at Mattawa as soon as we can get an appropriate site. We hope that will be in the very near future.


John Richard Garland: I appreciate the minister's remarks, but can he say whether there is any difficulty in acquiring a site? My reason for mentioning the matter is that I recall that during the last election campaign a group of local citizens were called together to have their picture taken. They represented a good cross-section of the community.


Howard Charles Green: With you?


John Richard Garland: No, not with me. The group represented the municipal, business and cultural life of the community. I recall that the mayor was there as well as members of the chamber of commerce and members of the senior and junior Progressive Conservative associations. The Conservative candidate in the last election was also there. The minister says that the dock will be built if and when a site is located, but the picture to which I have referred was taken on the site that had been decided upon prior to that time. Would the minister comment on whether there is any difficulty in acquiring that site?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the difficulties with regard to a site have been overcome. The
Supply-Public Works delay was caused by uncertainty as to what the provincial government was going to do by way of developing a park. The hon. member can assure these distinguished citizens who had their picture taken that the dock will be proceeded with very quickly.


John Richard Garland: I must say that I appreciate that statement very much. My reason for pursuing the matter was that I thought there was some confusion in the minds of the officials of the minister's department as to the location of the dock. It is true that the provincial government is developing a park area further up the river. The dock site recommended and requested originally by the Mattawa chamber of commerce and put forward by me on their behalf to the former administration was in the town of Mattawa. I hope there will be no further confusion and that the dock will be built on the site originally requested by the Mattawa chamber of commerce and other interested citizens.


Mr. Nixon:: Would the minister care to comment on the matter of increased harbour and wharfage facilities at Sault Ste. Marie that may be necessary because of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, he brought a delegation from Sault Ste. Marie some months ago to discuss this matter with me. We then sent out an investigating group consisting of representatives from the Department of Transport as well as the Department of Public Works. They had very satisfactory interviews at the Sault and made their report. We have now engaged consulting engineers to prepare the necessary plans for a structure there. In addition, negotiations are under way with Algoma Steel concerning the proposals. The harbour at Sault Ste. Marie is, of course, very important and we are very much concerned to see that adequate steps are taken there to enable the city to participate in the increased business which will follow the completion of the seaway.


George Ewart Nixon: Then it is the intention of the minister and the department to proceed with the project in some manner?


Howard Charles Green: A good deal will depend on the possibility of completing arrangements with Algoma Steel.


George Ewart Nixon: But negotiations will continue?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes, we are pressing them. Officials of Algoma Steel were in Ottawa interviewing departmental officials just a few days ago.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister comment on the announced dock project at Cache Bay? While the minister is looking up the material, I might say that this project was

Supply-Public Works approved early in 1957 and then for some reason was held up during the balance of the year. In January of this year I brought the matter to the attention of the minister's department, and was advised at that time that "in view of subsequent representations received" the project was being held up. I wrote in reply asking what these representations were, and at that time the minister was kind enough to write me a letter saying that the project would be gone ahead with. That was on February 7 of this year. The minister informed me that the dock would be built and that the local municipal council would be so advised. To date nothing has been done there to my knowledge. Can the minister give us some encouragement?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the difficulty in this case was that we could not get cooperation from the municipal authorities in the selection of a site for the dock. The project was a marginal one in any event, and in view of the difficulties concerning a site we plan to drop it.


John Richard Garland: If I may pursue the question of the difficulty in locating a site, may I say that the site is there and has been there for 50 years. There was a dock there years ago which gradually fell into a state of disrepair.


Howard Charles Green: There was difficulty with the municipal officials. Apparently they would not co-operate.


John Richard Garland: Is that the only reason the project has not been proceeded with?


Howard Charles Green: Under those conditions it was considered not worth while to go ahead with the project. If the hon. member cares to look into the situation again I will be very glad to consider any representations he may make.


John Richard Garland: I thank the minister for that. Is this policy or decision of the minister something new that has developed since his letter to me of February 7? I would remind the minister of that letter, in which he said:
The matter has been reconsidered in the light of present conditions of seasonal unemployment, and it has now been decided to proceed with this undertaking as soon as possible, possibly before the end of this fiscal year.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this difficulty has continued for well over a year. There is a question about the dock site. I have not the details here, but the municipality was supposed to acquire a site for us. They declined to do that. As I said a moment ago, the proposal is a very marginal one in any event. It is questionable whether or not it should be built, even with the cooperation of the municipal authorities.


John Richard Garland: That is the only thing that is standing in the way? May I just clear up that point? That is the only thing standing in the way of this dock being built, the failure of the municipality to acquire a site for your department?


Howard Charles Green: That is the difficulty; but mind you, as I said before it is a very marginal project and would have to be looked at very carefully.


John Richard Garland: I do not want to annoy the minister, but in the light of his letter of February 7, in which he said it has now been decided to proceed with this project as soon as possible, possibly before the end of the fiscal year-


Howard Charles Green: This site trouble made it impossible to go ahead with the project. There had been discussions, apparently, for over a year about this site.


John Richard Garland: That is really the only thing that is holding it up, the matter of a site?


Howard Charles Green: I would have to look at it to see whether or not it is a project with which we should proceed. If the hon. member will let me have representations, particularly having to do with this site difficulty, I shall be glad to go into the whole question thoroughly.


John Richard Garland: I find it rather strange to reconcile what the minister is now saying, if I may say so with great respect, with his statement in the letter that it had been decided to proceed. One of the reasons for the decision to proceed was the matter of seasonal unemployment in the area. I could not agree more with that decision, because there were several hundred unemployed people in that general area at the time the minister wrote. It seems to me a firm decision was made at that time to proceed, but now the minister is saying perhaps he might have another look at it. I should like to clarify whether or not this letter means what it says, that the dock would be proceeded with just as soon as possible, and that it is just a matter of having the municipality acquire a site.


Howard Charles Green: Well, as I have indicated
previously when the estimates were under discussion, we brought ahead every work that could be proceeded with having in mind that it would help create employment. This, of course, was one of those works. But then, after this letter was written, apparently we ran into this obstacle of the site which it was thought had been adjusted, but it turned out that was not the case. This was the reason we did not go ahead with the work.


George Ewart Nixon: We northern Ontario members are keeping the minister busy. I should like to speak with reference to the Montreal river harbour, which is roughly some 80 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie. For some time difficulty has been experienced in getting in and out of the harbour because of a gravel bar that forms at the mouth of the river. The departmental engineers made a survey this spring, after I had brought to their attention the fact that fishermen could not get in or out of the harbour. This constitutes a real hardship for those who use the harbour, especially when we consider that the nearest harbour on either side of the Montreal river harbour is roughly 25 or 30 miles away; and when we consider also how rough lake Superior can get at times there is real danger for those who use the area for fishing purposes.
The engineers did make a report, and I believe they suggested a plan to correct the situation by some permanent arrangement. I should like to impress upon the minister the urgency of proceeding with that work this year without fail.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently that work is being done now; the dredging is under way.


George Ewart Nixon: I am sorry, but I think that
is a temporary arrangement to open the gravel bar that is across the mouth of the river at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: The work being done now is
of an emergency nature, but once that has been completed we are going ahead with the additional work which will be of a permanent nature.


George Ewart Nixon: I thank the minister very
much for his assurance.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister how the liaison works between his department and the Department of Labour with regard to seeing that the fair wage act is being carried out in contracts let to tender. My question arises out of an incident that took place in the Kenora district in connection with the building of a small wharf last year.


Howard Charles Green: The situation with regard to
labour relations is handled entirely by the Department of Labour. In other words they police the contracts let by the public works department in order to see that the regulations having to do with labour are complied with fully. This does not come under our jurisdiction at all.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In the contracts which you
let is there a clause which requires the contractor to pay the going rate in that area, and is he aware of this clause?
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: Yes, there is a provision that
the contractor must comply with regulations established by the department.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to mention a
dock in my area, the dock at Haileybury. This dock was built many years ago for the very large lake steamers used in the early days of the development of the area. It is an exceptionally large dock, I would say, for these days. Although it was repaired in 1947, it would appear to me that more money was spent on other things than was spent on the dock itself. It is now in very bad shape. There has been some talk of abandoning it, and signs have been erected by the Department of Public Works that they will not be responsible for accidents which occur on the dock. It has reached a state of disrepair where something has to be done.
The town of Haileybury itself has spent a great deal of money improving that particular area of the waterfront. They have put in new parks. They built a small landing platform for small boats separate from this large dock and the breakwater that goes with it, which is made out of rock. The dock has cement abutments and retaining walls and in places these walls have deteriorated and the rock has spilled over into the water. The wooden part of the dock at the end of the approaches was not completely finished when repairs were last carried out, and it would be impossible to dock in some places.
There are still many small boats on this lake, and the lake is swept by a number of steamers of the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company; quite a lot of pulpwood and logs are driven to the mills at Timiskaming and these boats could, and do to some extent, tie up at several of the other government docks. They could also use this dock if it were in a satisfactory condition.
There is a fairly large number of sizeable pleasure boats on the lake which could also use these facilities if they were available, and do to some extent use this dock. However, in its present state of disrepair it is a hazard to the area. I understand the town has made repeated requests for some assistance in this regard. A number of aircraft have flown out of this area in the past, but when the dock got into such a bad state of disrepair they moved to New Liskeard, where they have a small dock.
There is some talk of having a luxury pleasure craft in the near future, so that people can go out during the day, dine and dance in the evening and make a return trip at night. Negotiations are proceeding at the present time in this respect, and if the project is pursued it would mean that the craft would have to go out of Haileybury and these

Supply-Public Works facilities would be necessary. Such craft would be fairly large in size.
If I have understood the replies of the minister to questions of other hon. members, some of this money to be advanced will be spent on repairs and I think such repairs could be carried out quite cheaply. There has been some talk of entirely abandoning the dock, but I would suggest to the minister that in this particular instance such a course is not feasible because it would be a hazard for all time. Many thousands of tons of rock have been poured into this dock, and to dispose of all that rock so the area would be safe for the operation of any type of boat would cost a great deal more money than to keep the dock in proper condition.
Mention has been made of the lighting facilities on this particular lake, which is quite large. At places it measures 12 to 14 miles across, and it is quite a long lake; people come to the area from 10 to 12 miles away, sometimes at night, and in cases of storms proper lighting would be of great assistance even to those people using the smaller type of boats.
I would like to know if the minister has given further consideration to the representations made over a period of years-probably not only to the minister himself but to his predecessors-with respect to this situation.


Howard Charles Green: This situation has arisen in many parts of Canada. There are not the same number of steamers now using these waters as was formerly the case. In their place we are getting a very large number of pleasure craft, and we find ourselves with docks in many places which were never designed to meet the conditions which exist today.
In this particular case the department would be willing to demolish the dock, but when that suggestion was made there were objections from local citizens to any such course being followed. It would be fairly expensive, of course, because of the rock and other structures to which the hon. member has referred. We will be very glad to have another look at the situation, but this underlying difficulty does exist and I think there is a need for a gradual change of policy all over the country in order to meet existing conditions.


John Richard Garland: There is one item I would like to raise, although I am not sure under which item it should come. This arises from the fact that the navigable waters act is a sort of joint responsibility between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. My problem is with respect to lake Nipissing and the treacherous shoals which are creating and have created


a serious problem. This problem is aggravated this year, of course, by the low water level.
I particularly have in mind the elimination of these shoals. The marking of them would, I recognize, be the responsibility of the Department of Transport, but I am wondering whether, with respect to the elimination aspect, that is the responsibility-since this lake does come under the navigable waters act-of the federal government or of the local authorities.


Howard Charles Green: The responsibility for keeping navigation open rests upon the Department of Public Works, not under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That act provides for the granting of licences before any structures can be built which would interfere with navigation on those waters. The question of shoals in navigable channels is the responsibility of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 607 and 351 agreed to.
352.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $219,000.
Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about a certain wharf and breakwater upon which I had understood work would be done this year. Unlike the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, although I have many miles of shore line I want only one wharf for all my boats, and that is at Pigeon lake. Although I had understood, as I say, that work would be done on this wharf during the current year, I see no mention of it under the item.


Howard Charles Green: There is evidently no provision for construction of a dock at Pigeon lake. I will be very glad to have a memo from the hon. member concerning this work, and we will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
353.	British Columbia and Yukon, $2,739,000.
Mr. Hardie:: I cannot see anything new,
of course, in the estimates this year, but I am wondering, with regard to this estimate, if the minister can tell me whether or not his department will improve the wharf at Yellowknife to enabling the trucking companies which are shipping vans across Great Slave lake to take these vans off the barges? I think a request was made to this effect by the transport and trucking companies of the area, and I am wondering whether the minister is going to do anything about it this year.


Howard Charles Green: The departmental officials tell me there has been no request for an extension of this wharf. None has come to the department. This may be an error, but that is the situation.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: A request was made some time ago to the public works office in Edmonton. The improvement necessary is small; it would not cost a great deal of money, and it would facilitate the work of the trucking companies and the water transport carriers in unloading these vans. I hope the minister may be able to find something in his estimates; a few thousand dollars would do this job this year.


Howard Charles Green: If the cost of any work of this type is less than $1,500 the job would be done by the Edmonton office direct without our being advised of it, and that may have happened in this particular case.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am not too sure what the cost would be, but I hope the officials will contact the Edmonton office and find out if they have proceeded on the basis of a project costing less than $1,500, and see what can be done this year.


Howard Charles Green: We will be very glad to do that.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Another question, Mr. Chairman. Since the speech from the throne indicated that a railroad would be built to the south shore of Great Slave lake, I am wondering if the minister can tell me whether or not the department has made plans for a wharf at Dead Man's island at Pine point.


Howard Charles Green: We have the answer to this question. There are elaborate plans completed for a wharf at Dead Man's island at Pine point.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: In that case there must be an estimate in existence of what the cost of this wharf will be. I wonder if the minister could tell us that?


Howard Charles Green: There are several phases in the development of this project, and the first one would cost just under $1 million. As the others are added that figure will be increased by several million dollars.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Then, Mr. Chairman, at Hay River, Northwest Territories, which is some 60 miles from the ore deposits at Pine point, we have a natural harbour which has been used for many years. I would suggest to the minister that his department should carry out a proper survey of the harbour at Hay River to estimate the cost of dredging that harbour, or of putting some sort of breakwater out from the mouth of the river which would prevent the drifting of the silt, and compare that with the cost of filling at Dead Man's
Supply-Public Works island in order to reach a conclusion as to where the proposed railroad should, preferably, have its terminus.
The railroad will have to go to Pine point, but with regard to the terminal point of the railroad as far as water transport along the Mackenzie river or across to Yellowknife is concerned, a decision can still be made as to the best terminus for the line if a proper investigation is carried out.


Howard Charles Green: Evidently a thorough survey was made of the different points that could be used, and it was considered that the Dead Man's island site is the best.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Has the minister any idea, if investigations have been made, of what would be the cost of improving the harbour at Hay River in order to do what it is planned to do now at Dead Man's island?


Howard Charles Green: I am advised that it would be considerably more, largely because of the necessity of extensive annual dredging.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I can see that, if you had the annual dredging. Before we leave this point, the minister will recall that I suggested putting out some sort of fill, as must be done at Dead Man's island, anyway, to protect any boats that may be docked between the island and the mainland. Could not a fill be put out into Great Slave lake at some point along the river in order to prevent the silt from moving in, thus making dredging unnecessary?


Howard Charles Green: That has been checked by the engineers and they report it would not be feasible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
353. British Columbia and Yukon, $2,739,000.
Howard Charles Green: I have some answers for the hon. member for Kootenay West in reply to the question he asked on June 6. The first was in regard to dredging between the upper and lower Arrow lakes. This is being continued as in the past. Departmental dredge No. 311 will be carrying out the work this year.
The hon. member also asked about bank protection in the vicinity of Burton, British Columbia. Approval has been given for carrying out repairs to bank protection just below Burton. Materials will be stockpiled during the summer in order that the work may be carried out by day labour during the next low water period.
Then the hon. member asked about the removal of snags on the Arrow lakes. The department will continue to remove snags in the navigation channel on the Arrow lakes as it has done in the past. The fourth question concerned river clearance on tne upper

Supply-Public Works and lower Duncan rivers. Here again the department will carry out clearance of snags from the upper and lower Duncan rivers to enable it to be used for navigation.
The hon. member asked about some old piles in the lake near Howser on which driftwood coming down from the Duncan river catches. This problem has been referred to our officials in British Columbia for attention. He also asked about wharves on the Arrow, Kootenay and Trout lakes. It is the present intention of the department to keep wharves on these lakes in repair.
The hon. gentleman also inquired about a wing dam at Arrowhead, British Columbia. The problem at Arrowhead involves the delta made by the Columbia river where it empties into the upper Arrow lakes. This delta is continuing to build and change, and contrary to local public opinion it is not a simple matter of rebuilding a wing dam which satisfied the conditions of some 50 years ago. Two investigations have been carried out in recent years into this problem, and it is the opinion of departmental engineers that a very large expenditure would be required to alleviate the problem at the Arrowhead wharf. A relocation of the wharf may ultimately be necessary, but for the present there appears to be no reasonable alternative except to remove the sand and debris which the river brings down into the area.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the minister for dealing with the questions I raised, and I want briefly to speak about one or two other matters. I was interested when he mentioned that there would be consideration of a change of policy with respect to wharves in order to meet changing conditions. I was interested in learning that what is a rapidly changing condition in the Arrow lakes is apparently Canada-wide, an increase in small craft. There have been requests from various places to the department to consider the building of launching ramps for small craft. There are some places where there are no wharves for long distances and where a launching ramp, which I understand would not cost a great deal, would provide great assistance to tourists and people visiting, and assist the economy of the district. I think the minister has heard of an application from the people of Boswell for the building of a ramp there. With respect to ramps I would like to urge consideration of the need for them on the large lakes in a few places, and there must be a similar need across Canada.
My second point is that I would like to know the policy of the department with respect to breakwaters. It is an amazing thing how news travels. People move about more than they used to. A great many of my

constituents who are interested in launch clubs and things of that nature have informed me in rather vigorous terms, as usual, that the department has been in the habit of building breakwaters for launch clubs at Kelowna, Penticton and other points on the Okanagan lakes to protect small boats around the edge of the launch clubs from storms. I would like the minister to explain the policy of his department with respect to the building of breakwaters under those circumstances.
The minister referred to dredging. I want to bring to his attention two other reasons for the continuation of dredging in addition to the current need occasioned by the use of tugs and an increasing number of small boats. In fact last year I had 85 craft pass my ranch. The minister knows where I live.


Howard Charles Green: That is an estate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That indeed is an overstatement; I should have said my log cabin. We had 85 craft last year come from Grand Coulee, and the number is increasing rapidly. I am told by the commodore of the Seattle yacht club that possibly there will be double that number within the next two years. That shows the necessity for keeping the channels in reasonable shape.
In addition there are two long-term reasons I want to bring to the attention of the minister. When General McNaughton was giving evidence before the external affairs committee with respect to the development of the Columbia river for hydro purpose he mentioned a proposed dam at Murphy creek, and said that because of the great increase in navigation at the present time and the possibility of navigation for the purpose of transporting heavy freight in the future, plans were being made to put locks in any dam that may be built at Murphy creek. Then again he said that in order to provide adequate storage for that dam, while not at the same time causing flooding in the upper Arrow lakes, it would be necessary to do considerably more dredging in the development between the two Arrow lakes in what is generally termed the narrows.
I bring that to the minister's attention because it is a long-term point of view. Owing to the rapid industrial development under the Navigable Waters Protection Act there are naturally increasing applications for the building of dolphins and the erection of piles, and also for the extension of works on the banks of the Columbia river and Kootenay lake. While I realize that certain aspects of those applications come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, navigation comes under the authority of the federal government; and I hope wherever possible

when these applications are made the department will ensure that one of its investigators visits the site and makes certain of the effect of the proposed work and also consults the organizations representing the local people, because irritations can develop quickly due to the fact that all the circumstances surrounding the applications have not been given sufficient consideration.
In conclusion I wish to advise the minister that I accept the offer extended the other day by his erstwhile parliamentary assistant to be included in the pipe line to the Department of Public Works so I can be notified of what is going to be undertaken under this vote in my constituency during this fiscal year.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there is not a pipe line, there is a wide open door. The hon. member asked about launching ramps. We are building a launching ramp at Kuskanook at the southern end of Kootenay lake and an investigation is being made by the officials of the department in British Columbia into the proposal that there should be one constructed at Boswell. With regard to breakwaters, this is one of the features of the new policy which is being worked out. In many places they are now being given the fancy name marinas. We are getting more and more requests for marinas.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are more simple people. We call them breakwaters.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is not as simple as he pretends. Each case has to be treated on its own merits. A marina or breakwater was built at Kelowna some years ago and about the same time one at Penticton, but conditions in each area are so different that it is almost impossible to lay down a general rule. In some cases we get the cooperation of the provincial authorities and the municipal authorities and undertake a joint project. It is very difficult to work out a definite policy that applies everywhere.
With regard to locks in any dam at Murphy creek on the Columbia river, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising that question because I agree wholeheartedly with him that navigation should not be stopped by any works that go in at that particular point on the Columbia.
Then he asked about investigations made where an application is received under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We try in every case to have an engineer inspect the site in order to see whether the proposal is a proper one. This is the practice in the department, and I am advised that officials are very careful to see that no harm would be done if consent were given. I think that covers the points.
Supply-Public Works The Deputy Chairman: Shall item 353 carry?


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, before the item under discussion, having to do with improvements of harbour and river works, carries, can the minister now answer the question I asked him at the last sitting of the committee with respect to whether negotiations between his department and the municipality of Ste. Anne de Sorel concerning the construction of a retaining wall there have been completed?


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member for Skeena had a question to ask on item 353.


Mr. Howard:: I have one or two questions to pose under this item. I do not intend to take the minister on a vicarious trip, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did the other day, even though I know he would enjoy it very much. I would rather have him come personally to make such a tour. Incidentally, I might add that should the minister desire to travel again along the coast I am sure if he will get in touch with the international woodworkers of America they will be more than pleased to transport him on the loggers' navy. The minister would then be the first and only cabinet minister of the federal government or any provincial government to have the honour of making such a trip.
The minister may recall that I had some correspondence with the department about a study and surveys respecting the possibility of dredging what is known locally as Seven Mile point but is more correctly known as Wiah point on the northern coast of the Queen Charlotte islands. It was my understanding from previous discussions during the last session and correspondence that an engineering survey into the possibilities of dredging at Wiah point was going to be undertaken this year with a revised conception of the nature of the project and a scaling down of the type of work to be done in order to bring down the cost of the dredging. Could the minister give us a resume of what is being planned with regard to that project this year?


Howard Charles Green: What was the alternative name?


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is known locally as Seven Mile point but the correct name is Wiah

Supply-Public Works point. I see the hon. member for Essex East smiling. This is really quite a serious matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, it is lovely country.


Howard Charles Green: I will have to get further information from my officials. We have no record of it here at the moment. A question was asked this morning by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin concerning a dock at Pigeon lake. I answered that there was no such project, but we know this centre as Ma-Me-O Beach. There was work done there which was completed on July 1 at a cost of approximately $15,400.


James Stanley Speakman: Thank you very much.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not understand too clearly what the minister said about the contents of the books before him. Did I understand him to say there was no reference there to the particular name I have mentioned? If there is no reference in the details he has before him under that name or another name applying to the same locality, am I correct in guessing that no work is programmed for that particular place this year?


Howard Charles Green: If the cost is under $15,000 it may be covered in the general vote. We are sending for further information. I do not have any details here at the moment.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would say that the cost would be far more than $15,000. I should like to mention one or two other items coming under this vote that are of great necessity and importance to that northern part of the province. A few years ago a contract was let under the previous government to dredge what is known as Delkatla slough or the slough at New Masset to provide a haven for boats to tie up away from the tide in Masset inlet and protected from the weather. It was a pretty sloppy job that was done in my opinion and the opinion of anybody using these facilities in the Masset area. The result is that the sand and silt dredged out of the slough are silting back in again because of the action of the tide, waves and wind to such an extent that the slough will have to be re-dredged some time in the future.
It was thought if the department were to undertake this project I mentioned earlier at Wiah point, which is not too far distant incidentally from Masset, that in order to save dredging costs the same equipment could be used to re-dredge the slough at Masset. I do not know whether or not there was any discussion or correspondence between this department and the provincial

government of British Columbia, probably the department of highways, but in conjunction with this Masset problem there is a possibility of the provincial government having an interest in participating with the federal government's dredging program by building a breakwater where there is presently a bridge which would prevent additional material being brought down from farther up the slough into the area that has been dredged out. As I say, I do not know whether or not there has been any correspondence, but I know this question has been brought to the attention of the provincial government that there should be such a causeway built in place of the bridge.


Howard Charles Green: There is a project for the grading off of the soil banks at the Delkatla slough. This work is to start early this month and is to cost about $9,000.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would suggest that this will contribute only a little towards overcoming the over-all problem, and that it will not be too many years from now until we will have to come back and re-dredge the whole thing again, because only part of the silting is taking place by material that was pulled out and piled along the sides of the slough. The other part comes as a result of the action of the tide coming out of the slough farther up, past where the basin is dredged, bringing silt with it and depositing it in the hole that has been dredged out. Unless some concrete steps are taken other than the re-dredging, and this should be done in conjunction with the provincial government, such as the building of a causeway to prevent the tide rushing back and forth and drawing silt from farther up the slough, we will have this problem of re-dredging recurring every three or four years.
I hope that the officials of the department will look at this Delkatla slough, in conjunction with the province, with a view to building a causeway or a dam to prevent the silt being drawn down.


Howard Charles Green: We will be glad to have the situation checked by the engineers in British Columbia.


Charles Benjamin Howard: While we are on the problem of Masset, and the minister is becoming more familiar with it as time passes, may I say that I noticed an item in the details concerning Masset, and I imagine it is related to the dock at Masset which has been the subject of correspondence for some months.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, this amount of $56,000 is to provide for an extension to the wharf and shed and for the renewal of the wharf superstructure. The present freight shed is inadequate to accommodate shipments due to

increasing freight traffic. The angle approach is required to provide parking space and a turn-around on the wing trestle for waiting vehicles. The repairs are essential for the safety of the public since the decking has deteriorated to the point that trucks have broken through in several places. The stringers are in fair condition only. The contract was awarded on May 8 and amounted to $38,557.50. It was awarded to the Pacific Piledriving Company Limited of Victoria, British Columbia.


Charles Benjamin Howard: While the minister has that material before him, I wonder if I could mention this question of the safety of pedestrians using the approach out to the end of the dock? A suggestion was put forward by the community association, which incidentally did a great deal of work in making preparatory plans for this work, that provision be made for a walkway for pedestrians that is separated by a guardrail or fence from the actual driveway of the approach out to the end of the dock. Is there such a provision in the plans?


Howard Charles Green: We will have to obtain this information from the district office in Vancouver.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I see on page 486 of the estimates there is an item for a retaining wall at Vancouver. Could the minister tell me what kind of retaining wall this is?


Howard Charles Green: For some time, Mr. Chairman, the dominion has been contributing to the construction of a retaining wall around Stanley park in Vancouver which, as the hon. member knows, is on the harbour entrance. The money this year is to be used for a wall near the entrance to False creek, in another part of Vancouver harbour. These are areas in which there is a great deal of navigation. Under those conditions this wall comes under the provisions under which money is advanced for protective walls.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If I understand that correctly, the minister is still of the opinion that retaining walls should be paid for by the federal government only when there is navigation, and even if the river is navigable, but not navigated, the federal government does not accept responsibility for such a wall.


Howard Charles Green: This would come under the qualifications which are set out in item 355.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What are those qualifications? I want this to be clarified once and for all. What are the qualifications which make these retaining walls subject to federal jurisdiction instead of provincial jurisdiction?
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: This is contained in the description of item 355 which reads:
-where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures and to complete protection works already under way.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Was this always the opinion of the department in the past, that the department was responsible only in those cases?


Howard Charles Green: This policy was adopted in the year 1954, of course under my predecessor as minister of public works.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I was fairly sure of that, but I wanted to have the minister's statement. I know that under those conditions we very often have a difference of opinion between the provincial and federal governments. For years I have been asking both the present minister and his predecessor in office whether if there is any conflict under the constitution of this country with respect to the responsibility in this matter, it could be referred to the supreme court so that we will have a decision once and for all as to whom we should look for action. As it is we do not know; we go to Quebec and we are told that since it is a question of navigable waters under the constitution of Canada it is the responsibility of the federal government. I am not a lawyer but I am told by lawyers that there have been cases in which it has been decided by the supreme court that even if only a few logs come down a river then according to the principles of law, it is a question of navigable waters. The minister apparently accepts the view of his predecessor and we are not at all sure as to who is the responsible authority.
All we want to know is to whom we should look and so far the minister has refused to submit this matter to the supreme court for a final decision. Would the minister inform the house if he is now willing to accept the responsibility-and there is not a heavy cost involved-of submitting the whole question to the supreme court after, of course, having given notice to the interested provincial governments.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member would look at this description again he will find it concerns damages caused by navigation. It is not a question of damages in navigable waters but damages caused by navigation. This is a policy which must be interpreted by the Department of Public Works; it is not a matter of legal jurisdiction at all. We are only responsible where there are damages caused by navigation or by federal structures and for that reason there would be no justification for an application to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a matter of administrative decision here in Ottawa.
1926	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
I am very sympathetic with respect to the hon. member's problem but I would point out to him that if we had to build walls along all the waterways which are navigable in this country our situation would be utterly fantastic, and I do not think any reasonable person would expect a dominion government to undertake obligations of this kind. There is plenty of work to be done where navigation actually causes damage and where there is a necessity for protection walls, but no federal government-no matter which party happens to form it-would, I think, adopt any Dolicy other than the one followed by my hon. friend's own party when in office, which is the one now being followed by the present government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: There were two parts to the answer of the minister; firstly, it is up to the department to decide what is to be done. This is an interpretation which probably was given to the previous minister and the present minister by some legal officers, but so far it has not been made clear. If the interpretation of the previous and present ministers is in accordance with the responsibilities lying upon the federal government by virtue of the British North America Act-and true, the Quebec legal officers may not be as competent in this matter as the federal legal officers, but I do not wish to discuss that particular matter-and if it is believed that it is not a federal responsibility, then it is only a legal opinion.
That is what we wish to clarify, and I believe it would be to the advantage of the federal government if the supreme court decides that the opinion now held by the present minister and the opinion which was held by the previous minister is correct. It would settle the matter once and for all. If, on the other hand, they decide it is the responsibility of the federal government all we could do would be to continue with the policy which has been followed by both the Conservative and Liberal governments. The government has always helped to build protection walls, not only along the Ottawa river but the Chaudiere and other rivers. They have not tried to do it all at once; they would spend $5,000 in a certain spot during one year and $5,000 in another spot the next year. As time went on these walls were getting built and they were really protecting the property of people who could not help the water eating up their lands.
On this account I believe it is just a matter of an interpretation-


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but I do believe the debate is trailing away from item 353.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am speaking of retaining
walls.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes, but we are now discussing an item which concerns public works in British Columbia. It is not really a debate on retaining walls all over the country. I regret to state that I believe the hon. member is out of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I regret to have to discuss
this matter but I have asked about it time and time again. It is the general principle which we are discussing. I am not speaking of retaining walls in Hull or in Ottawa or anywhere else, but of the principle, and the only thing I wish to know is whether the minister, once and for all, will see' if the interpretation of the federal government is accepted or if it is not, so that everybody can be satisfied. If it is decided that the federal government is not responsible we will go to Quebec, but if it is not decided one way or the other, where are we to go?


Howard Charles Green: In this case we are very happy to follow the precedent set by the Hon. Mr. Winters. We are simply not assuming any responsibility beyond the description set out in item 355.
The hon. member for Skeena asked about Wiah point. This is a very large project and it is necessary for the department to undertake boring surveys before deciding whether or not to go ahead. These boring surveys will cost about $16,000 and they will be going ahead.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Did the minister say they
will be going ahead this year?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: And $16,000 is the expected
cost?


Howard Charles Green: This is the amount for the
engineering studies.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister just told me
that he was following a precedent created by the previous minister; I admit that, but at the time I also protested. I have asked the same thing for years and I will keep on asking the same thing as long as I live. I want to have a clarification, and I do not see why the minister refuses to give us a clarification so that we know where to strike when we want something.


Mr. Grafftey:: Could I answer the hon.
member and say that he knows very well that the administration by his own party-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Since when were you appointed minister of public works-sit down!


William Heward Grafftey: I am going to answer this
question once and for all, Mr. Chairman. He knows very well that his own party changed the policy of the department in the 1950's-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is persisting in a question the answer to which he himself knows very well.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but this is not the time to start a debate on any question other than that raised by item 353. I believe the hon. member for Hull should have discussed the matter which he is discussing on item 1, but not on this particular item No. 353 which is the subject of the present debate.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is not a general principle. It is included in 353.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Why should I sit down. I have been elected as well as you. I want to have an answer on this from the minister and if he does not believe in the supreme court to decide something he should not be a lawyer.


Howard Charles Green: I am very sorry, and I appreciate the problem of the hon. member, but we cannot refer this question to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are following the policy adopted by the former government because we feel it is the correct policy.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If it was wrong in the past, it is wrong today. That is what I want to know-who is right and who is wrong?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The Minister of Public Works does not want to follow that theme too far of saying that whatever the previous administration did is good enough for him, or people will begin to realize there is not much difference between the two parties.
Seriously, there is an item here which relates to the total cost of the demolition of Ripple Rock, and while I do not think it is too wise on these occasions to go too far outside the boundaries of the constituency one represents, this has been a matter of concern to fishermen and to voyagers along the coast of British Columbia for many years. I wonder if the minister can indicate to the committee whether the blast which removed the peak of Ripple Rock could be called a Liberal blast or a Conservative blast, by which I mean, was it successful or unsuccessful; or is it too early to know?


Howard Charles Green: I am trying very hard to keep out of politics. All I can say about the Ripple Rock blast is that it has been an outstanding
Supply-Public Works success. A survey was made an hour or two after the blast, and it indicated that so much rock had been blasted away by the explosion that at least 47 feet depth of passage had been created between the top of the rock and low water level. Subsequent investigations showed that the larger rock had been cut down to 68 feet below low water level and that the smaller rock had been cut down to 47 feet at least, and probably a little more.
A survey of the currents through the narrows, which have been changed, of course, by the blast, is still not complete, but in so far as the removal of the obstacle itself is concerned, the project has been an outstanding success.


Charles Benjamin Howard: There is a further suggestion I should like to draw to the attention of the minister at this time regarding Seymour Narrows where Ripple Rock used to be. This question has been in the minds of a good number of skippers of ships who have been travelling up and down the inland passage for many years, many of them old-timers who know the coast as well as they know the palms of their hands. They have always felt that Ripple Rock itself was not the danger, but that the danger arose from the turbulence of the currents because of the fact that Ripple Rock was there. Small vessels became caught in these tide swirls and pushed into the shore, and so on. Another difficulty which was encountered many times by steamers and big boats travelling through the Seymour Narrows is this: they discovered that the area for manoeuver, especially in a running tide, was very limited. Running with the tide made things even more difficult. There is a blind corner as you get past the rock southbound, a blind turn in the narrows, and on many occasions they met smaller craft coming up, and the situation was made even more dangerous by the limited area in which they were able to manoeuver, and because of the current.
It has been suggested to me by these skippers-I do not know whether they have made representations through their organization to the department-that some dredging should be undertaken, say, at Maud island- I am not sure of the name-just to the east of Seymour Narrows where there is a gut which over the years has become filled with silt and mud. The suggestion is that this channel should be dredged clean so that it will provide a channel for smaller craft moving up and down the narrows in order that they should not become obstacles to the steamers, freighters and rafts which go up and down there. Such a channel would be an additional safety factor in this particular place.
1928	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, I had the privilege of witnessing the blast. There was a very distinct difference between the white water as the tide went north over the rock before the blast and the comparatively smooth water visible a few minutes after the blast.
Of course, the narrows will always be dangerous because they are so narrow, and the currents and tides will always be there. It will take some time to work out the best method of navigating this channel now that the rock has been removed; it would appear that the best course now is right over the rock.
The other suggestion which the hon. member has made is being given consideration, but we are not yet in a position to say whether some such channel would help or not.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have one other thought or question; a general question, Mr. Chairman. I would imagine that over the years the files of the Department of Public Works which relate to harbours, rivers and dredging have accumulated many suggestions and requests for changes, a great many of which have come from the north coast of British Columbia. Many of these suggestions have not been proceeded with; no action has been taken for one reason or another, and I wonder whether the minister can tell the committee what the general policy of the department is with regard to reviewing these suggestions and requests so that consideration may be given periodically to suggestions which have accumulated over the years, with the object of taking action on them.


Howard Charles Green: Whenever a proposal is made it is investigated by the engineers. These proposals are reviewed periodically; in many cases yearly, in other cases every two years.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I was very
pleased to hear the minister's most recent statement that these accumulated proposals are reviewed from time to time, some of them annually, I understood, and others a little less frequently. I am somewhat surprised that of the $2,739,000 to be voted under this item only $1,031,500 is being devoted to the immediate area of the lower mainland of our province. In the light of the heavy unemployment in that district and the minister's own intimate knowledge of it and because of the not un considerable interest he has expressed over the years in harbour problems in the lower mainland I had really expected that this year we would have seen a considerable improvement in that respect. I am particularly disappointed that certain areas in the lower mainland which to me at


least seem highly important have been omitted entirely. I see that the sum of $836,500 is being spent on the Fraser river and an expenditure is being made inside the city of Vancouver for retaining walls in the False creek area.
There have been a number of long-standing requests with the department under the minister's jurisdiction and I was hoping that when late last year he realized our unemployment situation would worsen he would have asked the department to review these old requests. I am not the first member from this area to mention them on the floor of this house.
I do not know whether the minister has been informed that there is a long-standing conflict of jurisdiction concerning the cleaning out of the mouth of the Coquitlam river. At about the time of the first world war the minister's department assumed responsibility because at that time it was a navigable river. The minister knows that the area has now become largely urban and the river is no longer used to any degree for industrial navigation. The mouth of the river has silted so heavily that the level of the river at the mouth has been raised and almost every spring we have a flooding of the city of Port Coquitlam. The city fathers almost every year have made representations to the minister's department as well as to the government of British Columbia and one government shrugs its shoulders and says it is the re-sponbility of the other government.
If my memory serves me correctly the federal authorities argue that since the river is no longer used for navigation their responsibility has ended and that since it is a matter of flood control it is definitely a task falling under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. I wish the minister would undertake some negotiations with the government of British Columbia to see if an arrangement can be arrived at and perhaps the municipal authorities could be invited to participate. As it is, the city fathers feel they do not have the resources to pay the entire cost of this very necessary project.
These floods have caused considerable hardship to the residents of the area and have cost a considerable sum of money even since 1953 when I was first elected to this house and eventually a solution will have to be found. If a three-level conference were called on this subject some arrangement might be arrived at. It is not an uneconomic undertaking and it would be extremely beneficial for the taxpayers.
In its latest submission to Ottawa the city council has recommended that the silt be

used for the establishment of industrial acreage which could possibly mean that the money expanded would be recovered in that way. However, because of the conflict of authority, year after year goes by, nothing is done, and every spring flooding occurs. Local merchants are finding their business establishments invaded by water. I have particularly in mind a large furniture store which was flooded with 18 inches of water only a few years ago involving a great loss to the owner.
I also notice no provision in this section for any expenditures in Burrard inlet.


Howard Charles Green: That comes under the national harbours board.


Erhart Regier: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. In that event perhaps most of my remarks will have to be saved until we reach the estimates of the Department of Transport.
I make the following comment at this time because there are many new hon. members in the house and I still consider myself a new member. Many of us are never sure where the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works ends and where that of the Minister of Transport begins in regard to these matters. In my years here we have never had an explanation of the relative responsibilities of the two ministers. This affects me particularly when the house is not in session and when I am approached and undertake to write a letter on behalf of a constituent. More often than not I send the letter to the wrong minister and I find he has to refer it to the other minister. I believe that the minister would do all hon. members a good turn if he would on some occasion explain exactly what comes within his department and what falls within the purview of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: I have looked into the question of the Coquitlam river very carefully. There the situation is very much like that faced by the hon. member for Hull. There is a similarity between the two problems. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will have heard my answer to the other hon. member. This damage could not be considered as having been caused by navigation and therefore the federal government has no responsibility whatever.


Erhart Regier: We are not asking for the luxury of retaining walls.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot say no to the one hon. member, and yes to the other.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to the next item will the minister now answer the question I asked a moment ago concerning whether or not negotiations between his department and the municipality of
57071-3-122
Supply-Public Works Ste. Anne de Sorel have been completed with regard to the construction of a retaining wall in that area?


Howard Charles Green: This really does not come under the item we are discussing; it comes under item 355. We are very hopeful that it will be possible to reach agreement. The question is now before the treasury board.


Erhart Regier: I notice that this item covers "Gibson's Landing, harbour improvements; Prince Rupert (Fairview bay), harbour improvements; Prince Rupert (Sourdough bay), departmental wharf". What phase of this work comes under the minister's jurisdiction and what phase comes under the departments of other ministers?


Howard Charles Green: The jurisdiction over Burrard inlet rests with the national harbours board. As the hon. member knows, there are seven or eight national harbours, of which Vancouver is one, and they are all under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. The hon. member mentioned that a small amount of money was being spent in the lower mainland of British Columbia but I point out to him that a very big pier is being built in Vancouver harbour by the national harbours board, the vote for which is not in public works at all. This money is being provided by the national harbours board so that it is not accurate to look at these public works estimates and deduce from what appears in them that the lower mainland is not getting its fair share of public works. There are many other public works as well, for example, additions to the Shaughnessy hospital. That money is provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and I think the amount is something like $4 million. Therefore, you cannot just pick out the estimates of one department and reach any accurate conclusion without checking the estimates of other departments.


Erhart Regier: I wish to thank the minister for his explanation. I take it, then, that anything affecting the New Westminster harbour is in the estimates now before us?


Howard Charles Green: The New Westminster harbour commission is set up as a separate commission, it is not under the national harbours board and we do spend very large sums of money dredging the Fraser river. I would imagine that that is the main expense in connection with the New Westminster harbour.


Erhart Regier: Is the New Westminster
harbour under the jurisdiction of the minister?


Howard Charles Green: The New Westminster harbour commission is also under the Department
1S30

Supply-Public Works of Transport, just as the new lakehead harbour commission will be under that department.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My colleague made reference to Fairview bay. I think I know what it is all about. Has this to do with the electrical outlets, or has it to do with something else? I refer to "Prince Rupert (Fairview bay), harbour improvements".


Howard Charles Green: Prince Rupert, Fairview bay; these additional facilities are required to relieve congestion of vessels in the Prince Rupert area, or in particular at Cow bay. No further expansion of Cow bay floats can be made since the present arrangement offers the maximum accommodation at the foreshore that is available. Tenders for this project were received yesterday, so that the contract will be awarded within the next few days.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Does this provision of electrical outlets for Fairview floats have any reference to this item?


Howard Charles Green: No, that would come under the miscellaneous votes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Less than $15,000?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As the minister may know, some difficulty or perhaps misunderstanding arose between the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association and myself on the department's attitude or intentions. It was thought originally that when the authorization was given by the department to proceed with the provision of electrical outlets at the Fair-view bay floats that it would all be done at one time but subsequently it was discovered that only one section would be done and another section left without electrical outlets. May I have some clarification of that?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently, we are doing what we were requested to do in this instance by the Department of Fisheries.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The Department of Fisheries requested that you do only half of what is required?


Howard Charles Green: We will investigate this
situation.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am sure the minister will see the difficulties which could arise if these electrical outlets are only half installed. Incidentally, as the minister knows, the city of Prince Rupert and the co-operative have put a cooperative effort into this. The minister can understand the difficulty that would arise if only one-half of the area is made available.

There will be congestion and all sorts of difficulties there unless the work is done throughout the whole of the floats.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-
Engineering services-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of
harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
608. British Columbia and Yukon, $964,500.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the delay but I was trying to find the proper page. Since I have been looking for the proper page, I wonder whether I can mention this? I raised this question before another committee, and I am sure it will get to the proper authority, but I do not think it will hurt to make the suggestion to the Minister of Public Works. In the front part of the main estimates book are listed the items with which we deal in committee. When we get into details, at which we spend most of our time, we find that there is no reference to the number of the vote. I wonder whether if in future years the minister can undertake to recommend that we number the vote in the back section of the book also?


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad to have the hon. member raise this point. We have been trying for some considerable time to persuade the Department of Finance that this suggestion should be adopted and perhaps the little assistance given to us today will bring about the result.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If you would like to hire any of us from this group as assistant negotiators we would be more than pleased to act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
354.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $200,000.
Mr. While:: Before this item carries I should like to ask a question. It is possible that I may be out of order. I want to know whether it applies to the acquisition of land at London, Ontario, for a postal terminal?


Howard Charles Green: No, this vote does not cover that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
355.	To provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures and to complete protection works already under way, $800,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: What progress has the department been able to make in respect

of the negotiations being carried on with the province of Ontario with regard to the low water levels at Puce? The minister and his officers have been looking into this matter to try to relieve a situation affecting a number of people who live in and about Puce just off lake St. Clair. The department took the position that if anything was done by the federal government there would have to be collaboration with the province of Ontario. The minister's officers have been quite diligent in this matter but they have not yet been able to report on the progress of the negotiations with the province of Ontario. I would be very grateful if the minister would give a report on the matter.


Howard Charles Green: We are trying very hard to reach an agreement with the province of Ontario. Last week one of our officials was in touch with officials of that government but as yet we have not succeeded.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the minister will make a special effort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
357.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,465,000.
Mr. Batten:: In the details of this item on page 489 I see that there is an amount of approximately $340,000 for Newfoundland. Would the minister give me a break-down of the sums making up that total?


Howard Charles Green: The amount of $340,367 is to operate all the dredges in Newfoundland. It is for the operation of the dredges and includes a considerable amount of actual dredging. I have here the details showing exactly where work is to be done and the amount of material that is to be dredged which I would be very glad to show the hon. member.


Mr. Tucker:: How many dredges are operating in Newfoundland?


Howard Charles Green: There are three dredges operating in Newfoundland. Two are being operated by the department and one is rented.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
358.	Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $900,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Maybe when the minister gives me the information on item 357 he will also give me the same information for item 358 concerning the total of $110,000 on page 490.


Howard Charles Green: This is to provide new drilling equipment for drill boat No. 401. The total estimated cost is $47,500. In the last fiscal year $37,500 was spent so the balance remaining is $10,000. The present scow is in 57071-3-122J
Supply-Public Works
such a state of disrepair that the steamship inspection service has declared it unfit for further repairs and a replacement in the form of a 200 cubic yard steel scow equipped with four pockets 88 feet long and 27 feet wide is required. The total estimated cost is $100,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not want to take up the minister's time but I wish to mention three places where I think some dredging should be considered. I could give the minister a description of the three places but maybe I could do that in another form later. I should like to bring to his attention three places on the west coast of Newfoundland. The first is Parson's pond which requires not only some dredging but some public works such as a breakwater and crib work. Dredging is also needed at Crabbes river and also dredging of the Grand Codroy river. I would ask the minister to give consideration to dredging at these three points.


Howard Charles Green: We will be very glad to look into them.


James Roy Tucker: I too should like the minister to take into consideration dredging at two small settlements in Conception bay. As a matter of fact, I believe it was only yesterday that I wrote the minister in connection with Harbour Grace South. The other place is Cupids in Conception bay and I shall write the minister in a day or two. I should like him to take into consideration the dredging of these two small harbours.


Howard Charles Green: Whenever any requests of that type come in they are given very careful examination by the officials of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
359.	Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, $1,050,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to inquire what the letter "S" opposite drydock subsidies means. Is that a statutory vote?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is a statutory item.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is it listed under or in conjunction with a numerical vote? For instance, is it part of item 359?


Howard Charles Green: No, this is not an appropriation and accordingly it has no vote number.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then at what stage of the committee proceedings can we make reference to it?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member can talk about it now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is it under 359? I am asking for future reference. What is the purpose of the amount? What does it subsidize? I

Supply-Public Works realize it is drydocks but is it any particular phase of their operation such as maintenance, construction, losses in ship building or something else?


Howard Charles Green: The purpose of this fund is to help maintain essential drydocks. There are two covered by it, the Burrard drydock in North Vancouver, which is getting $81,155, and the Saint John drydock, in Saint John, New Brunswick, which is getting $49,041. The reason for the decrease in the requirements for 1958-59 is that two of the series payments in connection with the subsidy, one on the Burrard drydock, ceased on April 1, 1958, and the second on the Saint John drydock ceased on January 1, 1958.


Charles Benjamin Howard: What formula is used for arriving at the amount of the subsidy? What is it supposed to cover?


Howard Charles Green: These subsidies were provided, in the case of the Burrard drydock, as far back as 1925, and they run for a period of 35 years. The amounts were set at that time. The Saint John drydock subsidy was provided in 1924, and was also for 35 years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
360.	Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $500,000.
Erhart Regier: Perhaps I should ask this question under item 362 and the minister might advise me if that is so. However, it will only take a moment. Could the minister bring the house up to date on the situation with regard to the Oak street bridge or the only bridge connecting Sea island and Lulu island? Has a settlement ever been arrived at with the government of British Columbia, and if so what was it?


Howard Charles Green: There was a payment provided in last year's estimates of $400,000 which was to be applied to the cost of the bridge over the Moray channel, and that has been paid to the provincial government.


Erhart Regier: It has been paid?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
362. Perley bridge, between Hawkesbury, Ontario and Grenville, Quebec-improvements, $55,000.
Alexis Pierre Caron: Can the minister tell me if the Perley bridge was built solely by the federal government or did three governments share in the cost?


Howard Charles Green: This bridge was built by the three governments jointly, the dominion, Quebec and Ontario.


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is another bridge that is badly needed, and that is a replacement for

the present Alexandra bridge which is too narrow for today's traffic conditions. As the present minister has said many times, the federal government would be prepared to accept its share of responsibility. The provincial government of Ontario is also prepared to accept its share. However, we have never had any response from Quebec on this matter.
I should like to ask the minister today if he would take the lead in this matter, which is important in the development of the national capital, and try to convince Mr. Duplessis that this bridge is needed. The answer we have always received has been that if Ottawa wants a bridge, they can build it. I would not be offended if Ottawa were to accept responsibility for the whole of the cost. However, if Ottawa wants to continue the custom of sharing the costs with the provinces, I should like the minister to take the lead in attempting to convince Quebec to accept its share of the responsibility, just as Ontario and the federal government have accepted their share.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we deal with the provincial governments on these matters as equals, and we are not in a position to tell them what they must do. The developments with respect to the proposed new interprovincial bridge between Ottawa and Hull are as follows: In December, 1955, an interprovincial bridge committee was set up on which were represented the province of Ontario, the cities of Ottawa and Hull, the federal district commission, and the federal Department of Public Works. The province of Quebec was invited to be represented, but did not send a delegate to any of the meetings. A proposal was prepared and reviewed by the committee for a new bridge crossing the Ottawa river downstream from the present Alexandra bridge. A preliminary estimate of the cost was $10 million, which included the cost of the approaches as well as the bridge. Subsequent to this letters were sent to the premiers of Ontario and Quebec stating that the federal government would be prepared to build the bridge and pay one-third of the cost, if each of the provinces would also contribute one-third. The position taken at that time was it would be a matter for the provinces to determine how their one-third share should be distributed between the provincial and municipal governments. There has been no further action taken with the provinces.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I well remember what the
minister has read. At the time, the lead was taken by the then minister of public works in Ottawa to attempt to convince the others to accept a share of the responsibility. At the time the views of the two ministers, the

federal and Quebec, were quite different. I believe that the present minister would be more at ease in dealing with the Quebec government than was the former administration.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Hull should not be too optimistic about that.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would the minister accept the responsibility of trying to communicate-I do not know if he would succeed-with the Quebec government to see what could be done? If we cannot reach an understanding, I think the bridge is so badly needed we would have to ask the federal government to take the lead in building it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
363. Towards an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry, $200,000.
Erhart Regier: Have any estimates been made at all of what such a causeway might cost? Can the minister also supply us with the mileage involved? What would the length of the causeway be?


Howard Charles Green: The causeway would be approximately nine miles in length. Estimates of the cost are, of necessity, very general at the moment, but they are between $50 million and $60 million. As the hon. member will have noticed, there is $200,000 in the main estimates and $160,000 in the supplementary estimates for a feasibility study. As a result of interdepartmental discussions it was decided that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys would undertake the tidal and land use studies. It was estimated that their work on this project would cost $100,000 and provision for such an amount was not made in their estimates as it was decided to consolidate the supply of the moneys under the Department of Public Works. To this end an item of $100,000 was placed in the supplementary estimates and some revision of the preliminary estimates was also made with respect to general engineering costs. The breakdown of the estimated total cost of $360,000 is as follows:
Consulting engineers fees	 $174,500
Equipment rentals for field work	 55,500
Test quarry operations (testing for stone) 30,000 Detailed studies by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys	 100,000
I believe the two engineering firms who have been engaged to do this work of a general engineering investigation are now actually on the job.


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister if the engineers of his department originally estimated that this survey as well as the opening of a test quarry would cost $200,000, or was
Supply-Public Works a private firm of engineers engaged to prepare an estimate of what the cost would be?


Howard Charles Green: No, all the estimates were made by officials of the department.


Erhart Regier: I do not quite appreciate how the same officials would, only a few months apart, add another $160,000?


Howard Charles Green: I left out a paragraph of my instructions which would perhaps explain the situation. At the time the main estimates were prepared which, of course, was very many months ago, a very preliminary figure was available. The amount of work which could be undertaken by the various government departments had not yet been definitely established, and neither had the total scope of the work to be undertaken by consultants. We then found out just exactly what had to be done and it became apparent that more money would be involved.


Erhart Regier: Is it the estimate of the department that this would be the complete cost of the survey or is the survey looked upon as one which will be extended over a number of years?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman, we are expecting the survey to be completed by April of next year.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman, we are expecting the survey to be completed by April of next year.


Erhart Regier: I wish to thank the minister for that information, and I would like to ask him whether he or his department have given any consideration to the building of a causeway to connect Vancouver island with the mainland of British Columbia? I am not saying that I am prepared to recommend this at the moment but, in the light of recent events in that area, I would like to know whether any consideration has been given to this matter or whether a rough estimate has been made of the cost. I am asking this in all seriousness because if in an area which is not very heavily populated we can build a nine-mile long causeway, or we can even begin to consider that type of causeway, surely for the area connecting Vancouver island with the mainland of Canada we might be prepared to consider finding out whether such a causeway is feasible and how much it might cost. There are many places where the island is less than nine miles away from the mainland, as the minister well knows.


Howard Charles Green: The department has made no attempt to carry out such a study, Mr. Chairman, but one never knows in these days what is going to come up next. The first thing we know, the hon. member will be having us conduct a survey for a causeway across to the United Kingdom.

Supply-Public Works


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps before the minister does that he might give consideration to the matter of the straits of Belle Isle. It is not very far across those straits and it might change the whole climate of the gulf and make the north shore ports all year-around ports if such an undertaking were to be considered for that area.
I would, however, like to ask a question with respect to the Prince Edward Island causeway which, after all, is the item under consideration. Could the minister tell us when these departmental studies first began and how far they have progressed.


Howard Charles Green: The preliminary studies began about two years ago and, as I have said, we are now at the stage where the consulting engineers have actually been engaged to make the detailed surveys.
I am rather surprised that the hon. member wishes to make any change in Newfoundland, because I thought he was very happy with it as it is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are certain aspects of it with which I am very happy.


Howard Charles Green: And after the big shelf of public works he gave me for Bonavista-Twillingate I presume he would want to have them completed before we do something about the straits of Belle Isle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is right about that. In respect of the causeway in Prince Edward Island, however, has the minister yet found suitable materials? As far as I understand it, this is one of the big difficulties.


Howard Charles Green: We have found good stone for the core and part of the work of investigation now being carried on is to ascertain whether good stone is available for the outside works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite a problem, as I understand it.


Erhart Regier: I can assure the minister that he need not look for suitable materials because we have lots which would be suitable for causeways. I do not wish to oppose a vote of this kind, but I am very, very surprised indeed that the government is considering the building of a nine-mile long causeway and the spending of almost half a million dollars to investigate the feasibility of this causeway for the use of 100,000 people. In Burnaby alone we have over 100,000 people and we cannot even get a post office out of the government. However, that is beside the point.
There are four members in this house from Vancouver island and I think they should be entitled to the same consideration

as the four members from Prince Edward Island. As the minister has said, the department has never given serious consideration to the causeway I have suggested but in all seriousness I would like to propose to him the engaging of one engineer for the period of one year for the purpose of doing some preliminary investigating as to the feasibility of such a project. It would not cost more than $15,000 or $20,000 and he might whisper some advice into the ear of the minister a year hence. We all know there is another election coming up four or five years from now which might be a suitable time for the minister to be well advised on the possible cost so that he could go forth at that time with a great announcement that one of the greatest engineering works in the history of Canada was about to be undertaken and Vancouver island would at last become part of the Dominion of Canada.
I hope the minister will seriously consider at least having one of his engineers spend some time on this proposition. It is not something new; it has been talked about ever since the danger of Ripple Rock became known to the people of British Columbia, and if the 100,000 people of Prince Edward Island are worthy of an investigation costing $360,000 surely the people of Vancouver island are worthy of the services of one engineer for a period of one year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trans-Canada highway-
366. To provide for construction through national parks, $12,500,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am still not sure, when we come to these statutory items, whether to proceed while we are still considering the numerical vote or to wait until it passes.
I have a number of comments to make regarding the construction of the trans-Canada highway, more particularly on the lines of the suggestion which has been made from many quarters about starting a so-called second trans-Canada highway or the building of an east-west interprovincial highway in the north-central part of Canada. It seems to me that traditionally there is a continuing conflict of interest between people living in urban areas and those living in rural areas, and we notice it especially when it comes to highways, roads, bridges and ferries. The interest of the great majority of the people here in Canada, of those who live in a path approximately a hundred miles north of the United States border, seems to have been given far more consideration in relation to that given to the needs of those living north of this belt than appears to be expedient, and

as a consequence the outlying areas, the rural areas, the parts of the nation which are in the northern three-quarters of Canada, those areas in which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is interested through his resources program, those areas which were brought into the limelight by the Conservative party during the recent campaign, those areas which are apparently the subject of this vision that was-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are discussing at present estimate No. 366, which reads as follows:
Trans-Canada Highway-to provide for construction through national parks, $12,500,000.
I believe the hon. member is actually discussing a statutory estimate. He should confine his remarks to this particular estimate, No. 366.


Howard Charles Green: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member would be at liberty to discuss the statutory item as well as item 366.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If that is permissible, I should like to proceed. These areas in the northern part of the province have up until now been left out in the cold. They have not been given due consideration with regard to programs of road construction, and I sincerely hope, with all due respect to the hon. gentlemen seated on the treasury benches opposite, that they will undertake to give effect to their vision of the north to a greater extent than has been indicated up to the present time by entering into an arrangement for joint financial participation in building an additional east-west highway across the north-central portion of at least the four western provinces.
The application of such a program to the larger provinces in Canada and to the mari-times is a question I should not care to enter upon at this time because I am not too familiar with the geography of those provinces, but as far as the four western provinces are concerned, the building of a second trans-Canada highway is long overdue. I say this although I know that the first trans-Canada highway is still not complete, with the exception of a section in one province, but I understand that one or two other provinces will either complete their sections this year or will come very close to having them completed. I do not think we should wait until the present trans-Canada highway is completed before we embark on an additional one.
If I may keep closer to home and refer to the northern part of British Columbia where I live, I can say without hesitation that our problem is one of the worst which confronts any of the western provinces. We had the honour of a visit by the Minister of
Supply-Public Works Public Works a few months ago and I hope this will not be the last visit he will make before the next election. I hope he will come back before then to get to know a few more of the people and a few more of the problems, and if he will let me know when he plans to come I will try to act the part of host as far as I can.
As I say, we have been completely neglected when it comes to road building. Until a few years ago there was only a very small percentage of the 500 miles of highway between Prince Rupert and Prince George that was black topped. Much of it was not even gravelled; it was merely a rough path through the bush. Parts of that highway are being reconstructed at the present time and additional black top is being put on, but it is still far from adequate.
In recent years there has been a marked increase in industrial development in this region, a marked increase in population, a marked increase in tourists visiting that part of the country and an increase in appreciation by people who live in the southern part of the province of the fact that there is something more up there than trees, hills, mountains, lakes and wilderness. I hope that out of consideration for the people who have moved into this area, people with a great deal of the pioneer spirit, some consideration will be given to meeting at least their need for highways.
Not only should that section of the road which we already have in British Columbia, that is the east-west highway from Prince Ruper to Prince George, be brought without delay into a satisfactory condition, but also that area between Prince George east toward Alberta through the Rocky Mountain trench could be opened up and a highway constructed through there so that people who wish to drive to Calgary or Edmonton may not be obliged to make detours which take them many hundreds of miles out of their way.
The need for highways in British Columbia is even greater than it is in the other three western provinces. The other provinces have many more roads already in existence; their engineers are not faced with the mountainous terrain with which we have to contend and costs of construction are correspondingly less.
Every municipality, board of trade, chamber of commerce and organization representing working men or a general economic group in the constituency I represent has had an interest in this highway for some time. They are becoming increasingly interested in having it built under federal-provincial participation. I also know that in presenting briefs to the previous Liberal administration in years

Supply-Public Works past the province of British Columbia has made a similar request for that kind of participation in the building of a second route through that part of the country.
The minister might not wish to disclose the plans that exist at the moment in his department with respect to this suggestion and in all probability he would rather make the announcement at a more appropriate time when all details have been cleared away, but I now draw his attention in more detail than I was able to on another occasion in this house in different proceedings to an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun recently setting out that these thoughts exist in the mind of the minister and his officials and that plans are being made for a route embracing the area I have mentioned and suggesting that some thought had been given to financial arrangements. I hope the newspaper article was not pure speculation as some are and while I hope it does not delve too deeply into the detail that is in the mind of the minister at the moment and which he may not wish to disclose at this time- although I wish he would-I nevertheless trust that the article is as factual as it possibly can be and reflects the true attitude of the minister, his department and the government in so far as the construction of a second trans-Canada highway is concerned.
Nothing would make me happier at this stage of the committee proceedings than to have the minister indicate if only in a general way that he agrees with the many people who have urged that there be federal-provincial participation in the construction of such a road. If he agrees only to the extent of saying that negotiations are under way I would be perfectly happy as would be the people who have lived in that part of the country for many years and the people who have just moved there. The people of that district for many years have been neglected by both federal and provincial governments not only with respect to highways but in many other fields.
I hope the minister will undertake to make a comment even if it is of a general nature or the expression of a pious hope to the effect that this will be undertaken. This will bring happiness to the hearts of the people who have long been residents of the area and it will make the new people coming in feel a little more proud of the fact that they have located in that part of the country which is so rich in potential and beauty. This will assure them that they will be able to live there and drive their motor cars without having to wear out a set of tires every 12,000 to 15,000 miles, without having to buy a new gas tank every time they drive more than a few hundred


miles, without losing oil pans and without having their cars depreciate in value probably at least twice as fast as is the case with automobiles that are driven only on hard-top roads.
I think I know the minister's inner feelings fairly well. If it were possible for him to do so without violating the confidence of his colleagues and his department I know he would stand up and assure us that this project will be undertaken immediately. I know that is what he wants to say but I also appreciate that he has to respect the government and his colleagues and he may not be able to go that far in giving his answer. I trust the minister will say something that will be of encouragement to us in this respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister yields to the importunities of the hon. member for Skeena I should like to say a word or two on this item. In the first place I should like to congratulate the minister and his department on the marvellous job that is being done in the construction of the trans-Canada highway in the Terra Nova national park. I was through there somewhat less than a month ago and as I believe I have already confessed I hi-jacked one of the minister's vessels on one occasion out of working hours to get across Clode sound. The road is the best in Newfoundland, as far as it has been completed. As far as I could see they are working very hard at it and as the minister probably knows, and certainly as his officials know, when that link through the national park is completed it will be possible for the first time in history to drive a motor car across Newfoundland and that is going to be a very great day. I do not mind how many times the minister visits Newfoundland and I hope he will come down and drive over the road in the first cavalcade when that part of the road is completed.
What I did want to say was prompted by the observations of the hon. member for Skeena. My remarks are not confined exclusively to Newfoundland. I was in the legislative assembly in Halifax not long ago and heard the minister of highways-or whatever is his designation in that province -speaking about the section of the trans-Canada highway through Pictou and Antigo-nish counties and he mentioned the difficulties the province had faced in financing its share of that work. My remarks will therefore apply to all the eastern provinces. Desirable though I feel it would be to have a second trans-Canada highway in western Canada, the original project of having one road right across this country should be completed first. The real reason why some provinces have been able to complete, or nearly complete,

their share of the construction of this highway is that the 50-50 basis of division does in fact make it relatively easy for some provinces to complete their sections but much more difficult for others. As the hon. member for Skeena very properly pointed out, there is a great deal of difference between the cost of completing roads in one part of the country than in another. I can share the hon. gentleman's feelings about gas tanks and tires because I drove a borrowed car on a section of the first 50 miles of the trans-Canada out of Port-aux-Basques last summer and at the end of the 50 miles there was no bottom left in the car.
As the hon. member for Skeena very properly said, the building of roads is a constitutional responsibility of the provinces. The conception of the trans-Canada highway was to have one great national road across the country. Since I assume the government's resources are not inexhaustible I hope consideration will first be given to completing the trans-Canada highway before we begin to use limited resources for building other roads, desirable though they might be as well. Surely the most important and urgent thing is to have one national highway extending from coast to coast that enables us to get from one end of the country to the other.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Are you
speaking now as a sailor or a landlubber?


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments on this item before it passes. I must first of all disagree with the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. The provinces of western Canada are landlocked, and this is perhaps particularly true of northern Alberta. On the other hand the eastern provinces already enjoy the benefit of the St. Lawrence seaway and other coastal seaways.
Since I am a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines I can assure this committee that the government is now spending considerable money in subsidizing seaways, and I do not feel that we are asking too much to encourage the government to go ahead right now with providing surveys and doing the brushing for the second trans-Canada highway.
I should also like to go on record by saying that in the province of Alberta the northern section of the highway should run from Lloydminster to the gates of Jasper national park. The road to the park is in very good condition and we are very proud of the highway. Unfortunately, when we get to the gates of Jasper national park our highway runs out.
I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is happy 57071-3-123
Supply-Public Works with the construction of the road in his national park. I am very sorry to say that the construction which the previous administration undertook in Jasper national park is a disgrace to the government of Canada. Every spring they have to send in a ranger to saw off the roots of trees that come up through the pavement. That is an established fact. I would like to commend the government on the survey work and brushing which took place in the park last winter. We are also very happy with the announcement of the construction which will take place on the Banff-Jasper highway connecting the two greatest national parks in Canada. We would like to encourage the government to speed up that section of the Yellowhead highway, so-called, from the Jasper national park. It is the bottleneck at present. We would encourage them to speed up the surveying, brushing and constructing of an all-weather road through Jasper to the eastern gates. Then, we would like to encourage them to enter into negotiations with the province of British Columbia for the completion of the Yellowhead highway.
If I may, I would like to go on record as saying that this is a highway which we in the northern parts of the prairie provinces are glad to support. I am sure that all my colleagues agree with me. I do not need to worry about their political affiliations in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We would like to see the highway built as soon as possible, because at the present moment there are places in our province from which we would have to travel approximately 500 miles to reach the present trans-Canada highway. I do not think it is fair that we should be bottled up in the north, and I earnestly and sincerely recommend to the government that they proceed with all haste and survey and construct the Yellowhead highway, which is the easiest road to build. It is the road that will be the freest from avalanches and rock slides. At present there is a good road across the prairies practically to the gates of Jasper. We would appreciate government action in this regard.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the vote we are considering has to do with construction of the trans-Canada highway in the national parks. Then, there is a statutory vote dealing with the contributions made by the dominion to the provinces toward the construction of the trans-Canada highway where it is not in the national parks. I think it would not be appropriate for me this afternoon to take any time to discuss the trans-Canada highway other than to say that it is coming along splendidly. We expect it to be completed by the end of 1960 and I know
1938	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works it will be a highway of which every Canadian can well be proud. As a matter of fact, that is the situation today over a very large mileage of the trans-Canada highway. The government is very much interested in this highway and also in the further steps to develop the country. For that reason the remarks made by all three members who have spoken on this item this afternoon have been extremely helpful. I am not in a position to announce any policy at the moment but I can assure hon. members that the federal government has no intention of breaking up the dominion-provincial partnership in the construction of roads once the trans-Canada highway has been completed. We are vitally interested in work of this type because we think it means so much in building this nation into one of the great nations of the world.


Charles Benjamin Howard: First, I would like to ask one question. I understood the minister to say that this was not the appropriate time to discuss the trans-Canada highway in detail.


Howard Charles Green: What I meant was, if I started to make a speech on the trans-Canada highway it would take me two or three hours. I think it would not be very wise to make it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This is the item under which it would be done. I misunderstood what the minister said but I did not misunderstand what he said when he made reference to the fact that this government is going to wait until the first trans-Canada highway is completed before they start on any additional federal-provincial co-operative road-building projects.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Mr.. Howard:: That is what I heard.


Howard Charles Green: No, I did not say that. I said that the government had no intention of leaving the dominion-provincial 'partnership in the construction of highways once the trans-Canada had been completed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I can substitute my own words, the government has no intention of breaking up the federal-provincial co-operation in highways once the first trans-Canada has been built.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the ray of hope.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I still hope the minister does not mean he is going to wait until the first trans-Canada highway is completed before he enters into arrangements to start an additional one.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister did not mean that?


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When does the minister intend to start the second trans-Canada highway?


Howard Charles Green: I explained to the committee that I cannot announce policy at the present time. The hon. member should not be discouraged.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Very seldom do I get discouraged, Mr. Chairman. I find that if one has a tendency to become discouraged he would have been discouraged because of what happened many days ago. You know, Mr. Chairman, the number of occasions upon which we have had expressions of opinion by hon. members standing in their places and indicating yes or no on various subject matters, and you also know there was a sort of preponderance of the votes on one side. If I was easily discouraged I would have been discouraged a long time ago. Is it the intention of the minister to present to the house on some future occasion during this session amendments to the Trans-Canada Highway Act? I understand the act should be amended in order to permit the government to enter into arrangements for the construction of a second trans-Canada highway.


Howard Charles Green: Like many other questions of policy, Mr. Chairman, it would be inappropriate for me to make any statement on that point at the moment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The questions that I should like to ask are not questions of policy; they are related to performance. Can the minister give us any explanation as to why the province of Ontario has not been able to move faster to complete its section of the trans-Canada highway, especially the very large link between Sault Ste. Marie and Marathon, Ontario? Can he give us any sort of time schedule for that region as his engineers have been able to determine it?


Howard Charles Green: The gap in the trans-Canada highway in Ontario is from Agawa river to Marathon following generally the north shore of lake Superior for a distance of approximately 164 miles. This is very difficult country in which to build a road. In some cases it has been necessary for the contractor to go by boat and land materials and men on the shore of lake Superior in order to reach the right of way. Very satisfactory progress is being made, and I believe the work is going ahead exceptionally well during the present year. We believe that the gap will be closed by the end of 1960. The dominion is paying 90 per cent of the cost of 136 miles of the gap with Ontario paying 10 per cent,

although Ontario is actually doing the construction work. The cost of the remaining portion, of course, is being shared on a 50-50 basis. I understand that the total mileage has either been cleared already or is under clearing contract. One hundred and fifteen miles are under grading contract and the whole of the gap will be under grading contract before the end of the present month.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister is probably aware that several years ago there were serious repercussions in connection with the building of the trans-Canada highway in the province of Ontario which caused somewhat of a turmoil. Since the new administration came into power, is the minister satisfied with the general integrity of performance as the work is being carried on at the present time and can he guarantee that there is no likelihood of any repetition of the previous unsavoury situation?


Howard Charles Green: A close check is kept by the federal officials and we have no reason whatever to believe that the work is not being done in an efficient and honest manner.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one last question which is a political one. Would the minister undertake to explain to the house why that magnificent Conservative government in Ontario, paralleled by the magnificent government we have federally, has not been able to complete the highway? I understand there is one province somewhere in Canada that has completed its section of the highway, and maybe the minister can explain why.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad to have this tribute to the federal government from the hon. member. It might be very helpful some day. Construction along the shore of lake Superior is extremely difficult and I try not to compare the achievements or obligations of the different provinces so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned. Some undoubtedly have easier construction than others. The question of population also comes into the picture. In some provinces or portions thereof the highway runs through settled areas. In others, portions of the highway run through what is practically virgin territory. That is the case with the highway along the north shore of lake Superior. From our point of view all the participating provinces are doing a good job. They are all co-operating very well. This project is one example of how Canadian governments can get along together no matter what their political beliefs may be.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I know that the minister does not really need the advice I intend to impart to him. From developments since he took office and more particularly just before that 57071-3-123J
Supply-Public Works time I am sure he knows that one of the quickest ways he can get into trouble in certain parts of the country is to follow the advice of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. As I said, I am sure the minister does not need advice from me not to pay too much attention to what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said. He will get into difficulty, particularly with the people who live in the four western provinces, if he follows the advice of the hon. member to wait until the completion of the present trans-Canada highway before commencing construction of the second trans-Canada highway that has been proposed.
I know that the minister has a great deal of sense and understanding of the forces at work among the general public, especially when it comes time for the people to cast their ballots. I am sure that if the minister will look ahead to the next election and will undertake to enter into arrangements for commencement of construction of a second trans-Canada highway following the general route I have mentioned there is a possibility that he may be able to add one more seat to the Tory ranks from British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are many more possibilities in Newfoundland.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If, in an effort to get a second trans-Canada highway constructed through the area I have mentioned, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Hazelton and Burns Lake, the area in which I live, as part of the payment I have to relinquish my seat, involuntarily, of course, on election day, I would be more than pleased to do so. The minister should keep it in mind that he may be able to add one additional member from British Columbia, and if that is the payment I have to make I will be more than pleased to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A most immoral proposition.


Howard Charles Green: This is a very tempting offer.


Armand Dumas: We are all very proud, of
course, of the trans-Canada highway and appreciate very much the excellent work which has been done by the minister's department in this respect. We are also aware of the co-operation existing between the federal government and the different provinces. I should like to know whether the minister can report something new regarding discussions which may have taken place lately between his department and the province of Quebec respecting the trans-Canada highway.


Howard Charles Green: There have been no discussions since we took office. I would point out again that we must treat the provincial governments
1940	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works as equals. They make their own decisions and we try not to interfere with those decisions.


Alexis Pierre Caron: We hear quite a lot said about the trans-Canada highway. A short time ago a western member said that roots were poking through the pavement in a certain section. Has the minister been advised of that fact by his engineers?


Howard Charles Green: I think the remarks made by the hon. member have to do with a highway in Jasper national park, which is not the trans-Canada highway. The trans-Canada highway goes through Banff national park.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am wondering if I could receive any answers to the questions I asked earlier?


Charles Benjamin Howard: What is your province doing?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I would suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia and others who spoke about the next trans-Canada highway, that if I were to follow the vision of the present government during the last election campaign I would say that the next trans-Canada highway should be built north and south to give some breadth to this country instead of length.
I am wondering if under this item of trans-Canada highway I can get an answer to some of the questions I asked about road construction in the north which is supervised by this Department of Public Works?


Howard Charles Green: No, that has nothing to do with the trans-Canada highway. Those questions should be asked on the estimates of the department of northern affairs.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: When I asked those questions originally, I was told there was an item in the public works estimates upon which I could ask those questions. I am now asking for answers under the only item I see in the public works estimates that I could expect a reply. The Department of Public Works calls for tenders for road construction in the north, regardless of whether it is the department of northern affairs or anyone else who pays for it.
On June 13 at page 1132 of Hansard, I think although I am not too sure, I asked which company received the contract on the Yellowknife to Fort Rae section of the road in the Northwest Territories. What was the amount of the tender, and what amount was paid to the contractor up to now? How many miles of road did the contract cover, and how many miles were completed? I am wondering if the minister could answer these questions now which I asked on June 13?


Howard Charles Green: Those questions certainly do not come under the trans-Canada highway.


However, I have three pages of answers here to the questions which the hon. member asked on June 13, and I would be very glad to let him have them.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I imagine the minister has had these answers for some time. These answers may give me the opportunity of asking further questions. If I could have those answers now, and if this item were to be held over, possibly I would have some other questions to ask.


Howard Charles Green: This trans-Canada highway item is in no way connected with these questions. I am sure that when he has the answers the hon. member will be in a splendid position to ask a lot of questions of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask the minister for some information about the progress of this highway in my province. Just what portion of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia has been designated and agreed upon between the two levels of government as being eligible for the 90 per cent federal contribution towards the cost? Where does it begin?
While we are referring to British Columbia, I have a few more questions. Has an agreement yet been arrived at between the two levels of government on the rerouting of the highway in the lower mainland, the portion running through Surrey, Burnaby and so on? If an agreement has been arrived at on the new route, what is the basis upon which the federal department agrees to a change in the route once payments have been made for a highway? I understand that in years gone by the federal department paid a portion of the cost of the Pattullo bridge across the Fraser. I believe the minister was a member of the house when the federal government agreed to pay a portion of the cost of that bridge. I believe also that part of the trans-Canada highway running immediately east of the bridge has been paid for by the federal government. Now, exactly what happens if there is an agreement reached that this highway shall be relocated, and shall possibly include a new bridge? I have reference, of course, to the much talked about Port Mann bridge.


Howard Charles Green: In that event, the money that has been spent would be credited to us when the route is changed. I believe that the route through the lower Fraser valley has been agreed upon in principle, but the survey has not yet been completed so I cannot say exactly where the road is to run. The portions of the highway in British

Columbia, apart from national parks in which of course the dominion pays everything, on which we pay 90 per cent are; 26 miles from mile 474.63, to the western boundary of Glacier national park to Donald; 11 miles from the eastern boundary of Glacier national park; 11.77 miles from mile 183.9 to mile 195.67, including the Alexandria bridge which is I believe in the Fraser canyon. I suspect that in most of the provinces the 90 per cent ends up as the most expensive portion of the construction. Then, there is 8.1 miles from mile 202.73, China Bar, to mile 211.6, and that again is in the Fraser canyon. There is a total of 56.78 miles.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister for that information. I know that this portion has not yet been completed. The minister says the relocation has been agreed upon in principle. Can the minister say whether or not this involves the signing of a new formal agreement or is it only done by an exchange of letters?


Howard Charles Green: The agreement just covered in general terms a road from somewhere in the vicinity of Abbotsford to a road in the vicinity of the south bank of the Fraser river where the new bridge is to be completed.


Erhart Regier: That was the formal
agreement?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Erhart Regier: I take it, then, since the minister mentioned the south bank of the Fraser, there is not yet any agreement about a bridge across the Fraser on the highway through Burnaby?


Howard Charles Green: That is also included in the agreement.


Erhart Regier: Could the minister say how far west it goes; does it go all the way to Horseshoe bay?


Howard Charles Green: The agreement covers a bridge over the Fraser river and then a route to the south shore of Burrard inlet. It does not cover a bridge over Burrard inlet but it does cover the upper levels highway to Horseshoe bay?


Mr. Winch:: Might I ask the minister a question on a matter which I consider is most important to the government of British Columbia. In view of the developing volume of traffic on the lower mainland of British Columbia, is his department prepared to pay half the cost of a bridge, whether it be for a four, six or eight-lane highway? I understand the department will pay only half the cost of a four-lane highway and that, of
Supply-Public Works course, is ridiculous when considering such a matter as the building of a bridge over the Fraser river.


Howard Charles Green: We have to have the same agreement with all the provinces and I would like to point out that the trans-Canada highway was never designed as a highway to take care of heavy traffic in the vicinity of large cities, it was designed as a trans-Canada road. In so far as a bridge is concerned, we pay for a 24-foot roadway on the bridge itself and a 10-foot shoulder on either side of it, which would be a total of 44 feet. If the province wants to build a very much wider bridge then the additional cost is their responsibility.


Harold Edward Winch: I know I do not have to remind the minister-he knows Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia so well-but any bridge across the Fraser river is not an inter-city highway; it is a transcontinental road. Does the minister say that he will not through his department pay more than a 24-foot contribution with a 10-foot shoulder on each side, and that the rest must be covered by the province or the municipality?


Howard Charles Green: British Columbia has to be treated in exactly the same way as the other provinces and in some instances a very much wider bridge is required, not at all because of trans-Canada highway traffic but because of local traffic. In the case of the crossing of the Fraser river much of this traffic comes up from the United States and there would be no reason why the dominion government should pay, for example, 50 per cent or 90 per cent of the cost of the bridge to provide for all that traffic.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: With respect to the department of northern affairs' estimates, and here we get back to the question of whose responsibility it is to answer questions in this house in regard to those estimates, a year ago $55,000 was set aside to complete the building of a spillway over the Hay river at Hay River in the Northwest Territories. Plans for this purpose were drawn up by the department of the minister and at that time I understood that tenders were to be called in July for the construction of the spillway. Construction was however, not proceeded with and I am wondering just which department changed its mind with respect to this construction; was it the department of northern affairs or the Department of Public Works?


Howard Charles Green: This matter is under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.

Supply-Public Works


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: That is true, the department of northern affairs did include in their estimates the amount of money required to build this spillway but at the same time that department is not responsible for the drawing up of plans for this spillway or for the preliminary survey work-


The Deputy Chairman:: I must inform the hon, member that he is out of order. We are discussing the trans-Canada highway and I cannot find anything in the remarks of the hon. member with respect to that subject.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Perhaps the Chairman would be kind enough to tell me under which item I might question this department on the moneys which they have spent for other departments or for preliminary surveys or the planning of bridges, spillways or anything else for any other department?


Charles Edward Rea: I am afraid I must advise the hon. member that we do not make those decisions from the chair.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If the Chairman cannot make those decisions-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are discussing this item and I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks strictly to the item under discussion.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: No, Mr. Chairman-the supervision of every bit of work carried on on highways-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -on the Mackenzie highway or the extension of that highway to Yellowknife and the spillway is supervised and the plans are drawn up by the Department of Public Works and tenders are called by that department.


Charles Edward Rea: I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the chair. We are now discussing the trans-Canada highway and I must keep the hon. member within the scope of this item.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Could the minister then tell me under which item I can question his department?


An hon. Member:: Order-do your homework.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You fellows had better do some homework.


Erhart Regier: He is absolutely right.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Empty skulls.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I cannot question the department on any other item or votes.


Erhart Regier: I would like to say something on a point of order. However, I will not, but I am sure after some consideration the chairman will reconsider his decision with respect to the hon. member for Mackenzie River.
Could the minister explain how it is that an agreement has been reached for federal cost sharing of the bridge across the Fraser river which, I take it from the minister's words, is in fact federal cost sharing only as it applies to a two-lane bridge. The minister knows that such a bridge will not be built -no one is going to build a two-lane bridge across the Fraser	river-it would be
ridiculous.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence pursuant to standing order 15 (3).



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, ^ respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give authority to the shareholders of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company to authorize, if they so desire, the payment of directors' fees to the directors of the company within the modest limits contained in the bill and also to authorize the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the directors in furthering the company's interests.
Hon. members may like to know who are the directors of this company. They are all well-known west coast gentlemen. One is Alderman Cornett of the city of Vancouver, long experienced in municipal matters; others are Mayor Goldsworthy of the city of North Vancouver and his associate Alderman Gostick; there are also on the board Reeve Sam Macrae and Councillor Fraser of North Vancouver, and Reeve Richards of West Vancouver. Hon. members may also like to know who the shareholders of this company are. Mr. Speaker, the shareholders are as follows: first, there is the city of Vancouver, then the city of North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver and the municipality of West Vancouver. They own between them some 8,000 shares. These are the total shares outstanding, except 25 additional shares owned by the Cotton estate.
I wish to point out also that the board of directors of this company is charged with the responsibility of operating the company as a profit making company as opposed to, say, a school board or other like institution.

The board has requested that the company charter be amended. Whether or not directors' fees will be paid will finally rest with the municipalities to decide. This bill merely enables fees to be paid. It is up to the shareholders to decide the rest. No director is a shareholder, and thus a director is not entitled to vote unless he acts as proxy. In running this bridge company the directors must give additional time apart from their other duties. They are out to make a profit for the company; it is a commercial business.
I think it might be best if I gave hon. members a short history of this company. The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company was first incorporated in 1910, giving authority to a private group to build a tunnel in Burrard inlet, Vancouver, British Columbia, at what is known as the first narrows, or a bridge at the second narrows in the same inlet. It was considered at that time that the cost of a tunnel was too great to justify its construction and, in fact, it was too early for the building of a bridge across the second narrows.
The purpose of the bridge was to join the city of North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, and the municipality of West Vancouver to the city of Vancouver by roadway. The population of Vancouver at that time was only in the neighbourhood of about 90,000 with the other city and districts very small. Eventually the company's rights of building were taken over by the two cities and two municipalities to which I have referred. The bridge was completed in 1925.
The fixed span of the bridge was carried away in 1930 and replacement was completed in 1934. It was at this time that the federal government made available one million dollars with the proviso that management of the bridge would be assumed by the national harbours board pending the repayment of the loan from the federal government.
Upon the return of the bridge to the bridge company in March 1951 its finances were in extremely bad condition. The company had made default under a trust deed mortgage to the Montreal Trust Company to secure $630,000. No interest had been paid for several years; no sinking fund had been set up for several years, and coupons outstanding in default amounted to $642,600. A similar default existed in regard to a second trust deed mortgage of $70,000. The bridge company had no funds to meet a temporary loan from the national harbours board of $98,000.
The company's financial position had been poor from the time of the construction of its bridge over the second narrows. The supreme court of British Columbia had appointed a
Private Bills
receiver upon the application of the Montreal Trust Company, the trustee under the two bond mortgages.
Under the management of a very able directorate the company's financial situation has greatly improved since March 31, 1951 when the company took over the railway and bridge from the national harbours board.
I have a copy of the company's financial statement for the year ending December 31, 1957, as certified by the company's auditors. The statement shows that the company paid a dividend for the year 1957 of $321,000, being 40 per cent on the capital stock outstanding. The huge amounts of unpaid arrears of interest, coupons and sinking funds referred to have been paid and provided. The company's operating profit before fixed charges for the year ending December 31, 1957, amounted to some $613,000, and after deduction of fixed charges, including depreciation, the company's net profit for the year amounted to some $529,000.
In my opinion, time and ability on the part of the directors will be required in the next few years in excess of the usual time devoted to carrying on the company's business. In view of the construction now proceeding of a competitive bridge at the second narrows, sponsored by the provincial government, I am of the opinion that a new deal with the Canadian National Railways will come up for consideration by the directors of the bridge company. The nature of any new deal cannot be defined now. The formation of it undoubtedly will require considerable study and will require a board of directors sufficiently interested in their work to devote the necessary time and effort. I do not see why they should not receive some reasonable remuneration.
Finally, I mention by way of comparison the fact that members of the greater Vancouver water district, which is a corporation created by provincial statute in 1924, have always been paid. For many years they have been paid-small sums, it is true-but they have received remuneration. The corporation which I have referred to was not constituted for the purpose of making money and paying dividends. The corporation under review at the present time was constituted for making money.
I feel that the directors have been most fair in considering the welfare of the shareholders. The directors could have drafted the bill in such a way as to have provided that they alone could have set the amount to be paid to them by way of remuneration but if hon. members will peruse the draft bill they will see that it is the shareholders and the shareholders only who have the power to determine the amount to be paid.

Private Bills
I should also like to commend the board of directors. As I mentioned, most of them are senior officials in western Canada and most have had long experience in municipal affairs. They have set extremely reasonable sums to be paid as remuneration. They have stipulated that the maximum amount that may be paid to a director shall be the sum of $500 with provision for payment to the president of the sum of $1,200. I am convinced that hon. members will share my feeling that these are most reasonable sums.
The directors are not shareholders of the corporation. They do not even have the right unless appointed as a proxy to be present at the annual meeting. Therefore they do not necessarily have to be at the meeting in order to vote upon this important matter. Such authority is vested solely in the shareholders which, as I explained earlier, are the municipalities concerned. This is an added safeguard over the usual company practice whereby the directors themselves determine the amount of directors fees to be paid. In this instance any fees would have to be authorized by the shareholders meeting which would be composed of persons holding proxies from the shareholder municipalities and, under the Railway Act, such proxies need not be themselves shareholders. Nor is it any requirement whereby a proxy must even be a member of the municipal council. In other words it is quite possible that the directors would not even be present at the shareholders meeting, as I just mentioned, at which the matter of directors fees was determined.
In summary I wish to stress that I feel the directors have acted in good faith, they have drafted a reasonable bill, the sums involved by way of remuneration are not great and there is the added safeguard that the shareholders shall have the right to determine whether or not they shall be paid.


Mr. W. H. Payne (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the bill as presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor). The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company is a concern which, as has been previously stated, operates a very essential bridge connection between the south shore of Burrard inlet, across the Second Narrows to the north shore. The north shore, I might point out, is one of the major areas represented in my riding of Coast-Capilano. The bulk of the ownership of this company is likewise represented by holdings held by the municipalities on the north shore. Sixty per cent of the shareholdings are held by the city of North Vancouver and the municipal district of North Vancouver. The small amount of the balance entitles the municipality of West 
Vancouver to seat one director on the board of this company and also to participate in its control to a very small degree. The city of Vancouver itself holds a small share interest and is entitled to the seating of one director on the board.
On the surface it would appear that the purpose of this bill is in order and in keeping with normal, good business practice. However, as the mover has pointed out, since the incorporation of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company in 1910, some 48 years ago, it has had a checkered and quite colourful career. Indeed, in the earlier years it was out of operation more than it was in operation. This has been a matter which has direly affected the life and interest of the people living in the north shore area. For a great many years, other than for ferry contact, it provided the only access to the north side of Burrard inlet.
It is faulty and quite incorrect to consider that it was established and eventually controlled by the municipal areas on the north shore for the purpose of making a profit. It was established for and has been administered by the municipality and city council of North Vancouver for the sole purpose of providing access to the north shore area. Its administration by its directors falls well into the category of a normal operation through a council of aldermen or councillors being named to committees to administer this public utility. The subject of its operation has formed the basis of active and heated debate throughout the more populated area of my constituency, not for just a few years but for many years.
I think it is important to point out the matter of its earning power at this time. Much has been said about the management of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company. I wish to pay tribute to those who have been appointed by the three councils and the council of the city of Vancouver in connection with the operation of this essential public utility. However, I wish to stress the fact that its earning power at this time has developed only through the tremendous increase in population in the three municipalities it services on the north shore. It is by virtue of the bridge tolls paid by the taxpayers of that area that those revenues are garnered. The taxpayers of these communities are the very people who for well over two and a half decades have been called upon, through tax assessments, to pay deficits on the operation of this bridge company. The load has fallen heavily on the people living in Coast-Capilano. They are, as has been pointed out, the shareholders, and in the

course of the last seven years these shareholders have protested vigorously on two grounds.
One is that council should be able to appoint a man from their midst to act on what virtually is a municipal committee and receive remuneration denied a committee man serving on other essential jobs while in office and a member of council. They have also strongly voiced the opinion that any revenues garnered from the operation of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company represent basically overcharges placed upon the citizens of the north shore and are a clear indication that rather than operating on a profit basis the bridge tolls should be reduced.
Further to these factors, I would like to point out that if after this strange interim period, being almost 48 years of history, this company shows large profits, those profits are entirely of a temporary nature since a new second narrows bridge, which has already been mentioned and which suffered dire damage and was the scene of a great disaster in my area not many weeks ago, is under construction. It is a 6-lane high level structure. When it is completed, certainly in a period of not more than three years from now, the second narrows bridge will again face financial disaster and the people who will be obliged then to pay for this administration charge if now permitted will be the citizens of my constituency. Mr. Speaker, they have protested and I support them in their protest.
Further, I submit that in three years time this company will be faced with very serious and tragic deficiencies, and I trust that it will be possible through discussions with our federal Department of Transport to see that the old second narrows bridge span, which must be kept in service, as it will still remain at the time of the opening of the service of the new second narrows bridge, as the only carrier of rail traffic, is again brought under the control of the harbours board to form the first portion of an integrated harbours board rail connection and distribution system throughout the north and south sides of Burrard inlet.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill. Quite frankly, I am amazed that we who are members of the House of Commons from constituencies that are concerned did not know anything about the introduction of this bill until it was introduced by the hon. member. I have a particular interest because one end of the bridge is in my constituency. I wish to say first of all that I regret that if the shareholders were interested in this the representatives of the constituencies and the municipalities concerned did not see fit to speak to us about it. I can only go on
Private Bills
what has been said already by the hon. member who introduced this bill and also from my own knowledge.
I wish to join with the hon. member who has just taken his seat and say that I oppose the passage of this bill in this house. I am afraid that the hon. member who introduced it unintentionally confused the issue. The only shareholders are the municipalities, and the only representatives of the municipalities on the board are the elected members who represent those municipalities. We have this extraordinary situation. The only votes that can be cast are the votes of the elected representatives who represent the shareholders who are the municipalities. In other words, there is no other voice whatsoever at any meeting except that of the elected representatives who represent the shareholders who are the municipalities. That, I think you will agree, is a most extraordinary situation. Of course, I am a little bit wrong. I understand there is one person who controls 25 votes out of 8,025. Who the lady is I do not know. Perhaps the hon. member who has moved the second reading of this bill might inform us at the appropriate time. She is the representative of an estate. But the hon. member who moved the motion and has asked our support for it said that this was a profit-making company. As a Vancouver representative and one who represents a constituency in which one end of this bridge is, I deny that statement.
This company was not originally formed in any way whatsoever as a profit-making organization. The company was formed because there was a dire need for a bridge over the second narrows to serve Vancouver and various municipalities on the north shore of Burrard inlet. The company was organized and the bridge was built as a service to the people on both sides of Burrard inlet. Admittedly, it lost money for some time; admittedly, it is now making money. If one is to be completely honest, admittedly in a very short time it may start losing a great deal of money because only a matter of about 100 feet from that bridge a new bridge is being constructed. Unfortunately, that new bridge will not be opened when it was expected it would be because of a calamity we all heard about and spoke about just a matter of a few days ago. Inside of 12 months the engineering defects will be taken care of and a new bridge will be in operation which will take care of every item of transportation in the second narrows area, excepting on a railway basis. That being so, it becomes more important than ever before to recognize that the original construction and continued operation of the bridge was a matter of service and not of profit.

Private Bills
May I just add to what I mentioned a few moments ago that outside of the estate represented by one woman who owns 25 shares out of 8,025, all representatives are directors appointed as elected representatives of the city of Vancouver and the various municipalities which put up the original money for the construction of this bridge. Being elected members they are in the same position as others with similar responsibilities. If you are a member of a city council, a municipal council or a rural municipal council your work is designated by the council. You may be called upon to serve on a library board, a sewer board and undertake all the various responsibilities that go with election to office. Quite bluntly, I cannot see why there should be any differentiation between the responsibilities of a member of a council serving on a library board or sewer board and those of a director of a bridge company engaged in rendering a service. The council member's service is just as great and he also has to attend many more meetings than those who are members of the directorate of this bridge company.
Apparently the city of Vancouver did not think this matter of sufficient importance to draw it to the attention of Vancouver representatives other than the one who has introduced the bill. Nonetheless, while I do not necessarily hope that the bill will be turned down at this time I do think it should be referred to a standing committee of the house for a complete investigation and survey of the situation.


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one or two observations on the bill and perhaps to facilitate the matter by directing hon. members to the principle that is involved in the bill. I think the principle is particularly important since it involves not only the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company as an ordinary corporate entity but also because of the fact that the company is in effect being run by the municipality. Municipal councillors are elected by the municipality to sit as councillors and to serve on various committees, and in serving on this particular board they are in fact serving on another committee.
The point that bothers me with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member is that the remuneration suggested for the directors and the president is extremely small and because it is so small it would seem to me that the municipal council, if it had seen fit, could have awarded an amount directly to the individual members.
To take a look at the history of the company, the company was incorporated on May

4, 1910 by an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company." Section 7 of the original act of incorporation stated:
The number of directors shall be not less than five nor more than nine, one or more of whom may be paid directors.
I think it is interesting at this time to follow through the statutes and see what happened to the provision as to paid directors. We turn to the Statutes of Canada, 1924, chapter 76, section 2 where it is stated:
Section 7 of the said act is repealed-
That refers to the act I just mentioned.
-and the following is substituted therefor:
"7. The board of directors shall consist of six members, and shall be made up as follows:	Two
representatives from the district of North Vancouver, one of whom shall be the reeve, and one councillor to be nominated by resolution of the council; Two representatives from the city of North Vancouver, one of whom shall be the mayor, and one alderman to be nominated by resolution of the council; One representative from the city of Vancouver who shall be the mayor for the time being of the said city; One representative from the district of West Vancouver who shall be the reeve of the said district."
There is no reference made anywhere throughout this section as to the directors being paid. Following the matter through, we turn now to the Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 56, section 1, where it is stated: Section 7 of the act to incorporate the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company, chapter 74 of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by section 2 of chapter 76 of the statutes of 1924 is repealed, and the following substituted therefor:
"7. The board of directors shall consist of six members and shall be made up as follows:
Two representatives of the corporation of the district of North Vancouver both of whom shall be members of the municipal council of the district to be nominated by resolution of the council: Two representatives of the corporation of the city of North Vancouver both of whom shall be members of the municipal council of the city to be nominated by resolution of the council;
One representative of the corporation of the district of West Vancouver who shall be a member of the municipal council of the district to be nominated by resolution of the council;
One representative of the city of Vancouver who shall be a member of the city council to be nominated by resolution of the council."
It is interesting to note that in all the amendments up to 1952 no consideration was given to payment and it would have been possible at the time of these amendments to bring in a provision for payment of directors. But evidently the people who were bringing in those amendments thought it was in the best interests not to have such a provision. I would also refer to section 2 of the same statute which reads as follows:
Section 8 of the said act, as enacted by section 1 of chapter 63 of the statutes of 1931, is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

" (2) In addition to its right to charge tolls under the provisions of the Railway Act the company may charge and collect tolls in respect of the use for pedestrian and vehicular and other like traffic of the said bridge or the bridge as reconstructed, or the ways and approaches connected therewith and owned or operated by the company."
Actually in 1952 we had the first confirmation that the company was entitled to collect tolls on vehicular traffic and pedestrians making use of the bridge. There was a certain amount of confusion in view of the various amendments to the act. I think it is of interest to note that the company was incorporated in 1910 and yet it was not until 1923 that actual construction of the bridge started. In the Statutes of Canada, 1913, chapter 80, an amendment was made to the original act for the purpose of extending the time for construction of the bridge. This was followed by subsequent amendments. Perhaps I should take the time to read the 1913 amendment.. It is found in chapter 80, section 1 and reads:
1.	The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company may commence the construction of its bridge-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member whether this relates to the principle of the bill which seems to be a relatively simple one of whether or not the company shall have the power to pay its directors? I do not think he need spend time on the history of the company except in so far as it relates to the principle which is the subject matter of the discussion on second reading.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I have brought up this matter because I wished to refer to the length of time before the bridge was actually constructed. Perhaps I might just refer briefly to the citations as a matter of convenience. The time for construction was extended in the Statutes of Canada, 1913, chapter 80; 1914, chapter 73; 1916, chapter 34; 1918, chapter 81; 1920, chapter 74; and 1922, chapter 54. As I mentioned earlier, construction of the bridge was started in 1923 and carried on through 1924 and 1925. The bridge was first opened on November 7, 1925. The bridge had not been designed to be a threat to navigation but shipping interests said that it subsequently would be. As a result of the mistake made by the people constructing the bridge, the steamship Eurana struck the bridge in March, 1927 and a 300 foot span was thrown into Burrard inlet.
This resulted in a very interesting case which went to the privy council, the Steamship Eurana vs the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company. It is reported in 1931 Appeal Cases at page 300. If I may be permitted, sir, I should like to read the head-note in that case.
Private Bills
Where a special act of the dominion legislature has authorized the construction of a bridge carrying a railway over a navigable channel "so as not to interfere with navigation", and has incorporated the Railway Act, an order made by the railway board under section 268 of that act, which empowers the board to authorize the construction of a bridge over navigable waters according to plans approved by the governor in council, affords no defence to a claim in respect of damage caused to a ship by reason of the bridge constructed being a substantial interference with navigation and therefore a public nuisance. The protection of the public right of navigation being dealt with both in the special act and in the general act, the express provision of the special act overrides those of the general act, both having regard to section 3 of the Railway Act and apart therefrom.
This particular judgment reverses the Exchequer Court of Canada and the decision of the admiralty court in British Columbia.
In order to remove the difficulties in which the company found itself chapter 63 of the statutes of 1931 was enacted, section 3 of which reads:
Notwithstanding anything in this or any previous act of the Parliament of Canada, it is hereby declared that the bridge heretofore constructed by the company across the Second Narrows of Burrard inlet shall be deemed to be a bridge constructed in accordance with the terms of the act incorporating the company, chapter seventy-four of the statutes of 1910, and amending acts, and of the Railway Act, and shall not be construed as an interference with navigation.
Section 4 is particularly important, and it states-


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see what these references have to do with the principle of the bill. The hon. member is giving a lot of interesting information, but the only thing the house has to decide is the principle of whether or not the company shall be given the power to pay its directors. Now the hon. member may relate all this to the question of the payment of directors, but if he is not heading in that direction I would ask him to get back to the point.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Perhaps the argument is a little tenuous, but nevertheless I would assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am leading up to that point. The difficulty I was trying to illustrate there, is that, as a result of the collision, it would cost approximately $1 million to put in this new 300-foot span. The municipalities, who had guaranteed the bonds necessary to finance the new span, and indeed the company, got into a very serious position. The federal government under R. B. Bennett came to the rescue in 1935. At that time the federal government advanced the $1 million necessary to continue with the construction of the bridge. The bridge was constructed and the connection between North Vancouver and the city of Vancouver was renewed following a disruption of some three or four years because of the litigation.

Private Bills
The bridge was taken over by the National Harbours Board until 1951, and at that time was returned to the municipalities. As I mentioned, 1952 was the first time that the tolls on the bridge realized by the municipalities were confirmed as the actual property and entitlement of the municipalities. We have now reached the position, where the bridge is under the complete control of the municipalities. As a matter of fact, I believe last year a profit of some $321,000 was realized, and there was a 40 per cent dividend returned.
As some of the previous speakers have mentioned, adjacent to this bridge there is the Second Narrows bridge which suffered an unfortunate accident recently. When that bridge is completed it will be diverting revenues from the existing bridge. We have a situation, and I am coming to the point, where the directors are taking the attitude that they will give themselves remuneration. Although the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) gave us an excellent dissertation on the background of this particular bill, at no time did he state that the councils of the respective municipalities were in unanimous agreement that this remuneration be paid to the directors. I feel that I cannot support the bill until I am assured that the municipalities are giving their wholehearted support to it.
I am not inquiring as to the position taken by any member of the council, but we are rather in this position where the directors are suggesting the granting of an increase to themselves, and in all likelihood the municipal councillors will be the individuals who will be receiving the proxies from the municipalities so they will, in effect, be voting this amount of money to themselves. In view of the relatively small amount, which is approximately $1,200 for the president, who is also a director, and the $500 a year for the other directors, I cannot see the necessity for this bill. If it is felt that the directors should receive remuneration, I would be glad to give my whole-hearted support on the basis that, first of all, the councils give a unanimous indication they are supporting this measure.


Harold Edward Winch: As shareholders.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes; I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I would support it on the basis that the councillors give their whole-hearted support as shareholders to the idea of these payments and, secondly, I would go so far as to say that the amount to be paid to the directors would be unlimited. Then the municipalities would have the discretion as to the amount to be paid.

I have risen to speak on this measure because I feel that the councillors and municipalities are performing a public service, and we will have a situation where one or two members of the council will become directors and therefore entitled to extra remuneration as compared with the other members of the council. I feel that this will breed a sense of inequality, and take away from the finer service functions which the councillors perform. I feel, therefore, for the reasons I have stated, and because of the reservations I have made, I cannot support this bill.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the excellence of the arguments that have already been put forward, I shall have very little to say. I think you will have noted that this is the first time for many long years that a private bill has really been considered as a private bill by the members of this house. Thus far, we have had one member speaking on behalf of the bill and two members of the same political party opposing the bill. I feel that this attitude towards private bills is to be heartily welcomed. I say that this is unique, at least over the past number of years.
I,	like the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was very surprised indeed at being faced with this bill at the present time. I have not heard of any representation made by the city of Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver or the district of West Vancouver for endorsation of the principle of this bill. I feel there is a vital principle involved in that one appointee of a municipal council is going to be placed in a preferred position over other appointees. When I think of the appointee of a council to a hospital board I immediately realize that that appointee has more work to do, has far greater responsibility and-certainly over the last few years-has had much more anxiety than has the appointee representing the council on this bridge company's board.
I very much regret this bill has come before us in this manner. I find it almost beyond my ability to vote against a request made by public servants, especially municipal servants. I do not like to vote against the principle of the bill until I have had the chance to examine it much more closely and it is for that reason that I move:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
We in this group have a tremendous respect for our municipally elected officers and I do not like to vote against something for which they have asked without having

thoroughly convinced myself that the principle is in fact wrong. If it is wrong we would, of course, have to vote against it but if we find the principle is not as we imagine it to be we shall be most happy to support the bill when it comes before this House of Commons for second reading.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: 


Mr. Speaker;: I would like to take issue with one or two things which have been said during this debate and to put forward one or two proposals.
First of all, we have heard from two previous speakers of their concern for the taxpayers. I realize, of course, that it is the duty of every one of us to protect the interests of the taxpayers but, at the same time, I feel if these directors are entitled to remuneration for the job they are doing, if they are earning that pay, this argument on behalf of the taxpayers is not a legitimate one. If they are doing a good job they are entitled to remuneration.


Harold Edward Winch: How about the hospital boards, the library boards and the school boards?


John Ferguson Browne: I have not said anything about them, but if the hon. member would just wait for a moment I will tell him what I have in mind. I feel that protection of the taxpayer is not a legitimate argument against paying the remuneration to which such directors are entitled. What we must find out is whether they are so entitled and in looking back over the history of the legislation I find in the early days of its existence provision was made for the payment of directors in such a case. Perhaps the mover of the bill might let us have some information on this aspect of the matter because somewhere along the line, in connection with the amendment as to who would comprise the board of directors, that particular provision seems to have been dropped.
I have looked back over all the discussions which have taken place with respect to this act since its inception in 1910 and I cannot find any particular reason as to why this provision was dropped. We have been told that the shareholders are the municipalities and the city of Vancouver and as shareholders, the municipal councils and the city council are apparently the authorities which
Private Bills
will be setting these payments. I can therefore see no reason why we should place any limit upon such payments as has been suggested. If these bodies will be deciding who the directors should be and how much they should be paid, the setting of a limit would also be their responsibility.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) mentioned that this board should be paid directly by the city or the municipal council concerned, but I think the imbalance of shares makes this proposal impractical. We have been told that they will not all hold an equal quantity of shares and that although Vancouver will appoint a director that city has only a very small amount of shares. I would also like to point out that although this company has been formed since 1910 it apparently did not start operating until 1925 and so far the directors have not been paid-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Hang on for 60 seconds and you can talk it out.


John Ferguson Browne: It has
also been said that they have been incurring expenses. I would like to know if such expenses have been incurred what they have been doing all these years with respect to reimbursement and just what expenses have in fact been incurred. Perhaps the mover of the bill could inform us in this respect, and what further expenses might be expected to be incurred.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, is there anything to be said about the business for Monday?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Ewart Nixon: I wonder if the house leader would indicate the business of the house for Monday.


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we shall have a supply motion and after we get into supply we will have the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is no arrangement about this matter; it is just a supply motion?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSV/ERS TO QUESTIONS
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What number of prevailing rate civilian employees are in the Department of National Defence?
2.	How many are veterans of the armed services?
3.	How many of these veterans will qualify for three weeks vacation under the proposed regulations that the period in which they served in the armed forces will be taken into consideration in computing 15 years of service?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	21,535.
2.	9,233.
3.	As of July 1, 1958, 195 veterans qualified for three weeks' vacation under the new prevailing rate regulations.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-TRAVELLING ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Is there a travelling establishment committee or a complement committee for the Department of National Defence which makes periodic inspections of national defence establishments and which recommends decreases or increases in (a) civil service staffs; (b) civilian prevailing rate employees?
2.	If so, how many members comprise this committee and what departments do they represent?
3.	At what intervals does this committee make inspections and are the inspections made on the ground at each establishment?
4.	When will the next inspections be made at (a) Renous naval ammunition depot; (b) Chatham R.C.A.F. station; (c) St. Margarets R.C.A.F. station, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	Each of the three services has its own establishment or complement committee. The personnel of these committees varies as between the three services, but all contain a representative of the deputy minister's office, and a representative of the civil service commission staff. These committees make recommendations regarding numbers and categories of both service and civilian personnel. The recommendations of these service establishment or complement committees regarding increases or decreases in the numbers of civilian positions, both annual salaried and prevailing rate, are considered by the Department of National Defence and the civil
service commission before the Minister of National Defence formally requests treasury board action to amend establishments.
3.	There is no fixed interval for making establishment reviews, although such reviews are normally conducted at intervals of two to three years. In some cases, on the ground inspections are made by investigators who report to the committee; in other cases, such inspections are carried out by one or more members of the committee; in still others, on the ground inspections are not deemed to be necessary.
4.	(a) Autumn 1959; (b) a study was carried out at this station in May of this year and it is anticipated that a further study will be made in 1960; (c) summer 1958.



POSTAL STATIONS, DOLLARD COUNTY, QUE.

Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Since June 10, 1957, has the government received representations from Mr. Maurice Cousineau, mayor of the city of St. Laurent, requesting the building of new postal stations in the county of Dollard, Quebec?
2.	If so, in what locations?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, WATERLOO, QUE.

Mr. Boivin: 1.	Have representations been made to the Minister of Labour or any officials of his department asking for the establishment of an employment office at Waterloo, Quebec?
2.	If so, by whom?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) To the Minister of Labour by the secretary-treasurer of the corporation of the town of Waterloo; (b) to the chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission by the hon. member for Shefford, Mr. Marcel Boivin.



ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the New Brunswick members of the army benevolent fund board?
2.	What amount of money is now on hand for disposition of this board?
3.	What has been the annual decrease in the New Brunswick army benevolent fund, each year since 1947?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):

The army benevolent fund board reports as follows:
1.	The army benevolent fund is administered in the province of New Brunswick by the New Brunswick committee of the army benevolent fund. Members of this committee are not members of the army benevolent fund board. The names and addresses of the New Brunswick committee are: Chairman, Lt. Col H. G. Crocker, ED, Newcastle, N.B.; member, Major H. R. Sheehan, Saint John, N.B.; member, Major A. E. Bruce, Saint John, N.B.; secretary, Mr. B. R. Doucet, Saint John, N.B.
2.	The net worth of the army benevolent fund as at 31 March, 1958 was: $7,517,395.
3.	As no allocation of the moneys held by the fund was made to provincial committees, it cannot be said that there has been a decrease in respect of New Brunswick. However, the following table shows disbursements of the fund in the province of New Brunswick since inception by fiscal year:
1947/49	 $23,156*
1949/50	 13,447
1950/51	 22,934
1951/52	 23,354
1952/53	 36,528
1953/54	 44,060
1954/55	 49,856
1955/56	 39,183
1956/57	 39,635
1957/58	 46,606	$338,759
^Expended by army interim benevolent fund.
The figures reported in the above table are taken from ABF claims review analysis.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply.]
Supply-Items Passed



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
350.	Ontario, $11,642,900.
351.	Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $215,000.
352.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $219,000.
353.	British Columbia and Yukon, $2,739,000.
354.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $200,000.
355.	To provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or Federal Government structures and to complete protection works already under way, $800,000.
356.	Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction
and replacements for the maintenance of services: to provide for wharf repairs at Ste. Angele de Laval, Quebec:	and to authorize commitments
against future years in the amount of $420,000, no new works to be undertaken, $3,000,000.
Dredging-
357. Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,465,000.
358. Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $900,000.
359.	Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, $1,050,000.
Development Engineering Services-
360.	Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $500,000.
361.	Towards replacement of low level Burlington canal bridge, $500,000.
362.	Perley bridge, between Hawkesbury, Ontario and Grenville, Quebec-improvements, $55,000.
363.	Towards an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry, $200,000.
364.	Roads and bridges-maintenance and operation, $178,745.
365.	Testing laboratories-operation and maintenance, $869,022.
607.	Ontario, $271,000.
608.	British Columbia and Yukon, 964,500. Dredging-
609.	Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment-further amount required, $333,500.
610.	Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams-further amount required, $76,000. Development Engineering Services-
611.	Towards an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry-further amount required, $160,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 7, 1958