1960-07-21

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That, commencing on Friday, July 22, and continuing for each successive Friday until the end of the session, the hours of sitting shall be from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., and 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., and commencing Saturday July 23, and for each successive Saturday until the end of the session, the hours of sitting shall be from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.;
That the order of business and procedure on Saturdays shall be as for Thursdays (government day), and that the provisions of standing orders 2 (1) and 6 (3) be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not going to say anything about this motion?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the house wishes a statement on the motion I will be glad to make it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we ought to have one.


John George Diefenbaker: As I recollect, on previous occasions when a similar motion has been made in expectation of the ending of a session there has been no debate, but if the Leader of the Opposition would like me to make a statement I should like to point out examples of similar motions which I am sure will meet with general approval.
In 1954 the session lasted for 139 days. Today we are entering on the 129th day. As the rules were in that year, the house sat on Friday evenings during the session. The motion in 1954 was made on June 17 to extend the hours of sitting, the house sat on Saturday, June 19 and Saturday, June 26 and concluded the session on that day. In 1955 the session lasted for 140 days. Then too the rules provided that the house should sit on Friday evening throughout the session. The motion was made on July 13 to extend the hours of sitting and the house sat on two subsequent Saturdays, namely July 16 and July 23. In 1956 the length of the session was 152 days, on July 24 a motion was introduced to extend the hours of sitting and the house sat in the evening on four Fridays and on three Saturdays.
79951-0-420
I would point out that the interval between the motion and the conclusion of the session in 1954 was nine days, in 1955 it was 15 days and in 1956 it was 24 days. Hence there is every precedent for the motion now being made on the examples which I have given.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Prime Minister has given us the history of the past. We in this group are not interested in the number of days we sat in past sessions, the time a motion of this kind came in, or how often the house met on Saturdays. We are interested in only one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the business of the people of Canada in this House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: -be conducted in a manner that will not only result in a proper, reasonable and efficient study of all matters still before this House of Commons, but in a manner that will give to the people of Canada a respect for this House of Commons and for the manner in which it conducts its business.
The house is now meeting for long hours, Mr. Speaker. I think it is not generally recognized that a member doing his job is not just in this house when it meets at 11 o'clock. As a rule I arrive here at about 8.30 in the morning, and I meet members of the Conservative party and members of the Liberal party who are arriving here at about that time. I do not think it is generally recognized how many of the members of this house are on the job at about 8.30 or 9 o'clock in the morning accepting their responsibilities, sitting in committees and taking care of constituency matters. The house meets at eleven o'clock in the morning. It now closes at eleven o'clock at night. That is a pretty strenuous session. For three days the lunch hour is out, and now the Prime Minister is moving a motion to continue the sitting hours on Friday until 11 p.m. and on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if this motion passes, just what does it mean? That we may be able to prorogue this house two days earlier or three days earlier than otherwise? Is our respect for parliament so low that with the pressure members are now under with their constituency work, research, speeches, committees of the House of Commons; with the most important business of this entire session

Business of the House
still before them, the bill of rights, estimates, the defence department, public works and many others, the Prime Minister thinks he is now holding the name of parliamentary democracy in proper respect and because of procedure in the past, this is a good motion to try to drive through to get rid of parliament?
Mr. Speaker, I have never, I believe, pleaded with a prime minister but I am going to do it now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: It may not mean much to some who are laughing and interrupting at this moment, but parliamentary democracy means a great deal to me. Respect for parliament is something which has to be cherished. You are not going to build up respect for parliament when you have to consider the business of the people under such an extension of hours and days as is now recommended.
Let me put it in this way, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe this is fully realized. If you bring parliament into disrespect you lay the ground work for what happened in Italy and in Germany, because it is disrespect for parliament that enables a dictator to move in. Even if it means an extra two days or an extra two weeks, let us give evidence to the people of Canada that we are handling their work in a responsible and efficient manner.
Therefore I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not withdraw his motion which is now before us and have consideration not only for himself, with all his responsibilities, but for members of all parties of this house who want to carry out in a reasonable and efficient manner the task for which we were elected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we intend to oppose this resolution which, as the hon. member who has just sat down said, shows complete disrespect, almost contempt, of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I argue against this resolution I have no doubt my argument will be given the same frivolous reception which the hon. member's argument was given who preceded me.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution was put on the order paper by the Prime Minister without any consultation, either through himself, the leader of the house or any member of the government, with anybody on this side. One might have expected such consultation, even though agreement might not be possible.

The Prime Minister has attempted to mention one or two precedents which in his mind would justify this resolution. The Prime Minister will be very hard put to find any precedent in our parliamentary history which would authorize the House of Commons to meet for the number of hours per week it will be meeting if this resolution is carried.
Let us look at the situation in the last two or three years since this government has had responsibility for it. In 1958, a few days before the end of the session on July 14, the hours of sitting in this house were increased from 25J per week to 33. In 1959 the hours were increased on June 29-the session ended on July 18-from 31i per week to 37 per week. What we are being asked to do this morning is to increase the present hours of sitting, which have already reached a figure of 45 per week as a minimum, depending on whether we are discussing estimates or legislation, to 51 or 52 hours per week, depending on whether we sit through the lunch hour on Saturdays.


Harold Edward Winch: And that is just the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the House of Commons; and I ask the Prime Minister, who has been searching the record, to produce any evidence that the House of Commons at any time has been asked to sit for 51 or 52 hours per week.
Our present sitting hours of 45 hours per week are unprecedented, and they represent a minimum which in itself is creating difficulties not only for members of parliament but for all those officers and employees of the house who have to serve and cover the work of the House of Commons. It would, I think, be quite impossible to continue our work satisfactorily and accept any increase in the present unprecedented number of hours we are sitting. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out two years ago when we were asked to increase hours of sitting to 33, taking away Saturday meant that there would be no week ends for preparatory work in readiness for the week's business that was to come.
Even if all the important legislation had been disposed of, even if there were nothing but estimates before the house, and even if it were only a few days before the end of the session, we could not support this resolution. But what is the situation with regard to the work before the house and the end of the session? It certainly will not be possible to complete the work we have now on the order paper before at least a fortnight, and perhaps before three or four weeks. In that situation would it not be

better to go ahead at the speedy pace, in so far as hours are concerned, that we are now following until this work is done, until we can give that work the consideration to which it is entitled? Or, if the government is not willing to do that, we might adjourn and come back in the autumn. In any event, perhaps an autumn session will be required because of the serious domestic or international situation.
We have to consider the situation first in the light of the estimates that have not been passed, then in the light of the legislation that has not been passed, and then having regard to the work of the committees; and all three considerations make it clear that we are far from the end of the session, as we in the official opposition certainly propose to discharge our duty as best we can in all three categories I have mentioned, namely estimates, legislation and committees.
What did the Prime Minister himself say about the desirability of parliament continuing regularly in session even during the summer months? On June 14 of this year, as reported at page 4879 of Hansard, the hon. gentleman said:
All I can say in that regard-
He was talking about the length of the session. I continue:
-is that I like parliament to be sitting, because it is very helpful to get the views of hon. members-
The Prime Minister likes parliament to be sitting so much that he is asking us now to extend the length of our sittings to over 50 hours a week so that we can rush everything through in the last weeks of the session. The situation with regard to estimates is that eight or nine important departments have not yet even been introduced. So far as committees are concerned we have two very important committees now sitting, the bill of rights committee and the combines committee.


Mr. Fulton:: The banking and commerce committee finished on Monday. Bring us up to date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What more important committee could there be than the one considering the bill of rights? In addition to this we have an agricultural committee and a broadcasting committee which organized itself only on July 20.


Mr. Hellyer:: Some organization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister says that the bill of rights is one of the most important measures that has ever been introduced into a Canadian parliament. It was introduced on July 1 in a session which began early in January-
79951-0-420J
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the applause given to that observation about the bill of rights being in the view of the Prime Minister one of the most important measures ever introduced into a Canadian parliament is in startling contrast to the reception given to this bill in the committee by the witnesses who have been called before it. In any event, of course, it is an important bill and should be given the careful and thorough consideration which was solemnly promised by the Prime Minister when he told the Canadian Bar Association that it would be introduced at the beginning of the session and sent at once to a joint committee. As the Canadian Labour Congress has said with reference to the bill of rights:
Great issues, profound issues, issues of immense legal difficulty, are at stake. It is simply impossible for any individual, however learned, however eloquent, however long he has considered these questions, to present his views adequately upon a few days' notice. It is simply impossible for all the individuals who should be heard to make their views known to you within the compass of five or six days. And what is true of individuals is even truer of organizations, which, in the nature of things, need more time to prepare their submissions.
This is not the way to deal with questions of such import.
The broadcasting committee to which I have made reference has not even begun its sessions yet, and chose its chairman only on July 20. The Prime Minister himself earlier in this session and also last session said he would be prepared to do what he could to ensure that the work of the committees would not interfere with the important work in the House of Commons itself. We know, and especially those hon. members who are working on committees know, how impossible it is to satisfactorily carry on the work in these important committees and to do the work which is required in the House of Commons. The bill of rights committee met in the afternoon when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were before the House of Commons, and those hon. members serving on the committee had to shuttle back and forth between the chamber and the committee. The bill of rights committee is meeting today at nine o'clock, at two o'clock and at eight o'clock in order to rush its important work through so the Prime Minister and the government can get rid of parliament at the earliest possible date. That is not the way the Prime Minister talked earlier in the session or last session. As found on page 990 of Hansard for February 13, 1959, the Prime Minister had this to say:
I for one will say unequivocally that if at any time there is any action taken that would deny members of the opposition a fair opportunity of
6658	HOUSE OF
Business of the House discharging their responsibility, I shall immediately see to it that a change is made to assure justness and fairness.
When that pledge was referred to by the hon. member for Essex East on February 25 of this year the Prime Minister said, as found on page 1435 of Hansard:
I entirely confirm the remarks I made at that time.
I ask the Prime Minister, will he do something now, instead of bringing a resolution of this kind before the house, to make it possible for the members of this and other committees to do their work effectively in committee and to do their work effectively in the House of Commons?
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, asks us to extend the hours of sitting to 51 or 52 per week. As a result of the ineptness, confusion, delay, fumbling and bumbling by the government in the organization of the work of the session, we are now being asked to accept this motion on July 21. Well, Mr. Speaker, we refuse to do so. No doubt the government majority will pass the resolution, but we are now being asked by the government to face a situation which in effect means legislation through confusion by exhaustion.


Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I know it may not be customary for a humble backbencher to take part in a debate of this nature, but I should like to say something about this matter. First of all, I should like to say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that government backbenchers, government ministers, all government members, are conscious of their responsibilities to Canada and Canadians.
I should also like to point out that I come to my office at eight o'clock in the morning. I do not have a staff of researchers to do half my work for me. I do it myself. I live 2,600 miles from here, and I have a family of whom I am extremely fond. I want to get home, and I am perfectly willing to work long hours to achieve that objective. The Leader of the Opposition, who makes a great outcry about the imposition upon the opposition and upon parliament, lives in Ottawa and many of his members live very close to Ottawa. But those who come from places a long distance from Ottawa and who are just as conscious of the work there is to do would like to go home in order to have a few weeks with their families.


Mr. Peters:: Why not have a recess, then?


James Stanley Speakman: I think the argument made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Vancouver East is entirely


unfair not only to government members but to their own backbenchers who live a long distance away.


Harold Edward Winch: I live 3,000 miles away.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to repeat the arguments of the preceding opposition speakers, because I agree with them. I rise particularly because of the Prime Minister's reference to the practice and procedures of the past. It is obvious that he had searched the records for some supporting argument for the motion he has presented to the house this morning. I simply want to add in that connection that it is obvious now to all of us on this side that instead of being the Progressive Conservative party, the government considers itself the curator of a national museum.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you one of the exhibits?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But, Mr. Speaker, worse than that, when the Prime Minister was introducing the motion he reminded me of one returning in high spirits and a happy frame of mind coming from a funeral.


Mr. Grafftey:: This is one of the reasons we are still here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do you know why he was happy? Because he had charge of all the arrangements. We do hope that the experience this session will cause the government to give consideration to the planning of next session's agenda, to an early introduction of legislation and an adjournment of the house, as we have said before, some time in June and resumption of the sessional activities some time late in the fall. We appeal to the Prime Minister and the government to give consideration to this suggestion. Surely by some planning and logic in our arrangements we can end this tantalizing, tenebrous torture that we have experienced in recent years.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things I should like to contribute concerning the motion by the Prime Minister and arising out of the interruptions that have been made by members on the other side of the house. One of these is that on repeated occasions the Prime Minister has been very careful to speak of the co-operation which has been extended by this side of the house in connection with the conduct of the business of the house. If there was one occasion on which there should have been co-operation with this side of the house, it was when an additional 10 hours per week were being added to the sittings of the house. Yet not one word was uttered

by the leader of the house or anyone on the other side to indicate that this motion was coming forward, although we have heard a great deal from the other side of the house about co-operation. There is an expression used among French people, which goes like this: "II se gargarise de mots".
All I need say is that I believe that is what is happening on the other side of the house, not only with reference to this motion but with reference to many other matters. They are gargling themselves with words. We saw it the other evening. On Tuesday we saw an example of the confused manner in which government business is being carried on. An amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply was moved by the C.C.F. group, and it was quite clear that the government had completely forgotten that this was a possibility on that day. What was the result? The whole day was lost in large part because government supporters filibustered the amendment in order not to vote on it. There is no doubt about that, because we on this side of the house sat here and made no attempt to participate in the debate-


Mr. Churchill:: You moved an amendment.


James Stanley Speakman: What about the hon. member for Essex East? He spoke for 80 minutes.


Lionel Chevrier: -until the minister got back. What did we get from the minister? He said that he regretted very much the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East because he did not know this matter was coming up. He should know the rules of the house. So should the Minister of Agriculture, who was caught in the same fashion, and the Minister of Transport, who was also caught in the same fashion. They were not here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is illustrating a point which I consider to be relevant, but I think in doing so he is getting into irrelevancies.


Lionel Chevrier: Sir, I respectfully disagree with you, because I am discussing the business of the house and I am saying the government is not ready with the business of the house. I am saying that if the government had been ready with legislation on Tuesday, as it should have been, the day would not have been lost in the manner in which it was lost.


Mr. Palleil:: Lost?


Lionel Chevrier: I am also saying that on motion to go into supply the ministers should know the rules and should be in their seats in order to be able to discuss the matters that are raised. Therefore I have no hesitation
Business of the House in saying that this motion should not be placed before us at this time.
I say this respectfully to the Prime Minister. It is unworthy of him; it is unworthy of the person who is responsible for bringing about a bill of rights, because we are being forced into submission in considering legislation on combines and on the bill of rights, important matters which this parliament is considering, together with the estimates of eleven departments, no less than eight of which are of great importance.
How can we, in all reasonableness, in all fairness, considering the hours we have to sit, deal with these matters efficiently, seriously and earnestly? What more have we got besides these estimates and this legislation? We have five committees that have not completed their work and are still sitting, and we have three other committees that are standing by to which matters might be referred.
A short time ago the Prime Minister put on Hansard some of the things that happened earlier. I have a detailed statement which has been provided for me. I shall only read one short part of it. In 1955 there was a grand total of 95 additional hours or 17.2 normal working days after the morning sittings, the Saturday sittings and the Wednesday evening settings were brought into effect. During the 1956 session there were 84 additional hours and during the 1957 session, 40J hours. As the Prime Minister has indicated, in those days the hours of sitting were from 11 in the morning until 1, from 2.30 in the afternoon until 6, and from 8 in the evening until 10, with the exception of Saturday. Under this motion, with the addition of mornings and Wednesday evenings, this house has sat for 109 extra hours or 18 normal working days July 4 to July 20. How then, I ask you, sir, can we deal with the important legislation that still remains on the order paper and all the estimates which we would like to consider in the manner in which they should be considered?
We had an example yesterday of another committee of this house which I shall not name but to which a great deal of attention has been given, which sat for a long time and accounted in part, I am told, for the fact that many of the other committees that were called were not able to obtain a quorum. This resulted from the fact that flashlight bulbs were being exploded in this particular committee which sat from 10 in the morning until
11.30	at night, and to which a tremendous amount of importance seems to have been given.
I protest, along with my leader and those of us who are on this side of the house, against these hours which are being added now in

Business of the House order to bring about legislation, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, by exhaustion; in order to make us submit to a program which is unbearable under the circumstances. The Prime Minister has suggested that this attempt is made because one can see the end of the session ahead. Well, I do not see the end of the session ahead, and I do not see that this is going to assist to bring about the end in any way whatever. It would if the greater part of the estimates were completed, but this session seems to have accomplished little or nothing in the way of important legislation because there has been confusion, uncertainty and indecision in the program of the government.
I am not going to sit here and take this motion without protest when I know that we may be sitting these hours for another four weeks. I suggest to the Prime Minister that this motion might well be dropped so we could carry on under the present hours, and perhaps deal with legislation and the estimates in the manner in which the Prime Minister had in mind to deal with them at the outset, in co-operation with the government, so that the business of the house could be conducted efficiently.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there has been quite a bit of sound and fury from the other side of the house, as if to indicate that there was something new in the suggestion made this morning. The Prime Minister has pointed out examples in three other years when the hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, and on those occasions the house accepted the fact that in the closing days of the session the hours should be extended and the business of the house conducted in an orderly manner, but nevertheless promptly, without compelling people from the distant parts of this country to remain in Ottawa without the house in session on Fridays and Saturdays.
Hon. gentlemen opposite now have a complete disregard for the members who come from the distant parts of Canada. They care nothing as to how long these members are kept here waiting on Fridays and Saturdays without the house in session when business could be accomplished. This is something I know from my own experience when I sat on the opposition side. In those days the opposition was just as eager as the government to complete the business of the house and put in the hours that were necessary to do so.
There is no rush with regard to the business. The hours are variable, and every member of this house knows that. A member does not have to be here every single minute of the time. His colleagues can spell him off,
[Mr. Chevrier.l
and this sort of thing goes on every single day. The people who are complaining now that they have not the time, that they are overworked and so on, are overlooking the fact that they have friends who can spell them off on duty in this house. This goes on every single day, and has throughout the session. It is not just a question of getting home, but it is a question of getting the business of the house accomplished without too much delay.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did you not start in March?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition made quite a point of the fact that committees are still sitting, as if this had never happened before. In the session of 1956 there were five committees of the house that were sitting toward the end of July and into August. That session ran into the middle of August. Then he pretends that something new has happened this year. We were under the same pressures when we were in opposition as the members of the opposition are under now. We understand all about it. There was more than one occasion, in my recollection of the days in opposition, when 100 members of the house were engaged in committee work toward the end of the session, and business still went on here in the chamber. This is not new.


Harold Edward Winch: We thought you had a new
vision.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In 1954 the hours were extended, as has been pointed out, by adding Saturdays and by reducing the dinner recess by one hour. The motion is available and can be read out by anyone who wants to look at it. It can be found on page 6120 of Hansard for June 17, 1954. This motion extended the hours of sitting to about 48 per week. Well, the opposition of that day did not shed the crocodile tears we have seen this morning. We accepted our responsibility and carried on with the work.
The Leader of the Opposition has attempted to make a point about lack of consultation and co-operation. There has been more consultation and co-operation this session than in any session with which I am familiar, and arrangements have been upset by none other than the Leader of the Opposition himself.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question? Why was there not consultation with this side of the house in connection with this motion, as the minister has said there has been in connection with other motions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been very effective consultation. This has been a matter

not of specific consultation yesterday or the day before; it has been a matter of conversation with hon. members on the opposite side of the house as to the termination of the session and when we would start Saturday sittings. As I say, this procedure has been going on for years. There is nothing new about it. It is just a matter of reaching a certain stage of the session where you can see the approximate end, and at that time the Saturday sittings commence. That was the situation as far as I was concerned. If it was a new departure there would be something to the argument which has been made.
Then mention was made of the debate on Tuesday. I think the hon. member for Lau-rier will regret stating that the subject matter was unimportant, or words to that effect.


Mr. Pickersgill:: He did not say that at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He said that the day was wasted or that the day was lost, on a subject matter that is of great importance to the people of this country.


Lionel Chevrier: The words I used were quite clear, namely that the day was lost by the filibustering we had from the other side of the house, in order to avoid a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On that occasion the opposition moved an amendment and some members of the opposition spoke on more than one occasion during the course of that debate.
Talking about co-operation, may I say this. The rules provide for six supply motions. When the sixth supply motion was due for presentation to the House of Commons, by arrangement with both parties on the other side of the house it was decided that no further supply motions would be required for this session and that on a motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair in order for us to go into committee of supply, there-would not be a debate. That was the way in which we settled the sixth supply motion, and my understanding was that we would not subsequently debate the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not what you told us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: However, that was not the arrangement that was arrived at by the members of the C.C.F. group-


Harold Edward Winch: It was not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -who took the house by surprise, and we were engaged in that debate. This arrangement for sitting longer hours on Friday night and on Saturday is an opportunity for the house in orderly fashion to give its full attention to the estimates that are still to be considered and the legislation
Business of the House which will be coming back from committees. It is just nonsense to suggest that there will be any rush of business.


An hon. Member:: The steamroller system.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The opposition has all the time it requires at its disposal to carefully consider the estimates that are put before them.


Harold Edward Winch: When do we sleep?


An hon. Member:: You would not sleep anyway.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Some people take advantage of sleeping when they should be awake and attending to the business of the house. There is plenty of opportunity to consider carefully the business that is still to come before us. Some of the departments have gone through a careful scrutiny in committee as, for example, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of National Defence-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No; it did not get into committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and the Department of Defence Production. The Department of National Health and Welfare was several weeks in committee, yet a considerable time was taken on the estimates of that department when they came before this committee. In other years when estimates have been before a committee of the house it has been the practice of the house to pass those estimates expeditiously. In connection with the estimates I can give the house examples of days in the house in supply when four or five departments were passed during the course of that day, either because they were small in size or because their estimates had earlier been considered by a committee. Although we have some major departments left, some of them have been through committee and careful scrutiny has been given to the amount of money the house is being asked to vote.
There is no confusion whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this arrangement. The program simply follows the practice of the house that has been carried on for years. The objections that are raised by the other side of the house are perhaps typical of those that might be raised by an opposition. However, I point out that in 1954, 1955 and 1956 there was no debate on similar motions. The opposition co-operated with the government, and in the interests of concluding the business of the session-


Lionel Chevrier: Because there had been agreement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -was in agreement to sit longer hours and successfully accomplish that task, and made none of these complaints about

Business of the House not getting enough sleep, being pressed, or that the business was being rushed through.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the minister will permit a question before he resumes his seat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


George James McIlraith: In view of the fact that the house already this session has sat the equivalent of 18 extra working days by way of extended hours, does he believe that the staff of the house and particularly the Hansard staff and the committee reporting staff will be able to carry on under the extended hours set out in the motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I grant the difficulties that face the staff. There again each year that matter has been mentioned in the House of Commons. We rely upon Mr. Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the necessary arrangements so that the staff will not be overworked.
With regard to the extension of time that has been mentioned, may I say that during the 1959 session, although the rules that we adopted in the house permitted the extension of time on Fridays and Saturdays, evening after evening we attempted to get and sometimes achieved unanimous consent to sit until 11 o'clock, 11.30 or midnight. Consequently, although the motion last year does not indicate that the hours per week were as long as they are according to this motion, nevertheless they were quite as long and we survived and the business of the country was done.


George James McIlraith: What about the Hansard staff?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall not-


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall attempt, Mr. Speaker, not to offend the Minister of Trade and Commerce by indulging in any sound and fury. I intend to deal mainly with the arguments the minister used. I think perhaps I might start by dealing with the additional argument he used, which I think reinforced greatly what my friend the hon. member for Laurier said in interjection. It happened a good many times last session that in order to assist the government in completing the business of the house, we on this side of the house agreed to sit an extra hour and sometimes more than an extra hour, because we were consulted and because in that session we were treated with some consideration. I cannot imagine that such agreement would not


have been reached again this session if the government had behaved in that way. But for some reason or another this whole business of consultation in recent days has completely broken down, and it has completely broken down because the government has not adhered to undertakings that were made-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and they were firm undertakings.


John Cameron Pallett: Name one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asked by the government whip to name one. I intend to recite all the details of that particular case. At the end of the week before last the Department of Labour was called as one of the departments for Monday. At the request of the minister, who came over and consulted me about the matter, we agreed that it should be deferred until Tuesday. Then the minister took some exception to that arrangement and said he had had conversations with some of my hon. friends, and asked if it would be all right with us if it came on instead on Friday. After consultation with my leader I said that would be quite agreeable to us. It was understood that that was what was going to happen. That was, as I understood it, a firm undertaking, but that undertaking was not kept.
The whip asked for an example, and there it is. The plain fact is that it has been quite impossible to know from one day to the next what departments would be taken up in committee of supply, and that has greatly complicated the work of the opposition; because if we knew for sure what departments were to be taken up in committee of supply it would be somewhat less difficult-only somewhat less difficult-to have the consecutive attendance there ought to be in other committees.
The minister talked about members spelling one another off. I must say that certainly is very conspicuous on the treasury benches, where for a good deal of the time this session there has been a maximum attendance of two ministers and often only of one. There has been an unprecedented lack of ministers in attendance in the house. I suggest that is one of the difficulties, that ministers are paying so little attention to the house and the proceedings of the house, and that a great deal of confusion and disorder in the business of the house results from that fact itself.
But the real problem we are faced with in this session, which we were not faced with in previous sessions under this government and which we were certainly not faced with under the preceding government, is that for half

this session there was no government business before us at all. The government did not bring down, except for one or two relatively trivial or transitory pieces of legislation, any important legislation at all. It took no steps to set up committees, like the broadcasting committee which could have functioned effectively in the early part of the session; and there has been a dilatoriness, a procrastination and a refusal to bring forward the business, and a refusal to face up to problems which I think is probably unprecedented in the whole history of parliament in this country.
Certainly to some of us who have been observing the conduct of business in this house, and to some like the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East who have participated in this house since 1935, it has been quite unprecedented. Now at the end we are faced with a new, subtle form of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all this is. We get the most important legislation, the combines act and the bill of rights, undoubtedly the two most important pieces of legislation of this session, introduced at the very last moment. Then the hours are increased to the point where it is quite impossible for members to attend to their business in the house and attend consecutively those two committees which are running concurrently. Consequently it has been quite impossible for anyone to carry on properly.
Some of these backbenchers who talk so much of wanting to get home have over and over again this session, at committees I have attended personally, failed to turn up so there have not been quorums for those committees sometimes for half an hour, as was the case yesterday with the broadcasting committee when the prospective chairman did not turn up for half an hour. As a matter of fact-
Mr. Pallet!: On a question of privilege, the hon. member to whom reference has just been made is not presently in the chamber, and as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows there was confusion as to the room number of that committee; so let there be no mistake about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not arguing with the chief whip about confusion: nothing is more evident. On one occasion, and I referred to this in the house, my hon. friend the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) was invited to go to one committee to make up a quorum and then, as soon as someone else turned up, to go to another committee to make up a quorum there. That sort of thing is not untypical of what has happened this session, and it seems to me that to attempt at the same time to
Business of the House conduct committees on the most important legislation of the session, and to ask this house to sit over 50 hours and have it rammed down our throats by a majority, if that is not closure you can pick out some other name for it. But it is so near it that for the life of me I cannot see any difference between the two.
A good deal was made by the Prime Minister of the precedent of 1954. Anyone who looks at Hansard for June 17 of that year will see that when Mr. St. Laurent moved the motion to extend the hours and to provide for Saturday sittings, that motion was obviously agreed to in advance by the opposition; because the only discussion about it was a reference by Mr. Gillis, a very proper reference, to the position of the staff of the house. Anybody who recalls the way in which Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris treated the opposition in the last-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Courtesy and consideration were invariably shown even at times when feelings ran very high in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Remember the pipe line.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find it impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: During those last two sessions I assisted Mr. Harris, as I have sought to assist the hon. member for Laurier on this side of the house. I know how frequently Mr. Harris rearranged the business of the house to suit the absences of front benchers over here. Over and over again that was done. Mr. Harris was often criticized by his own friends for doing that; but he took the view that the opposition, because they were small in number, should have their rights safeguarded and be given their opportunity to participate in debates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he like me to recite the number of occasions on which the business of the house has been altered in order to accommodate members of the front bench on the other side? I can do that and do it very readily. There have been numerous occasions when business has been stood over at the request of the members on the other side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not deny that for one minute, and I certainly do not want to say anything which is in any respect unfair. I said, and I think I was very careful in the language I used, that it was only in recent weeks that there seems to have been a breakdown. I said that in the previous two sessions and also in the early part of this session there

Business of the House was consultation, and on a very good basis. But it does seem that for some reason or other in the past two or three weeks it has broken down completely. That is what I am complaining about, and it is undoubtedly one reason why we are having this debate today instead of having reached some reasonable agreement on this matter before any motion was brought before the house.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the fundamental reason we are having to consider anything of this sort at all is because of the hopelessly dilatory, procrastinating tactics of the government with respect to the legislation and the business of the house, and the confusion and uncertainty about bringing forward the government's business.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this session will never end if members of the opposition continue to mind everybody's business but their own. I think the greatest offender in this respect is one of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Laurier. Not content with wanting to run the Americans he now wants to run not only Stormont but Dundas and the whole of the St. Lawrence valley, as evidenced by his comments yesterday. As an example of this kind of frivolous intervention I mention his comments with regard to the wharf at Cornwall-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have examined the resolution carefully, and I see no reference in it to the wharf at Cornwall.


Grant Campbell: It was an example of frivolous opposition of the kind I have in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member direct his remarks to the resolution.


Grant Campbell: Very well. I only brought this up as a classical example of members of the opposition minding everybody's business but their own. That was why I referred to this matter of the wharf at Cornwall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is illustrating his point by his own conduct, and I would ask him not to circumvent the ruling of the Chair.


Grant Campbell: Well, I think I have made my point. The hours of sitting have been unnecessarily increased because after a question has been decided, members of the opposition all want to jump on the band wagon and claim credit for things which have already been accomplished. That is doing more than anything else to delay the progress of the session.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: The presentation of this motion proves only one thing; that the business of the house has increased so much that it has become a full-time job, and it should be considered as such, as was stated by the hon. member for Port Arthur a few weeks ago. They are talking about members from far away who want to be with their families. I am perfectly in accord with that. I know that members such as the hon. member for Gloucester and others have children who go away to school. They are at boarding school. Even if they get back home by the middle of August they will not be able to be with their families, because the children will have gone back to school.
It may be time to reconsider the whole set-up of the work we have to do during the session. I believe the summer recess is what we should consider at this time. I am not speaking for myself because I am living at home, as some hon. members have said before. What people with families need is a recess while their families are at home or in the country. This resolution will not change anything, because the house will have to sit from three to four weeks longer anyway. By the time they get home it will be time to prepare the children to go back to school.
This being a fulltime job, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, it should be set up as such, and it is time the government should consider an increase in the salaries paid to members. There are a lot of backbenchers who might be better than some of the ministers at the present time. They should be paid properly so they can regard this as a fulltime job. This is the case even with regard to the Prime Minister and the ministers of the crown. I do not think they are being properly paid now for the job they are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think when the hon. member begins to discuss the remuneration of members as a subject in itself, he is going beyond the terms of this resolution.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I be permitted to differ with Your Honour on that point, because if it is relevant to discuss the extension of our hours of sitting it is relevant to consider having a summer recess instead of a fall recess; and I think, therefore, it is relevant to consider at the same time the remuneration of those who would be affected by such a change. That is why I spoke of the salaries paid to members.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. member on that point. The question before the house is not really the adjournment of the house for a summer recess. It has to do with the hours of sitting. I allowed the hon. member to discuss the

other subject because it had to do with an alternative method of carrying out our duties, but I think we should not discuss the question of remuneration.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, I will not speak any more on remuneration. I have made my point on that, anyway. But there is one thing. Instead of extending the hours of sitting the government should be talking about allowing a summer recess. I know that a few lawyers would prefer to be free in the fall when the fall assizes are held, but that is not a matter which affects every member of this house. If the aim of the Prime Minister is to exhaust members of parliament so the business of the house may go faster, I think we should consider amending the present motion so it would read "Commencing on Friday, July 22 and continuing until the end of the present session, the days of sitting shall be Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and so on, and the hours of sitting shall be from 7 a.m. until 12 midnight, and that the committees shall have the right to sit from 12 midnight until 7 a.m. every day until the end of the session, and that rules 66 and 67 be suspended accordingly".
I think then the Prime Minister would have it completely made, and at the end of the session he could bring in a new bill, not a bill of rights but a bill of rest to give hon. members a chance to take a breath.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things which should be said to restore a sense of proportion to this discussion because of the grossly exaggerated things which have been said by members of the opposition.
I do not suppose it really advances the debate very much to get into a catalogue of all the minor incidents which could be brought up to indicate that this or that accommodation has been made and broken, and this or that misunderstanding has arisen, although that is the tactic which members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, have sought to follow. But since the opposition are making such point of the accusation that there has been lack of efficiency and lack of consideration for members opposite on the part of the government, I think it is only appropriate to ask them to remind themselves that this sort of thing has happened before.
This sort of charge has been made before. This sort of problem has arisen at this stage of other sessions. Indeed, as I recall it on the basis of some 15 years' experience-it is true that other hon. members have been here longer-it is the rare session when heated things are not said about the extension of the hours of sitting or about understandings
Business of the House and misunderstandings that arise when the house is attempting to finish up its business.
I should hope that if hon. members opposite would recall some of the events of the past they would realize that what is proposed here now is far from being what they have described, and particularly what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has called, an attempt at indirect closure. That, of course, is quite absurd. I know that on reflection the hon. member will realize that he was, to put it mildly, only exaggerating for the sake of emphasis, and that if he persisted in that exaggeration he would be using an even more ridiculous argument than even he usually does.
Let us think about what closure is. The hon. member knows what closure is because he was sitting on the government side of the house when the government of which he was a member resorted to closure. Closure, of course, limits the rights of hon. members to speak. There is no limitation on the rights of hon. members to speak under the motion now before the house. All that is being done is that the hours available for debate are being extended.
It is interesting to compare what is being done now with what was done in the past. Because my hon. friend has said there is a complete lack of courtesy and consideration being shown by the government for the opposition, and also because my hon. friend has said that in the past when the party of which he is a member was in power the government always showed what he described as the most extensive consideration for the opposition, let me just remind him of the sort of thing the former administration did when they were in power. I have but to refer to the pipe line debate, when closure was used so brutally and unfeelingly in an attempt to jam through the house a measure on which the government of the day was not prepared to have a full debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Eighteen days of debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hon. gentlemen opposite say we are being inconsiderate of the opposition in respect of the hours during which the house is kept in session, but let me remind them of what the great Mr. St. Laurent did as prime minister, that man whom the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate described as always being so courteous to the opposition. He held over our heads the club of threatening to keep parliament in session during the Christmas season. Does my hon. friend not remember the debate on the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act of 1951, when we were told that if we wanted to get away for Christmas we would have to put the bill through? We called that bluff-

Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Minister of
Justice permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me, and I remember that debate very well. Was that not the debate in which the hon. gentleman took the position that he intended to repeal that legislation when he got into office?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not.


George James McIlraith: It was.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend's recollection is as faulty as usual.


George James McIlraith: No, it is not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend never allows his judgment to control his tongue. Although his recollection is faulty he blurts these things out as though they were correct statements of fact, which they never are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Send for Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend will find that his last statement was even more misleading than his statements generally are, and of course he made it to try to obscure the issue. There is nothing being done here by this government, and nothing has ever been done by it and I am convinced that nothing ever will be done by this government, that would be as callous and brutal as what was done by the government of the day in 1951 in bludgeoning members of the opposition by threatening to deny them the right to be with their families over the Christmas season unless they passed that measure.
It is because we do not want the session to go on until Christmas that we are seeking this reasonable extension of the hours against which my hon. friends opposite are cavilling so much.
That it is pure cavil is shown by the attitude of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. What is his criticism? It is not that this is an unreasonable extension, but only that it was done without consultation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not in a position to say whether or not there was consultation, or to assess the extent of the conversations to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred, but it is apparent that there were conversations regarding this matter of sitting on Saturdays.


Lionel Chevrier: There were none.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is all my hon. friends are objecting to. That is the basis of their objection. That was the argument of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does not matter how reasonable the extension is; now it is on the order paper without consultation so we are going to oppose it. That was the gravamen of his argument.
Let me refer to another example of the former government showing courtesy and consideration as recently as 1956, when Mr. Harris, the then house leader to whom my hon. friend referred in such glowing terms as being the paragon of consideration for the opposition, was endeavouring to close the session. He announced as reported at page 7427 of Hansard-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What date was that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: August 10, 1956. The hon. gentleman announced on that occasion:
In the past week it had been my understanding that we would wind up tomorrow night. That being the case the following is what will have to be disposed of: labour, citizenship and immigration, legislation, justice, fisheries, post office, public works, C.B.C. and finance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That appears to be only a statement of fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There were nine departments whose estimates were yet to be considered and the house leader of that day said that the session must end the following night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say it must.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said it was the understanding, so we would have to deal with nine departments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You agreed to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend should not be so impatient. On that occasion Mr. Harris announced that the following would have to be disposed of: labour, citizenship and immigration, legislation, justice, fisheries, post office, public works, C.B.C. and finance. And then because a member of the opposition- the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green)-dared to ask in what order that extensive list of nine items would be called, what did the house leader then say? He said: "I will tell you the order-"


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: "-if you will agree that we will finish tomorrow night."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read what he said. Never mind your paraphrases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will read what was said:


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister in what order these estimates will be taken?


Mr. Harris:: We will accommodate ourselves to the opposition in that, on the understanding of course that we will finish tomorrow night.


Mr. Kucherepa:: That is Liberal autocracy. You should not have asked that question, Jack.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One could cite other examples of attempts by the government which was in office just before we came in to put pressure unmercifully on the opposition, and to bludgeon the opposition into agreeing to end the session on a certain day and on certain conditions. No such attempt is being made here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Fifty three hours a week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister has said that the session will continue so long as there is business before the house, and that no attempt will be made to cut off debate. What we are asking for now is an extension of the hours so that members may dispose of the business of the house and then may have an opportunity to spend some time with their families. I am sure there are hon. members on both sides of the house who would like to get home, but who realize they should not go home until their parliamentary duty is done. An attempt is being made to enable them to discharge their parliamentary duties and still have some chance to enjoy the summer weather with their families.
Far from being a tactic like that used before, when threats and coercion were resorted to by the former administration to get the house to close the session, this is the very opposite. This is a request for the co-operation of the house to take all the time it wishes, but to take advantage of the time that is available to close this session on a reasonable date.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice seems to receive more applause than the Prime Minister. After listening to the hon. gentleman's remarks I suggest that his party should repeal the word "progressive", because everything they are doing hinges entirely on what the Liberal party did when they were in office. They engage in condemnation of each other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the contrary, what we are doing is quite different from what was done by my hon. friends opposite.


Frank Howard: It is a mutual condemnation society in that regard. I would point out that if the Liberal party persists in changing its mind and attitude every fifteen minutes it is really going to develop schizophrenia. It will be recalled that it was on May 30, I believe, that a motion was first made to extend the hours of sitting, and at that time
Business of the House the Liberal party agreed. They wanted to extend the hours of sitting a few short weeks ago. At that time we moved an amendment which would have altered the proposal somewhat, and the Liberals voted against our suggestion. If the Liberal party had had any courage and intestinal fortitude on May 30 and had advocated the things it is advocating now, such as a summer recess and fall sitting, perhaps we might have obtained them, but instead they chose to be subservient and to agree with everything the government suggested. But they should at least be consistent in their attitude.
I simply wish to say that I for one am opposed to this attempt on the part of the government to legislate by force, compulsion and exhaustion, which is exactly what it is. We cannot possibly give the necessary full consideration to all the items before us when we are sitting practically round the clock. We cannot properly attend to all our duties, and even when we try to we are in many cases doublecrossed by certain other people in the house.
A case in point is the banking and commerce committee. Following the announcement of the Prime Minister that everything would be done so far as committees were concerned to make sure that there was an opportunity for members to discharge their duties fully, an agreement was reached in that committee, which was sitting at the same time as the house, that the committee would not sit when it was necessary for members to attend to matters in the house. Subsequently we found that this was not the case, and certain members were prevented by circumstances from attending the banking and commerce committee and discussing one of the most vital and important matters that has been before the house in quite a number of years, the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. This was not in keeping with the promise made by the Prime Minister.
This is another example of the attempt to ram legislation through parliament in the shortest possible time, hoping that members will become so exhausted by the number of hours they have to spend dealing with these matters that eventually they will give up and say go ahead; have your way; get rid of parliament so you can run things by order in council. The shades of C. D. Howe are coming right back again, and if this messiah from Prince Albert does not watch out he will be tagged in the same way C. D. Howe was.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, just before the Prime Minister rises I should like to address myself directly to him as Prime Minister and leader of the house. I make an appeal to him in the light of what

Business of the House I think he will recognize are his responsibilities. He has said that he wants to see us discharge our responsibilities, which he recognizes as existing primarily in this chamber as distinguished from the committees of the house. I suggest to the Prime Minister that we should take a look at the work that still remains to be done.
The estimates of 11 departments have yet to be discussed in the house. Among these are national defence, labour, finance and trade and commerce. Is it at all likely that we can discharge our responsibilities, particularly with respect to these four departments, in a one-day discussion for each department? Is it likely that we can finish public works in less than a day? I ask the Prime Minister to look not only at the work that remains to be done with regard to estimates, but also to bear in mind the discussion that must inevitably ensue when the combines bill comes back to the house. That is one of the most important measures that we will consider this session. It is a matter involving important considerations and important differences between the positions taken by the right hon. gentleman and those who support him and those of us who sit on this side of the house.
The bill of rights, now being discussed in the special committee, is a matter to which the Prime Minister attaches great importance, and rightly so. In the light of the submissions already made in that committee, it must inevitably engage the house in considerable discussion when it comes back. In addition, there are now five committees, whose work has not been finished and which are still sitting, agriculture, the special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms, defence expenditures, private bills and the broadcasting committee. Then there are three committees that are standing by.
In the face of all this it seems to me we have to recognize what is inevitable, unless we are prepared to provide for the dispatch of public business without the kind of care which in conscience all of us feel should be given to these matters. If that is the situation, does it seem at all reasonable to the Prime Minister that we can properly finish our work in anything less than a month? I do not believe we can discharge the work that lies ahead in anything less than three and a half weeks to one month. It may be that if other matters come before the house it will take us longer.
I appreciate the situation in which the Prime Minister finds himself, a situation in which I am sure other prime ministers have found themselves. The Prime Minister is a hard working man and so are the members
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!

of the government. They would like an opportunity to consider the responsibilities of the government as a whole as well as departmental responsibilities. They would naturally be disposed to be free from parliamentary obligations in order to attend to these concerns.
I do not fail to appreciate that point, but what I am saying to the Prime Minister is this. I am not arguing who is responsible for the present situation, because that argument has been made; but I say to the Prime Minister, does it not seem reasonable that in the face of this situation parliament should now adjourn, come back in the fall and discharge these responsibilities in a manner in keeping with the matters that are before us?
I want to say something about committee work. I am a member of the committee on human rights, a committee to which the Prime Minister said that bill would be referred with the opportunity to give it the fullest study. That committee has been meeting three times a day. I have before me the record of the sittings of the committee. For instance, on Thursday, July 21, it met at
9.30	a.m. and is to meet again at 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Does the Prime Minister think for one minute that a member of that committee can discharge his obligations in this chamber and at the same time discharge his obligations as a member of that committee?
On Wednesday, July 20, the broadcasting committee met at 9 a.m., the miscellaneous private bills committee considering divorce matters at 10 a.m., the human rights and fundamental freedoms committee at 10 a.m., and the defence expenditures committee at
3.30	p.m., while very important matters were being discussed in the house.
I ask the Prime Minister to consider the situation that confronted us last Thursday and Friday. The Secretary of State for External Affairs introduced his estimates. He made a statement on foreign policy, something which at this time, in this turbulent, troubled world of ours, must be recognized as of great importance to everyone in this house and in this country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke, and though not out of any disregard for him, there were just a handful of members in the house, on both the government and opposition sides. I am sure that no member was shirking his responsibility. Members were in committees. They should have been in this house at that time, listening to the important statement being made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on foreign policy. They had a divided allegiance. I am not suggesting that any hon. member was not discharging his responsibility; I am just pointing out

that the way the committees are meeting simultaneously, three times a day, it is impossible for an hon. member to properly discharge his responsibilities in this chamber.
I had the responsibility of following the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I finished, I think it was, around 12.30 that day. The Leader of the Opposition spoke on the following day between one and two o'clock. Hon. members may not always agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has to say, but all will recognize that he occupies in this house a very important position. Next to the Prime Minister and apart from yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is the most important official in this house under our practices and under our usages. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke, in spite of the fact that all hon. members would want to listen to him in the light of his great experience, there were but a few members on all sides of the house present.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why was this so? It was because they were engaged elsewhere in the various committees, one of which was sitting at 1.30.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member tell us how large his audience was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret to say to my hon. friend that I would not have as great an audience as he would. I recognize, of course, that when he speaks this house is filled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You seem to be worried about the number of people listening to you.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Some day I hope to attain my hon. friend's eminence and have a great audience, but I must be patient and wait until that day arrives. I regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should interject because surely, as leader of the government in the house, he should be interested in seeing to it that when important measures are discussed, particularly by the leaders, members are given the opportunity of attending in this chamber.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I watch for your attendance constantly.


Murdo William Martin: If the minister watches for my attendance he will find there is no one in this house who is more faithful in his attendance. I am not anxious to engage in any acrimonious debate. I am addressing myself to the Prime Minister, who rightfully regards himself as a House of Commons man. I ask him to consider the
Business of the House situation particularly with regard to committees. I ask him to go back to July 4 and see how committees have been meeting simultaneously during the discussion of important matters in this chamber.
Now, on February 13, 1959-the Leader of the Opposition has referred to this, but I believe it is worth repeating-the Prime Minister used these words, and I am asking the Prime Minister to consider them, to consider them apart from the argument this morning, and to consider them in the light of the desire all of us have to discharge our responsibilities:
We have done everything to ensure that every opportunity will be given to the opposition to discharge its responsibilities in a proper manner.
I ask the Prime Minister to listen to this:
I for one will say unequivocally that if at any time there is any action taken that would deny members of the opposition a fair opportunity of discharging their responsibility, I shall immediately see to it that a change is made in order to assure justice and fairness.
On the basis of that statement I ask the Prime Minister to consider whether that is not the very situation now. Let me tell the Prime Minister that when he was introducing the bill of rights, on July 1, the banking and commerce committee was sitting. I suggested in that committee that since the Prime Minister was going to speak in the house, the duty of every member of that committee was to be in this chamber. All hon. members agreed, and we came in to listen to the Prime Minister, as I think we should have done. The same courtesy was not accorded the Leader of the Opposition on another occasion although I pointed out in committee at the time that the Leader of the Opposition was speaking on foreign affairs and that the members of our party, at any rate, thought we should be in the House of Commons to discharge our responsibility here.
I say this further to the Prime Minister. If a particular committee is going to discharge its responsibilities in the manner in which the Prime Minister said he would see that it was allowed to do, then we should proceed in a more orderly way. I am not saying this by way of criticism of the chairman of committees. We should proceed in a more orderly way in the consideration of the matters referred to the committees. We should give the witnesses who are to be called an opportunity to prepare. Here we have the Canadian Labour Congress asking that the bill of rights be put over because they have not had a chance to give careful consideration to this measure. The Prime Minister and I may have our views as to whether or not
6670	HOUSE OF
Business of the House that is the case. I see him making notes. However, this statement was made by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. Then Professor Scott, who had been called-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the Leader of the Opposition made a statement about what went on within the committees, but it is strictly out of order to discuss the proceedings of a committee which has not reported. I hope the hon. member, in making his point concerning the difficulty with simultaneous committee meetings, will not discuss what goes on in the committee meetings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say to the
Prime Minister that this parliament is criticized. It is said that we are not efficient. Both the Prime Minister and I, as well as other members, are aware of the criticism, much of it exaggerated. I say to the Prime Minister that he, more than any other member in this house, has the opportunity of correcting and dealing with this criticism effectively. I suggest to him that he postpone this motion for two weeks; that he engage in consultation with the leader of the house and others concerning the situation as it will then present itself. I suggest further to the Prime Minister that without imposing his will on any committee, he should discuss the matter with the chairmen of the committees to see if we cannot so arrange our business, even at this late date, to ensure that we can discharge our responsibility without moving from one committee into this house and going back to another committee.
The other night the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke while I was attending a committee. The minister complained that I was not in the house. I had to come into this chamber, thereby missing the work that had already been undertaken by me and others in the committee. I merely mention these personal references to indicate to the Prime Minister how unsatisfactory the present arrangement is and how, because of it, we will receive from the people at large, all of us in this house-I am not now speaking politically-condemnation for the way in which the public business is being discharged.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is nothing new in it; it was done under your regime.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Supposing there is nothing new; supposing in the past-


Gordon Minto Churchill: How wrong you were then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Supposing the former administration had been guilty of everything the hon. gentleman says.


Suppose that was the case. I am now speaking directly to the Prime Minister, and I am saying this. Notwithstanding what may have been the situation, I am now asking the Prime Minister to address himself to this particular situation. Let him give the leadership in this matter which I believe it is his duty and responsibility to give. I ask him to remember the words which he uttered on February 25 of this session when, as reported at page 1435 of Hansard, he said this:
I entirely confirm the remarks I made at that time-
He confirmed the remarks made on February 13, 1959 to which I have referred.
-and X would not alter or change any portion of them. However, the important part of my statement was that if at any time hon. gentlemen opposite found themselves in a position of difficulty in endeavouring to perform their duties in committees as well as in the house, no member of a committee would endeavour on such occasions to deny the house the fullest opportunity to enjoy the contributions of those gentlemen who were desirous of speaking in the house.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister.


William Heward Grafftey: You are out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those were good and wise words. They apply to this situation. I ask the Prime Minister, as the leader of this house, to recall those words and take those initiatives, in consultation with other parties, that will lead to a more orderly arrangement for the discussion of the public business. In that way, more than in any other, the Prime Minister will be able to contribute to breaking down the suggestion that this parliament as presently composed has deteriorated, has become inefficient and has not lived up to the traditions of its predecessors.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe that. I share with the Prime Minister the belief that that is not the situation, but he has the opportunity, more than anyone else, to see that that is not the case.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time in order to make a plea not for ourselves, because it does not appear that this matter is of any consequence, but rather to make a plea for the staffs who are concerned with this speed-up with which we are faced. It seems to me that what Canada needs and has needed for some time is not a new government but rather a union for both members of parliament and the staffs of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: I know of no union that would allow its employees to work beyond the hours that are laid down by statute as law, which would be 48 hours a week. This would apply to members of parliament if we had a union-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: -and it would also apply to the staff. Hon. members may laugh, Mr. Speaker, because they depend on the Prime Minister to make their decisions and he does not make them. He has intimated that the government do not favour the idea of a 48 hour week for members of parliament, but we do not stop with members of parliament. It is maybe all right for his own political party when he says they can make a decision that they are going to work longer hours, but I do not think it is fair for him to apply that when there are many committees still sitting. However, I am not making this plea for members of parliament. They are quite able to rise in their places and make a plea for themselves. I am making a plea for the staffs of the House of Commons and those people who are dependent on us to speak for them because they do not have a union or have not seen fit to form a union for themselves.


An hon. Member:: They will not vote C.C.F.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me that at a time when we are working them overtime the least we could do would be to pay them for that overtime. I am thinking of the secretaries who will have to work on Saturdays. We even make it a condition that they must have had a full period of employment, that they have lost no time, before they even get paid for the extra day they will have to work. In the past promises have been made that they would be paid and they have not been paid; and they have no recourse except through requests to yourself, Mr. Speaker, in a personal way. If we had a trade union I suggest they would not be asked to work these extra hours.
I think some consideration should be given to them. I think the Prime Minister should also take into consideration the remarks that have been made not only in this debate but in other debates and that, when he speaks, he should tell the house that he is giving consideration to changing the whole procedure of parliament so we can get down to serious business when we are fresh from our ridings; so we can get down to that type of work at that time rather than continue the procedure that we now follow, so we will not be continually faced at the end of the session with this kind of ballyhoo "Let us rush the whole thing through".
Business of the House
I am ashamed of the Minister of Justice for using an argument in his favour and saying that under previous governments seven, eight or nine departments were presented to the house and he was in agreement that those departments could be passed in two days. I think that is a disgrace. If it is necessary for me personally to be obliged to talk on those matters, it will not be accomplished this session in two or three days. These things are going to get consideration. No arrangement is going to be made by this group to see that discussion is discontinued just to see that some members can go home. We in this group have members who travel as far from their homes as do those in any other party.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Arnold Peters: The Prime Minister can solve that problem if he wishes to do so. I think he will find some co-operation from us if he will only agree that he is willing to face this problem so that next year we will not be met with this problem again. Then I think we will come to any agreement he wishes to make in order to solve the problem this year. It is true that we have been in session for a considerable length of time. However, if he is not willing to agree that consideration will be given to changing the procedure next year in order to make it possible to have committees meet early in the session so they are finished with their work long before we are in the dying days of the session, then I think it is going to be extremely difficult to get the support of many of the members for a speedup at this stage of the session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was going to ask the hon. member whether he thought he was not doing a wrong to the Minister of Justice when he suggested that the Minister of Justice was in favour of doing nine departments in one day. He never suggested that.


William Arnold Peters: I am not suggesting that the Minister of Justice was in favour of it. I am just saying that he used this as an argument for a speed-up at the present time. I am not saying that he agreed with it or that he did not agree with it, but in using this as an argument he indicated that the parliament in question was over in two days, so I presumed that was the case. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member had
resumed his seat and had simply risen to answer a question, which I believe he has answered. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.

Business of the House


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members call "one o'clock", but the rule adopted was that there would be no recess for lunch on days on which the order was "consideration of estimates". This is such a day, in my view. If hon. members differ with me I shall be glad to hear them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we could get unanimous consent to take one hour for lunch today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the rule has been established that we sit through on this day, I think we should observe that rule.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as always there has been a most interesting discussion on the maintenance of the responsibility and the prestige of parliament. That is all to the good. I am not one of those who believe that regard for parliament is decreasing, although everywhere in the free world since the end of world war II there has been a feeling that parliament, in order to make itself more effective and efficient to discharge its responsibilities, should bring about reformation in its operation and technique.
May I point out to begin with that outside of some statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and voiced by one or two others, there has been no suggestion as to what action might be taken in order to bring about a more effective parliament. The Leader of the Opposition indulged in a series of adjectival ejaculations which he uses on every occasion. He has a certain group of words which apparently have become part and parcel of his being which he uses on every occasion to describe every matter with which he disagrees, until the time has arrived when no one takes any particular notice of his views when they are expressed in such exaggerated language.
Mr. Speaker, there are certain arguments which have been advanced. No one could but be touched by the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. I listened to him and felt that he was speaking with that sincerity that one would expect from the hon. gentleman, and I must say he made an appeal to which I intend to refer a little later on.
Much has been said about government by exhaustion. Much has been said about the
necessity for parliament-and I speak of parliament in the sense of the House of Commons, not in its proper sense-to be able to attack the problems facing Canada at an earlier date than is possible today under the rules. Under the rules as they exist today the debate on the address covers a period of ten days. Mr. Speaker, during that period of time, unless special action is taken, there is no step which can be taken by the House of Commons in connection with the doing of those things and the passing of that legislation which is necessary. We find ourselves in this position every year. We have the period of ten days on the speech from the throne. In no other legislative assembly similar to ours, to my knowledge, is so much time spent on that subject.
I am not taking the United Kingdom parliament as an example for our parliament, but it is the mother of parliaments and I am going to refer to some of the things which could be done. I think there is no reason why that debate should not be reduced so far as the number of days is concerned. Immediately I suggest that the opposition will say that they are being throttled. We must have agreement in this regard; and giving full consideration to the words uttered today I look forward to support on the part of the Leader of the Opposition for the reduction of the period of time taken today-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have already agreed to that in committee.


George James McIlraith: You are not up to date.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman says it is already agreed to. To reduce it by two days is not going to make very much difference, although it is a step in the direction I have in mind.
Then we have private members' days, which take up a very considerable period of time during the early days of the session. I know that a rules committee has been sitting and that recommendations will be made. I feel that there should be, and there will be, agreement that at the earliest possible period in the session parliament should come to grips with its legislative program, which it cannot do today. It takes several months before parliament is in a position where it can take its legislative program-


Lionel Chevrier: That is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to hon. gentlemen opposite. I listened to some statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not want to refer to them particularly, but I said not a word. Now allow me to speak without having Hansard plastered

with the kind of interruptions which the hon. gentleman sometimes indulges in, which no one else can hear.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister does the same thing.


John George Diefenbaker: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Who changed that?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact it was unusual if there were more than two or three questions. We were discharging our responsibilities. We were not remiss in that regard, but our questions had reference to matters of immediate importance. I am not going to deal with the questions that have been asked in the last two or three sessions, but anyone who looks at some of them fairly and objectively cannot but conclude that the rule as to immediacy and urgency has been in the passing years stretched and expanded.
We had come to the point by 1957-1955, 1956 and 1957-where a half hour a day more would be sometimes taken up by questions. Today our question period lasts 40 minutes or more; it is very seldom less, and sometimes it is considerably more. When you multiply the extra time spent on questions by 129, you have 14 or 17 more days utilized in questions than used to be the case. In other

Business of the House words the session of the House of Commons has been extended by some 14 to 17 days as a result of the major extension in the question period.
There is a field, Mr. Speaker, which I believe deserves the attention of hon. gentlemen everywhere in the house. After all, while many of the questions are interesting, no one can deny that others are not so interesting or so necessary to the efficiency of parliament as should be the case and as was contemplated when provision was made for such questions. If we turn to the United Kingdom, on a couple of days in the week questions are directed to the Prime Minister. I think his question is No. 45 on Wednesdays or Thursdays, and then there are supplementary questions. We have a system whereby giving notice has ceased to be the practice. That is different from the situation in the United Kingdom parliament. In other words they have found as a result of the experience of years that impromptu questions do not lead to that elucidation which the questioner must desire when he asks a question, and that they are generally ineffective in every way.
I go on now to answer the argument about the awfulness of parliament sitting these long hours. I am not going back over the experience of the past; that has been referred to by the Minister of Justice. But before the present chamber was built, after the fire, a great number of debates took place at a time when no provision was made for automatic adjournment. The house sat, not extra hours but for a whole week, broken only by the Sabbath, until its decisions were reached. There was no provision for automatic adjournment, and the result was that the house sat on and on. This happened in 1910 and it happened in 1912. I would remind the hon. member for Vancouver East that those were the days when parliament sat at great length, and those were the days of its glory, according to many. We have departed from that practice. They were exhausting days; they were exhaustive days. Nowadays we have an automatic time of adjournment to prevent anything like that taking place.
Mention is often made of the length of speeches. Well, all of us at one time or another have been offenders in this regard. Some of the speeches made over the years are read. Others are measured. The rule at that time was an unlimited speech, and that continued until very recent years. I was reading recently the debate which took place in connection with the Riel rebellion. The first three or four speakers spoke for four hours or more. Then came the leading member of the opposition and he spoke for five hours, as I recollect it. Sir John Macdonald, replying,

said he hoped he would be able to answer for the government within the limit of four hours.
None of us are sorry that those days are gone, but it was not many years ago when speeches in this house ran to four hours. These were the halcyon days to which my hon. friends sometimes look back. Those were the days of Mr. King. When that right hon. gentleman delivered a four-hour speech it was not regarded as an extraordinary, marathon event. We have got away from that.
Go into the galleries of the British House of Lords. For how long would the house listen to anyone but those who have the responsibility of introducing motions or the leader of the opposition and his outstanding chiefs? How many hon. members of that house would listen to an hour speech? Let me read from a book that gives the picture of the British House of Commons as no other small volume does. I sent for it while this argument was going on for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of parliament. The book is entitled "The Purpose of Parliament" and was written by Quintin Hogg. Speaking about long speeches the author says:
The same tendency is seen in the duration of debates upon which depends, of course, the effective right of individual members to be heard. As the original rule was that any member could initiate business, so it also was that any member could speak on business, and debates could therefore go on almost indefinitely.
There is a legislative chamber in North America where only the personal demands of the individual limit the length of the speeches. I was in that chamber on one occasion where a debate was in progress. The hon. member had spoken for eleven hours. No one would interrupt him. Finally he had to conclude. I think of Mr. Lafortune from the city of Montreal. Speaking from memory I think it was in 1910, 1911 or 1912 that at the end of a twelve hour speech that hon. gentleman said, "I am now coming to the crux of my argument". Those days are no different from today except that we have limited ourselves. I was going to add that in the British House of Commons if anyone speaks at length the chamber empties. Reading again from this book:
The budget debate in 1852 began on December 3 with a five-hour speech by the chancellor. The division was taken at 4 a.m. on Friday, December 17. In a famous foreign affairs debate, Palmerston defended his conduct on the 'Don Pacifico' incident in a five-hour speech which lasted from before sunset one summer's night until after dawn the next morning. It was when riding on the morning after this debate that Peel fell from his horse on Constitution Hill and received fatal injuries.
As I say, I have not had an opportunity of examining this book for a long while, but

I thought these references might give some indication as to what the trend is and what our objectives should be. Referring again to the book:
Nowadays, such deliberation would be treated as intolerable long-windedness. The Speaker begins to show signs of impatience when a private member speaks as long as half an hour-
I hasten to add that the reference is to the Speaker of the British House of Commons I continue:
-and although a budget speech is allowed rather more than a full two hours, the usual time for government or front bench opposition speeches is between 45 minutes and an hour and a quarter. The longest debate (apart from that on the address) is normally one or two days; a three-day debate is not by any means a common event even on a vote of censure.
The British house sits for 200 days. They sit far longer hours than we do and, as I have already pointed out, for most of the year. One hon. member said that parliament should sit all the year round, that the longer it sits the more it will gain in dignity, prestige and a sense of public acclaim. Let me read what Right Hon. Winston Churchill, as he then, was, said in 1931, almost 30 years ago, when he came before the select committee on procedure of the British house. His words are found at page 172 of this book:
If you wish to say what is wrong with parliament-it is that it sits far too long in the year. I would lay down that except in times of war or great national emergency parliament should not sit more than five months with the ordinary short intervals, say, occupying six months of the year.
One cannot help but register amazement over the sudden realization on the part of some hon. members that parliament is becoming retrograde and is not enjoying that degree of public acclaim that it should enjoy. Right Hon. Winston Churchill, as he then was, pointed this out 30 years ago. At the height of world war II when Mr. Churchill was the great tribune of the people and was giving leadership not only to the United Kingdom but to all the free world, speaking in the British House of Commons on November 29, 1944 he said:
Do not suppose that you can strengthen parliament by wearying it, and in keeping it in almost continuous session. If you want to reduce the power of parliament, let it sit every day in the year, one-fifth part filled, and then you will find it will be the laughing stock of the nation, instead of being, as it continues to be, in spite of all the strains of modern life, the citadel as well as the cradle of parliamentary institutions throughout the world-
I believe those words are applicable today. He went on to say:
-almost the only successful instance of a legislative body with plenary powers, elected on a universal suffrage, which is capable of discharging with restraint and with resolution, all the functions of peace and war.
Business of the House
I think we must endeavour to bring about reforms. I welcomed the committee that was set up this year and is operating. I also pay my tribute to the hon. members of that committee for the extent to which, in the few weeks they have been sitting, they have reached that agreement which I believe they have achieved, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. But there are many things that require to be looked into. Not least among these is the question, how to make parliament more effective.
I hope it will be agreed by the house that the rules committee will be set up at the earliest possible date in the next session and will meet to the end that with your assistance, Mr. Speaker, there will be an agreement on the part of hon. members in all parts of the house that we must bring about great changes in the interests of making parliament more effective. I could quote further from this book, but if I have succeeded in interesting hon. members in reading it I have accomplished what I set out to do in that connection.
It is said that we have all these estimates coming before us. In all the years I have been in parliament I do not recall more than two occasions when anybody ever moved to reduce an estimate, or ever divided the house on it. Hon. members opposite resort to condemnation and then conclude by allowing the item to pass. That is why it has been found sufficient in the United Kingdom to deal with the vast number of estimates in the large amounts that come before that parliament in just over one third of the time that we have taken up to this hour. According to my hon. friends opposite, they have just started. In so far as defence is concerned, we have had a committee on defence and it has sat at great length.


Mr. Starr:: Twenty seven times.


John George Diefenbaker: Twenty seven times. I cannot think of any questions that the mind of man opposite could evolve which would add anything to the questioning that went on in the informality of that committee.


Harold Edward Winch: If we could get some answers it would be different.


John George Diefenbaker: I can think of suggestions that can be made, and that is why there should be an opportunity for discussion. I have waited for two years to hear any suggestions, responsible in their nature, on the part of the opposition to meet the problem that faces the free world everywhere on the question of defence. One has only to look over the record of the billions of dollars that have been wasted in the free world, not wasted intentionally but as a result of

Business of the House changed and changing conditions. As soon as many of those things which represent the needs of the moment for defence become effective and operative they achieve disuse and are out of date. I am not going to refer to the expression used, but there is a new technique across the nation on the part of the official opposition. The more challenging the statement and the more irresponsible the allegation, the greater certainly they have in their own minds that what they say will be accepted as a model of statesmanship.
We have heard repetitious statements about uncertainty on the part of the government. Last fall we prepared our legislative program and had it available to a degree-this is not criticism of past governments-that certainly has not been excelled on any past occasion. But how do you get this legislation before parliament with the rules as they are today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Put it on the order paper, to start with.


John George Diefenbaker: There is the difficulty, When I brought before the house the necessity of expanding the committee system, there were those who said that we really did not need it. I think the committee system has operated to a degree never before achieved in any parliament of which I have been a member. The government has never failed to allow a committee-I use the word "allow" because I can remember days when committee findings were disallowed-even though overwhelmingly composed of members of the government party, to bring in its criticism and condemnation. I want committees to do that, and I know I speak for my colleagues. Benefit can come to a government, to an administration and to a country only to the extent to which fair and responsible criticism is not denied because of political persuasion.
I listened to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, and I always come back to him as an authority on parliamentary procedure to which he himself gives entire support at all times. He spoke about the terrible days of the present. In the time I have been in the house I have never known a group to talk more, but he seems to have forgotten that. I do not think the hon. member for Laurier was here at the time closure was imposed; he was on another job at that time. However, giving full cognizance to what he said today, I am sure if he had been here there would have been no closure in the unfair, unjust and totally unjustifiable manner in which it was applied.
Because of that I express the hope that the rules committee will give consideration to removing from the rule book the closure


procedure. I hope the committee will do that, because I can say to hon. gentlemen opposite that after what they did to the rule book and to parliamentary procedure I doubt that there will be another government in the next 50 years that will ever dare to bring in closure as they did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Afterwards.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You were as close to the merits of the issue then as you are now.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the hon. gentleman say?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said you were as close to the merits of the issue then as you are now. You spent 19 days then moving phony motions instead of talking about the merits of the proposal.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: Look who is talking about phony motions.


John George Diefenbaker: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: In the house?


John George Diefenbaker: In the house, yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it happens historically that the house rose in June of 1941, and at that time in 1941 Mr. King was preparing to fly the Atlantic.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the year is concerned, let me identify it. It was the year in which the Hong Kong report came before this house. I remember so well that Mr. King, on that occasion-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was 1942.


John George Diefenbaker: My recollection was that it was 1941. I was speaking from recollection. The hon. gentleman in all his deliberations, as he prepares his expurgated biography, will I am sure look back on that trip and recall the circumstances.
Then I recall that Mr. St. Laurent, during the heat engendered by a long debate, when he was asked why it was that Canadians were not included in the group of nations in the Berlin occupancy, used certain words in the house. He said why, they were kicked out. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak about changes in Hansard. The words "kicked out" appeared in Hansard next day as "left out". I mention that because in the heat of debate many of us, even hon. gentlemen opposite, as the result of fatigue from long hours utter words which bring about results such as that which are understandable.
Now, sir, when I listen to hon. gentlemen opposite posing as the paragons of parliamentary perfection, then I think we have an example of the kind of political shuttlecock that they have been playing with parliament during the last years. There has been a monotonous repetition of words, without even the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition sometimes changing them and using synonyms rather than repetitious words such as he indulged in again today; words that have no meaning when so often repeated.
So far as this motion is concerned, I want to see the fullest possible discussion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said there has been consultation. On the other side, the Leader of the Opposition said there has not. The hon. member for Laurier says there has, and that there has been a good spirit of co-operation. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate says that consultation has fallen down during the past several weeks.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; I do not believe the Prime Minister would wish to misrepresent me.
Business of the House On the contrary, I said that there had not been co-operation in connection with this motion.


John George Diefenbaker: Even so, I allow the house to take the different statements, the jarring statements that were made first by the Leader of the Opposition, then by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and finally in that very touching exhortation by the hon. member for Essex East. He blushes to think of the tribute I pay him.
I simply say this is what is being done, and it is an endeavour to secure the fullest consideration, to give everybody ample time for discussion. May I say again that I realize the situation in so far as the committees are concerned. I have found that within the last few weeks the attendance in committees must have been very reasonable, having regard to the experience and all the circumstances. I see no reason why the house should not accept the motion in the form in which it is drawn. I have always desired to co-operate and on past occasions have gone a long way toward making concessions to the opposition because, after all, we must work together; that is our objective and that is our purpose. However, the kind of speech with which the Leader of the Opposition led off, and the words he used, was not the kind of speech that indicated any desire on his part to bring about any alteration in the motion through discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister was good enough to say he would answer a question of mine when he concluded. My question is this. If, as I understood the Prime Minister to say, he was sure that closure, after its last use, would not be used again for 20 years-


An hon. Member:: For 50 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -for 50 years-I did not hear it correctly-why then did he make the categorical, unqualified promise to abolish it as soon as he got into office?


John George Diefenbaker: I said it would not be used for 50 years, and that is my estimate of the time when a group similar to those who occupied the treasury benches in 1955 will be back in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister now answer my question? Why then did he make the categorical, unqualified promise that closure would be abolished in the first session after he became Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: No answer.


Murdo William Martin: Would the Prime Minister permit another question? He made reference to some remarks by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Would he also like

Division
to make reference to the remarks concerning the staff which the hon. member mentioned?


John George Diefenbaker: That question is a proper one. It is a very difficult position for the staff, and I agree with that. This situation has existed throughout the years, and no words one could utter would be a proper tribute to those officials for the long hours they serve and the difficulties under which they serve. Mention was made of the Hansard staff. Again, may I say this; that the clarity with which they produce the daily record is not excelled anywhere, and I feel very keenly for the officials. I can only say that that has been one of those things that have always caused me considerable thought throughout the years.
Now, when the hon. gentleman mentions this fact and questions the hours, as well as the sitting on Saturday, and how serious that would be, perhaps the members of the C.C.F. would be interested in knowing that the leader of the only C.C.F. government in Canada moved, on April 6, 1960:
That on Saturday next, and on each Saturday until the end of the session, the assembly shall meet at 10 o'clock a.m. and that, in addition to the regular intermission between 5:30 o'clock p.m. and 7:30 o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission between 12:30 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m., the order of business on Saturday to be the same as on Friday.
It was found necessary in the legislature of Saskatchewan to sit on Saturdays. One could also, having the same feelings, express the same attitude to those of the staff who, as a result, have to work longer hours.


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion carried.
Is there anything further under motions?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on which I should like some direction from Your Honour. During the currency of the vote one of the hon. members left the house. I want to raise this question for your direction, since it involves the chairman of one of the committees.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule is quite specific. Standing order 12 (2) reads:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
The hon. member, whoever it was, was out of order in leaving the house during the vote.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps some light can be thrown on the matter when it is realized that when the vote was being taken the chairman of the bill of rights committee was leaving in order to attend a meeting of that committee.


Mr. Henderson:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who left the house was called to the telephone.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house does not see fit to impose any discipline, perhaps we might proceed to the next order of business.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-86, to regulate extraprovincial transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the regulation of the extraprovincial trucking industry in order to obtain the maximum public benefit from a truly competitive enterprise system. The control policy is based upon control of entry into the extraprovincial trucking industry by the licensing of services and the control of tariffs.
This control of licensing and tariffs is to be exercised by a federal regulatory mechanism which is referred to in the bill as a joint control board. This board is constituted, as occasion may require, by members from the transport boards of those provinces which have an interest in an extraprovincial licence application. The joint transport board determines whether a licence shall issue and, if issued, sets the tariff for the service. The board weighs its actions on the scale of public convenience and necessity. Its members, as members of the provincial boards, are experienced in applying the public interest to the practical necessities of the trucking industry. Federal control over and 79951-0-421
Inquiries of the Ministry guidance of the joint control board in the national public interest is provided through regulation by the governor in council.
The bill provides for the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which is the present federal regulatory control.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's denial in this house on July 15 when asked whether an examination is being made by the government into the possibility of reducing the personnel strength of the armed forces, would the Prime Minister comment on a statement reported to have been made by the Minister of National Defence yesterday that his department is studying the possibility of manpower cuts in the armed forces?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made was entirely correct. No consideration had been given by the government.



ALSASK, SASK.    REPORTED INSTALLATION OF RADAR STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which was given. Is there any truth in the rumours that have been going about in the Alsask district of Saskatchewan that a radar station is to be installed to the north of that town; that land has been acquired for the site of the station and the living quarters of those who will be engaged in operating the station, and that approximately 250 persons will be stationed at Alsask to manage and operate the radar station?


Lionel Chevrier: Is this the kind of question the Prime Minister had in mind this morning?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The brief answer to these questions is yes.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view
6680	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of Canada's high reputation as an honest broker in international matters, and in view of the possibility of such assistance being welcomed by both sides, had the minister given consideration to offering its good offices to try to bring about an end to the present deplorable differences between the United States of America and Cuba, which might even degenerate to a point involving our own country?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing helpful I could say about that at the moment.


FOLEYET, ONT.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18 the hon. member for Timmins asked me a question in these words:
In view of reports that the local and provincial contributions to the Mountjoy flood relief fund will have been distributed in about one month's time, could the Prime Minister say whether the federal government has reached a decision as to the amount or the basis of the federal contribution to this fund.
Later the hon. member added these words:
Could the Prime Minister ascertain whether any of the federal contribution would go toward repaying or refunding the Red Cross, as has been reported is happening with the local and provincial contributions?
Officials of my office have been in touch with the minister of the Ontario government concerned, and I am informed that the community of Mountjoy has not yet completed its estimate of the damages in the area. When the complete assessment of the loss is made, I understand Hon. Mr. Spooner, Ontario minister of lands and forests, will meet with representatives of the Mountjoy community and will then report his findings to the government of Ontario. At this stage the provincial government will consider further the need of application for special federal assistance.


MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister give the house the latest information available to him concerning the report in this morning's Globe and Mail that two girl
[Mr. Crestohl.l

students employed by his department are missing and believed drowned in Great Bear lake?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of that accident yesterday. We are expecting a report on the incident this afternoon or tomorrow. As soon as I receive it I will inform the house.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the practice of the department to send young girls into the more remote parts of Canada to carry on survey work? If so, how many young women are so employed and what measures does the department take to ensure the safety of these female employees while carrying out their duties?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, these young girls were students and not regular employees of my department. They were appointed through universities by the Arctic institute. When I am in a position to make my statement to the house I will give a full explanation on that matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it right that while the orders of the day are proceeding in this house, a committee of the house should be sitting at the same time? Does the Prime Minister not think this is definitely the kind of situation that was referred to by him when he spoke on February 11, 1959?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hour fixed by the committee was dependent on the normal expectation that the orders of the day would be concluded by one o'clock. I am sure that if the representations the hon. member makes to me were made to the committee they could receive proper attention.


George James McIlraith: The committee met in violation of the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Prime Minister not realize that the committee is now sitting?


Mr. Murphy:: Who held us up?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who kept us here until 2.30?


John George Diefenbaker: Any direction on my part would certainly not be favourably received by the hon. gentleman or any other hon. member of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, take up the rest of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I happen to be a member of the bill of rights committee. We understood that the committee would meet today at 2 p.m. We were later informed that it would be meeting at 2.30 p.m. Although no formal notice was given, that was the word received informally. I am now suggesting it is a violation of the privileges of any hon. member to be denied the opportunity of being in the house while orders of the day are under discussion; that when that is the situation the committee should not meet, and that the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the house, should see to it that is not done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The last observation, of course, was extraneous to the question of privilege. As hon. members know, it is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister to direct whether or not a committee will meet. It is a matter for the committee itself. I do not think the house has any power or jurisdiction to intervene in a meeting of a committee once it has referred a matter to the committee and constituted it to deal with the business referred to it. Therefore I cannot accept the matter as one affecting the privileges of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let it be noted.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I regret not having given him notice. Has the minister anything further to add to the statement in this morning's press with respect to the alleged loss of gasoline from the R.C.A.F. base at Vancouver over the past several week ends?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have been informed that there appears to have been a loss of gasoline at the R.C.A.F. station at Vancouver, and an investigation is being carried on in that respect.
79951-0-421J
Supply-Public Works COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT



FINE PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister giving consideration to either the denial or the confirmation of reports that he has asked certain fine paper companies to show cause why customs tariff reductions on fine papers should not go into effect?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was
the question, have I given further consideration to the matter?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the minister giving further consideration to either the denial or the confirmation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The policy is as I outlined on an earlier occasion, when I indicated that for reasons of public policy it is not considered appropriate to confirm or deny reports of this nature. That is still the policy.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE HOUSING    INQUIRY AS TO INCLUSION IN AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman say whether the subject of housing is on the agenda of items to be discussed at the dominion-provincial conference next week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. According to my recollection the same question was asked yesterday and dealt with.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; the question was about unemployment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I can only give the answer that has been given on a number of occasions, that when the agenda is determined we will be in a position to know what particular subjects will be covered.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Public buildings construction and services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public
buildings listed in the details of the estimates.
6682	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
332. Quebec, $3,673,000.


Mr. Bourget:: Before we consider this item, is the minister able to answer the question I asked regarding the staff of the Montreal district office? I should like to say that I refer particularly to the city of Montreal, not the whole district of Montreal. In addition, in the past two or three years has there been an increase in the number of supervisors and foremen?


Mr. Walker:: I will be very happy to supply that information. I understand it will be available in about an hour.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, the other day I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) whether signs on public buildings managed by his department could possibly be bilingual. Maybe he could give me an answer now?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his question, and I am pleased to tell him that in many cases the signs are bilingual.
(Text):


Maurice Bourget: Last year in the estimates there was an amount of $1,250,000 for a proposed public building at Grand' Mere. The minister will recall that I asked question No. 65 which was answered on March 1. According to the answer I received, the reason the project was not carried out during the last fiscal year was that the site had been selected and preliminary plans had been completed when representations were received that the site selected was not acceptable. I was also informed at that time that the problem of an alternative site had only been resolved in the past month.
I find that the date of the answer was March 1, so this would mean that the question of the site was resolved in February. I am wondering why this did not leave sufficient time for the preparation of plans so the item would appear in this year's estimates in the amount of $1,250,000.


David James Walker: We are very anxious to please the people of Grand'Mere. They have a member of parliament who has been quite assiduous in his efforts to get a better site. I thought we had reached agreement, and gave my word that the building would be erected at the site that we had chosen. Then, lo and behold, within three days I had a delegation from Grand'Mere saying they did not want the federal building erected near the cemetery. This group of prominent men protested, so I temporarily called the whole thing off


until the local citizens could at least arrive at some measure of agreement as to what should be done.


Maurice Bourget: The hon. member for that constituency will probably be back in a few minutes and will have some questions to ask. Last year there was also an amount of $550,000 for a proposed public building for the unemployment insurance commission in Quebec. I asked why this project was not carried out last year. In answer to my question it was stated that it was originally the intention to accommodate in this building the Department of National Health and Welfare in addition to the unemployment insurance commission. It was stated also that national health and welfare is at present housed in a temporary building, and since examination indicated that it was still structurally satisfactory it was decided not to provide accommodation for them in this building. It was not, however, possible to reach a decision in this regard until mid-September of 1959, and there has not been sufficient time since to complete the plans.
I should like to ask the minister where national health is located in Quebec city, and how many square feet of floor space they occupy.


David James Walker: We will have that answer for my hon. friend shortly.


Maurice Bourget: I find it strange that this project has been delayed, particularly in Quebec city where there was so much unemployment last year. If I recall the figures, I believe unemployment reached between 17,000 and 18,000. The amount that was put in the estimates was $550,000, which would have taken care of the proposed building for the unemployment insurance commission and national health and welfare. Now this year we have an amount of $500,000 in the estimates. I find it strange that the fact national health and welfare did not find it necessary to move from their location only reduced the estimate by $50,000, and that the department did not proceed with this important project in the city of Quebec, particularly for my good friend the parliamentary secretary to the minister.
If we take into account the cost of a building per square foot, which is something like $10 or $11, this means that national health and welfare would have occupied only 5,000 square feet. I was wondering why the building was postponed. Experience has shown that it is always wise to provide more space in a building than you think you are going to need. We have had that experience in Quebec. We built the post office in Quebec in 1937 or 1938 and some years later it was

found to be too small so we are now building a new one. I was wondering why this building was delayed when there was so much unemployment in Quebec city.


David James Walker: The accommodation committee which has been discussing this project was unable to agree for some considerable time as to whether it would be a building for the use of the unemployment insurance commission alone or whether it should house several government departments. The committee has now resolved this problem, and it is to be a building for the unemployment insurance commission only.


Maurice Bourget: I raised the question because there seemed to be so little difference between the two estimates, the one last year and the one this year. There is a difference of only $50,000. I cannot understand why the plans for the building were not completed, and I can see no reason for the postponement of the project.


David James Walker: In reply to my hon. friend, it was not a question of money; it was a question of the proper disposition of the space.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, for the past few years the government has been trying to disperse its buildings to serve certain purposes, especially parking and to relieve the congestion in certain regions. Some buildings have been erected quite a distance from the centre of Ottawa. We have on the Quebec side, in the southern part of the Gatineau in the county of Hull, a number of good sites much closer to the main buildings in Ottawa than those buildings which have been erected at Hog's Back. I should like the minister, when he is called upon to consider sites for new buildings, to think of placing them nearer to the parliament buildings than such buildings are being placed now. When the new bridge is constructed it is going to be very easy to come across to Ottawa.
Somebody told me that some of the employees would rather be on the Ontario side than on the Quebec side. I do not believe this should be taken into consideration, because the employees could live in Ottawa if they wanted to and work on the Quebec side. It would give great satisfaction to the municipalities in that area to receive some revenue from such buildings. We are part of the national capital district, and I think we have a right to our share of the buildings. This plan would ameliorate the building situation on the other side and would help the municipalities that would receive the grants given in lieu of taxes.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for Hull for this suggestion. It is an
Supply-Public Works excellent one, and we will give it careful consideration when we are considering any new buildings.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister if there is a target date for the completion of the federal terminal in Quebec city?


David James Walker: I do not want to have the experience the Minister of Transport had with setting a target date. We always try to live up to ours, you see, and my deputy tells me the date is the end of 1962. I will just say we are hopeful of having it completed by then.


Maurice Bourget: There is an item for Sept lies, housing for federal government employees, $78,000. Can the minister give us some information about this item, because it is a rather strange one in the public works estimates.


David James Walker: There is an acute housing shortage there. This item refers to housing which it is anticipated will be built for the use of civil servants.


Maurice Bourget: Can the minister tell us how many houses are going to be built, for how many employees, and what price they will charge the employees of the department for occupation of them?


David James Walker: We have not yet determined the rental charges. However, as my hon. friend knows, they will be reasonable. The proposed work includes the construction of two double houses and a single house. The houses will have not more than three bedrooms and will be similar in design to standard plans erected elsewhere. Stoves and refrigerators but no other furnishings will be supplied. Rents are set by the Department of Finance.


Maurice Bourget: Owing to the fact that the minister raised the question about the post office at St. Maxime de Scott I was wondering whether the minister wished to discuss the matter on this item, or whether there is another item under which we could discuss it?


David James Walker: What was the hon. member's question?


Maurice Bourget: Whether the minister could give the committee information about the tenders that were asked for the construction of a post office at St. Maxime de Scott in the county of Dorchester, Quebec, where the two lowest bidders had a difference of $1 and the lowest one did not get the contract. I should like to know why the lowest tenderer did not get the contract.


David James Walker: I am just sending for my book in which I have the information. In answer to the hon. member's question in connection with Quebec city, may I say this. Family

Supply-Public Works allowances and old age pensions branches of the Department of National Health and Welfare occupy 55,492 square feet in a temporary building located at 75 Boulevard des Capucins in Quebec city. It is the same building in which the Department of Public Works is situated.


Maurice Bourget: Will the minister repeat the number of square feet?


David James Walker: Yes; 55,492 square feet.


Maurice Bourget: Then how can he explain that figure of 55,000 square feet? The difference in the estimates is only $50,000. Surely it costs more than $1 per square foot for a building. I cannot understand that matter at all. There is some misunderstanding somewhere.


David James Walker: As my hon. friend, who had considerable experience, in this department knows, the amount which was referred to was the amount anticipated to be spent on that building in this particular year.


Maurice Bourget: Oh, no. I do not think the minister is giving a correct explanation there. As he will recall, in the committee he was very careful to put questions when we were discussing the printing bureau. When the department prepares estimates I therefore think they are mostly accurate. I would ask the minister to explain why there is a difference of only $50,000 when the department that was supposed to be located there needs
55,000	square feet. That is quite a building, one with 55,000 square feet.


David James Walker: I can only repeat that the amount indicated is not the total amount but rather the amount for the fiscal year.


Maurice Bourget: Has the minister the information with regard to St. Maxime de Scott?


David James Walker: Yes, I have it here somewhere. There were in this case seven bids. I supplied my hon. friend with this information many months ago on an order for return. The low bids on this originally were Grenier with a bid of $15,996, the next two bids were Cloutier and Poulin. The others are not relevant at the moment. Then after a great deal of shopping about, just the day before the bids closed the third lowest bidder changed his bid not by $1,000 or by $500 but by an amount of $995, as a result of which the third lowest bidder became the low bidder. He beat the original low bid by $1. Hence he became the low bidder in an amount of $15,995 as against the original low bid of $15,996.
Because we are anxious that in this system of public tender there should be no skulduggery going on in seeking to ascertain

what other people's bids are and then changing a bid at the last moment in order to get in under the wire by $1, after giving the matter the greatest consideration and even after telegrams and wires from a great many people and representations from my friend the hon. member for Levis, the award of this post office contract was made to the original low bidder, namely Mr. Grenier whose bid was the original low bid and is presently $1 higher than that of the man Poulin, who came in at the last moment with a new bid.


Maurice Bourget: I find the policy followed by the minister strange in the circumstances, because the minister realizes that this is a practice submitted to the department by the Canadian Construction Association; that any contractor may revise his own tender by telegram if the telegram arrives by three o'clock on the day of the opening of tenders. I would recall that these tenders were called and were opened on December 15, I think it was. I cannot understand why the minister should say that the lowest original bidder was Mr. Grenier, because all the tenders were opened on December 15. Hence at that time Mr. Poulin was the lowest bidder by $1.
The $1 has nothing to do with the matter. It is a question of the principle which was involved. The minister is aware that Mr. Poulin is a well known contractor and also that he has the money with which to carry on his work. I therefore cannot understand why the minister changed the awarding of this contract, owing to the fact that Mr. Poulin was the lowest bidder in the circumstances. Certainly this is a change in the policy of the department. Certainly that is a change in the policy of the department because when tenders are asked and are over $15,000 I think it has been the policy in the past to award the contract to the lowest bidder. Also that kind of project, as it was explained by the predecessor of the hon. minister, was to help winter unemployment. If you look at the date, the tenders were received on December 15 and the contract was awarded on March 15, three months after the tenders were received.
So I think the minister will have to bear the blame for that because, first of all, he has not awarded the contract to the lowest bidder and, second, he delayed the project when he could have helped unemployment in the wintertime when it had reached such a high level. That is the least we can say under the circumstances. The minister has failed to give this contract to the lowest bidder, and certainly we must also add that he played politics a little in that case because

I know the kind ol representation which he must have received from the hon. member for that constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
333. Ottawa, $11,590,000.
Mr. Regier:: Is the minister able to explain what is being planned for the west block?
I notice in the details there is a vote of $200,000. Also, what are the plans as regards moving additional members' offices over to the west block?


David James Walker: I did not get the hon. member's whole question but he will correct me if I misunderstood him. This amount is to renovate the interior of the west block and as much as possible to provide members' rooms. An offer was made to the press gallery to accommodate them there but it was felt that at the present time they would prefer to stay in the quarters in which they are presently situated. In addition there will be committee rooms and even the celebrated divorce committee room will be moved over there out of the way of the centre block.
This amount of course will not cover the final cost. This is the original amount which was voted to get the matter underway and our plans remain the same as when the last announcement was made, namely that the renovations will really get under way in a substantial way this fall.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister able to say how many additional members' offices are expected to be placed over there?


David James Walker: Yes. So far we have been trying to raise the amount because the members over there really enjoy it.


George James McIlraith: Do you speak for them all?


David James Walker: They will have a tunnel to reach the centre block and yet be in lovely surroundings in a renovated office with all the beautiful architecture on the outside, and that is something which most members are anticipating with a great deal of pleasure. One hundred members are presently in mind to occupy the new west block.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister in a position to announce that offices for 100 members will be ready by the New Year?


David James Walker: Oh no. I would like to be able to do that but because of the great trouble in renovating the inside, it is something like the case of the White House in Washington; it would have been easier to build a new White House and probably cheaper. But to keep the historical semblance to the outside of the west block and yet completely make
Supply-Public Works over the interior is quite a job and will require, we expect, two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister whether before this renovation was undertaken the department had a complete plan of all the works it planned to undertake there and whether one contract has been let for the whole job?


David James Walker: We have an over-all plan and under ordinary circumstances we would have had an over-all tender called to cover the whole building. Unfortunately, however, we cannot do the whole building at once. We have to keep half the people there while we are doing the other half, so it would not be wise to try to anticipate what our whole expenditure would be. We will get the benefit of doing the first half, so that if there are any improvements which might be suggested in the meantime we will proceed and carry them out when we do the second half. In other words, we will proceed with this building as if we were renovating two buildings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister give me the estimated cost from the department for the first half and the amount of the contract?


David James Walker: The consultants have almost completed their estimate and I expect it will be ready in about a month's time at which time I would be glad to give the information to the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The tenders have not been called yet?


David James Walker: No, not yet; we are waiting for an estimate first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will of
course recall that the arguments he has just made were precisely the arguments made by his department in another celebrated case.


David James Walker: Oh, I think not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the minister will not mind if I ask him a nautical question. Is it possible to reach the new public works building by canoe?


David James Walker: Yes. You mean the one out at Hog's Back?


George James McIlraith: If you go through the Ottawa sewage belt at the entrance to the canal.


David James Walker: No. From where I am up at
Revelstoke it is possible to get down to the boathouse at the Hog's Back dam, and it is just a step across the road on to the public works property. It is not possible to paddle up to the door of the new public works building but you can get to the boathouse which

Supply-Public Works is just adjacent to it. Would the Leader ol the Opposition like to come with me some morning and we could do it together?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to do that very very much except that I am at work by the time the minister starts paddling.


George James McIlraith: I must say I am very happy the minister is discovering some of the natural beauties of the Ottawa area and is coming to appreciate the beauties of this city.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Ottawa West helped me buy my house and he knows how much I appreciate it.


George James McIlraith: I want to raise another
matter which I think is relevant to this vote -which I sought to raise by way of a private members resolution-and that is the whole matter of providing accommodation for automobiles on parliament hill. The subject does not need perhaps to be over-elaborated at this stage of the session but I think it will be quite clear to all hon. members that with the large increase in the use of automobiles and the limited accommodation of the roadways on parliament hill we have an inordinate number of cars parked on the roadways on the hill every day and all day. Even with this improper use of the roadways, marring as it does the beauty of the site, there is not sufficient central accommodation for those persons who come to do business on the hill either in the centre block, as members of the House of Commons or as employees, or in the east or west blocks. In addition, of course, there is insufficient accommodation available for tourists who come to view the buildings or to watch the ceremonial parades that take place on the lawn each morning during the summer months.
My purpose in putting down a private member's resolution was to try to have an opportunity to put forward what I thought was a solution to this problem. Of course, since private members cannot put down a resolution which would involve the expenditure of money, I had to raise it in a somewhat negative form as a resolution recommending consideration of the elimination of parking on parliament hill. I would think it is elementary that the only effective way of eliminating parking on parliament hill is by providing suitable alternative accommodation.
I think we have come to the stage when we require an extensive parking facility to be provided by the federal authority adjacent to the hill. The layout of the land is such that there are several possible sites available. I am sure the architects and engineers will readily find them. West of the main building and the west block there is a whole area on a lower level where a properly planned 

building could be located in such a way that the top would not be visible from the face of the hill; it would be on the level of the surface of the ground at the main part of the hill. In other words, a structure could be built against the cliff to the west of the buildings.
I want to ask the minister to advise us what consideration has been given to this question and what is the nature of any plans concerning a solution of this problem. I should further like to ask the minister when it is anticipated that a start could be made on such a building if construction were approved.
In this connection I would point out that the present vote for public buildings in the Ottawa area is something like one third lower than it was last year, and I would also draw attention to the very serious problem arising in the construction industry in Ottawa at the present time because of the fact that in Ottawa this year there is very much less construction going on than has been the case during the last number of years. I agree that this is not something that the Minister of Public Works can solve by building public works, and I do not suggest that for one minute. But I do suggest this is a proper consideration for him to bear in mind in arranging the timing of the erection of much needed new public buildings in this area. Unemployment in the construction industry in this area is, regrettably, very high at this time.
There is a good deal more that could be said, I suppose, if one were so minded, by way of illustration of the desecration of the beauty of the hill which arises because of the presence of an unduly large number of cars, but I can perhaps leave that point as one which is self-evident. The hon. member for Edmonton West is very much interested in the subject and I might point out that the time taken to travel by automobile from Wellington street to the parking lot at the end of this hill this morning was just under 20 minutes. That was at eleven o'clock, which is probably a bad time of the day, but it does indicate the congestion on the hill.


Mr. Lambert:: At four o'clock it is almost impossible to move for half an hour.


George James McIlraith: Yes, at four o'clock it is almost impossible for anyone to move either way to do business on parliament hill.


Norman Platt Lambert: How does the hon. gentleman
manage?


George James McIlraith: He rents parking space in the ordinary way. He has a parking space in the centre of the city and he has no complaints at all about his personal problems. But he does take an interest in the wider



I960

[Stage Direction]
problem and he does think it is time for the government to take some action with regard to it.
David James Walker: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa West for his inquiry. This is the relevant time to make it. The hon. gentleman has always taken a great interest in the question of parking on parliament hill. May I answer his last observations first? There are several buildings still under construction in the Ottawa area, and there is a great deal of work to be done on many of them. I might mention the post office building, the national research council building on the Montreal road, the mines and technical surveys building and the telecommunications building. There are other buildings on the perimeter, near Hog's Back, which I do not need to mention at this time. Then again, we hope to call tenders this fall for the health and welfare building, and that will be a major undertaking.
In answer to the hon. member's inquiry about parking on the hill, I am glad to be able to report that our department has studies under way involving two basic schemes, the first of which is the construction of an open parking garage at the foot of Bank street. An alternative proposition is the construction of an underground parking garage on parliament hill off Bank street. The first garage would reach down almost to river level and, as the hon. member has suggested, if such a project were proceeded with it would be just high enough above ground level for the cars to get in, and it would in no way interfere with the view. Then there is a third plan which we are considering, and that is to have a huge underground parking area immediately beneath the front lawn of the parliament buildings. That could be arranged without any final interference with the beauty of the lawn. The trouble is that it would be quite an expensive undertaking.
A preliminary estimate of the cost of the open parking garage would be $1 million, and a preliminary estimate of the cost of an underground parking garage would be $1,350,000. We have not yet estimated the cost of the underground parking beneath the front lawn of the parliament buildings. Our studies are by no means completed, and I would be very happy to have suggestions at any time, privately or in any other way, from any members of the house with regard to this question. I shall be happy to discuss this matter with the hon. member for Ottawa West and I shall be equally glad to discuss it with any other Ottawa members who may be interested. I have already discussed it with the hon. member for Carleton, and I shall be glad to consider any ideas that may be 79951-0-422
Supply-Public Works brought up, because the hon. member for Ottawa West is quite right when he says something must be done to get the cars off parliament hill. The total number of cars presently parking on parliament hill is 432. The proposed capacity of either of the proposed garage facilities would be at least 500.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister for his answer. When the minister referred to the figure 432 as the total number of cars parking on parliament hill I believe he intended to refer to the number of parking spaces allotted on parliament hill. Actually the total number of cars parking on parliament hill these days is probably in excess of twice that number. Parking on the face of the hill near Wellington street is three abreast now for a certain short period in the morning and it is mostly double-space parking in other areas of the hill. All I intend to indicate is the difference between the number of spaces allocated for parking and the number of cars that actually do park on the hill. It is a very severe problem. It is becoming so acute we must proceed to find some solution of it.
In speaking about the two alternative propositions the minister is considering for which he has a preliminary estimate of cost, could the minister indicate the number of cars such garages would accommodate in each case?


David James Walker: Each of the undertakings would accommodate 500 cars.


George James McIlraith: The point I want to make out of that is that if the minister will look at the number of spaces he has allocated on the hill, the 432, and bear in mind the number of persons who have a claim to park on the hill when they have occasion to come here and the other demands for parking on the hill he will see that 500 would not begin to meet the problem. He will have to approach this on a much larger scale. It is perhaps unfair to indicate a precise figure in a superficial way like this but it would seem to me that from the data now available a closer figure to what is required would be 1,500.
The minister must bear in mind the number of persons who are demanding space adjacent to the three buildings and who are not being considered at all. He must also bear in mind the question of accommodation for tourists to the hill. I make these observations so that they will be borne in mind when this question is being given further consideration.


David James Walker: Thank you very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister one last question?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Your last of the
session?

Supply-Public Works


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister will be pleased to hear the observation that this will be my last question because I have to leave the committee. In speaking a few moments ago about the west block the minister said that his department had practically completed its plans for the renovation of half the building and would call a tender -I take it a fixed price tender-for that purpose, but I understood from other things the minister said that part of the building has already been renovated and members of parliament are already in the building. Could the minister say how these expenses were met, whether tenders were called, whether there was an over-all plan for it and how it was arranged?


David James Walker: My hon. friend will know if he has visited any members over there that we have done only a temporary job for them. It is decorating we have done. We used the funds we had allocated for maintenance. The renovation there has been temporary in its nature. The accommodation presently provided for hon. members in the west block certainly cannot compare with what we anticipate for them in the future.
I would not want the hon. gentleman to think that we are not going to have one over-all plan. We will have an over-all plan for the development of one half and then for the reconstruction of the other half. As the hon. member will appreciate, when the two have to be entirely separated in time, it would not be wise to have one over-all contract to start off with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister answered one part of my question which was this. How much money has already been spent on the temporary renovation which in the minister's words has made the hon. members who are over there so happy?


David James Walker: We will obtain that information immediately for my hon. friend if he can wait a few moments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I cannot wait but I hope the minister will put it on the record.


David James Walker: I will, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am one of the happy members over in the west block and I find the office I have quite satisfactory. I understand we will all be shifted later on this fall. There are some very attractive new offices on the second floor and I should like to suggest to the minister that in his plans in this regard he should work closely with the Speaker and the leaders of the parties in order to achieve an equitable arrangement.
[Mr. Bell (Carleton) .1
I and many hon. members who are in the west block do not mind being there and we appreciate having a full office but I know there are members like myself who are somewhat jaundiced by the fact that some of the best office spaces held down by hon. members of the other place who are seldom here to use it. I should like to see an overall approach adopted to bring as many hon. members as possible into offices of their own in the most convenient location which is in this building. If approximately 100 hon. members are going to be located in the west block provision should be made so they can get back and forth with some kind of protection from the weather. I and other members have been soaked through a number of times and we have to skirt around the building depending on which door is open. These are petty details but if hon. members are to have equal rights in terms of being allocated the best office facilities available these things need to be examined. Probably no greater crown could glow upon the minister's head than the one that would be awarded him if he were to satisfy hon. members with respect to office space.
In anything I have said I do not want it to be taken that I am critical of the facilities provided in the west block. They are excellent but I think the readjustment must take into account party affiliation and the office space in this building that is used by hon. members of the other place. I think it would be worth while to consider shifting hon. members of the other place over to the west block to give us an opportunity of using the space here. I may be wrong in believing this but I am convinced that hon. members of this house are somewhat more important than hon. members of the other place and the urgency of our needs in terms of office space is somewhat greater than theirs. I see that a couple of hon. members are looking at me who may perhaps be expecting to go there shortly. I hope they will not let that interfere with any judgment they may make of my remarks.


David James Walker: This wonderful tunnel will come out almost at my office door on the basement floor.


Mr.   Mc@: By canoe?


David James Walker: I am afraid I may have to move myself. It will be very convenient though, and very up to date. I thought hon. members preferred to be over in the west block particularly with the plans under way for renovating the building. On the other hand I must not take full credit for this because these plans are under the direction of the Speakers of both houses who have

met with their advisers from time to time. I am only called in as Minister of Public Works to execute their plans. We must give them a great deal of credit for their present anticipated plan.


Maurice Bourget: With regard to the work already done in the west block, were tenders called for the painting?


David James Walker: No. Most of the work was done by our own staff. Any that was not very minor in its nature. Wherever possible we use our own staff, and we have a very good and efficient staff, particularly in the capital.


Maurice Bourget: Were any outside contractors hired to help the staff?


David James Walker: I will inquire so as to be sure about that. There may have been some electrical work involved requiring contractors.


Maurice Bourget: Will the minister be kind enough to give us the names and the amount received by each contractor?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I understood the minister to say that a tunnel is going to be built from the west block to the House of Commons. Is that part of the $200,000 which is to be spent on the west block?


David James Walker: The amount of $200,000 in this year's estimates is to be spent on this project in this fiscal year. The final cost has not yet been determined. As I explained to the hon. member for Levis and the Leader of the Opposition, the consultants now have their work under way and will come up with what they think the total cost should be. Once we have obtained that information we will call for tenders.


Alexis Pierre Caron: So no amount is set aside for the tunnel and we cannot expect that work to start this year?


David James Walker: The hon. member is quite right.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does the $200,000 for alterations and improvements to the west block include making the west block or the part to be repaired fireproof or is it just for alterations?


David James Walker: We are keeping in mind the old framework that is still there and are making it just as fireproof as possible which is, of course, to a very high degree.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will the flooring be made fireproof? I think the most dangerous part of the building is the floor.


David James Walker: The west block flooring will be pretty much the same as in the east 79951-0-422 J
Supply-Public Works block. As my hon. friend knows, that is battleship linoleum which, of course, is not entirely fireproof but has not presented any hazard so far.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I know it would be very difficult and costly to make it completely fireproof but would it be considered as fire-resistant?


David James Walker: A very high degree of fire resistance. That is a very good way of expressing it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The $200,000 is the only expenditure to be made in 1960-61?


David James Walker: Quite so. That is the anticipated expenditure in the fiscal year.


Maurice Bourget: When does the minister expect the plans for the west block to be completed? I understand they are now under way.


David James Walker: My deputy tells me in six weeks but my experience is it would be better to say at least two months.


George James McIlraith: I should like to raise another matter pertaining to parliament hill, the question of the entrance to parliament hill from Bank street, commonly known as the west gate entrance. The minister is aware that it is a very defective entrance from the point of view of efficiency of movement of automobile traffic. It was obviously designed at a time when horses and carriages were used and is located in such a way in relation to the street that it is not very satisfactory. Has the government any plans for remodelling the entrance in such a way as to permit easy accessibility to the hill from Bank street and in such a way, I hope, as to preserve the present appearance of the front fence in the area?


David James Walker: The national capital commission has studied this matter and because of the density of traffic on the street it is quite complicated. The commission is considering two or three plans at the present time. I appreciate that when we do make any change the hon. member for Ottawa West wants us to make the entrance more modern and more efficient in coping with the traffic problem but also wants us to retain the present appearance as closely as possible.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would it be possible without destroying the appearance to remove the two centre columns and the passageways for pedestrians? That would widen the opening and a car could go in as a car was coming out. That would improve the situation quite a bit.
6690	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: I will draw that to the attention of the national capital commission. It is a possibility.


George James McIlraith: I wish to raise two other matters. One has to do with the need for a building in Ottawa that would be available to boards conducting public hearings. I have in mind particularly the unsatisfactory accommodation which has been available in the last few years for the tariff board and which is being replaced by new accommodation that is even more unsatisfactory because it is more limited and has less access to the street. The board is being moved from a very defective and unsuitable building where it has had to hold public hearings to another building which is far too small and does not have an elevator entrance and accommodation sufficient to meet the requirements of the board with regard to hearings.
It has to be borne in mind that there are many hearings where as many as 150 businessmen from all over Canada come to the capital to present their cases before the tariff board. References to the board by the government are of necessity increasing and appeals to the board from rulings of the Department of National Revenue are also increasing as the country grows.
This is only one board that needs additional accommodation for conducting public hearings. The national energy board is confronted with a bad situation. It has no appropriate accommodation for conducting public hearings and carries on under makeshift arrangements whereby it uses the board room of the board of transport commissioners or accommodation available at the bureau of statistics building in the west end of the city.
As time goes on, there will be more and more demands for public board rooms to be made available to various boards, commissions and public bodies holding public hearings. I would ask the minister whether or not the government has given consideration to meeting this problem, and whether or not it is proposed to build such accommodation in the central part of the city.


David James Walker: This is a problem we are considering. We have to consider the pressing problems of each department as well, and further buildings have to be erected. The Department of Agriculture needs space badly, and so does justice. Of course, national health and welfare is getting a building. My friend has made a very real point to which we have given a great deal of consideration. I can assure him that as and when accommodation is provide it will be in the centre of the city.


George James McIlraith: There is an urgency about this matter that must be appreciated. The Department of National Revenue, by reason of the nature of developments, plays a very active role in government. It does produce a great volume of income, and it does directly affect the business enterprises of this country. Representatives of these enterprises are brought here to deal with important matters, whether appeals from department of revenue rulings to the tariff board or in connection with direct references to the tariff board, and the decisions arrived at affect the economy of the country very directly. Any impairment of the work of the board making these decisions, as a result of defective accommodation is something that no government would want. This is not a new problem, but it is a problem that has become more acute and is becoming more acute each year as the country grows. I hope the minister will consider not only the problem itself, but the urgency in connection with it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I made a suggestion during the discussion of the administration item that what is known as lovers' walk should be restored. I did so after conversations with a number of Ottawa citizens and civil servants. Since making the suggestion in the house I have received a number of letters from people who are very interested in this proposal. I want to say this was a serious suggestion. I have reached an age where the romantic aspects of the walk are strictly academic. I am sure the minister will understand that.
In reply the minister stated the estimated cost of restoration was $300,000. I have made inquiries since and while I do not question that figure, I found out that, I think it was in 1939, the walk was maintained for about $5,000 a year. Whatever the amount might be, there is 50 acres of beautiful parkland going to waste right next to the Ottawa river. In 1939, the then prime minister vetoed the expenditure of $5,000 for the maintenance because the war had commenced. I find there is great interest in this walk.
Seriously speaking, it is a lovely area very close to the parliament buildings, and I think it is a shame that in the capital city of Ottawa, this area should be neglected. I suggest that the minister have a survey made of the situation to see what it actually would cost to restore the walk. I am not suggesting it is necessary to build stone walls in many places and other extensive works. If the stone steps were satisfactory, the rest of the walk could be made safe by shoring along the bank without a lot of these stone walls. As

I said, I suggest a survey be made and a sort of progressive restoration of this beautiful park area undertaken.
While I am on my feet I do want to raise one other point. I have been very restrained during the last day or two. I want to refer to what I termed Operation Lemon Juice on the statues. I wish the minister would tell us why the statues are being cleaned with lemon juice and the purpose of the whole operation, as well as the approximate cost of cleaning each of these statues. I have looked at this thing very carefully, the one that has been cleaned, and it looks like a fairly new bronze without any patina. There seems to be no particular reason for this cleaning, and I wish the minister would explain it. I have done some reading on the subject and I have not been able to discover any mention of the use of lemon juice to remove the patina of old statues. What is the purpose of this cleaning and what will the cost be per statue?


David James Walker: In connection with lovers' walk, I shall not make any more comment except to say that I would be glad to study the feasibility of my hon. friend's suggestion.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: On the ground?


David James Walker: I will leave the external work to the hon. member for Kootenay West.
In so far as the monuments on parliament hill are concerned, we now have a lacquer coat which prevents patina growth in an attractive, natural manner. In the case of D'Arcy McGee, we have removed the lacquer by scrubbing and have darkened the bronze by an application of lemon oil. The lemon oil will not inhibit the patina growth and we expect in time the statue will return to an attractive colour.
This process was developed by the ministry of works in the United Kingdom and was also recommended to us by that celebrated sculptress, Miss Frances Loring.
The work on D'Arcy McGee has cost $120 so far. Until the effectiveness of the process has been established in the Ottawa climate no further work is scheduled. My friend will keep a watchful eye on it, and I will be very happy to have him serve, without salary, as the curator of monuments on parliament hill.


George James McIlraith: I want to make some representations concerning the public building at the southwest corner of Elgin and Queen streets in Ottawa. This is a very old building which should have been torn down long ago. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand plans are now being made to turn the site over to the United Kingdom for a building to be erected there. These plans are not new at all. They have been
Supply-Public Works under way for some time. In view of the change made concerning the land abutting Sussex street where certain old railway tracks and related buildings were eliminated and the land returned to the ownership of the crown, I wonder whether the United Kingdom authorities might not consider that a better site for their building? The minister will recall when the matter was first discussed the Sussex street sites were not available; it was not contemplated they would be taken over for public purposes by the crown.
If it is found that the Sussex street area would be a better location for what I might call embassy buildings, may I suggest that they be relocated and this building in the central part of the city be put to a use that would involve more public use or use more analogous to commercial or regular office building use. What is happening in the adjacent area today is that ordinary commercial property is being badly depreciated by the use being made of crown-owned property in the area; that is to say, the crown-owned property is being used in such a way that it does not bring employees who are available to support restaurants and other stores and so on. It is a matter of finding what would be the best use of that site, bearing in its mind its proximity to the main parliament buildings and bearing in mind the desirability of having the finest possible development we can have in the central part of the city in relationship to our parliament hill site.


David James Walker: My hon. friend is referring to the old Elgin hotel?


George James McIlraith: Yes; Grand Union.


David James Walker: As to the British, we cannot tell them-nor would I presume to do so and I know my hon. friend would not presume to do so-what they should have or what they need. They are highly competent to do that themselves. They have a distinguished high commissioner, as my hon. friend knows. We have almost consummated with them a deal by which they would acquire the old hotel and build there a chancery for themselves. They are not interested in having the chancery on Sussex street. They want to have their chancery as close as possible to the centre of the commercial district. They also want to be close to external affairs.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I have made no suggestion that the minister go back on any arrangement he has made with the United Kingdom authorities. I rather wondered whether he had drawn to their attention the site they might consider to be more desirable on the opposite side of
6692	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Sussex street from the high commissioner's residence and closer to centre town which has recently been taken over by the crown.
It is only during this session of parliament that the plans of the crown with respect to that site were made known and that their decision was taken by the cabinet on that matter. The negotiations with them were long under way when that changed circumstance arose. I wonder whether he has drawn it to their attention for consideration. It may well be that they would wish to consider what many people regard as a much better site for their building.


David James Walker: Yes. The British high commissioner was consulted-it is more than a year now-in pointing out to him the new character of the Sussex development. It was at that time suggested that they might prefer to have the British chancery on Sussex but they preferred the site of the old Elgin hotel.


George James McIlraith: It is rather interesting to learn that they were consulted about this matter a year before the government took the decision to acquire the Sussex street property.


David James Walker: It has been under consideration for a long time.


George James McIlraith: In any event, be that as it may, will the minister give consideration to the uses being made of the other buildings on Queen street presently occupied by the federal government? There is in existence a situation which I invite him to examine for himself in order to see the extent to which the present use by the federal government of buildings in that area is depreciating the very centre of the city. I think that is something which he would agree is not desirable. I am quite sure it is something that has arisen without anyone having noticed it. I think it is something he would wish to correct if he observed it.


David James Walker: I shall be glad to do so.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister what is the total cost to date of the Riverside drive site development?


David James Walker: I could make an answer but I would prefer to give my hon. friend an adequate answer if he will wait for a few minutes.


Maurice Bourget: I do not want the minister to forget the answers he has promised. How many contracts have been asked for on that particular project? If there are two, three or four, what is the nature of each contract that has been asked for so far?


David James Walker: I take it that my hon. friend is pursuing the public accounts still, is he?


Maurice Bourget: I am just performing my duty as a member of the House of Commons.


David James Walker: That is fine.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Bourget: No, no. I suppose I am going
to get an answer?


David James Walker: Could we come back to that question later?


Maurice Bourget: We will let the item stand.


David James Walker: Thank you.


The Chairman:: Shall item 333 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Items stands.
336.	Saskatchewan, $1,790,000.


Mr. Pascoe:: After all the critical comments from opposition speakers during consideration of these estimates of the Department of Public Works I should like to take just a moment in order to sound a more cheerful note. I want to thank the Minister of Public Works for a fine new federal building in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Under this item No. 336 which provides a vote of $400,000 for completion of the structure I want to draw the minister's attention to the completion of the Moose Jaw federal building more than a month ahead of schedule and, I believe, within the estimated cost.
The contract was awarded in April of 1959, with the completion date set for September of this year. The keys to the new building were handed over to the district architect by the general contractor more than two weeks ago. Construction time of the building was planned in order to make it possible to carry on interior work all last winter. This procedure provided winter jobs for cement workers, plumbing and heating workers, plasterers and others.
Credit should be given to the general contractor and to the subcontractors for the speedy jobs they did on the excavation and outside construction in order to help provide winter work. As I have said on other occasions in this chamber, construction work by the Department of Public Works should always be planned in such a way that a maximum of interior jobs can be carried on in the winter months. This policy should also be carried out by private builders, wherever possible.
In this regard, although it is not covered by this item, I want to congratulate the minister on his extended program for home builders which will give jobs to thousands of interior finishers. Plans are now being

made for official opening of the Moose Jaw federal building on August 17. It is my hope that the minister might find time in his extremely busy work schedule to be present for this official ceremony and to receive the thanks of the citizens of what we call the friendly city for a fine new federal building.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He will still be on his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
337.	Alberta, $2,885,000.
Maurice Bourget: Can the minister tell us the nature of the addition and the alterations to the postal terminal in Edmonton for which an amount of $1 million is asked?


David James Walker: This amount is for the land acquisition and the preparation of plans. No part of the building of course can be started this fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
338.	British Columbia, $1,285,000.
Harold Edward Winch: I would like to ask the minister if he would give us a progress report on the South Burnaby public building for which $100,000 was voted last year and for which another $25,000 is now asked; also the Vancouver inspection services building for the Department of Trade and Commerce for which is asked $50,000. South Burnaby is right next to my constituency and I have not seen any evidence of this new public building for which we voted $100,000 last year, and I would like to have a progress report on that, if I may. I am asking, of course, on behalf of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I should also like to know what the $50,000 is for with regard to the inspection services building in Vancouver, because that will hardly buy a lot in downtown Vancouver.


David James Walker: We have had a lot of trouble in Burnaby in getting a site, although it is not as bad as Vancouver proper. We think we now have a site and once we acquire it we will be able to get on with the project.


Harold Edward Winch: And what about Vancouver?


David James Walker: We are still looking for a site in Vancouver, and I agree with the hon. member they are very difficult to find.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just one brief question. On the administration item I suggest that the minister, his deputy and possibly some of his senior officials should visit the Kootenays because of the great developments and the changing circumstances in relation to public works. Would the minister tell me if he will give consideration to that when he visits British Columbia?
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: Indeed I will. Not only do I want to see the public works developments, but ever since I came to parliament I have had a desire to occupy in baronial style the delightful manor of the hon. member for Kootenay West who is the squire of the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
543. British Columbia, $290,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Just one question. I want to place a question on the order paper and I would like to know now through the deputy minister whether the information I want will be provided. I would like to know if it is possible for the department to provide, say, a yearly total of all the construction and the value of the construction it does by constituencies?


David James Walker: Yes, we are working on that but are having a bit of difficulty because, for example, the hon. member himself has a tremendously large constituency, and we must know where it stops and the next starts, and it is quite a problem. The hon. member was referring to the trans-Canada highway as well as public works, was he not?


Douglas Mason Fisher: What I am getting at, we hear a lot of claims about who gets what for his constituency and I want to be able to have a closer analysis of this matter. I know a certain member not far from me who has indicated at times that he has got this, that and the other for his constituency, and I want to see whether there is some way in which we could get a quantitative measure of how effective this getting things for constituencies may be. I thought that if the department could pinpoint things by constituency we might be able to have some sort of pecking roster to see who are the effective members of parliament and who are the less effective, and they might be able to learn.


David James Walker: That would be a tremendous undertaking, as the hon. member can appreciate. I am surprised that he would be interested in having this for his constituency since, from what I am informed by the press and his own writings, he has no intention of returning to the house. This would be very sad, but what other reason could he have for wanting the information except to assure his re-election, which he says he does not anticipate?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
339.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $3,447,000.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister could give the committee some idea as to how the building and construction work in Inuvik is coming along?

Supply-[DOT]Public Works


David James Walker: The federal building in Inuvik shows the amount of the contract is $213,868. The amount paid on the contract to date is $212,333. The award was May 30, 1958, and the date of completion is anticipated to be August 31, 1960.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is this all the building public works is doing in Inuvik?


David James Walker: No. I thought the hon. member asked for a break-down of federal building.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I was wondering how the hospital construction was coming along?


David James Walker: The hospital is coming along nicely too. The amount of the contract was $1,389,476; the amount paid to date is $1,028,395.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Can the minister tell me whether the townsite development and all of the housing for federal government employees will be completed this year?
While the minister is looking for that information, I wonder if he could tell the committee what is the policy of the government with regard to the maintenance of public buildings in the Northwest Territories. I find that in some places the Department of Public Works looks after the maintenance of these buildings while in other places in the territory the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources looks after them. In certain cases we find both departments engaged in this work, and I was wondering whether the minister would consider adopting the policy whereby one department of government would assume the responsibility for looking after public buildings in the Northwest Territories.


David James Walker: When buildings come under the control of the Department of Northern Affairs, the policy is that that department should also maintain them. Public works buildings are maintained by the Department of Public Works. The hon. member's question is this: if the Department of Transport is operating the building, the Department of Transport should be responsible for the maintenance? Is that his point?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: My point is that there seems to be no policy in the north with regard to the maintenance of public buildings.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Apparently there is.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What do you know about it? Go back to Lambton.
In Inuvik, for example, the Department of Northern Affairs are apparently responsible for the maintenance of all public buildings

in that township whereas part of the buildings in Fort Smith are controlled by the Department of Northern Affairs and the rest are controlled by the Department of Public Works. In Yellowknife, buildings are maintained and looked after by the Department of Public Works. Would the minister not consider having one department made responsible for maintaining all the public buildings in the Northwest Territories regardless of which department occupies the building? Why should we need to have different maintenance staff and personnel in the departments of northern affairs, transport, public works and the rest of it? Why not have this work done by one department?


David James Walker: We have found from experience that it is better to have the dominant department take care of the maintenance in any one town. If, for instance, the Department of Northern Affairs is the dominant department, it is responsible for the maintenance of all the public buildings in that town. In another town, where the Department of Transport is the dominant department it would have the maintenance of all the public buildings. We have found that to be a more efficient system, particularly in those places which are so far apart.
It has been pointed out to me that during the period of transition two departments sometimes do maintenance work in one area in some instances, but we hope to have all that straightened out when the transition period is over. Afterwards, the dominant department is in charge of the maintenance work.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: In addition to this question of maintenance there is the question of the allocation of buildings. For instance, if the dominant department in Fort Smith is the department of northern affairs, that department would then be responsible for the allocation of the buildings to the various other departments, so what chance would a post office employee stand of getting a house in Fort Smith? The department of northern affairs is naturally going to look after its own people first.
The same thing is true at Inuvik. I personally think that maintenance, allocation and similar functions should come under the control of the Department of Public Works, and if there was a policy laid down under which the Department of Public Works would allocate houses for use by the post office, the department of northern affairs, the Department of Transport and so on, that would work out a great deal better than this present system of the dominant department in any locality allocating the buildings. A case was

brought before me this year of a postmaster in Fort Smith who could not get a house because the department of northern affairs had given the house to a contractor who was doing some work for them. The house had been loaned to the contractor for the use of his personnel, while the postmaster in the same locality went without housing.


David James Walker: That is true. The hon. member is citing a case which was really an anomaly, and that situation has been corrected.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
340.	Improvements generally-Not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $500,000.
Maurice Bourget: Can the minister inform the committee how much of that amount of $700,000 was spent last year, how much was spent in Ottawa and how much was spent outside Ottawa? In connection with expenditures outside Ottawa would the minister be good enough to give the committee a breakdown of the amount spent on contracts between $15,000 and $25,000. I imagine the minister cannot give an answer to the last part of my question immediately, but perhaps he could supply me with a list tomorrow.


David James Walker: This vote covers general improvements in Ottawa. The work done in 1959-60 amounted to $241,808 and in places other than Ottawa, $347,075.


Maurice Bourget: Could the minister put on record the break-down of all contracts of $15,000 and over by provinces?


David James Walker: In Ottawa, the Booth street parking area-


Maurice Bourget: No, outside Ottawa.


David James Walker: Newfoundland:	Alterations
and addition to building 29, Buckmaster's field, St. John's, $19,346.
Nova Scotia: None over $15,000.
Quebec: St. Jacques de Montcalm-addition and alterations to federal building, $17,098; Wolfe's Cove-railway track (construction) $29,795.
Hull: National capital commission, paving, etc. $19,773.
Ontario: None.
Manitoba: Winnipeg-Customs examining warehouse-replacement of passenger elevator, $24,699.
Saskatchewan: None.
British Columbia: Vancouver-construction of underground power system at government laboratory, $75,573. I will omit the rest because they are under $15,000. Is that the information my hon. friend requires?
Supply-Public Works Mr. Bourgei: Yes, thank you. Can the minister tell the committee if tenders were called for all contracts over $15,000?


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings construction and services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amount required-
544. Outside Canada, $4,570,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this vote in the amount of $4,570,000 is for public buildings construction and services outside Canada. I take it from the details that it covers the Canadian government building on Grosvenor square, the old United States embassy which has been purchased and I believe renovated for use by Canadian government offices. My first question is this. What is now the total estimated cost of this building and the renovations?


David James Walker: Approximately $300,000 for alterations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wanted the total cost of the building and the alterations.


David James Walker: The total estimated cost of the building with alterations is $5,017,986.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is interesting, Mr. Chairman, because we had a considerable discussion last session about this building. The minister told us then that one great advantage of this site would be that it would save something over $1 million compared with the previous site which had been bought immediately behind Canada House in Trafalgar square and which was sold for the purchase price. The minister said at that time there would be a saving of more than $1 million and assured us that the total cost of the building and renovations would be $4,560,000. It was on that basis that the hon. gentleman estimated his savings. He now tells us that the total cost is going to be something over $5 million, I understand from the figure he has just given.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There would still be that differential, with the greatest respect to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the reasons the purchase price advanced was because there was a substantial increase in the value of the pound. Would my hon. friend like a break-down of the items?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not want to delay the committee to that extent. I just wanted to point out that half of the saving we were told last year would be made on this purchase has now disappeared.

Supply-Public Works I should also like the minister to tell us whether there are any flats or room still under lease in the building to some outside person or organization. In other words, have we possession of the whole of the building? I believe last year there were some flats in the building still belonging to the occupiers.


David James Walker: Not for the purpose of arguing, but in order to clarify the situation may I emphasize that even with these anticipated costs there will still be a saving to the Canadian people of an amount in excess of $1 million.
With respect to the second question there are still two tenants who have long term leases. They have agreed to move up to the top floor for which we have no immediate use. We will therefore have the use of all the rest of the building with the exception of the space occupied by these two tenants.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite true as the minister said that on the present estimate we are saving some money but I point out that perhaps next year some of this estimated saving will have gone just as $500,000 went during the current year.
I also should like to ask the minister if it is still the situation that if and when this building is completed-I am not sure whether it is not completed-it will house all the Canadian government offices in London except, of course, those of the Department of External Affairs which are at Canada House in Trafalgar square?


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has correctly stated the situation as I understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Item No. 333 was
left to stand. Shall we proceed with it?


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Public buildings construction and services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
333. Ottawa, $11,590,000.


David James Walker: This Riverside drive site development is not a building but a site development. It has to be done in separate stages each entirely distinct from the other. The first stage is the sanitary sewers. I was wondering what information is required on this. Does the hon. member want all the tenders or the name of the person who got the contract?


Maurice Bourget: The number of contracts, their nature, the price of each and the lowest tender.


David James Walker: On March 4, 1957 the treasury board agreed to enter into a contract amounting to $390,017.91 with Keystone Contractors Limited, Ottawa, for sewer and water distribution systems. That is the first. Then there is the second stage which involves different people in different kinds of work bearing no relation to the other. That is, the heating contract. The heating contract including concrete service tunnels was approved by treasury board on May 15, 1958 at which time authority was granted to accept the tender of Thomas Fuller Construction Company Limited at $856,658.50.
The third stage, again separate and distinct and related in no way to the others was the surface drainage stage. Treasury board on October 15, 1959 granted authority to enter into a contract with H. J. McFarland Construction Limited at $1,067,168.90, the lowest bid.
I need hardly say that in the majority of cases it is the lowest bid. It is always the lowest bid unless as I said before there is some case of either inefficiency in work or financial inadequacy or some unusual circumstance.
As a result of this, the H. J. McFarland Construction Company obtained the contract for the construction of storm sewers, grading roads and parking areas, concrete curbs and sidewalks, the placing of top soil and street lighting at the Riverside drive development.


Maurice Bourget: Was there any extra on any of those contracts?


David James Walker: I understand there were some very small ones where we made suggestions after the contract was under way.


Maurice Bourget: Can the minister give us the amount of the extras on each contract?


David James Walker: With respect to the Keystone contract amounting to $398,017.91, on the instructions of the Department of Public Works certain changes in layout were requested and the Keystone firm carried out these changes at an additional cost of $12,502.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
341.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,300,000, $42,463,000.
(Translation):
Mr. Boivin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), pursuant to the answer he gave on March 1, 1960, to a question put

Supply-Public Works
on the order paper by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget).
As reported on page 1628 of Hansard, the question of the hon. member for Levis read as follows:
What projects provided in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year 1959-60 will not be carried out during this fiscal year-
In reply to that question, the Minister of Public Works mentioned that nine contractors had answered the first call for tenders for interior painting in the Sherbrooke federal building. He also explained why there had been a second tender call. Those reasons are found on page 1629 of Hansard, and I quote:
First tender call cancelled as it was decided to carry out this project as part of the winter works program.
When the first tenders were called, the contract were awarded to the lowest bidder, Lajeunesse & Freres Inc., among a field of nine bidders. On the other hand, only three contractors made bids on the second call.
On March 14, 1960, as reported on page 2063 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Works, in reply to a question I put on the order paper, stated that only nine contractors had submitted tenders.
The strange thing to me, Mr. Chairman, is that in response to the first call, Mr. Romeo Paquet, who was awarded the contract after the second call, had submitted a bid for $25,668 and that, in response to the second call, he had lowered his bid to $23,485, there being a difference of $2,183 between the two tenders.
Stranger still, at the time of the first call, the Minister of Public Works had published a tender call in the Daily Commercial News, and outside contractors were among the nine tenderers. On the other hand, nothing appeared in the Daily Commercial News at the time of the second call for tenders because only three Sherbrooke contractors submitted tenders then. Lajeunesse & Freres Inc., who had submitted the lowest tender in response to the first call for tenders in the amount of $16,658.30, were not informed that the contract had not been awarded the first time, and were unaware of the second notice published in the paper.
Therefore, the Department of Public Works paid an additional amount of $6,826.60 for this job, and I should like a word of explanation.
(Text):


David James Walker: I understand the first tender was cancelled because it was decided that the work should come under the winter works program. We are working on plans at the present time to do that wherever we can, particularly as to inside work. We are going to see that our tender calls go out at a time to provide employment during the winter months when it is so much needed. We are sending to the office at Hog's Back to get the data in connection with the second tender call.


Marcel Boivin: I will let the item go by, but will the minister be kind enough to advise me if the second request for tenders was published in the same way as the first one?


David James Walker: I will find out.


Mr. Batten:: I have a problem I should like to bring to the attention of the minister under this item. Last year a new post office building was opened at Port au Port, Newfoundland. Incidentally, I should like to say it is too bad the plans for the building did not take into account the type of work that has to be done in the building. This is a distributing office and the space provided for mail storage is only about 50 per cent of what is required. I recognize that is a matter for the Post Office Department, but here is the point I wish to bring to the minister's attention.
A number of post office boxes have been placed in the lobby of the building. Obviously such boxes are only convenient to people if they can get their mail at any time of the day or at any reasonable time after the post office is closed. The people who have rented these boxes from the department live some considerable distance away on one side of the post office and work some considerable distance away on the other side. They want to collect their mail on their way home from work in the evening. If they were to leave work at 5.30 in the afternoon it is rather doubtful whether they would be able to get to the post office by six o'clock.
Another factor complicating the whole picture is the fact that the post office is operated on Newfoundland time which, as members well know, is based on the time within the western half of the time zone while Harmon air force base, the United States leased base in that part of Newfoundland, operates on the time within the full time zone which is half an hour slower than Newfoundland time. This means that these people using the post office boxes have half an hour less time in which to get to the post office.

Supply-Public Works
I complained to the post office about this, and asked if they could leave the post office open for another half-hour. They replied that they were unwilling to leave the post office open unless the caretaker was in charge of the building. The caretaker comes under the Minister of Public Works. I am not sure the hours the caretaker is working at the moment. If they were from four to six, perhaps if the hours were changed to five to seven the whole problem could be solved. I wonder if the minister would have a look at this problem so these people who paid money for the rental of post office boxes would get the service for which the boxes were intended.


David James Walker: I would be very happy to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
342.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $2,379,238.
Mr. Cardin:: The details for this item show that there was $1,332,000 for furnishings and furniture within Ottawa and for furnishings outside of Ottawa there is an item of a little over $1 million. I wonder if the minister could inform the committee whether or not there are any furnishings in that $1 million which would belong to the Department of External Affairs and which would be abroad?


David James Walker: In reply to my friend, I would say the purchases of furniture abroad are made by the Department of External Affairs. We have no control over them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Am I to understand there is nothing in this item to cover furnishings for the Department of External Affairs?


David James Walker: That is abroad, you mean?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.


David James Walker: There is nothing abroad.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister if the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Department of Public Works is now taking charge of the construction of embassies, not only in Europe but all over the world, will mean that a branch of the Department of Public Works will be established in Europe?


David James Walker: Yes, that is quite right. We are putting a senior person in London, and that will be a gradual transition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
343.	Work In the interests of fire prevention including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian joint fire prevention publicity committee, $186,753.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is an increase in this vote of $12,489. I presume this vote covers

the office of the dominion fire commissioner. Would the minister mind explaining the reason for the increase as well as the functions of the dominion fire commissioner? Is this purely organization for the gathering of statistics, and what is the relationship to provinces, municipalities and persons in unorganized territories?


David James Walker: The hon. member is quite right. The expenditure is for the dominion fire commissioner. I have the details here if my friend wants a break-down of the item. The duties of the fire commissioner are very extensive. He is the co-ordinating factor all across Canada who collects and collates information in connection with the prevention of fires. He also really acts as a liaison officer between the provinces and works very closely with them. He has the sole responsibility for fire prevention in my hon. friend's riding and the Northwest Territories.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have had a number of persons ask me this question, so I should like to suggest that in the next annual report of the dominion fire commissioner his duties be outlined so that people would have a good idea of them.


David James Walker: This is a very good suggestion which we would be glad to act upon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers engineering services- 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-
344.	Newfoundland, $5,627,500.
Herman Maxwell Batten: There are two or three points I should like to bring to the attention of the minister in connection with this matter. I should like first to refer to that part of northern Newfoundland which is known as the straits of Belle Isle from Flower's Cove north to Eddies Cove, where there are a number of fishing settlements on behalf of which I have made recommendations to the minister for marine construction. This area is populated by about 2,000 people. They are all fisherfolk. Some of the finest fishermen in the province come from there. Fishing is the only industry in the area. If these fishermen are going to carry on the industry in a manner which will provide them with a living they are going to have to be provided with those things which they are not able to provide for themselves.
In this section of Newfoundland I will agree that the cost of marine construction is a little higher than in other places where nature has been a little kinder. I am thinking

of places such as Poynes Cove, Green Island Cove and Green Island Brook. These are not the only places in this area but I know that all these places cannot be served at once. I would hope that attention could be given to these three places and perhaps the others could be looked after at a later date.
I am not too happy with the type of survey that has been made in this area. It is my belief that a little more attention should be paid to the situation in which these people find themselves. These men who are engaged in the fishery live on a very stormy coast. In order to carry on their trade they must use large boats. These boats are large and heavy and have to be launched every morning and hauled up every evening. The amount of work that goes into trying to protect their gear is sometimes much greater than the amount of work they put into the actual fishing industry. If these people were provided with breakwaters or wharves it would be much easier for them to go about their daily duties. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that I am a little concerned about the cursory type of investigation that is made in these places when recommendations are made for marine construction.
As I said before, I am well aware of the fact that construction in these areas will cost just a little bit more than it will cost in some areas farther south. However, I see no reason why that fact should preclude these people from being given the services to which they are justly entitled. I have submitted these recommendations to the minister and I shall, of course, be submitting them to him again. However, I would suggest that the minister instruct his officials to make a careful survey of what is required.
On a previous occasion I wrote the minister about this matter. He replied promptly and gave me the information and told me what the estimated cost of one of the projects would be. Although it is in northern Newfoundland, I visit this area every year and I have some knowledge of small boats, as has the Minister of Public Works.


David James Walker: But you do not get seasick.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I know what is required in these places. I would request that the minister instruct his officials who make these surveys to pay just a little bit closer attention to what is required.
May I now leave that section of my constituency and move on to another comparatively large fishing centre on the west coast of Newfoundland known as Parson's Pond. Parson's Pond is a land-locked harbour. The only entrance from inside is by way of the river which flows out and for many years fishermen in that area-and they are all
Supply-Public Works good fishermen-have been able to leave Parson's Pond by the mouth of the river and come back in the same way. We have arrived at the point where the river is beginning to silt and the fishermen are not able to leave the harbour now or get in except at half tide or higher.
I know the minister will recognize immediately the inconvenience to which these people are put when they are obliged to leave their homes and go to the fishing grounds and yet must gauge their time of going by the tide because, if the tide is not half up or higher, they are not able to get away. Again, having once reached the fishing ground they are obliged to gauge their time of return so that they will be able to get in at half tide or higher. What happens during a storm? There is no other place within seven or eight miles. If a storm comes up and they are obliged to get back from the fishing ground, if the tide is low they are not able to get into their own harbour.
I have made recommendations to the minister concerning Parson's Pond. Again he replied promptly to me. I hope that in the estimates for next year some provision will be made for dredging and the building of the necessary breakwaters at Parson's Pond.
Again I recognize the fact that this is not an easy problem to solve, as no doubt the minister has been advised by the officials in Newfoundland. I suspect that if it had been an easy problem to solve it would have been done long ago. I suspect it is one of those problems involving shifting sands and that it will require a good deal of survey work and, I suspect, a fair expenditure of money. However, I think Parson's Pond is a sufficiently important place for that expenditure to be made. I would again earnestly recommend to the minister that this work be undertaken.
I now move along to a third area and I want again, as I did just now, to refer to the Port au Port peninsula. The Port au Port peninsula is a peninsula on the west coast of Newfoundland which juts out into the gulf of St. Lawrence. Again it is not a very easy place in which to carry on marine construction and the building of harbours. However, there are one or two places here where some good work could be done. There has been some correspondence with the minister concerning Port au Port bay. I know that some surveys have been made here but nothing concrete has been decided upon.
I should like to point out that in an area of this type the decision as to whether or not work will be done should not be based upon the number of people in the area in

Supply-Public Works which the construction is going to be built but rather on the number of people in the area which that construction will serve. Right in the small fishing cove where the breakwater may be located there may not be any more that 20 families but this breakwater is going to serve not just those 20 families; it is going to serve 200 families in the area around there. Again I make representations to the minister for further consideration on behalf of the people of Port au Port bay.
Recently a statement was made or a rumour was started that work was going to be done in Port au Port bay this year; in fact, according to that statement, the work should have already been started. However, the minister has advised me that there was no substance to this rumour. On the Port au Port peninsula, Port au Port bay is not the only place where there could be marine construction. Again I would suggest to the minister that a careful survey be made and that some action be taken to provide for these people the wharves and breakwaters which they are undoubtedly unable to provide for themselves.
In conclusion, I should like to make some reference to the work that is being done at Codroy harbour. This is the third year during which work is being done on the breakwater at Codroy harbour. When the minister replies I should like him to let me know whether a contract has been let for the present summer, to whom the contract has been awarded and how the work there is progressing.
I have a complaint with regard to the work that was carried on in Codroy harbour last year. My complaint is this. The contractor came in and brought with him some men from outside. He also employed locally some men to do exactly the same work as that which was being done by the men from the outside. A case in point was that of truck drivers. At one period during this construction truck drivers were working more than eight hours a day or at least the trucks were running for more than eight hours a day. One man would operate the truck for eight hours, he would step out of the truck and another man would step in. What I do not understand about this matter is the fact that the men who belonged to Codroy harbour was paid one wage and the man who was brought in from outside and who was doing exactly the same work was paid another wage. I believe that this is a matter which the minister should look into. Last summer, while I was in St. John's, I took occasion to report this matter to the officials in the local office in Newfoundland but it was so late in the season that nothing

could be done about it then. I would hope that the same situation would not obtain during the present season. I would appreciate, however, some information from the minister with regard to the contract and what is being done during the present summer.


David James Walker: In connection with the dredging at Codroy, Newfoundland, may I say that a contract was entered into on June 10, 1960 granting authority for the dredging at the cost of $314,898, to J. P. Porter Company Limited. As far as the breakwater is concerned, no contract has been awarded.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sorry but I did not hear what the minister said.


David James Walker: No contract has been awarded with regard to the breakwater. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's has an excellent grasp of the problems of his riding. The Port au Port project is still under advanced planning consideration. With regard to Parson's Point we are co-ordinating and collecting information.
In connection with the other three areas mentioned initially, the hon. member appreciates the great problems involved there. There is no ingress or egress by way of roads yet and it is very difficult to make the development which the hon. member requests. But as he knows so well, we cannot do all Newfoundland in one year and our vote this year is up $1,390,300 from a year ago. In other words, we are spending $5,627,500 this year on these developments as opposed to $4,237,200 last year.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I recognize what the minister is saying regarding the expenditure of money, but I should also like to point out that while the increase for Newfoundland this year under harbours and rivers is in the amount of some $1,300,000, the amount of money that is being spent on harbours and rivers outside of St. John's is almost 50 per cent of what it was last year. The figure for last year under harbours and rivers outside of St. John's, according to the estimates, was $3,107,200, while this year the amount to be spent is only $1,770,000. I agree with the minister that it is hard to do all these things and certainly they cannot all be done at the same time; but these are important problems and I would ask the minister to give them his special attention.
May I again refer to Port au Port bay. The minister stated that some survey is being made there and that plans are being considered. Is he able to give me any information as to whether or not a site has been selected?


David James Walker: No site has been selected but they are still considering the very well known Irish name of Piccadilly. Is that the information you required?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, thank you very much.


David James Walker: Is that a satisfactory site?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
345.	Nova Scotia, $3,036,000.
Mr. Robichaud:: We now have under consideration a group of items which come under harbours and rivers engineering services. I am seriously concerned about the fact that the total amount available for this group for the development of harbours and rivers is reduced this year by $6,684,300. The item we now have under consideration dealing with the province of Nova Scotia shows a decrease of $2,379,500.
I want to repeat what I said yesterday on the first item, that very serious consideration should be given by the department to construction of the type we now have, namely construction of wharves and the development of harbours to provide facilities for fishermen in order to increase their operations and provide additional shore help. I know the government is concerned with the problem of unemployment, but this is a case where something can be done. This is an opening for the government, with co-operation between the departments of fisheries, labour and public works, to have development which would provide additional employment.
I ask the minister to give this matter very serious consideration. I know that public buildings are needed and they will provide employment during construction, but when a wharf is built or a breakwater is constructed in a fishing community it provides facilities for the fishermen to increase their production.
On this item I have one or two questions I would like the minister to answer. On page 456 of the blue book I notice an amount of $260,000 to complete the breakwater at Port Hood. Could the minister advise the committee what part of the amount voted last year, $280,000, has been spent to date? Also, have tenders been called and contracts awarded for this construction?


David James Walker: During the last fiscal year $25,000 was expended and the contract was awarded under date of June 16, 1960, when the treasury board granted authority to enter into a contract amounting to $342,000 with the Chisholm Construction Company Limited of Antigonish for the construction of a breakwater at Port Hood. I should add that this was a low bid. Does that answer the question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister advise the committee if that was the only time tenders were called, or were tenders called before and then cancelled afterward and, if so, for what reason?
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: The first tender called was cancelled after they started to work because the Foundation Maritimes Limited who had the contract originally got into considerable trouble and we had to cancel it. Fortunately the second contract called resulted in lower tenders and, as I say, the Chisholm Construction Company Limited was granted the contract with the lowest tender of $342,000.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister inform the committee what was the amount paid to the first contractor, Foundation Maritimes Limited, and why was the contract cancelled after the work had been started?


David James Walker: I will look that up. In the
meantime might I answer the question asked by hon. member for Levis about the staff in Montreal city area only. In the year 195960 the number of personnel in the district architects office was seven, and in 1960-61, nine. In the property and building management office in the year 1959-60 there were 574, and this year there is a decrease in the number employed to 546. In the supervisors and foremen's office, in 1959 there were 26 and there are still 26 employed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: While the minister is getting the answer to my last question, I understood this was a contract for the construction of a breakwater between the island of Port Hood and the mainland. Could the minister also advise the committee if any correspondence has been entered into between his department and the province of Nova Scotia about the construction of a causeway to link the island to the mainland? Because I recall that two or three years ago, previous to the 1958 election, one of the members of the cabinet of the present government in a pre-election speech promised solemnly that if the government were returned a causeway to link Port Hood to the mainland would be constructed by the federal government.


David James Walker: Yes, there was considerable discussion as to that. However, they dropped the causeway; we did not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
347.	New Brunswick, $2,187,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: On this item, again I wish to draw to the attention of the committee that there is a reduction this year of $2,901,000 at a time when such constructions are urgently needed in New Brunswick. Yesterday I referred to three projects in my own constituency of Gloucester. I had in mind the extension of a wharf at Maisonnette, the

Supply-Public Works construction of a new wharf at Lower Cara-quet to replace one which was washed away in a storm in 1958, and the request of the fishermen at Pigeon Hill for the construction of a wharf. I want to make reference again to the need for the consideration of a shelter for the fishermen at Pigeon Hill. We have there 51 boats and more than 100 fishermen whose landings amount to over $100,000 in value per fishing season. I would like to ask the minister to advise the committee what progress is being made toward reaching a favourable conclusion with regard to providing the fishermen of Pigeon Hill with adequate facilities.


David James Walker: The matter is under review.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
348.	Quebec, $4,006,300.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I see that this covers the repair of retaining walls at Cap de la Madeleine, St. Jean, St. Laurent and Tracy. Does this mean that the Department of Public Works is ready to provide retaining walls wherever they are needed?


David James Walker: The rule is that a retaining wall is given where the erosion is caused by commercial navigation or a federal structure.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is a continuation of the same policy which was established by Mr. Winters, I believe.


David James Walker: I think the hon. member is right.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Prior to that, retaining walls were granted where there were navigable waters even though navigation was not the main cause of the erosion. In the light of the minister's reply I have to take notice of the fact that it is only in cases of heavy navigation that the Department of Public Works will contribute to the building of retaining walls. I was always under the impression that the law said "navigable" and not "navigated", and I wonder whether the minister would not agree, since he is a lawyer, to make a new study of this question to see whether the interpretation made by Mr. Winters, who was an engineer and not a lawyer, was the correct one. I am told that the expression is "navigable waters" and not "navigated waters". I should be interested if the minister, having studied this matter, would tell us what he intends to do in the future; whether he intends to accept the law as it is written, or change the wording of the law from "navigable waters" to "navigated waters".


David James Walker: One can tell that the hon. member for Hull is also a lawyer. He and I will have to sit down and have a pow-wow on that. It involves the interpretation of the British North America Act and other things.


Lionel Chevrier: And smoke a pipe of peace?


David James Walker: I have been puffing hard on that for several days, and I am not smoked out yet. However, I would be very happy to discuss this. I think the policy arrived at by Hon. Mr. Winters, for whom I have great respect, was a very reasonable one in the circumstances, particularly in the light of the constitutional obligation of the dominion as distinct from the provinces.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I raise this question because after this decision was taken by Mr. Winters we went to the provincial government to try to get help in this matter and the attorney general of the provincial government of the province of Quebec-I do not know about any of the other provinces-said this was the responsibility of the federal government because, he said, the law states "navigable waters" and not "navigated waters". So this becomes a problem for the municipal authorities who are not responsible in any way whatsoever and who have to carry the cost of these projects. That is the reason why I am again taking up this matter.
I insisted on my point of view as against that of Mr. Winters, and I shall persist until an understanding is reached at least between the provincial and federal governments on this matter. Since the law says "navigable waters" I believe this is the responsibility of the federal government. I admit some lawyers say that the bed of the river is the responsibility of the provinces, but if the bed has been changed by erosion, then who is responsible for that erosion which has affected the bed of the river which is the property of the provincial government? This is a nice question to study, and that is why I have asked the minister to do so.
I do not expect he will be able to give me a definite answer today, but I do not believe the decision of Mr. Winters was altogether fair when there is such a marked difference in the interpretation of the law as between the two senior levels of government.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether I am in order in discussing this matter at this time, but I presume the vote we are considering now is one which has to do with harbours and rivers engineering services, and also with the dredging activities of the department. My understanding is that the Department of Public Works is responsible for dredging activity in all parts of Canada except those

which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport through the national harbours board. If I am right in that, I take it that the Department of Public Works proceeds in two ways: first, it does the work with its own equipment in certain areas and, second it does the work by means of private contractors in other areas. I should like to know what the policy of the department is for the future. Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to impinge or enter upon the field of private contracting?
My purpose in asking that, of course, as the minister will know, is that in one region of Canada, on the west coast, it has been decided by the government to build a hopper dredge at considerable cost. I should like to ask a series of questions but first would the minister be good enough to tell me why the department has decided to do this in one area of Canada and if it is the intention to proceed in this fashion in other parts of Canada?


David James Walker: In reply to my hon. friend, as he knows the government believes in private enterprise. This department intends to continue to have tenders called for contracts wherever it can. There is no question but that it is preferable in matters of this kind to call tenders. We feel that in the long run it saves money for the Canadian taxpayer. We are not intending to impinge on our practice of having tenders called from private entrepreneurs to complete our contracts.
As the hon. member for Laurier who had great experience with the Department of Transport and also as head of the St. Lawrence seaway knows, there are often situations where private enterprise cannot make the grade. It does not pay them to attempt to make the grade in the first place because they are lacking in the equipment required. I know that the hon. member would not expect me at this time to repeat the arguments I made with respect to the dredge which we are having built for use on the west coast. In fact, I have forgotten most of the details of the arguments I used in previous discussions.
Suffice it to say that the Fraser estuary is a particularly difficult matter. It requires that the channel be kept clear for navigation and special and considerable attention must be devoted to it. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, it also requires special equipment. On a previous occasion in another place we attempted to use private enterprise for doing the type of work required on the Fraser estuary and the company was able to supply satisfactory equipment. Private enterprise is always willing to say, "Yes, we can do it," but
Supply-Public Works as a matter of fact no private company in British Columbia has the proper equipment required to do an adequate job on the Fraser estuary.
By the way, what the government has done in this respect does not represent a change in policy. Because our present dredge is rapidly reaching the time when we will have to dispose of it we have ordered this new dredge to take its place when it is completed. We did so unwillingly particularly this year when we are attempting to balance the budget. We disliked the idea of making such a capital investment or even the initial expenditure required for this year. I can assure my hon. friend there is no change in the government's policy. We do have to do certain dredging ourselves but wherever we can conveniently do so we try to have tenders called so there can be universal bids with the lowest bidder getting the contract.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a few more questions in this connection. Has the minister not found in so far as that particular area is concerned that it is much cheaper to have the work done by private enterprise than by a government-owned dredge, particularly this one which is being built at considerable cost and as alleged by certain informants is being built in large part with foreign equipment? Is it not a fact that the cost of these dredging operations in the estuary of the Fraser river done by the government's hopper dredge will be more expensive than if they were done by private contractors?


David James Walker: I believe my hon. friend broached similar questions to me when we were debating this matter during the winter months. The answer is this. Here it is a hypothetical question because we cannot obtain a hopper dredge to do the work in the Fraser estuary from any private company because they just do not have the equipment. We need a hopper dredge in the Fraser. We find it is needed. No other equipment is satisfactory. We therefore had to build our own dredge because private enterprise did not have the equipment. As a result of building the dredge we have security and are able to face any storm. We can do the work quickly. Dredging is a constant problem in that area. Although we would have liked to have used private enterprise we could not do so because of the impossibility of gettting the proper equipment.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has not answered my question. The information I have is that it is less costly to dredge by private companies than it is by government operation. The minister will remember that the fleet of the Department of Transport many years ago was sold to private enterprise

Supply-Public Works because it was too costly to operate. That sale I believe has proved the point I am trying to make now that when the government decided to give dredging work to private contractors it was much less costly, at least in the area I have in mind, the St. Lawrence.
I do not want to pursue this problem unduly but let me return to a matter that interests me at the moment. As the minister knows, there are four areas in the Fraser river, Buoy 0-6, Steveston cut, Tilbury range and Annieville channel, which are advertised for tenders each year through private bids but the excavation in area 1 and area 2, that is Buoy 0-6 and Steveston cut, are always done by the Department of Public Works hopper dredge. I am informed, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that the cost of dredging the two areas I have mentioned would be substantially less to the department if the work were given to private enterprise.


David James Walker: I do not think I can make a comparison here between the cost of private enterprise and the cost of the government dredging this particular part of the Fraser estuary which in recent years has always been done by the hopper dredge because we have not been able to get a tender inasmuch as private companies do not have the equipment that we require.
In other words, if we could get a tender from them we would be glad to give them the work. As a matter of fact, they are always willing to undertake anything but our experience with one company a short time ago resulted not only in their making an unholy mess of the job they should not have undertaken to do but it resulted in their making a substantial claim against the government for reimbursement for the tremendous loss which they sustained.


Lionel Chevrier: I have here the tenders that were bid by private enterprise for dredging the four areas.


David James Walker: Excuse me. I do not want to interrupt but to clarify my thinking would the hon. member tell me whether the equipment to be used was a hopper dredge?


Lionel Chevrier: I am dealing exclusively now with the hopper dredge as opposed to private enterprise equipment. My statement is that I have in my hand the tenders that were submitted by private enterprise for these four areas. Although the prices were found satisfactory for areas 3 and 4, the Tilbury range area and the Annieville channel areas and the contracts were given to private enterprise, in the case of the other two areas, Steveston cut and Buoy 0-6, the work was


done by the hopper dredge that the department now has in operation, not the new one under construction, of course. From the information I have it would appear that the prices of the private contractors were lower.


David James Walker: I guess I failed to make my point clear. I do not know of any comparison that could be made because none of the bids to which my friend has reference includes the use by the private company of their own hopper dredge. There is no such thing on the west coast. Therefore I am unable to answer my friend's question although I should like to answer it very much. Let us suppose it is more expensive. We have no alternative other than to have our own dredge because no private company has made any bid involving the use of a hopper dredge or has suggested that we should make tender calls which would involve the use of a hopper dredge.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that they have the equipment and that equipment is idle.


David James Walker: Hopper dredge equipment?


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is that the specifications for the new dredge call for a capacity of 40,000 cubic yards per week based on the department's normal five-day single shift operation. The private dredge contractors operate their dredges 24 hours per day, seven days per week. On this basis they are able to do the work with similar or as efficient equipment in one seventh to one third of the time required by the new dredge. That is really the matter that I wished to bring to the attention of the minister. The department has decided to purchase a new dredge at considerable cost, $3,000,000 or $3,200,000, I believe, whereas there is equipment available which is now idle. I am wondering whether the departmental officers and the minister have given consideration to these two operations and whether it would not be in the interests of the taxpayers to consider more fully the inviting of tenders by private enterprise.


David James Walker: One of the exigencies is that there is no guarantee there will be no squalls, no rain, no storms. We have to keep the channel clear at all times. Our experience is that the dredges owned by private enterprise on the west coast cannot possibly fulfil this need because as soon as a storm is brewing they have to run for cover. We have got to keep the channel open because there is a great city involved and we must do the job quickly and efficiently. I repeat for the fourth time, although I am glad to do so because I know my friend wants me to make the position clear to him, that no equipment

yet devised other than a hopper dredge can do this work. Therefore, since no private company on the west coast has a hopper dredge we are bound, with great reluctance, to build our own dredge in order to ensure the continuity of this very important operation.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the minister will not think I am pressing this unduly.


David James Walker: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: I know he has repeated his answer several times, and I understand the decision which the departmental officials have taken. However, I would ask the minister to comment on this. The information I have is that the cost of doing the work by private enterprise is 45 cents per cubic yard compared with $1.07 per cubic yard for the operation by the Department of Public Works.
What leads me to bring this matter to the attention of the minister is the experience we had in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway. On the United States side-I am not dealing now with the Canadian side-the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the United States entity, found that the prices submitted by private enterprise at that time were too high and decided to bring in their own dredge from the Panama canal at great cost. They came to the conclusion afterward that, notwithstanding the high tender submitted by a great lakes dredging corporation on the United States side of the line, in the long run it was much less expensive than their own operation using dredging equipment brought all the way from the Panama canal. The information I have is that the cost in the case of the private contractor is 45 cents per yard in this instance as opposed to $1.07 for the operation by the Department of Public Works.


David James Walker: We have no such figures. However, I am happy to agree with the general thesis of the hon. member that when private enterprise is employed by the government to do general dredging operations it is less expensive to the government in the long run than using its own dredges. That is so in connection with so many other things. That is why the government is as popular as it is, because it has recognized that to be a reality. My friend has expressed the situation very well.
However, with regard to this particular operation, as he knows happens in so many other avenues of life, the time comes when the government has to step in and supply its own equipment. True, it may be more expensive, though not to the degree which my hon. friend has suggested, but still we have to bear the extra expense to get the service,
Supply-Public Works a service which in this particular instance cannot be obtained from private enterprise.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to a matter which is akin to the one just mentioned. As the minister knows, and as hon. members from the Vancouver area will know, when I was on the other side of the house the question of whether the department should consider the provision of a fireboat for that area was discussed. I know that at one time the Department of Transport, through the national harbours board, did have some sort of arrangement. I am not too clear about the facts. There was, I know, satisfaction on the one hand and criticism on the other. Since the department operates quite a fleet oi equipment in that area, I wondered if the Department of Public Works had given any consideration to the provision of a fireboat for the protection of its own equipment and for the protection of the shipyards in that area.
It may be true that this is considered to be a municipal responsibility. On the other hand, I believe the municipality, in the days I was on the other side of the house, felt that the expense was much too great. I believe representations have been made to the Department of Public Works in that respect. Has any decision been arrived at? Is there any possibility of fireboat equipment being provided in that area?


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have been asked by the newspapers out there or the Liberal association, I am not sure which, to supply a fireboat. We have considered the matter. We have considered our responsibility in connection with it, and it is strictly not a matter within the purview of the Department of Public Works. Our answer, therefore, was no.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: There is an item of $167,000 for dredging in Sorel. I wonder whether the minister could inform me as to where that dredging is to take place?


David James Walker: This amount is required for dredging near the Sorel docks to provide sufficient draught for the manoeuvring of large ocean-going ships which need a large area in order to swing into their regular course in the main channel.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I want to thank the minister for that, and I think it is a very worthy project, something that has been needed for some time.
I wonder whether the minister could give consideration to a request that was made on behalf of the fishermen who live in the

Supply-Public Works small village of Ste. Anne de Sorel. I understand that earlier this spring they made a request to the government that the main channel within the island of Sorel be dredged in order that they might more easily be able to go into the deeper water for their fishing operations. The village is small and the people who live there more or less depend upon fishing for their livelihood. They do a business of some $200,000 or $300,000 a season. It has been difficult for them to get out into the deeper water. I hope it will be possible for the government to effect this dredging as early as possible, which I understand would not be a very expensive operation.


David James Walker: We would be glad to look at that again.


Maurice Bourget: I see an item for $25,000 for a shed at Cap aux Meules. Is that shed for the use of the department or is it to be rented to other people?


David James Walker: This amount is required for the construction of a shed for the protection of freight unloaded on the wharf and awaiting removal. In order to get back our money, there will be a wharfage charge.


Maurice Bourget: Is it a wharfage charge or a charge at so much per square foot?


David James Walker: I guess I went a step too far. This will be under the Department of Transport, but nevertheless they will be making a wharfage charge. They have their own inimitable rules and I am not sure which of the rules will apply to this particular wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
349.	Ontario, $8,662,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Naturally, we are delighted, in a year when the department reduces its expenditures by over $6 million in this field, to find they have increased their expenditures so markedly at the lakehead. We are going to receive the benefit this year of well over half the expenditure in Ontario for these items. I should like to express, both for myself and the Liberal member for Fort William, our appreciation at this action by the minister's department.
However, I wanted to turn to something with which I believe the minister has already dealt and that is the question of the Moosonee survey, for which there is $50,000 under this item. There was a story in the Globe and Mail of May 3, 1960, in which Brian Boyd of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys who was working on the survey stated it was not a matter of what cannot be done, it was just a matter of what you wanted done and how much you want to pay. The only question is how deep you want to draw. In other


words, one of the men who has been in there, and who is extremely enthusiastic about this scheme, seems to indicate that it is just a question of cost.
I have a suspicion about this Moosonee project which was suggested in 1959 by Premier Frost. The minister will recall that 1959 was an election year. It does not do to be too skeptical of a successful politician like Mr. Frost, so I think we should follow this Moosonee matter carefully. How soon can the minister give us an estimate of the cost of the project for turning Moosonee on James bay into an ocean port? How soon will we have the data that will enable the government to determine the cost?
I ask these questions, Mr. Chairman, because I would not like the project to disappear until Mr. Frost's next election year. I think we should know, since we are spending $50,000 this year, at least within the next 18 months or two years what problems are ahead. The people of northern and northwestern Ontario are fed up with these visionary ideas that are always being postponed for feasibility studies and surveys. I think we deserve to know within the next year and a half at least whether it is worth while going ahead or whether the cost is far beyond practicality. The minister will recall the south Saskatchewan dam. We even had a royal commission on that project. Another government that followed decided it was worth going ahead with. I think we need to know as soon as possible just what the Moosonee port development is likely to cost and whether it is a practical all-weather port. I should appreciate hearing from the minister now, especially in the light of his enthusiastic comment about one of the surveyors.


David James Walker: I had no idea that the riding of the hon. member for Port Arthur extended up that far.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should just like to point out that my riding runs right up to James bay.


David James Walker: I can assure my hon. friend that in the mind of Premier Frost this is no vision. He is enthusiastic about it. He was so enthusiastic that he induced us-and I obtained the consent of the Prime Minister- are willing to contribute $50,000, period. As to go along with an expenditure which we fixed. It is not any pro rata amount- We to a very real engineering study, may I say that that is going on at the present time. Some data was gathered this last winter and a great deal of data will be gathered this summer. For this particular engineering study the province is, of course, also putting up $50,000. But when all this information is

gathered-and it is not nearly as complicated as the Prince Edward Island causeway; they have not the same problems at all-we hope to give the matter study during the fall and winter and it should not be too long after that time before there is a report. That is the information I have at the present time.
The survey will greatly assist in determining the potentialities of Moosonee as an ocean port and the study will include a study of the possibility of the transshipping of iron ore from Belcher island and Great Whale river to the port of Moosonee. Premier Frost has tremendous enthusiasm about this matter and feels that it would be a great industrial boom in the future, particularly to the north country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know that Premier Frost is so enthusiastic that I believe he stated that if the federal government will not come in, Ontario is almost prepared to go it alone. I appreciate having the statement of the minister. I should just like to have from him the assurance that since this is a joint survey there will be no prejudice to members of this house obtaining information at the same time as the provincial people. We have had examples of the provinces, in a bilateral survey situation, making the announcement when members of this house have not had the information. I point out to the minister that this has happened under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in connection with their road program where the provincial people had the information and were broadcasting it at a time when it was being denied to us. I should like to remind the minister of that fact.
The other point is that in this story from this enthusiastic surveyor he says this:
Surveys have shown that James bay is open water all winter only 15 miles north of the mouth of Moose river. That means it could be an allweather port, with icebreakers having only 15 miles to break through,-
This speculation about its being a winter port and only 15 miles of icebreaking raises all kinds of spectres. I think the minister knows the quandary that the Department of Transport and its minister are in as far as icebreaking in the gulf of St. Lawrence is concerned. There are some people who are willing to argue that we could have icebreaking on the great lakes and keep shipping open into the lakehead, for example, at least two or three months more a year. I know that this aspect of the survey and the recommendations will create interest in much more than the Moosonee area. If one of the contingencies of going ahead is that you are going to be obliged to have icebreaking to make this an all-weather port, then I think
Supply-Public Works the government will have to keep in mind the problem of the St. Lawrence gulf ports and right up to Montreal and would also have to keep in mind the problems of some of the lake ports that could stand icebreaking for long parts of the year.
This is perhaps getting away ahead of things but I like to anticipate difficulty. Since the government has shown some hesitation about what it is doing in the gulf and the river St. Lawrence in so far as icebreaking is concerned, I thought it was worth while to mention it to the minister now.


John Richard Garland: I should like to mention briefly three items that affect my riding. One of them is really national in its scope. First of all, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation on behalf of the people of Nipissing for the degree of co-operation received from the minister, the deputy minister and officials in the engineering branch, for their co-operation in handling an extremely difficult situation this spring and summer arising from the high waters in the French river, lake Nipissing, the Sturgeon river and in fact in the entire area.
Without going into detail, may I say that our problem arises-as it does in so many areas throughout the country-from the fact that during the last 50 years the forests have been stripped away through lumbering operations and the clearing of the land for farming and so on.
Naturally spring run-offs and excessive rainfall are no longer held by the watershed but rush quickly through the rivers and streams into lake Nipissing. To further aggravate the situation we have an understandable problem from the fact that the federal government through its engineering branch controls the outflow from lake Nipissing while the inflow is used and controlled by Ontario hydro, the Ontario department of land and forests, private companies and, in some cases, even farmers. There are three dams which control the outflow from lake Nipissing into the French river and which can handle more water than the French river can take. This complex river system has 17 different water levels which must be taken into consideration when planning the removal of any of the several natural chokes that exists in the French river between lake Nipissing and the Georgian bay.
The officials of the department generously agreed to look into this matter again this year. They came to North Bay and sat down with a group of interested people from French river, lake Nipissing and in fact from the whole watershed area. Method was agreed to there by the co-operation of all parties concerned that alleviated the current flooding
6708	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works situation. It was also agreed by the department to conduct a survey of the French river in order to determine once and for all whether some of these natural chokes could be removed. I understand that a survey is going to get under way probably in August of this year. If the survey shows, as those who know the area best feel it will, that it is practical and not too expensive to remove these natural chokes, I would hope that this will be done.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was in the process of thanking the minister, and through him his officials, for the efficient and co-operative manner in which they worked with the people of my area and myself during the flooding which was occasioned there earlier this year. I should like to thank the officials for coming to North Bay at the time I suggested and sitting down with the people from North Bay, the lake-shore area, Sturgeon Falls and the whole area generally and working out together a solution to the emergency which existed at that time.
I should also like to thank the minister for the decision to carry out a survey as was requested of the French river system to determine if some of the natural chokes there could be removed. I know the officials are very much aware of the problems. There are 17 different water levels in the French river, and to remove some of these chokes might cause mud flats in some areas. This is a fear which exists and I am sure nothing will be done which would envisage bringing about a situation of that kind. The French river district is very popular, and of course any plans for the future must not interfere with the wildlife and the fish conservation in that area.
At this time I should like to place on record the situation which exists on the Ottawa river, and in particular in the Mat-tawa area. This is a matter about which I have corresponded with the minister and his officials for some time. It is a situation which was created when the Ontario hydro built the dams on the Ottawa river. The operation of the dam at Timiskaming and others farther north by the Department of Public Works gives the department a very serious responsibility in this connection.
At Mattawa and in the immediate area a few miles below Mattawa on the Ottawa river
	.

there are again two natural chokes and also a slide from the Quebec side from the bank which has interfered with the normal flow of water. I was pleased this year when the department agreed to have an official visit the area where some examination was made and I understand they will be revisiting the area during the summer for the purpose of determining whether a solution can be found in this regard.
While we are in the Mattawa area I should like to refer to another matter which I brought to the attention of the minister and that is the government dock there. This is a project which we had approved prior to this government coming into office, and I am glad to say that the minister's predecessor complied with the request at that time and constructed the dock. However, perhaps he would permit me to say that it was a rather conservative dock. It was a little on the small side, and I would hope that now that the dock has to be repaired as a result of the high water in the river earlier this year the department will take this opportunity to make an extension or a more liberal addition to that dock. We have had correspondence with the minister and I hope this will be done very soon.
There is also the matter of the wharf at North Bay for which a substantial amount of money is provided in the estimates this year, for which the people in our area are very grateful. This is an important wharf, growing in importance each year, and if the minister would, I merely want him to confirm the fact that this work will be carried out this fall and winter in an effort to create employment during that particular season of the year. This is my understanding and I know that people in our area would be pleased if the minister would confirm this understanding this evening.
Another matter to which I should like to refer briefly is the matter of interference to navigation occasioned by what I call the misuse of Canadian rivers by certain lumber operators. When I say that I am in no way condemning operators in general; in fact, it is the exception rather than the rule. But this is a very real problem in our area and one which I have mentioned on several occasions in this house, in particular in 1956 when the Navigable Waters Protection Act was amended, and again in 1958. This situation is aggravated by what I call the lack of teeth in the Navigable Waters Protection Act itself, and I think I should outline the problems very briefly. I will refer to what has been done in the past and will suggest what in my opinion is the solution.
The problem is occasioned during the spring drive when lumber operators very often farm

out the job of moving the logs to their mills, and this is particularly true in my own area on the Sturgeon river. It is not my intention to go into detail tonight as I have on other occasions by mentioning the firms involved. Some are most co-operative, some are not. In moving these logs on the river, very often it is done with little or no regard to the people using the river in a normal way for navigation purposes. I refer to people such as tourist operators and boat owners and people in the area generally who use these waters. This has resulted in a very serious loss of business to tourist operators and businessmen generally in our area.
In the past, when these circumstances occurred, the local businessmen and tourist operators would complain to their chamber of commerce or town council who in turn got in touch with the offending firm. Sometimes some co-operation was given, and sometimes not. On many occasions this matter came to the attention of the member of parliament who in turn got in touch with the Department of Public Works and the engineering branch. Officials would visit the area, and by that time perhaps nature, or the feeling that some inquiry was going to be made, would cause the situation to be corrected by the offending firm.
This has been going on for the past 40 years in the area of which I am speaking and it is the result of the lack of teeth in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is understandable because that act is divided into two parts. The first part comes under the Department of Public Works. It has to do with projects in or under or connected with navigable waters. Part II is concerned with navigation and the use to which the waters may be put. Very often this leads to confusion, and when people go to the Minister of Transport they are referred to the Minister of Public Works and vice versa.
This has been going on for many years, and in 1958, and prior to that, I suggested that an interdepartmental committee be set up of the officials of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport to study this very real problem and to suggest, I hoped, a solution. I am pleased to say that this committee was set up following my request, and I am also pleased to note that last year, I think it was on June 18, they met in the town of Sturgeon Falls with members of the town council, the chamber of commerce, boat operators and tourist camp operators, and I think some very interesting information was put on the record at that time.
But what has happened since? I should like the minister to comment on the activities of this committee and if possible to tell us
Supply-Public Works what are the government's intentions in this regard. In my words now I am not complaining about the lack of activity on the part of this committee. This committee did go to Sturgeon Falls and meet the people there, but officials of the department cannot move without direction, and I would hope that between the two ministries concerned consultations can be held at the top level in the hope of reaching some satisfactory solution. Either some teeth should be put into the Navigable Waters Act by amending it, or it should be scrapped and this entire responsibility placed with the Department of Transport.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for Nipissing. I would have spoken at greater length, but he has taken about 17 minutes so I shall confine myself to about three. The hon. member has gone over the situation very thoroughly. We were happy to have his assistance during the flooding on lake Nipissing. Our engineers, including our chief engineer, found his advice very helpful. We are making a survey downstream of the French river dam and we hope to obtain satisfactory results. As to the Ottawa river at Mattawa, I can assure the hon. member that we shall repair the dock at Mattawa. Work on the dock at North Bay will commence this fall. As much work as we can do we shall do in the winter but, as the hon. member knows, an area such as North Bay is not a very comfortable one in which to work outside during the winter. But we will do whatever work during winter that it is possible to carry out.
Finally, much as I should like to oblige the hon. member in respect to what he said about navigable waters and the shipping of logs, this has no reference to my department where we are concerned about the effect of construction on navigable waters. The shipping of logs is something which the hon. member might take up with the Department of Transport. That is the summary of my reply to the hon. member's comments, and I hope it is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
354. Remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation, or federal government structures: and the completion of protection works already under way, $700,000.
Mr. Legere:: My first words here tonight will be to extend my sincere gratitude to the Minister of Public Works for the interest he has always evidenced whenever I have brought problems to his attention and also, through him, to extend my gratitude on behalf of my constituents to the departmental officials who have always shown me wonderful co-operation.

Supply-Public Works
In so doing they have given birth to a lot of new structures. They have added that little something to structures which were not as satisfactory as they should have been and in the ultimate an adequacy to the whole that has been very beneficial to the fishermen throughout my constituency. I should like to add my commendation for the institution of rock ballast as a wave breaker throughout the riding of Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare.
As hon. members know, we are from a province that is known as the ocean's proud playground that juts out into the Atlantic and therefore is subject to the onslaught of the ocean at its worst. Heavy seas roll in whenever we have storms. A lot of these breakwaters at which in the past could not safely moor fishing boats are now made safe for the mooring of these craft.
The dredging program has been one to which the Department of Public Works has devoted a great deal of interest and cooperation. Breakwaters that in the past were commonly known as highwater passages are now navigable at low tides. I do not have sufficient words at my command to express the gratitude of the people who have to make use of these breakwaters. I sincerely hope that this program will be continued in the years to come.
If I may be permitted to do so I should like to make a suggestion concerning what I might call secondary protection to some of the breakwaters that are located throughout my area. As some hon. members will know there are two varieties of damaging seas, one that comes from a ground swell and the other that derives from a choppy sea. The location of the breakwater governs whether the threat exists on the western or eastern shore and the threat is entirely dependent on the direction of the wind. We have rock talus that prevents the ground swell but in most cases the wharves are left wide open to the northeast wind that kicks up a tremendous choppy sea and can do considerable damage to any of the boats moored at these breakwaters. There may be as many as 20 or 30 boats moored at the same time. It can readily be appreciated that in the event of a northeast gale in certain areas the protection is not as adequate as it should be.
As a remedial suggestion may I suggest that piling be driven at specific intervals. I leave the spacing of the piling to the discretion of the engineers. Planking should be added to low water mark so that when the tide rises in the event of these gales the boats will be fully protected. They are not safe today in the event of a shift of wind, these shifts being prevalent in our part of Nova Scotia. The


danger is particularly great if the crisis occurs when people are sleeping. These could be made absolutely safe at small cost to the department and the government.
I have presented bouquets of thanks to the minister and his departmental officials but I feel I would be remiss in my duty and not fully representing the interests of the people of the Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare constituency if I were not to pluck one little petal and offer it to an hon. member who I see is not in his seat this evening. I refer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He deserves this tribute for the interest he evinced the other day in the Yarmouth public wharf, a project that has been in the minds of the people there since confederation and which thanks to the alertness of this government has now reached the planning stage. I am happy to say that a site has been purchased and following the announcement made in this chamber 45,000 cubic yards of fill have been removed from the site itself.
Perhaps I may be permitted to advance another suggestion concerning contracts and their award. Throughout my period of time in the House of Commons I have observed that contracts are sometimes late in being awarded. This causes considerable inconvenience to the contractors and to the fishermen as well. Perhaps I may offer a word in clarification of this.
As some hon. members may be aware the height of the lobster fishing season in my part of Nova Scotia, which is district No. 4, begins on December 1 and ends on June 1. Through personal experience I have found that some of these contracts are awarded late in the summer or early in the fall. As I say this is a matter of great inconvenience. The contractor moves in. Sometimes he has to motor 20 miles from the mainland transporting his equipment only to find that the gales that are so prevalent in the fall season prevent him from doing the work he should do. Should the weather by a freak of nature be different from what it ordinarily is, he commences his work. Nevertheless this presents a great deal of inconvenience to the fishermen who wish to start operations on December 1. That period of the year might be described as the klondike season for the autumn lobster fishermen. I would therefore suggest that if it is possible the Department of Public Works should make every possible effort to award contracts early in the month of June so that the projects will be well under way when the lobster season arrives.


David James Walker: I wish to thank the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. The hon. gentleman is of tremendous assistance

to this party in caucus. This is the first time the hon. member has spoken in this chamber in recent days and when he does speak he speaks very effectively. I have taken cognizance of all the matters to which he has addressed himself this evening. We value the hon. gentleman as a member of our party.


Maurice Bourget: The minister is aware that this item is of particular interest to many hon. members. I agree that the wording of the vote is reasonable. On the other hand at a time when unemployment is rampant and in particular at a time when those with no trades have difficulty securing employment I wonder if the minister would not study the wording of the vote with a view to enlarging its scope and thus giving a chance to secure employment to those who require jobs and particularly those persons with no trade.


David James Walker: I am afraid that if we opened up this thing wide we would have fabulous demands from coast to coast as my hon. friend can appreciate. Even as it is we are besieged with requests for repairs.


Maurice Bourget: As the minister knows the Minister of Labour has been looking for suggestions. I make that suggestion so the minister could offer it to his colleague the Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell us how much was voted last year? I am interested in knowing how much was spent on retaining walls and for projects specifically mentioned in the estimates.


David James Walker: Of the $800,000 vote for this item $700,000 has been spent.


Maurice Bourget: The answer I received on February 11 was that the amount was $2,420,000 and that up to December 31, 1959, $1,151,134.34 had been spent. I think the information the minister is getting from his officials is limited only to item 354, but he will recall that there are also specified projects that are included with the retaining walls.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Levis is quite correct. The amount, by the way, is about $728,000 and we are referring to the $800,000. We will get particulars for the hon. member of the expenditures on the individual projects.


Maurice Bourget: As he did last year, would the minister be kind enough to supply me with a list of the projects for the present fiscal year, giving the names, places and amounts?


David James Walker: I will be very glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
79951-0-423
Supply-Public Works
Dredging-
356. Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,606,075.
Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a minute or two on this dredging item to bring to the minister's attention the need for completing a project at St. Lawrence in my riding. This work was started several years ago but apparently the firm that had the contract did not have proper equipment. Suction dredging equipment was required and apparently the equipment employed was not heavy enough. The job was never properly completed with the result that at St. Lawrence we have an eyesore which is a source of annoyance to the town council and to the residents of that community and which mars the beauty of that lovely harbour.
I would ask the minister to try to get something done about this in the near future. The matter has been hanging fire for three years or possibly longer and the people of the town of St. Lawrence are beginning to get somewhat alarmed at this bad situation which has been allowed to exist so long without any remedial action. I think the action required is further dredging near the public wharf to allow coastal boats to dock there. I think the proper solution would be to enter into another dredging contract whereby the material removed from the bottom could be used to fill in the ugly depression behind the retaining wall.


David James Walker: We will certainly be very glad to do that. The deputy minister and I were just discussing the request of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and, although we do not know when it will be, the next time we can get our suction dredge up in that area we will do the job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I simply want to raise a matter I have raised on previous occasions in order to find out whether any progress has been made. I refer to what would be called monthly or day labour employed on dredges and in the building of wharves and things of that sort. In recent years these people have worked throughout the whole year in many cases but they are still considered to be casual employees and I understand that on that account they have been unable to obtain superannuation. Personally I think this is most unfair because some of these men have been employed by the department for 15 or 20 years. Yet they are still considered to be casual employees and are unable to qualify for superannuation because they are not year round employees. Has anything been done to bring them under the superannuation scheme?


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member. I will pass on his suggestion to the

Supply-Public Works Department of Finance and also the civil service commission which deal with such matters.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question about the survey work being done by his department with the national research council with regard to silt and silt drifting in harbours. I understand that work has been done in lake Ontario this summer. Some time ago the chamber of commerce of Fort Rowan presented a brief to the department regarding the silting in of Long Point bay. They requested that a channel be cut through from the bay to the open lake in the hope that this would help to solve the problem. They also pointed out that such a channel would be an aid to navigation and shorten the time required by fishing boats in proceeding to the open lake. It would also provide a shelter from the open lake for fishing boats in case of storms. There is no shelter for a distance of some 40 miles from Port Burwell to the end of Long Point bay. During the days of sailing vessels that area has been known as the graveyard of the great lakes.
I will not go into further details because I know the department has the matter under consideration. I should point out that charts prior to 1900 show a depth of eight to ten feet in the bay but now it is only approximately four feet in depth. There have been two changes over the years. In the first place, before the 1900's there was a natural channel and, second, the river which now empties into the bay formerly emptied into the open lake. This has had quite a bit to do with the silting condition. My question is: will this survey operation be carried on in lake Erie and, if it is, will a survey be made in the Long Point area?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member, who is the great authority on the tobacco industry in the house, I am very interested to hear his representations tonight. I wish to assure him that the national research council, Queen's University and our department are engaged in conducting very serious research into littoral drift, and as soon as the report is received I hope to take some action to ameliorate the very unsatisfactory conditions of which the hon. member complained.


Mr. Nixon:: Would the minister do something about the entrance to Montreal river harbour north of Sault Ste Marie. It was cleared out last spring but there are two points jutting out right at the entrance. It would only take a day or two for a power shovel to remedy the situation completely.

It is very difficult for boats to get in there at present unless their operators know the channel very well.


David James Walker: As the hon. member knows, Montreal river harbour is a constant source of irritation not only to him and the people in his riding but to ourselves as well. As he knows, we dredge it and think it is all cleared out but then the situation next year is as bad or worse than ever. We are concerned about what we can do in addition to dredging in an effort to try to keep the situation from going back again each year. We have similar problems, about which we were talking before dinner, on the Fraser estuary. It is one of those conditions which crops up each year. If we can do anything else in addition to the dredging in an effort to prevent this formation, we will be glad to do so.


George Ewart Nixon: It is just these two points which are jutting out, and if they were cleared up I think the rest of the channel would be all right. I believe it would just take a power shovel a day or two to do the job.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
358. Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, $914,270.
George James McIlraith: There is one matter that I should like to raise in connection with this item. It has to do with the maintenance of dams. The public works department maintains a number of dams on the Ottawa river in addition to the dams maintained by the Ontario hydro, by private authorities and by the Quebec hydro authorities. The consequence of this has been that the natural flow of the river has been sharply interfered with but that in itself would not be a material consequence were it not for the fact that at the time of the spring run-off there is a great deal of damage being caused along this river through the lack of co-ordination in the operation of the dams.
The main difficulty arises as a result of the failure to open the dams at the appropriate time to release the water held in reserve in advance of the flood waters coming from the upper part of the river. While I have no criticism of the operation of the public works dams in this connection, I want to point out that it is small satisfaction to those riparian owners along the river whose properties are severely damaged by the flood waters to know that the public works department may not be at fault, if through lack of co-ordination the other dams fail to open or close at the appropriate time. The main offender seems to be the Ontario hydro. They seem to persist in ignoring the information as to flood conditions in the river and the timing of the arrival of

the flood waters at the relevant points in so far as the opening and closing of their dams is concerned.
As nearly as I can find out, the system followed by Ontario hydro is that the engineers at the dam projects have no control over the situation at all. They can only open or close the dam on instructions from the head engineers in Toronto, and the head engineers in Toronto either do not receive or refuse to act upon the relevant information as to water conditions in the river. The amount of unnecessary damage caused each year as a result is very great, and it is particularly irritating when it is known that it is not due to flood conditions in the ordinary sense but due to the failure of the authorities operating dams on the river to observe sensible practices.
Bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind that the federal government has jurisdiction over this river because it forms part of the interprovincial boundary and because it is a navigable stream, I am going to propose to the minister something I have proposed unsuccessfully for some years. I suggest that he take the initiative in seeking to obtain proper coordination of the authorities operating all the dams on the river, and that the co-ordinating control be under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I have sufficient confidence in his department to believe that they are capable of exercising that authority in the best interests of all concerned. It is something that is very badly needed.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to go into this matter again. The hon. member for Ottawa West does not complain about many things and his comments are usually well directed. This is something that really has annoyed us this year because we have had the greatest amount of precipitation in 32 years, resulting in high water such as most of us have never experienced before. The hon. member for Nipissing knows well about what I am speaking, as does the hon. member for Ottawa West. It must be particularly annoying to the hon. member that his own cottage on the river should be so severely affected.
Quite frankly, we have received the most complete co-operation from hydro. If there is any better way of co-ordinating our efforts we would be glad to find it and will investigate any new method that might be indicated. I believe we are already consulting with the international joint commission. I can assure my friend that the fact he has mentioned this matter will cause us to go into this problem again.


George James McIlraith: If the minister thinks he has received the most complete co-operation from the Ontario hydro, I can only suggest to him
79951-0-423J
Supply-Public Works that he check the times of the opening and closing of their dams at Des Joachims as compared with the time of the opening and closing of his department's dams. Ontario hydro follows the practice of holding a huge reservoir of water until the flood waters are coming into the north end of the reservoir, then releasing water at a time when the reservoir is filled. This practice is not followed by the public works authorities. Had the Ontario hydro taken the precaution to lower the water level in their reservoir adequately when precipitation took place in the headwater area there would have been no damage. If the minister is in any doubt about the situation, the precipitation records are available and he can ask the rivermen who operate on the long stretches of the river about the situation when Ontario hydro holds the water in their reservoir after precipitation has occurred in the northern area.


David James Walker: I shall be glad to look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering services-
359. Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $1,900,000.
Maurice Bourget: Could the minister give us a progress report on the construction of the bridge between Campbellton and Cross Point?


David James Walker: Yes, we will look it up and give the hon. member an answer. We will allow this item to stand, Mr. Chairman, until we have the information.
Item stands.
361. Towards an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry, $50,000.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister when he expects a final report on the feasibility of that project or when the studies being made now by national research council will be completed so that the people who are most interested will know if this project is economically feasible?


David James Walker: We have made inquiries. My friend the hon. member for Levis is greatly interested in this matter as are all members from Prince Edward Island. They are in touch with me almost weekly, although they do not express themselves in the house too often. The national research council tell us that they hope to have the results of their tests ready by next fall and as soon as possible after that we will come to a determination as to the feasibility of this project. We will be able then to give my hon. friend some definite answer in connection with the total cost. Could we take the other item, Mr. Chairman?
6714	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Maurice Bourget: Can the minister tell me also who is doing the research in connection with the ice on the piers? This appears in the report that the deputy minister made in Prince Edward Island when he went down there. There seems to be some doubt about the real strength of the ice on the piers. It seems that is one of the difficulties, to make a design for the piers.


David James Walker: This was in connection with item 359, was it not, Mr. Chairman?


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 361 carry?


David James Walker: No, the one in connection with the Campbellton, New Brunswick and Cross Point, Quebec bridge.


Maurice Bourget: With regard to the information I asked in connection with the action of the ice on the piers, I suppose that is technical information. I should like to know who is making the research for that data.


David James Walker: The structure division is
studying that matter and is reviewing all information and facts which it has collected from such experiments in Europe and on the North American continent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
359. Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $1,900,000.
David James Walker: The New Brunswick approach is completed to grade; the Quebec approach is practically complete to grade and the substructure is 80 per cent complete. The superstructure is now being erected.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
364. Testing laboratories-operation and maintenance, $1,061,641.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the
minister whether this research and testing is carried on in laboratories under the Department of Public Works and what type of testing is done. Has it to do with the tensile strength of timber and things of that sort and does the department do testing for the Department of National Defence, particularly on door openers and things like that?


David James Walker: The hon. member for Kootenay West has general knowledge of what they do. The answer to all his inquiries is yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is there any co-operation between the department's laboratories testing arrangements and those of the national research council?


David James Walker: There is very close co-operation. They do the research, we do the testing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Trans-Canada highway-
365. Construction through national parks, $9,581,000.
Mr. McFarlane:: I believe you will find item (S) comes under the heading of trans-Canada highway and I should like to mention it at this time. I should just like to bring to the minister's attention the necessity of the completion of the trans-Canada highway. This matter has been of a great deal of interest in Kootenay East for a very great number of years. I can go back to about 1948 when we in the chambers of commerce took an active interest in the completion of this highway. At that time we made several recommendations to the government with regard to our opinions as to where the trans-Canada highway should be developed and also the route at that time.
It is our opinion that the completion of the southern trans-provincial highway No. 3 should receive top priority by the government. This route we feel is most important to all of British Columbia. It is the only all-weather highway we will have in British Columbia going across the complete distance of the province. It is the most important highway connected with the coastal area. At the same time it goes through a highly industrialized section and also the most populated section of the province. It also connects up with all of the United States routes coming from Mexico and California. I also mention route No. 93 which is the only route travelling from Mexico City clean up to Alaska, and connecting up with this southern trans-Canada route.
We understand from press releases that the provincial government have under consideration the construction of a highway from central British Columbia terminating near Jasper, Alberta. We are in favour of this route and we also would support it. But we feel that we cannot support such a program in the north until such time as the more populated industrialized and agricultural areas of British Columbia are being serviced and especially with the trans-Canada highway so that the population and the tourists travelling in Canada can go across our country without having to divert in many cases across the line to the United States and other areas in order to cross a portion of British Columbia.
Another problem that has arisen is the connecting link with the trans-Canada highway. We have a connecting link from the southern route on the trans-Canada highway from Golden which will eventually connect up with the now partially completed highway. As I mentioned, this highway has been under construction a number of years and we feel that the southern route can be built in a

very short time and with very little expense and I would ask the minister's consideration at this time. Also I should like to bring to the minister's attention another thing on which I believe I have the support of the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for MacLeod, and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I feel that with the concerted effort of all members from British Columbia, especially those from the southern section of the province, we should be able to bring a little bit of pressure upon the Minister of Public Works so that we can get this road completed in the near future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I find myself in the position of having to support all the proposals put forward by members of the Progressive Conservative party with respect to No. 3 southern trans-provincial highway in British Columbia being the second portion of the second trans-Canada highway. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that when it comes to the matter of the necessities of the Kootenays we stand together on these matters. Of course, we differ as to the route we shall take to accomplish our objectives. But on this occasion the hon. member for Kootenay East has stated the case very well. I am not going to take up the time of the committee to repeat it. I simply want to say "amen" to all he has said during the last few minutes, and I confine myself to those few minutes. I trust the minister will give favourable consideration to his representations, supported by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Maurice Bourget: There is a big decrease here of $4 million. Does that mean that the amount of $9 million for this year will complete the trans-Canada highway through the national parks?


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the committee at this time with the situation facing us at the moment, and I do not wish to make any criticism. I have only praise for the minister and his department but in connection with the trans-Canada highway 1 am sure there should be strong and definite consideration given to at least an alternate route from Alberta to the west coast.
We all know that the designated route goes through an extremely hazardous area across the Rocky mountains. A recognized alternate route for such an important thing for Canada as a completed trans-Canada highway is just good business. The province of Alberta has on its own brought its highway standards up to the trans-Canada standard for its portion of a second alternate route, namely highway No. 3 from Medicine Hat, through Lethbridge and the Crowsnest
Supply-Public Works pass. With a small amount of work in British Columbia which might be hastened by consideration of this problem by the federal government we could be assured of a reasonable route to the west coast at all times which would be something that Canadian citizens have never before been able to enjoy by way of a Canadian route.


David James Walker: I thank the hon. member very much and I know the way he feels about that, also the hon. member for Kootenay East.
In reply to the hon. member for Levis who seems to be a national figure-his interests are universal-the highway in Banff and Yoho national parks will be completed to pavement stage this year, but with regard to the Glacier and Revelstoke national parks, because of the tremendous work involved in erecting the snow sheds we cannot hope to have them completed before the end of 1961. The figure the hon. member mentioned in item 365 of $9,581,000 was the estimated amount to be spent this year. It is a little difficult at this stage to estimate the balance of the cost.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have just two questions to put to the minister. Is he going to be able to give me the figures, either later on or by correspondence, on the trans-Canada highway spending by area; and, second, has there been an invitation to appear at the opening of the lake Superior route which I understand is to take place on September 16, and if he has not been invited I would like to know why the invitation has not been forthcoming.


David James Walker: We have not been invited but I will certainly see that the hon. member is, and I will also get him the information he has requested.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
368. Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for: a maximum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work and, with the approval of treasury board, that maximum may be increased to $25,000, $2,000,000.
Maurice Bourget: Is it under this item that small post offices are built?


David James Walker: Yes, it is.


Maurice Bourget: If that is the case, would the minister give us a list of the small post offices which are going to be built this year?


David James Walker: Yes, I will get that information.


John Richard Garland: In view of the unemployment situation we find ourselves in, on all
6716	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works of these projects coming under the Department of Public Works has any attempt been made by the department to ensure that Wherever possible local labour is employed?


David James Walker: Yes. The advertising is local jn nature in the first place, and then we put a clause in the contract to try in so far as possible to ensure local employees. That is very important, as the hon. member can appreciate, because these small post offices are part of the winter works program. The main object is not only to supply a nice post office but also to provide the maximum of winter work for people in that locality.


Maurice Bourget: The minister mentioned a clause in the contract. Is that clause inserted in the specific case of a contract for a small post office, or is it also inserted in contracts for big projects? I am referring to a post office in, say, Quebec city. Is there a clause in that contract that the contractor would be obliged to employ local people?


David James Walker: Yes, there is the same clause in both contracts. I have not the wording here but it is something like "to employ local labour to the extent available".


Maurice Bourget: Can we suppose that "local" includes Levis also with Quebec?


David James Walker: By all means.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
370. Expenses incurred in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $750,000.
John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister will be prepared to answer a few questions in connection with the announcement he made on Monday of this week. Perhaps we can proceed on a question and answer basis at this time. Could the minister say how many starts are anticipated as a result of the new merchant builders' loans being made available from September 1 to November 30?


David James Walker: As I said in the announcement I made on Monday last, it is impossible to estimate that. I tried to get our experts to make an estimate of what is involved here, but as the hon. member appreciates that information is rather difficult to obtain. In the first place we have to see how this proposition of a pre-sold house is going to work *with the builders. You can appreciate that because there is a softness in the market in certain areas, to do what we have done in previous winters, that is, grant a certain number of loans, say 25, to each builder to do speculative building, would be to upset the economy in connection with the areas Where there is a softness in housing.


So because of this new plan which we have, a plan with which we have not had any previous experience to determine how it might affect the number of starts, I would not like to make a guess. I feel just the same way as I think does the hon. member for Levis; I cannot conjecture on the cost of the Northumberland causeway, and I cannot conjecture on the number of starts. But we do know this, and it should cause great satisfaction to the Canadian people, that we will have just as many extra starts as there is demand for housing of this particular category.
I think the hon. member will agree that we have extended the limits and lifted the restrictions on income just as much as we can, and to raise the income limits higher would be only to encourage people to get direct loans from the government who could readily afford to go to the conventional lenders and get their loans there.


John Richard Garland: It seems inconceivable that the government is embarking on a policy not knowing what results to anticipate. However, it seems to me that the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing must surely know the number of starts that will likely result from this three-month program.


David James Walker: I know the hon. member is an authority on housing, and I always appreciate his assistance as well as his criticism. It is always done in a good natured way. But I can assure him, and I know he will accept my words, that this wonderful organization from which I am accepting advice cannot make any estimate of the number of extra starts. However, I can tell the hon. member that it will be more than 125,000 starts this year and that is what he is really interested in.
May I also tell him I did not realize he was denouncing this new policy the other day. He does it in such a cool and pleasant way that I thought he was really complimenting us on this new policy. It seems the hon. member was really giving us a blast. I was surprised to hear that criticism coming from him. I would have thought he would have been delighted with this new program. There is nothing especially new about this winter program. In 1957, 1958 and 1959 we had a winter program. The hon. member talks about a change in policy. There has been no change in policy as far as a winter program is concerned. I said in the spring that if we could get through without a winter program we would be glad to do so, but there has been here, as in the United States, a definite cutback in housing and therefore we feel it is necessary again to have a winter works program, first, to make more houses available

for our people and, second, and very important, to provide winter work for those in the construction industry who need jobs at this time.
Where is the real criticism? If the hon. member is trying to make political capital out of it, that is fine. I do not mind that. But is there any real criticism of what we are endeavouring to do? In all my remarks I said our future actions would be guided by our experience, and our experience indicates that we need a winter works program in the realm of housing and we are trying to do it in as fair a manner as possible; in a manner which cannot possibly lead to flooding the market with houses that cannot be sold or adding new houses to a market which in some areas, is already soft.


John Richard Garland: The minister has raised this matter of winter construction. May I take this opportunity of saying that we are very much in favour of a high level of house building in the fall and winter months. There is no doubt about that. However, what is to be gained employment-wise if this results in a decline of jobs in the summer? There is no better example than the events of the past year. Last year we reached a peak in April; this year we have not reached a peak as yet, and if we are only shifting normal summer construction into the winter months I suggest we are not gaining very much. If the government is genuinely concerned, as I am sure it is, to create more jobs in the winter, it seems to me it should offer some form of concession which would encourage construction in this field in the wintertime.
I should like to ask the minister this question. Of the $175 million that he announced earlier this year will be made available, how much has been lent to date? I am not concerned at the moment about how much is being applied for, though that figure would be interesting. I am interested more in how much has been lent up to now.


David James Walker: As the hon. member knows, we do not lend all the money at once but we have applications up to the last day I heard about, nearly a week ago now, amounting to between $75 million and $80 million of the $150 million which we are allocating for housing. The other $25 million has been allocated for limited dividend housing, and there are a lot of applications for that as well. The amount actually dispensed is about half of that total-$36.8 million- so the hon. member can see that even without this winter works program, by the end of the year, under the old policy we announced as far as our direct loans are concerned, we will have expended the amount we were contemplating lending this year.
Supply-Public Works


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister could say what is the maximum amount the government will lend-


David James Walker: $12,800 to each person.


John Richard Garland: No, I think the minister knows what I mean-


David James Walker: I see that was not what the hon. member had in mind, and life is too serious to be facetious on matters of this kind. I cannot say. It would depend on the number of applications for loans from prospective home owners and the number of applications we get from builders with presold contracts. I am not in a position to say how much money the government will have lent at the end of this year. I tried to make that clear at the beginning.


John Richard Garland: But in consultation with the other members of the cabinet surely the minister must have an objective in mind along the lines of his announcement earlier this year that there would, he hoped, be 125,000 starts. Surely the minister, tonight, in the light of the fact that six months of this year has slipped away, has some idea how much money the government is prepared to advance through Central Mortgage and Housing this year.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Nipissing is nothing if not good natured and persistent. May I say that the government is willing to advance just as much money by way of loans as builders have pre-sold contracts, in addition to which it will advance just as much money as there are home owner applicants from September 1 to November 30 in the category of $7,600 down.


John Richard Garland: Do I understand from that statement that the former announcement of $175 million is no longer in effect?


David James Walker: That is true. As we said, that was an interim announcement. Any more money would be determined by what the needs were later on, including the consideration as to whether there would be a winter program. That was our original objective, $175 million. But with this winter works program I have outlined now, the amount will be considerably in excess of that.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister can say, in connection with any planning that is being done by his department or by the government, if any special consideration is being given by the government to granting priority to mortgage applications from surplus labour areas?


David James Walker: In this particular winter works program we will deal with applications from any area, under any circumstances and in

Supply-Public Works any number without qualification or restriction as to whether it is a suplus labour area. In other words, we will not refuse applications from areas that are not surplus labour areas. Of course, we always give as much consideration as we can to surplus labour areas because of the necessity of putting to work as many men as possible.


John Richard Garland: Has any special consideration been given to the rural areas which always seem to have difficulty in securing mortgage funds?


David James Walker: That is another reason for the winter works program. My hon. friends in this chamber and particularly those on this side of the house from all over Canada and especially from the northern Ontario ridings-


Douglas Mason Fisher: They are all on this side.


David James Walker: -and from the west have a lot of trouble getting loans from approved lenders. In the rural areas they do, too, because they do not appear to have facilities for making inspections. That is another reason for introducing the winter works program.


John Richard Garland: Has the minister given any consideration to advancing the date, moving it forward from September 1, for those areas in Canada to which he has referred, the more northerly areas?


David James Walker: We are accepting applications now. There will be no advances made before September 1, of course. I understand we are getting all sorts of applications right now but we are not making any commitments prior to September 1.
I understood what the hon. gentleman meant. I believe he wondered whether we could have the date advanced to August 1 for the northern regions because of the early winters. We gave consideration to that but because of the short time between now and September 1 we felt not much would be gained because by the time we got the applications, processed them and got them started it would be close to September 1 in any event.


John Richard Garland: In the interests of building more houses I wonder if even at this late date the minister would give consideration to advancing the date to August 1 north of a certain point to be decided by his officials. I think it would be helpful to get the houses roughed in those northern areas before winter commences.


David James Walker: My understanding is that between September 1 and a later period even in the northern area there is time to install the foundations and close in the house.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the government has given any consideration to the problem


of financing the acquisition of existing homes for conversion into low rental units. I have in mind large houses in the urban areas.


David James Walker: As a matter of fact we thought of it but to do so would require an amendment to the National Housing Act. It was not contemplated in the housing act passed by the previous administration. Because of the fact we have a use for all our money for building new houses we have not really seriously considered an amendment of this nature.


John Richard Garland: My reason for mentioning it was obvious, of course. While the regulation changes announced by the minister on Monday affect the merchant builders' program and increase the salary ceiling limitations of applicants they do nothing for people in the lower income bracket. We all know of situations where there may be an elderly person or an elderly couple living in a large 20-room house. If there were a means of facilitating a sale of this kind for conversion into a multiple housing unit that would accommodate some of our people in the lower income group it would be most helpful. Would the government take that under active consideration?


David James Walker: We are always glad to take under active consideration any suggestions advanced by the hon. member.


John Richard Garland: What has been done with respect to encouraging the establishment of the secondary mortgage market which we have suggested in the past two or three years? Has consideration been given to that?


David James Walker: We have discussed the matter with the Department of Finance. They have given great consideration to this matter. So far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned we have made every effort to encourage financial houses, financial institutions and corporations to do everything they can to get a secondary mortgage market under way. Those things take time to develop. We are making progress although the progress has not been as rapid as I would have liked.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister care to comment on an article carried in the June 2 issue of the Ottawa Citizen under the heading "Government Studying Means to Raise N.H.A. Loans Cash". The article reads in part as follows:
Public works minister Walker confirmed Wednesday that the government is looking for new ways to raise money for National Housing Act loans, without going to the commercial bond market.
Would the minister care to elaborate on that?


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend will appreciate that with the banks out of the market and finding a use for the capital they have by way of commercial loans-this is quite a new development, of course, and one can understand it-we felt we should submit to the Minister of Finance and his department the problem that has been created for the builders of Canada by reason of the fact that approved lenders' loans are no longer forthcoming to them. That matter is under active consideration. My hon. friend will appreciate how difficult it is to solve a tremendous problem like that in a few months.


John Richard Garland: Has the minister any comment to make about the possible participation by the banks in supplying mortgage funds for the second half of this year?


David James Walker: I have no idea but I certainly see no signs of it.


John Richard Garland: May I then return to the point at which 1 began and ask the minister on what basis he makes his forecast that there will be in excess of 125,000 starts made this year?


David James Walker: I do not think I can go into any technical argument as to forecasting. What object has my friend in doing this? What benefit is it to him? Does he want to come back a month later and say that he made the minister make a forecast and he turned out to be right? Is that what the hon. member wants to be able to say?


George James McIlraith: You were just making a wild guess.


David James Walker: Thank you very much.


George James McIlraith: It was just a wild guess.


David James Walker: I can assure the hon. member of the 125,000. He will be glad to learn that because last year, which was a very successful year, as everybody agrees, the number of starts amounted to 141,000. We are going to have a remarkable record as to houses completed this year. We expect in excess of
140,000	completions in the year 1960.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, the reason I am inquiring is that earlier this year the minister stated in the house that the objective was 125,000. Later on different occasions throughout the year he has said that they intend to build 125,000. Now they have increased their program and he still says they are going to build 125,000.


David James Walker: That is logical, is it not?


John Richard Garland: On what information or on what facts does he base this forecast? I am making a simple request for information. The banks are out of the picture. Here we have
79951-0-424
Supply-Public Works a release by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicating that as of June 30 this year only 41 loans had been made compared with 11,302 last year up to the end of June.


David James Walker: I think I have given all the information that is available.
(Translation):


Mr. Campeau:: Mr. Chairman, I would like briefly to submit to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) a few suggestions with regard to the activities of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporaiton.
First of all, I want to congratulate the minister for easing up credits for housing purposes, which will enable more families of average income to get mortgage loans from the corporation, and also for making direct loans available to contractors, while encouraging them to attract buyers. Such action will also help reduce undue speculation accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, though the housing situation has improved since the end of the last war, we certainly cannot ignore the problem. At least a third of Canadian families have not enough income to buy a new house. At least half a million of those families lack accommodation that could be described as satisfactory. Many existing housing units have reached the critical age limit and, by 1980, at least one million Canadian homes will have reached the age of 75 and over, while a further million will be 50 to 75 years old.
Before long, a new generation, born of marriages that took place in the 40's and which is now crowding schoolrooms, will marry in its turn and seek separate accommodation. According to the estimates of the Gordon commission, the number of housing units should almost double throughout the country from 1955 to 1980.
Such prospects are cause for worry, all the more so because such increases mainly occur in urban communities, and that is why I would suggest to the minister that specialized studies be made without delay from a social and economic point of view, in order to set up a housing program that would adequately provide for new requirements, while taking into consideration the demands of modern town planning.
As a result of this situation, Mr. Chairman, we must pay more and more attention to the redevelopment of slums in our cities where dwellings are becoming unsanitary.

Supply-Public Works
Social problems in addition to the deterioration of buildings are making those areas increasingly costly for taxpayers.
Moreover, and this is another problem I wish to draw to the minister's attention, at the present time wage earners with incomes of only about $3,000 per year-and there are very many of them in Canada-have to give up the idea of owning their own homes, because they cannot make the required down payment and then pay the difference between the total cost and the loan granted. Just the same those less fortunate citizens are entitled and anxious to improve their housing conditions.
In this regard, it is interesting to note the system of co-operative apartments suggested by the Montreal real estate board. The latter suggests, as a means of clearing slums and particularly of settling the housing problem, a program for the construction of cooperative apartments in the centre of the town, where a family might own an apartment in a multi-apartment building rather than always rent or be forced to move to the suburbs, some 15 to 20 miles from their work.
The system has been in use for a number of years in Europe, particularly in France, and was recently introduced in the United States, especially in New York. There is no reason why Canadians should not avail themselves of that solution.
In a co-operative building an apartment can be bought just like a house. You buy an apartment instead of a house, and after a down payment of a few thousands dollars, you can pay the balance at so much per month, with a mortgage as collateral.
Special arrangements are made to spread out over a number of years, and on an equitable basis between the owners-lessees of the apartment building such items as taxes and the cost of repairs to the roof and stairways etc.
Use might be made of the National Housing Act to purchase sites, clear the slums and then build co-operative apartments of that type.
This would enable private enterprise to share in slum clearance and in the construction of living accommodation at very low cost.
To promote this sort of development, the American law allows a shareholder tenant in those co-operative apartments, or in every home built on a co-operative basis to deduct
[Mr. Campeau.l

from his gross income for income tax purposes, the amounts paid during the year to a co-operative housing corporation, as a contribution to taxes or interest on the principal paid by the said corporation. The deductible amount should correspond to the share of the tenant owner and represent his quota of real estate taxes and interest on the principal paid for the acquisition, construction, repair or maintenance of co-operative homes or dwelling units.
Because of the growing success of the cooperative housing movement, it would certainly be appropriate to think of applying the American formula in Canada and thus help hundreds and thousands of Canadians who earn about $3,000 a year to acquire property. The co-operative apartment formula offers an interesting combination to be developed between the rental system and ownership.
The American formula, improved and adapted to our needs perhaps offers the only possible solution of the problem that faces a great number of our citizens who have not the required income to acquire an individual home, but have enough to become tenant-owners. I therefore suggest to the Minister of Public Works to give serious consideration to this solution which is ignored in our National Housing Act.
There is another issue, that of cleaning up the slums that corrode the heart of our cities and towns, and replacing them by sanitary low rental housing units suitable for low income families who are physically and morally rotting in those hovels.
The idea is to find a means of persuading and helping the municipalities to avail themselves fully of the National Housing Act.
Such a measure would have the effect of opening up a new market for construction in urban centres at a time when construction is slow. It must not be forgotten that industrial production is more and more dependent on construction, which is the most seasonal of industries. It is therefore necessary to insure a certain stability to the building industry by methods designed to strengthen the value of the tremendous investments now existing in Canadian cities.
In Montreal, the municipal authorities recently initiated an urban renewal program covering the whole of the municipal territory. The carrying out of the operation will be directed by a housing and renovation committee of which one of the most active members-it gives me pleasure to mention the

fact-is one of my colleagues on the other side of the house, the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle).
This committee, whose members work hard and have done a tremendous task in a short time, has found that there are 23,000 housing units in Montreal whose construction dates back at least to 1871; that 25,000 units are in need of major repairs and that 25,000 units are either defective or blighted. In those slum areas, there is a higher rate of crime, delinquency and sickness, not to mention the loss of tax revenues caused to the city by the drop in real estate values.
A preliminary survey carried out on behalf of the city of Montreal by the Montreal economic research corporation shows there are 50 zones subject to renewal, of which 12 should be cleared of slums to make room for low rental housing projects, 16 would require to be cleared of their slums and rehabilitated, and 22 should be cleared of slums and used for industrial and business purposes.
This renewal program, apart from providing an adequate solution to the problem of sanitary housing, will help carry out great town planning schemes such as a projected throughway along the harbour, the widening of streets, parking accommodation, the radio and television centre and the administrative centre in the eastern part of the city.
Montreal authorities have already started three great surveys to put this total program under way. First, a general survey will be conducted on urban renewal for the entire city territory, covering about 120,000 buildings of which half are blighted, in order to determine the location of slum and low grade housing areas. That survey will allow the development of a program whose implementation would be carried out according to the priority of importance or urgency of the projects. Second, a renovation survey for the eastern part of the centre of the city covering about 10,000 buildings and 25,000 families, to obtain the essential details for the development of specific slum clearing and reconstruction projects including a radio and television centre, a civic centre, as I said a moment ago, as well as low rental housing. Third, a low rental housing project in the St. Sulpice domaine, a vast area of more than 300 acres, which the municipal authorities have had the wisdom of buying in the past. It is the intention of the city of Montreal to promote there, in addition to low 79951-0-424J
Supply-Public Works rental housing, the construction of family housing, through co-operative projects.
The city of Montreal has submitted two requests to the Department of Public Works in order to obtain a subsidy in the case of the first two surveys and will submit another one shortly for the third one.
In view of the importance and urgency of those surveys, and in view of the unemployment relief works which they are bound to bring about in a near future, I hope and trust that the Minister of Public Works will see to it that those requests for subsidies are promptly processed and granted without delay.
Those slum clearing projects, in the eastern part of the city, have been approved by the commercial centre of Montreal-whose development committee is presided over with a remarkable civic spirit, by Mr. Gabriel Gre-goire-and by all civic and commercial organizations. They obviously got the approval of authorities concerned, the provincial government, the C.B.C. and the city council, where approval was granted unanimously.
The building of a television and radio centre in the "Quebec suburbs" will bring about the redevelopment of a district doomed to decay because up to now no government took interest in its rehabilitation.
Those measures are only the beginning of a large scale works project in the very centre of Montreal. It is up to the C.M.H.C. to pursue the policy of understanding and action it has always applied up to now in the city of Montreal.
I take this opportunity to thank the officials of the corporation and in particular Messrs. Bates, Sicard, Marier, Cole, Hignett, Armstrong, St. Pierre and many others and to congratulate them on the good citizenship they showed in the discharge of their duties. During the 18 years I spent in the Montreal city planning service, I learned to know them and to appreciate their great qualities, their efficiency, and their devotion to duty for their fellow citizens and for the development of their country.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the government is interested in a full employment policy, through the implementation of essential works likely to bring about the best development of the Montreal area.
I am sure that the Minister of Public Works who has always shown interest in

Supply-Public Works Montreal will see to it that the federal government take proper action without delay.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to raise two particular matters with the minister. I am bothered, first of all, by the mortgage insurance fund that Central Mortgage and Housing is building up. If the minister checks on page 809 of Hansard, he will find that Central Mortgage and Housing made a return in answer to a question which indicated that since January 1, 1957 to January 1, 1960, that is a three-year period, this mortgage insurance fund had increased from $22 million to $61 million. The contingent insurance liability on insured loans and section 40 loans, that is I take it what the fund is covering, has increased from about $1,100 million to $2,357 million. In other words, the actual mortgage fund must be increasing faster than the liability against it.
Since the information also filed on page 861 of Hansard, in addition to that on page 809, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, indicates that since 1954 Central Mortgage and Housing has had remarkably few properties returned to them by default, it would seem that the rate of percentage which is set to feed money into the mortgage fund is too high. I should like an explanation from the minister as to why it is not possible to lower the percentage insurance charge to those who borrow from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When 1 brought this matter up in a more tentative way with the former minister of public works on these estimates he told me that this build-up in the fund was needed because of the large liability and the possible collapse in Elliot Lake.
Elliot Lake is the most delicate situation involved in this mortgage insurance fund. I should like to hear from the minister the number of units in Elliot Lake that are covered by this mortgage insurance fund. 1 should like to know the total liability in dollars on those units. 1 should like to have from him some indication of the number of houses that have come back by default to the government in the Elliot Lake area in the first six months of 1960. Unless there is a very strong indication that the Elliot Lake situation is going to place an inordinate drain upon this mortgage insurance fund, I would suggest to the minister that the statistical table indicates the insurance rate is too high. I am sure that the fund must have over $70 million in it now.

Unless the Elliot Lake situation is proving that this fund is going to have an inordinate demand upon it, I would suggest the government should give serious consideration to reducing the insurance rate. I should like to know also from the minister what is being done with this money. Where is it invested, and at what rate of interest? Since the information that was filed in February would indicate a remarkably small number of claims against the fund, a remarkably low number of loans in default, I really would urge him to consider reducing this particular percentage. It seems to me that government operations tend to become quite inflexible. But surely the experience of just these three years would seem to indicate that this fund is piling up at a greater rate than is needed.
The second point I want to bring to the minister's attention also relates to some information filed in the house in answer to a question on June 15, 1960. This is in connection with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation low cost minimum house design. The minister may remember that the former minister announced this design with a great flourish in October of 1958. This was one of the first measures the minister brought in after that great election victory and he made it appear as though this attempt by C.M.H.C., with this design 2000, was going to bring in possibilities for many people in rural areas and small towns and with low incomes to take advantage of the mortgage funds that had been going to people with higher incomes and in metropolitan areas. Now we have the results filed here for the first 16 months that these designs were available, and I think the minister will agree that the total number of units of these small designs, either design 2000 or designs with less than 900 square feet, of 1,829 in 16 months is rather low. For example, in Newfoundland I would imagine the need is great for this kind of housing. However, only five units were built there. In Ontario, which is the greatest of the provinces in terms of population, only 501 units were built. The average estimated cost was $9,200. A $9,200 house or new home is a low cost home in Ontario today. But I am sure the minister and his officials would agree that there is a much greater demand than this response would indicate.
I should like from him an explanation as to why these low cost designs have not caught on and what steps C.M.H.C. is considering in order to get more homes built in this particular price range. If the minister looks at the total number of units, namely 1,829, and relates it to the figure of which he is so proud,

namely 125,000 or 140,000 starts in a comparable period, he can see that it is slightly over 1 per cent of the housing starts on what would appear to be this cheaper one. Yet I think every one of us knows that this is one area of great need, namely that of low cost housing. It seems to me that these figures indicate that here has been an area of remarkable lack of success on the part of the legislation and on the part of the housing authority. I think we should have an explanation. Is it because the design is too ineffective? Is it not possible in our rural areas and in our small towns to get a house for $10,000? I would suggest to the minister that if the answer is yes, that these designs will not sell, that people will not take them, then we must consider further steps. But before I urge further steps I should like to have some remarks from the minister on those two matters.


David James Walker: May I first say this? (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau). In addition to being a professional engineer, he is a distinguished and highly spoken of person.
(Text):
In reply to the hon. member for Port Arthur may I say that I do not know why this minimum house of which he has spoken has not succeeded too well. As the reply to his question indicated, up until the end of April there was a total of 1,829 loans approved under the National Housing Act on houses with floor space of less than 900 square feet. That is the No. 2000 he speaks of. They are very attractive plans here but people just do not seem to want a house of that size. I would think the main reason is that 900 square feet is too small an area. I should be very happy at any time to sit down with my hon. friend and to have his advice on how we can have more loans.
As you know, of course, a person who can afford a house of only that size hesitates very much to do so. If you are going to get a house, you want to get a good one. We find the same experience in Newfoundland where we went to great pains in order to try to develop a fisherman's house for $5,000. But no; if you are going to get a house, you want a good one, and that house has never been particularly popular. I appreciate my hon. friend's inquiries and shall be glad to have from him any suggestions he wishes to make.
With regard to Elliot Lake may I say this. Owing to the excellent planning of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the guarantees they received from the companies
Supply-Public Works these employees were getting loans and having houses built for them; and the corporations themselves, of course, built many houses. As a result of the recession up there we have had to date 20 corporation loans in default and 5 approved lender loans in default.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the total number of loans in that particular area?


David James Walker: Yes. The total number of loans in that area is 1,505 subject to the guarantees. As my hon. friend will appreciate, 25 out of 1,505 is a minute percentage.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This information would seem to confirm my remark that the build-up of the mortgage insurance fund is getting a bit fantastic. I wonder whether it would not be possible to put a ceiling on the mortgage insurance plan. If you cannot cut down the cost of the insurance you are charging these people, surely you can put a ceiling on it. Perhaps future borrowers could get that advantage. I just cannot see that. If in the Elliot Lake situation, which is the most serious risk in Canada, you have only in this particular period 25 defaults out of a total of over 1,500, surely there is a strong indication that you are charging too much for mortgage insurance. That is the only way in which I cannot interpret these figures. I wish the minister would explain this buildup in three years from $22 million to over $61 million in relation to the liability.


David James Walker: As my hon. friend will appreciate, of course, we have correspondingly increased commitments. Although my hon. friend might be willing to take a chance, I do not think you can find an actuary who would think we have too big a fund. When you compare our fund and our rate of 2 per cent with the United States experience over a much longer period of time you will see that by comparison we are being very modest indeed. The information we got from our experts and actuaries, and I think the hon. member will confirm this, is that we must carry on for some time more before we can even contemplate cutting down on the rate.
May I also thank the hon. member for St. Mary for the valuable suggestions he has made about reconstruction and about the unsafe unsanitary dwellings in the eastern part of Montreal in which he has always taken such great interest.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have to accept for the time the minister's explanation on the mortgage insurance fund but I will go and talk to some actuaries. I have talked to construction people and they have told me that 2 per cent is too high judging from this experience. I believe the hon. member for Trinity who is connected with builders has suggested

Supply-Public Works it could be cut at least in half. But we can come back to that again; it is a long term build-up.
On the question of low cost homes I will agree with the minister that many people will not go after a home which is small, but I would like to know where the low cost homes have gone because I know they are not going up in northern Ontario. Why does he not bring low cost housing to those areas outside of the metropolitan centres? This is the crying shame of the National Housing Act. I know it is doing great work in built-up areas where you have populations of 5,000 or more, but what is it doing in the small and distant places? That is the great failure of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and I think this experience here where we have a house design which was set up with these distant rural and hinterland areas in mind is one of the failures of the act.
There is no use guying the minister about it repeatedly but there has been a failure in this area on the part of the legislation. If the minister comes up to the rural parts of my riding I can take him to communities like Longlac, White River, Schreiber and Jellicoe which are high income communities in the bush which have not had a single loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


David James Walker: There is nothing to stop them from getting one. I am also informed that most of the small houses are built in the small communities. There are very few going up either in Montreal or Toronto. On the other hand we have gone to great trouble to make attractive house designs which are illustrated in our booklet "Small house design".
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have to announce to the house that one of our members who has made a great contribution to this house has had a very serious heart attack, Mr. Mervyn Arthur Hardie, with whom I had lunch today. He is a distinguished member of the Liberal party and is the member for Mackenzie River, Northwest Territories. He has had a heart attack and it was stated by his physician that he should not take part in the debates, and I remember how he was laughing about it today. He is very seriously ill and has had the last rites of the church.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, may I first of all say a few words on the need of improving the National Housing Act so as to enable Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to eliminate slums.

I venture to make a few comments on the matter, as far as the city of Montreal is concerned, because I am a member of the sanitary housing bureau.
I have since the start taken part in the setting up of the Jeanne Mance housing project which was inaugurated last year by the minister.
To my mind, the city of Montreal does not sufficiently benefit from the advantages offered by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Is it perhaps because the C.M.H.C. does not favour cities and municipalities in this field? However, the city of Montreal started an investigation in this respect, and the town planning committee of which I am a member has conceived a new project which will include the area bound by Dorchester, Amherst, Papineau and Craig streets. A brief was submitted to that effect to the C.M.H.C. When the slums are cleared away in some districts, the C.B.C. will certainly be prompted to build its offices there. I therefore wonder if the C.M.H.C. might not look into the brief which has been submitted, and take the necessary steps to accelerate such development in that section.
The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau) mentioned a few moments ago, if I remember rightly, that 22,000 housing units located in the city of Montreal, were built before 1870. This shows the urgency of eliminating those slums as soon as possible.
Earlier today the hon. member for St. James asked the government to find the means of urging cities to take advantage of the good offices of the C.M.H.C. During the 1957 session and again in 1958, I suggested to the minister that the government should contribute 75 per cent of the expropriation cost in the matter of slum clearance. The C.M.H.C. now contributes 50 per cent. Therefore, I urge the minister to take the required action so that the C.M.H.C. contribute 75 per cent of the expropriation cost of slums in order that cities such as Montreal and others may take advantage of the National Housing Act.
My riding is located in the oldest Montreal district, and I know something about slums. If the government increases the benefits provided by this act, it would surely be of advantage to the city of Montreal and allow the redevelopment of St. Ann riding. I know that at present the town planning committee of which I am a member, is conducting a complete survey in the western district of Montreal with a view to clearing slums and erecting new buildings.

Supply-Public Works
Mr. Chairman, I renew the representations I made in the last sessions, to the effect that the government's share, in cases of expropriation, be raised to 75 per cent. Should such a decision be taken, a number of municipalities, even those smaller than Montreal, might avail themselves of the services of the C.M.H.C. I think it would be wise to carry out those works this year, while there is serious unemployment; it would provide jobs for the unemployed and would also allow municipalities to get rid of their slums.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I just make a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works, based on a brief submitted to the federal government on February 1, 1960 by the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour. On page 9, the brief reads as follows:
A representative of the workers should be appointed to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I would be very pleased if the minister could consider that suggestion so that it could be carried out eventually.
(Text):


Chesley William Carter: I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to make a statement outlining to the committee the present position of the federal government with regard to housing agreements generally with the Newfoundland government and in particular to tell the committee what is the situation with respect to the land assembly project in the eastern suburb of St. John's.
I ask the minister to do this because this dispute between the federal government and the government of Newfoundland is a most unfortunate state of affairs and is not doing any good to anyone; on the contrary, it is having an adverse effect on the people of my province and on the housing situation generally in Newfoundland. It takes two to make a quarrel and it takes two to make up, and I think the sooner this situation is resolved the better for all concerned. The premier of Newfoundland recently made a gesture by amending provincial legislation to conform with the wishes of the federal government concerning the appointment of the municipality of St. John's as an agent. That is a step in the direction desired by the minister and I should be grateful if the minister could tell us what the prospects are of getting housing development going in the province of Newfoundland at an early date.
(Translation):


David James Walker: I should like to thank the hon. members for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle) for their constructive remarks.
They may be assured that I have appreciated them highly and that we shall be pleased to consider their suggestions. (Text):
To the hon. member for Burin-Burgee who has just spoken, may I say I find I get co-operation from him in questions concerning his constituency, and I can assure the hon. member that we are very anxious to co-operate with his province in furthering the cause of good housing. He will be glad to know that the land assembly project in St. John's is still being investigated. What the conclusion will be I do not know. I have no idea how the evacuation of the United States base which is adjacent to St. John's will affect the housing situation there. Several hundred houses will become available, but whether they will be too far away I do not know. In any event, whatever comes of that investigation we shall be very happy to cooperate with the hon. gentleman's province and with the mayor of St. John's in this regard.
As to the problems of Central Mortgage and Housing, the hon. member will appreciate from his experience in public life that it would not be appropriate for me at this time to discuss a case which is sub judice.


John Richard Garland: Since the matter of insurance premiums was discussed thoroughly in the debate on housing earlier this year it is not my intention to go into this subject in detail now but, since the matter has been raised I wonder if the minister can tell us the amount of this fund at the present time.


David James Walker: You mean the insurance fund? It stands at $65 million as of the last computation on May 31, 1960, nearly $66 million.


John Richard Garland: Since the greatest problem most people have is to get the down payment to purchase a home, can the minister say if any consideration is being given to lowering the down payment required?


David James Walker: We are giving that matter the closest consideration. I appreciate that this is one of the great problems confronting the prospective home owner in getting a house under way.


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether any examination is being made into the causes of the exorbitantly high cost of land which accounts for so much of the cost of housing. In some cases over 20 per cent of the cost of a home is represented by the price of the land.

Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: This is a very difficult problem for any government to do a great deal about. The rapid, explosive growth of towns and metropolitan areas makes the price of land very difficult to control. The land assembly plans which we have initiated are a pale palliative when one considers the overall demand for lots.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister can say if in view of the fact that C.M.H.C. lending is down this year about 62 per cent if there has been any loss of employment among the personnel of that organization.


David James Walker: We find that our staff are very busy. We are going to have an enormous number of completions this year, and in view of the limitation we have on income we certainly have a lot of extra work. The hon. member knows from his experience that the affairs of C.M.H.C. are adequately streamlined by the able president of that organization.


John Richard Garland: Yes, I am well aware of the efficiency of that organization. In fact I am reminded that approximately three years ago there was a substantial reduction in the number of personnel; I think it amounted to several hundred employees and it was said at that time that the same amount of work, or more, could be done by this reduced staff. In view of the fact that so much publicity was given to that reduction at the time I just wondered what the situation is at the present time. Do I understand the minister to say there has been no reduction whatever?


David James Walker: No recent reduction at all.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell me, then, the number of employees in the C.M.H.C. at the last available date?


David James Walker: 1,890.


John Richard Garland: At what date?


David James Walker: At the 31st of March, the end of the fiscal year.


John Richard Garland: And what was the figure last year and the year before on the same date?


David James Walker: I shall have to take the hon. member in as a law partner. You are going pretty fast for a new minister. We are racing against the clock here but we will be glad to get that information.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I should like some information from the minister which I could get by placing a question on the order paper. Perhaps, however, the hon. gentleman would reply to me with respect to the question I directed to him concerning a

housing development in Montreal. If the minister chooses to reply at a later date I do not mind.


David James Walker: We will be glad to get that information, Mr. Chairman.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the reply he gave to my question a few moments ago. Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I should. I was trying to economize on time which is getting rather short. I was quite aware that the minister should not be expected to discuss litigation which is sub judice. What I was suggesting was that the fact there is litigation going on should not mean that agreements between the province and the federal government should be held up until the case has been decided. The absence of a working agreement at the present time-and indeed the absence of an agreement for a considerable period-is causing a hardship to other parts of Newfoundland outside of St. John's where housing developments are required. I understand there is some question whether under the present National Housing Act an agreement is not required before an arrangement can be worked out with an agent of the government.


David James Walker: Perhaps I may interrupt to say that the only problem I know of was that in connection with this site in St. John's. We worked that out very nicely and had the co-operation of everyone in that regard. Has my hon. friend in mind any other agreement that is pending because of the litigation? I do not know of one from which we must stand aloof and not complete. We have already done a tremendous amount of building in St. John's. The people living in the units seem very pleased with them. I am talking now about the help given to the people. If there is a specific agreement to which my hon. friend has special reference I shall be glad to answer him.


Chesley William Carter: It is the absence of an agreement about which I am talking. That is the problem. If there was an agreement we could go ahead. I understand that everything is at a standstill because there is no active agreement. All contractual arrangements have been suspended until this matter has been decided by the courts which may take some time. Because of that there is no agreement and there is no possibility of making any whereby housing developments can be carried out in Corner Brook and other urban areas.
I have in my hand the office consolidation of the National Housing Act, 1954, section 36 on page 38 which provides:
The corporation may, pursuant to agreements made between the government of Canada and the

government of any province, undertake jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof works for the acquisition and development of land for housing purposes and for the construction of housing projects for sale or for rent.
The minister will recollect that earlier in the year I asked certain questions about the St. John's housing development in reply to which the minister informed me arrangements were being made to have the city of St. John's act as an agent of the provincial government. The provincial legislature has amended its legislation to make this possible but under this act it would appear that even though the provincial government does make the city its agent an agreement with the government is necessary.
An agreement with the province is a prerequisite before the federal government can carry out negotiations with an agent of the government. It is the lapse of time that is likely to take place before this litigation is determined in the courts that concerns me as well as the absence of an agreement and the standstill of housing developments until this matter is decided.
What I was hoping was that the government could say that it would let the dispute before the courts take its course but still enter into new agreements to permit housing developments to go ahead. That is what I had in mind. I did not take the time to elaborate as fully as I have now.


David James Walker: I thank the hon. member.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister would comment on the announcement made early in May about the rejection by the province of Ontario of the bid of the city of Ottawa for a subsidized low rental housing project. When I asked the minister as reported in Hansard of May 30, 1960, if there had been any consultation here the hon. gentleman said he had not familiarized himself with the story. Would the minister now care to comment?


David James Walker: I shall be very happy to. There has been no consultation with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from that date up to the present time.


John Richard Garland: To follow up that subject, could the minister say if an attempt is being made to popularize or make better known this joint scheme between the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities?


David James Walker: Whenever I have an opportunity to do so I go into this subject in detail. The last occasion was at the annual conference of housing authorities. It seems to be pretty well known now. My hon. friend will understand that it would not do for me
Supply-Public Works
to interfere with respect to some dispute between Ottawa and the province. It is far better for me to remain aloof. My hon. friend knows how difficult it is for me to remain aloof. I do not mean in this instance, but generally speaking.


John Richard Garland: I assure the minister that interference was the farthest thing from my mind. It is simply a matter of making better known to municipalities across the country and to provincial governments that such a scheme is possible and can be worked out with a minimum of red tape. I think it is an important aspect of the act. A good job has been done under it but an even better job could be done.


David James Walker: My hon. friend will not mind my interrupting to say something that may assist in the matter. It is a job for the provinces and municipalities to get together and the application is then made to us by the province.


John Richard Garland: That would not preclude the federal government taking advantage of every opportunity to make known to the municipalities the fact that this scheme is readily available to them.


David James Walker: I will get my hon. friend on the next platform.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I presume I am the omega on these estimates. I want to express briefly my appreciation of the prompt and courteous way in which the senior officials of the corporation answer any correspondence and make things clear that were previously obscure to me. I also wish to say that a number of people in my district have expressed their appreciation of the very active way in which the representative of the corporation undertakes his duties and functions in the area. On a number of occasions I have gone with him to meet certain people and have found myself somewhat successful as a sort of mediator between the irate wife of a purchaser and a contractor. I usually find there is a little bit of wrong on both sides and so we have been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion. The representative of the corporation has been most anxious to do the best he can for people, particularly in settling difficult questions that are bound to arise when quite a number of houses are being built.
Having said that, may I say that I rose particularly to mention the fact that I have in my hand the report of the committee of inquiry into the design of the residential environment. This inquiry was undertaken under the auspices of the royal architectural institute of Canada and was made possible as a result of a grant from the federal government. I think it was a very wise investment. I am not

Supply-Public Works
going to deal with the report in detail tonight but I should like to ask the minister what the reaction of Central Mortgage and Housing [DOT]Corporation is to this report. There are a number of very excellent recommendations and I should like to refer particularly to the recommendation found in paragraph 201 which is in these terms:
The committee recommends to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as the agency with a national mandate in housing and planning research, that it should convene a conference on the idea of a permanent Canadian institute of urban studies. The corporation need not in so doing commit itself in advance to this instrument. It should invite to the discussion the representatives of those governments, universities, national corporations and other research bodies that have already made significant contributions in urban studies in Canada.
I am particularly interested in that recommendation and I should like the minister to comment as to the reaction of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the recommendations as a whole and particularly the one I have just read.


David James Walker: I have just been informed by the president of the corporation that these recommendations are under active study at the present time by the corporation, and in due course I will be very happy to answer the inquiry of the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: Has the minister commented or is he going to comment on the matter I raised the other day having to do with greater federal aid in the construction of homes for senior citizens and for handicapped citizens?


David James Walker: We have made and will make loans for homes specially designed, for instance, for paraplegics. I know the abiding interest of the hon. member in this subject. He has ably followed in the footsteps of his father who was a pioneer in this field in the province of British Columbia.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister explain the details of the item as found on page 472? They are not very informative.


Mr. Tardif:: I do not know whether I heard the minister correctly earlier in the evening that there is a possibility that at the end of the year there may be a cut-back in the building of houses in Canada. Actually there has been a cut-back already during the summer months from the policy established at the beginning of the year. While I appreciate that the minister heeded the recommendation of members on this side of the house that the limit on loans should be extended and that some of the restrictions should be lifted, I am afraid that the minister has acted too late and with too little. Actually in most cases the $12,800 limit is

too low because it does not eliminate the necessity of having to secure second mortgages at a premium. That is what members of this party hoped would be accomplished. We hoped that the loan ceiling would be increased to eliminate the necessity of a great number of purchasers having to secure second mortgages at a premium and a high rate of interest.
I also deplore the fact that the minister has not given special consideration to the building of houses in rural areas because while there may not be large developments in rural areas it would be a great help both to the industry and to the people who live there if there were fewer restrictions.
I am also sorry that the minister did not find a formula to make it possible for people in the low income group to purchase homes. Even the raising of the present limit does not do much to aid people in the low income group because if a person is making less than $5,000 a year and has a family it is impossible for him to carry a mortgage of $12,800. Actually the greatest necessity with respect to housing is not necessarily houses that are pre-sold to people with higher incomes but houses for people with low incomes. Until such time as we succeed in doing that I feel the government is not doing all it can to assist the Canadian people to live in the manner that they should.
I am also sorry that the minister did not find some method whereby the cost of administration of C.M.H.C. might be credited to the lending institutions with the benefit of that credit going to the purchasers of homes who are in the low income group. While that has not been done this year, I would certainly appreciate it if the minister would take this matter into consideration for next year so that we will have some type of formula to make it easier for citizens in the low income group to purchase and carry the type of home that all Canadian citizens should have.


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Nipissing, the explanation of vote 370 is that this is the amount we recover for our services with respect to the construction and supervising of construction of married quarters rental housing for the Department of National Defence. The amount is made up by multiplying by one and a half the actual salaries and wages that we pay to our own employees. This is an arrangement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of National Defence.


John Richard Garland: If I may risk the danger of delaying the committee for 30 seconds, I should like to say how genuinely I appreciate the courtesy and patience that has been shown

me by C.M.H.C. officials any time I have had occasion to get in touch with them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
371. Additional amount for housing research and community planning as contemplated by part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $510,000, $390,000.
John Richard Garland: Would the minister explain this item briefly?


David James Walker: The commitments involved here include architectural investigations, community planning, economic and related research, housing investigations, information services, small house design expenditures, sale of plans, technical investigations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National capital commission-
314. Administration, and operation and maintenance of parks, parkways and grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa and Hull, $1,860,320.
Mr. Broome:: I should like to take about one minute to speak on this item. I have noticed the architecture of public buildings being erected for the federal government, and I do not believe it reflects too much credit on the architectural profession in Montreal and Toronto. I believe also that since these buildings are paid for by the taxpayers all across Canada, this type of work should be spread across the country so that we have architects and engineering firms from Halifax to Victoria, Vancouver island, participating in it. This may not be the appropriate item under which to mention this subject, but I would suggest to the minister that he give consideration to having the skills of the engineering and architectural profession mobilized from one end of Canada to the other, to the end that we will have the very finest of public buildings in Ottawa. I just wish the minister would make a comment on this.


David James Walker: I believe that is a wonderful idea, Mr. Chairman. It is for this reason that we are trying to get representatives from every province to sit on the board, to the end that we may obtain the best brains across the country who, in turn, can get the best professional advice.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, we have no *quarrel with the National Capital Commission, because I believe it is pursuing the work so well started by the previous organization.
However, there are certain things which might stand improvement, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Thus the new style of government buildings to be erected in Ottawa :and the surrounding area, should be recon-
Supply-Public Works
sidered, because, in some cases we tend to modernize too much, whereas I believe that those buildings should remain in keeping with the parliament buildings, which give a character all its own to the city of Ottawa. As a matter of fact, people coming from the old capital of Quebec are quite struck with the ancient style which is perpetuated here. It gives the city a quite individual character and attracts people. I think that if we continue changing the style of federal buildings in Ottawa, we are going to destroy its attractiveness. We made a good start. If we had kept up the style of the Supreme Court and the Confederation buildings we would have preserved the character of our capital city, just as Quebec has its own style.
I think it would be to the advantage of the national capital, because tourists who come here from all over, and more particularly from the United States, want to see something different from what they have at home. In fact, this particular style would certainly attract them. Therefore, I think the previous speaker was quite right in asking the national capital commission to urge the federal government, as it has done in the past, to continue to adopt a particular style, even for buildings that must be built outside the area of government buildings.
I think that, in this connection, I have said enough, and in order not to take up too much of the time of the house, I shall now pass on to another matter.
The Expropriation Act creates particularly regrettable situations. With regard to commercial buildings, the Expropriation Act works very well because the commercial value that is, the general value of the business, is taken into account. But when it is a case of expropriating houses, small houses, built years ago, houses which have grown old with the people living in them, family houses, only the actual value of the house, less depreciation, is granted.
For instance, small houses have been expropriated, which were a little outside the limits of the municipality of Ottawa, where people lived happily on small pensions. Unfortunately, the expropriation cost was established on the basis of actual value of their houses, so they were granted an amount which did not allow them to find proper alternative accommodation, and they had to go and live in rental housing. Now, when people have grown old together on their old property, this becomes an important factor

Supply-Public Works
in their lives. Therefore, I think that the minister who is responsible for the national capital commission which is conducting many expropriations should suggest that the department revise the Expropriation Act, especially with regard to those one-unit houses that must disappear to make way for other buildings or even for the green belt that will surround the area.
This question has been raised before on various occasions and I think that as time passes it becomes increasingly necessary to take action. I understand that the present minister cannot change the situation by a stroke of the pen.
He cannot amend legislation in that way, but I am sure he could use his influence on his colleagues to improve the act so that people could receive a fairer amount.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with another subject.
Every spring the national capital commission used to take steps to control mosquitoes. This is quite important, because in the vicinity of the national capital, there are some swampy areas which serve as breeding grounds-


Mr. Johnson:: For Liberals.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be the same elsewhere, but when the hon. member who has just spoken opens his mouth, I sometimes wonder whether that might be the source of all those mosquitoes.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, mosquitoes are the scourge of the national capital. In the past, it was customary-I am not sure whether that is still done, I am only asking- to spread oil over the swamps in the spring, to keep the mosquitoes under control. I do not know whether that has been done this year, but I know mosquitoes are a nuisance in the area, to such an extent that people cannot sit on their lawn at night, for fear of being eaten alive.
I therefore ask the minister responsible for the national capital commission to inquire from the members of the commission as to whether that procedure is to be continued.
I know that in the past, the municipalities concerned were asked to share in mosquito control measures by contributing a certain amount. This may seem funny to some members, but the situation creates a serious problem in the area. If these hon. gentle-

men had got around a bit in their lives, they would know that certain regions must face problems that do not exist elsewhere.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There are mosquitoes in my constituency too.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Just as we have.
Mr. Chairman, despite the interjections and dull jokes that we hear from a certain side of the house, I suggest this is an important problem, and I submit it to the minister in all sincerity.
Municipalities have been asked in the past to share in mosquito control. Some have refused to pay their share, and insecticides were sprayed elsewhere. But in the municipalities which had refused to pay, there were places especially favourable to the propagation of mosquitoes. The insects then spread to other areas, and at a meeting of the national capital commission, two years ago, we heard a representative of the town of Aylmer say that the mosquitoes they were fighting at the time were not those of Aylmer but those which had come from the national capital because they were much larger.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the national capital commission should pay the cost of mosquito control because all the people in that area would benefit.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) will forgive some of his collegues for having made fun of some of his remarks. If the question he raised brought a little bit of laughter, it is rather easy to understand at this late hour. He should perhaps blame himself too, because he possibly was not too clear about it. He referred to mosquitoes but he forgot to tell us if he was referring to the national capital mosquitoes or to those of the Liberal party.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse the remarks the hon. member made about expropriations. I agree with the hon. member and, at the risk of being a little out of order, I would like to ask not only to the Minister of Public Works, but all the ministers who might be concerned with expropriation by the federal government, if it would not be appropriate to make a few changes not only in the application of the act, but also in the procedure of all the federal government departments and agencies.

With due humility, I ask the various departments conducting expropriations to urge the Department of Justice to look carefully into the whole expropriation system of the federal government, so that people who must suffer the inconvenience of an expropriation might have a better chance of being adequately compensated by the agencies or departments concerned.
(Text):


David James Walker: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville and of the hon. member for Hull may I say that I think they both have made a very good point. We in this government believe, for the reasons stated by the hon. member for Hull and confirmed by the hon. member who has just spoken, that there should be more generous treatment for people who are living in modest homes, in frame houses, if they are going to be expropriated for this reason. Where are they going to get another place in which they can settle as cheaply?
Our department is represented on this committee at the present time. Of course, the Department of Justice will make the amendments. We are now in the process of contemplating a revision of the Expropriation Act. I am going to make a point of sending the speech of the hon. member for Hull and of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville to that body, and I will leave out the part about the mosquitoes. This is very important. Let no one laugh at this.
I myself am living on the Rideau river and, believe me, in all my experience on survey parties in northern Ontario and elsewhere I have never found bigger or healthier mosquitoes. You will be glad to know that the campaign for the elimination of mosquitoes is a matter close to my heart. We contribute $6,000 a year and each of the municipalities is presently making a contribution including the city of Hull for which the hon. member who has just spoken is the member.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 314 carry?


George James McIlraith: Eleven o'clock.


An hon. Member:: No; it is not eleven o'clock.


David James Walker: Is there any chance of completing the estimates, Mr. Chairman? May I make this respectful suggestion? I do not want to shut out in any way any debate, but would there be any chance of finishing these estimates tonight?


An hon. Member:: It is not eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Private Bills


Jacques Flynn: It being nearly eleven
o'clock, shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


David James Walker: Will the hon. member be only five minutes? If that is the case, perhaps he could complete what he has to say.


George James McIlraith: No. I did not mean to indicate that. We have been sitting now for some 12 hours today.


James Stanley Speakman: Stop crying.


George James McIlraith: I am not crying. The hon. member for Wefaskiwin has returned to the house with his usual contribution. We have been sitting for a long time today.


Jacques Flynn: It is now eleven o'clock.


James Stanley Speakman: The usual Liberal stall.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the miscellaneous private bills committee and specifically with the consent of the chairman, I should like unanimous consent to revert to motions in order to propose a motion relating to the activities of that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asks for unanimous consent to revert to motions. Perhaps if the hon. member would explain the nature of the motion, it would assist the house.


Frank Howard: It is to discharge an order relating to one private bill relating to divorce, house in committee, and refer it back to the miscellaneous private bills committee. It was the unanimous decision of the committee today to take this course.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the order for house again in committee of the whole on Bill No. SD-341, an act for the relief of Jacquelyn Gregory Bradley Walker be discharged and that the said bill be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills together with the evidence taken and the papers produced in respect of the said bill before the Senate standing committee on divorce.

Private Bills


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the hon. member indicate why this matter might not be left until the usual time tomorrow when the house would have an opportunity to know exactly what the purpose was?


Frank Howard: This follows precisely the action taken by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), I believe on Thursday of last week with respect to another case of a similar nature which was transferred back for similar reasons, that case having received a great deal of publicity recently. This is in order to have it transferred as quickly as possible in view of the shortness of the session so that the steering committee can meet tomorrow and take action on it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the committee
meeting tomorrow?


James Stanley Speakman: The steering committee.


Mr. Aiken:: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is he proposing this motion on behalf of the chairman of the committee?


Frank Howard: On behalf of him and by unanimous decision of the committee this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Stanley Speakman: No.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill referred to standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Would the house leader
indicate the business for Friday and Saturday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on with the estimates of the national capital commission, then take veterans affairs followed by northern affairs and national resources. These have been called before. If the house finishes those estimates we have available the estimates of secretary of state, defence production and legislation.
On Monday we will deal with legislative items which I will put before the house in more particular tomorrow, although we will be discussing Bill No. C-58, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. There may be one or two minor pieces of legislation which will be taken up before that but I will give the house due notice of that tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes past eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
332.	Quebec, $3,673,000.
333.	Ottawa, $11,590,000.
334.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $5,700,000.
335.	Manitoba, $1,265,000.
336.	Saskatchewan, $1,790,000.
337.	Alberta, $2,885,000.
338.	British Columbia, $1,285,000.
339.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $3,447,000.
340.	Improvements generally-Not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $500,000.
341.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,300,000, $42,463,000.
342.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $2,379,238.
343.	Work in the interests of fire prevention including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian joint fire prevention publicity committee, $186,753.
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
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-
344.	Newfoundland, $5,627,500.
345.	Nova Scotia, $3,036,000.
346.	Prince Edward Island, $628,500.
347.	New Brunswick, $2,187,000.
348.	Quebec, $4,006,300.
349.	Ontario, $8,662,000.
350.	Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $110,000.
351.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $126,000.
352.	British Columbia and Yukon, $2,596,500.
353.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $250,000.
354.	Remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation, or federal government structures; and the completion of protection works already under way, $700,000.
355.	Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction and replacements for the maintenance of services; wharf repairs, at St. Angele de Laval, Quebec; and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $420,000, no new works to be undertaken, $2,800,000.
Dredging-
356.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $3,606,075.
357.	Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $1,910,000.
358.	Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, $914,270.
Development engineering services-
359.	Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $1,900,000.
360.	Towards replacement of low level Burlington canal bridge, $2,200,000.
361.	Towards an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry, $50,000.
Supply-Items Passed
362.	Towards installation of a water supply system at Churchill, Manitoba, $300,000.
363.	Roads and bridges-Maintenance and operation including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $324,405.
364.	Testing laboratories-Operation and maintenance, $1,061,641.
Trans-Canada highway-
365.	Construction through national parks, $9,581,000.
General-
366.	Advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $1,500,000.
367.	Balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1960-61, $800,000.
368.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for: a maximum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work and, with the approval of treasury board, that maximum may be increased to $25,000, $2,000,000.
369.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $700,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
370.	Expenses incurred in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $750,000.
371.	Additional amount for housing research and community planning as contemplated by part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $510,000, $390,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
490. Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for sale or for rental, $5,000.
Public buildings construction and services-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
541.	Quebec, $1.
542.	Ottawa, $1.
543.	British Columbia, $290,000.
544.	Outside Canada, $4,570,000.
545.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments-further amount required, $82,000.
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-
546.	Newfoundland, $1.
547.	Nova Scotia, $1.
548.	Quebec, $1.
549.	Ontario, $1.
550.	British Columbia and Yukon, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
551.	To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for losses sustained by it during the fiscal year 1959-60 as a result of the operation of federal-provincial projects undertaken under section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, $153,760.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
575. Advances pursuant to sub-section (4) of section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1959-60, $8,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday. July 22, 1960